Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, February 14, 2020

Some Justice Department personnel handled it questionably, but Trump's reaction was worse.

The first thing to grasp about the Roger Stone sentencing fiasco is that Stone, even accepting the worst plausible gloss on his crimes, is a 67-year-old nonviolent first offender. If the criminal-justice "reform" fad were authentic, and not a stratagem of social-justice warriors who have taken Washington's surfeit of useful idiots for a ride, then we could all agree that the original seven-to-nine-year sentence advocated by prosecutors was too draconian " even if it was, as we shall see, a faithful application of the federal sentencing guidelines as written.

But no. Like criminal-justice "reform," the Stone prosecution is more politics than law enforcement...

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Scroll to the bottom of the embedded piece to see the criticism of Trump.

All in all, this is a balanced take on the Stone sentencing IMO.

Early in the piece he does take a couple of shots at lefties but after that he really does a nice job of breaking down the sentencing guidelines.

My takeaway is that Barr acted appropriately but was made to look bad because of Trump's idiotic tweets.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-14 10:22 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

My takeaway is that Barr acted appropriately but was made to look bad because of Trump's idiotic tweets.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2020-02-14 10:22 AM | REPLY

of course.

#2 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2020-02-14 10:23 AM | Reply

Did you even bother to read the article, Alex?

My guess is a resounding "nope".

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-14 10:32 AM | Reply

Jeff.

You're a partisan hack.

End of thread.

#4 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-02-14 10:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2


My takeaway is that Barr acted appropriately but was made to look bad because of Trump's idiotic tweets.
#1 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

That is how I see it as well, from the Mueller prosecutors to the practically ANTIFA foreman juror.

I am glad Barr gave Trump the business, I don't believe Trump heard it, but it was the way Barr speaks that is most impressive.

#5 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-02-14 10:33 AM | Reply

A 7-9 year sentence to a 67 year old first-time offender of a victimless crime based upon a threat that the witness who was tampered didn't deem to be a threat?

Yeah, an intervention on the sentencing guidelines was warranted.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-14 10:34 AM | Reply

I am glad Barr gave Trump the business...

#5 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Me too. McConnell and Graham backed Barr's statement regarding Trump.

He needs to learn how to shut up when that's what is called for.

What Barr did here probably doesn't even raise eyebrows were it not for Trump's ill-advised tweets.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-14 10:36 AM | Reply

#4 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

That was lame. You are usually far more colorful with your insults. You make me sad.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-14 10:37 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

it was the way Barr speaks that is most impressive.
#5 | POSTED BY MATTRESS

With a forked tongue?

Of course you're impressed. You're the biggest piles of shht on the DR. Naturally, a bigger pile of shht would impress you.

#9 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-02-14 10:37 AM | Reply

You make me sad.
#8 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Your disregard for law, because the people involved are Republicans, makes me sad.

#10 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-02-14 10:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

McConnell and Graham backed Barr's statement regarding Trump.
#7 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

HAH!!

McConnell and Graham?!

Talk about asking the weasels if the fox raided the hen house.

You're literally asking their accomplices if their boss did anything illegal.

The more you post. The more obvious it becomes just how much of a fkkking (R)Tard you are.

#11 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-02-14 10:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Clown,

Did you even bother to read the embedded piece?

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-14 10:55 AM | Reply

Jeff.

Your cheering on the perversion of justice because the people involved are Republicans.

It can't get more straightforward partisan than that.

#13 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-02-14 11:07 AM | Reply

Your cheering on the perversion of justice because the people involved are Republicans.
It can't get more straightforward partisan than that.

POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2020-02-14 11:07 AM | REPLY

Yeppers. Jeff's is as transparent as Muscovite.

#14 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-02-14 11:10 AM | Reply

Serious question. Had he been 37, would the sentencing be altered?

I don't get the age thing. You commit a crime at 37 or 67, you do the time.................

#15 | Posted by brass30 at 2020-02-14 01:13 PM | Reply

I dont understand why Trump didnt just RIP the scab off and pardon him. Nothing would say Fkuc you to the opposition as nicely.

#16 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2020-02-14 01:29 PM | Reply

"victimless crime"

No.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-14 01:53 PM | Reply

"first offender"

First, second, and third offender.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-14 01:55 PM | Reply

My apologies, seven-time offender:

"Stone was convicted on all seven counts on November 15, 2019"

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-14 01:57 PM | Reply

"Stone was convicted on all seven counts on November 15, 2019"

Yea. But Jeff wants you to take it easy on the guy.

Besides. He probably learned his lesson.

After all. Boys will be boys.

#20 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-02-14 01:59 PM | Reply

... a 67-year-old nonviolent first offender ...

What I wonder is what is it about working for Pres (or candidate) Trump that makes people, who definitely should know better, find themselves in the position of standing in front of a judge awaiting sentencing for such egregious crimes?


#21 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-02-14 02:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

All that said, the prosecutors' submission was an accurate (if extreme and unyielding) rendition of federal sentencing law.

When the defendant is an unapologetic felony criminal, prosecutors tend to go hard on them.

#22 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-02-14 02:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

@#22 ... unapologetic felony criminal ...

Beyond being unapologetic, Mr Stone was outright arrogant against the system of justice from the beginning of his trial, and all along he showed no sign whatsoever of being remorseful for the crimes he committed.

Mr Stone showed no reason why he should be shown leniency, and many reasons why he should not.

While the op-ed tries to frame the issue as a left vs Pres Trump type of issue, it clearly is not that.

It is about whether or not Mr Stone was remorseful for what he did, and the significant amount of arrogance he showed toward the system of justice.


#23 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-02-14 02:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Your cheering on the perversion of justice because the people involved are Republicans.

#13 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

The perversion of justice was recommending up to 9 years for this.

Restructuring the sentencing guidelines was wholly appropriate and would have been regarded as such were it not for Trump's moronic tweets.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-14 02:30 PM | Reply

It is about whether or not Mr Stone was remorseful for what he did, and the significant amount of arrogance he showed toward the system of justice.

#23 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

His arrogance didn't factor into the sentencing guidelines.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-14 02:31 PM | Reply

@#24 ... would have been regarded as such ...

And you know that, how?

#26 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-02-14 02:33 PM | Reply

@#25 ... His arrogance didn't factor into the sentencing guidelines. ...

When I spoke of arrogance, I was thinking of his refusal to obey the Judge's orders on multiple occasions.

Such a refusal can be a part of how the prosecutors view a person regarding leniency during sentencing.

#27 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-02-14 02:35 PM | Reply

When I spoke of arrogance, I was thinking of his refusal to obey the Judge's orders on multiple occasions.
Such a refusal can be a part of how the prosecutors view a person regarding leniency during sentencing.
POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2020-02-14 02:35 PM | REPLY

Even threatened the Judge with a tweet too.

#28 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-02-14 02:38 PM | Reply

And you know that, how?

#26 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

The hyper-partisans are going to freak out no matter what. Calmer heads would have recognized that this was well within the purview of the AG AND would have recognized the over-zealousness of the prosecution's sentencing recommendation.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-14 02:40 PM | Reply

Even threatened the Judge with a tweet too.

POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2020-02-14 02:38 PM | REPLY

Sorry an instagram photo with judge and crosshairs next to it.

#30 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-02-14 02:42 PM | Reply

I have no sympathy for Stone. He was his own worst enemy in this case. He lied about actions that he took that were legal. That is beyond stupid and perjury is absolutely a big deal. Depending on how the judge views all of this he's likely to get 4 years. That is a long time for a person in his late 60's with declining health.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-14 02:42 PM | Reply

A 7-9 year sentence to a 67 year old first-time offender of a victimless crime based upon a threat that the witness who was tampered didn't deem to be a threat?
Yeah, an intervention on the sentencing guidelines was warranted.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ

Jeff - why? Hear me out. Yes the left is about more fair sentencing and reduced jail time but Trump and his base are not. If he was a liberal would you be saying the same thing? Would Trump? Would Barr? Be honest now...

Take the hackery out of it.
What he did he knew was wrong.
What he did was influence a presidential election through illegal means.
What he did was assist enemies of this country.

When found out...
He threatened a witness.
He was arrogant.
He was contemptuous.
He was unapologetic.
Did he do anything to warrant a lighter sentence at all?

He is in relatively good health.
If he shot someone dead on 5th Avenue would he get a lighter sentence because of his age?
Does anyone deserve a lighter sentence based on soley on being old and committing a crime? (Republicans want to throw the book at kids who commit crimes and they are young and dumb...)
It may have been a first time non-violent offense but it was a major offense that has far reaching consequences.

I think he got off light with the original sentencing request.

#32 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2020-02-14 02:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

That is a long time for a person in his late 60's with declining health.

Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.

#33 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-02-14 03:01 PM | Reply

It crazy how much spinning Jeff is doing to excuse this perversion of justice.

We get it Jeff.

There's nothing Republicans can do which you would object to.

#34 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-02-14 03:03 PM | Reply

#32 Pete,

A series of metrics exist when recommending sentencing. His got pushed into the 7-9 year range based upon a threatening text he sent to a witness. The problem with that is the witness testified that he didn't take the text literally - he didn't feel threatened and regarded the text as typical Stone bluster. In the absence of that threat the established sentencing guidelines put his sentence in the 3-4 year range and Barr was right to intervene.

As for Stone...I think he's a toxic ----- and I wouldn't shed a tear if he got a full 9 years.

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-14 03:22 PM | Reply

" As for Stone...I think he's a toxic ----- and I wouldn't shed a tear if he got a full 9 years.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2020-02-14 03:22 PM | REPLY"

fig leaf.

#36 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2020-02-14 03:23 PM | Reply

fig leaf.

#36 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

it's called "objectivity". You should try it sometime, it's a lot of fun.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-14 03:26 PM | Reply

I think he's a toxic ----- and I wouldn't shed a tear if he got a full 9 years.

LOL!!!

Yea, that's why you've spent countless threads defending the reduction of his sentence.

That's why you keep justifying Barr's intervention.

Your lack of self awareness is impressive.

#38 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-02-14 03:34 PM | Reply

JEFF has objective reasons for supporting the dictator.

#39 | Posted by Zed at 2020-02-14 03:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The perversion of justice was recommending up to 9 years for this."

I see you're limiting the scope of perversion to one branch; Justice.

I suppose this spares you the indignity of acknowledging that Executive branch interference with the Judicial branch is a perversion of government itself, a violation of the Separation of Powers upon which our Republic is built.

You must think you're pretty clever!

You seldom are.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-14 03:53 PM | Reply

#40 I'm always clever, Snoofy.

Most of the time my cleverness sails over your head and you lack Drax's reflexes to snatch them out of the air.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-14 03:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Retreating into jokes when you're called on the carpet isn't clever either.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-14 05:03 PM | Reply

All the evidence suggests that Bill Barr replaced Jessie Liu to give himself an excuse to intervene personally in Stone's sentencing.

And what will it get him? 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). She probably would have given Stone 4-5 years and might still, a slight enhancement for the threat against Randy Credico, but not much. But this drama about sentencing is likely not the big question, given that Stone is likely to have his sentence commuted, one way or another, on November 4, the day after election day. So the real question is how much of the next nine months he serves in prison, which ABJ has some control over, especially given Stone's propensity to make threats when he's not in prison or gagged. If ABJ sentences Stone to 4-5 years " close to what Barr has now signed off on in very public and intrusive fashion " but sends him to prison right away, it's less likely Trump will do something immediate, like pardon him. Whereas, had Barr not intervened, it would have had the same effect but without Barr's tacit approval for a 3-4 year sentence.


www.emptywheel.net

#43 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-14 05:09 PM | Reply

"A 7-9 year sentence to a 67 year old first-time offender of a victimless crime based upon a threat that the witness who was tampered didn't deem to be a threat?"

Credico didn't think Stone himself was a threat to him, but that doesn't mean he didn't think Stone might have been encouraging others to hurt him:

From NYT's op-ed:

Yet defenders of Trump and Barr are pointing to Credico's letter to suggest that they were remedying an injustice, rather than perpetrating one. On Fox News, Katie Pavlich claimed that Credico "said that it was actually a joke and they talk about stuff like that all the time and he actually didn't feel intimidated." In the D.O.J.'s updated Stone sentencing memo, Credico's letter is an important part of the case for a shorter prison term. Credico, the memo said, "asserts that he did not perceive a genuine threat from the defendant but rather stated that I never in any way felt that Stone himself posed a direct physical threat to me or my dog.'"

Note the wording: Stone himself. "I never thought Stone personally was going to do it himself," Credico told me. Rather, he thought that one of Stone's supporters might. "I look like the guy that's gonna be the guy that's gonna force Stone to talk to the feds and say everything that he knows on the president," he said. "So I'm expendable at that point. That's what I'm thinking."

Now Credico is in the odd position of both hoping that Stone is spared a long prison sentence, and of being horrified about the way the workings of justice are being manipulated on Stone's behalf. He's effusive about the upright decency of the four prosecutors " "guys of integrity" " who've since withdrawn from the case, saying it was "agonizing" that his letter undermined them. Said Credico, "These guys were career civil servants, and for Trump to be slamming them is an outrage!"


www.nytimes.com

#44 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-14 05:32 PM | Reply

"Credico didn't think Stone himself was a threat to him, but that doesn't mean he didn't think Stone might have been encouraging others to hurt him"

This is a possiblity that would likely resonate with the judge:

emptywheel @emptywheel

This is right -- and it's also the same logic that ABJ used herself. It wasn't so much that Stone's threats to her meant HE himself would shoot her, but one of his crazy followers might.

twitter.com

#45 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-14 05:33 PM | Reply

Roger Stone Knows Trump's Secrets. That's Why He'll Avoid Prison

Attorney General Bill Barr is doing his best Deputy Dog routine for the president, but the fate of Trump's underlings is inescapable

The Trump media has been bleating for two days now that the original sentence recommended by the career Justice Department officials that Stone serve his twilight years breaking rocks, stamping out license plates, and working in a prison call center was a massive miscarriage of justice, a horror beyond words and reason, and a grim penalty for a wee, decrepit old dandy barely able to totter to the stand in his own defense.

---------. The sentence Stone faced was appropriate because his actions weren't simply a criminal " and criminally stupid " defense of the president. They were just one part of a wider assault from the transparently corrupt Trump-Barr kleptocracy on the entire administration of justice in the United States. William Barr, who has taken on the role of Trump's family attorney, put his greasy thumb on the scale this week, demanding the U.S. attorneys in the case reduce Stone's recommended sentence. . . .

Of course, Stone likely won't serve his full hitch, because Trump and Barr know that without a pardon Stone will squeal like a rat in a blender, proving that Trump lied to Mueller and about the details of the Trump-Stone-WikiLeaks connections. Stone sure as hell deserves his time in the graybar hotel for reasons of both ordinary and moral justice, and Judge Berman-Jackson has also likely had enough of Stone's weapons-grade -------- and may treat the revised DOJ sentencing letter as the political trash it is.


www.rollingstone.com

#46 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-15 12:47 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Trump should pardon Stone and award him the Medal of Freedom at the next state of the union.

#47 | Posted by visitor_ at 2020-02-15 08:11 AM | Reply

Trump should pardon Stone and award him the Medal of Freedom at the next state of the union.

#47 | Posted by visitor_ at 20

Limbaugh got one. It would be a step up.

#48 | Posted by Zed at 2020-02-15 08:47 AM | Reply

LOL not a word about the decades of harsh sentencing for nonviolent offenders buuuuuuuut...now that it's a POS Trumper the right can't reform fast enough.

Well, only for this one case though. All those poor people with a bag of weed can break rocks on their 7-9 year stint. They deserve it!

#49 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-15 11:25 AM | Reply

it's called "objectivity". You should try it sometime, it's a lot of fun.

#37 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Lol trying on the objectivity dress are we?

Yes Jeff, it makes your ass look huge. Not a good look.

#50 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-15 11:27 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#49. There is a reason the First Step Act passed with bipartisan support.

Guess who was the driving force behind it?

The answer to that question probably means you hate that piece of legislation which also makes your weak attempt at a deflection bizarre.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-15 11:27 AM | Reply

#50. Do you think you are objective?

Your lack of self awareness surely is a sight to behold.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-15 11:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I suppose this spares you the indignity of acknowledging that Executive branch interference with the Judicial branch is a perversion of government itself, a violation of the Separation of Powers upon which our Republic is built.

You don't know the constitution ... its ok ..

FDR did this, he sought the death penalty for several Germans before they were even tried. Secret courts and executed. Then afterwards went to the supreme court, and was upheld.

All Trump did was comment on it ... FDR .. actually did it.

Its known as the unitary executive power.

#53 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-02-15 11:48 AM | Reply

The judge should just pull out a gun and kill Stone in her court room after yelling 'comply or die'. Case closed, then some paid leave.

#54 | Posted by bored at 2020-02-15 11:58 AM | Reply

FDR did this, he sought the death penalty for several Germans before they were even tried.

#53 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Those Germans were landed by submarine with specific orders to destroy things during declared wartime.

They were spies and saboteurs; none in uniform.

Don't attempt to use history you have no grasp of.

#55 | Posted by Zed at 2020-02-15 12:16 PM | Reply

We summarily executed a number of SS after the massacre of Americans in Malmedy. None of them wore German uniforms; all were dressed in American uniforms.

They were shot pretty much out of hand. You can find pictures both of their crimes and their punishment. The Judicial Branch had as little to do with het fate of those spies as it did the ones Jackass Trump is trying to use to justify some more of his personal crimes.

#56 | Posted by Zed at 2020-02-15 12:20 PM | Reply

More likely that Flynn and Stone were just about to start squealing if they got prison terms... so the president's personal A.G. had to come to the rescue.

7-9 years seems small for 7 felonies to me.

#57 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2020-02-15 07:17 PM | Reply

#50. Do you think you are objective?
Your lack of self awareness surely is a sight to behold.

#52 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

More so than average and with far better analytical and critical thinking skills than average.

#58 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-15 10:54 PM | Reply

Biden is out there saying non-violent offenders should never see the inside of a jail.

That's everybody convicted from Trump's campaign so far.

#59 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-02-16 09:52 AM | Reply

Biden is out there saying non-violent offenders should never see the inside of a jail.

That's everybody convicted from Trump's campaign so far.

#59 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-02-16 09:

Sounds like a reason for Republicans to support Biden.

#60 | Posted by Zed at 2020-02-16 10:27 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort