Roger Stone is a gifted political consultant known for going the distance for his clients. He has worked for such marquee names as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Tom Kean and Donald Trump. His expertise is the lawful destruction of the opposition candidacy — what is known in the trade as opposition research. In that process, he has made enemies, some of whom have sought to destroy him.
That process of destruction began a year ago, when he was ordered out of the bedroom that he shared with his wife, and out of their home at 5:30 in the morning by no less than 23 federal agents carrying assault weapons. Behind his home on a Fort Lauderdale canal was a government boat filled with federal agents. Above his home was a government helicopter also filled with feds. All of this was captured in real time by CNN, which the feds had unlawfully tipped off about the coming raid.
Notwithstanding the armada the government sent to fetch Stone, a Florida federal judge, who noted that a phone call to Stone’s lawyers would have produced him, released Stone without the obligation of posting bail. He was soon indicted for lying to Congress, intimidating a witness and obstruction of justice. Last fall, he was convicted on all counts, and the trial judge unconstitutionally prevented him from speaking publicly. The prosecutors recommended a 7- to 9-year sentence to the trial judge. In Stone’s case, he faces a maximum of 50 years in a federal prison. Lies the Government To... Andrew P. Napolitano Check Amazon for Pricing.
From where did the prosecutors get their numbers? Congress has enacted guidelines, which produce mathematical calculations as guides for federal judges. There was a time when these guidelines were mandatory, but a long-simmering uproar from the judicial and legal communities resulted in the guidelines becoming advisory. The statute achieving that goal was signed into law by Trump.
When Trump learned that the feds were seeking 7 to 9 years from Stone, he tweeted harsh criticism of the system and personnel that produced that recommendation.
The prosecution’s numbers were the product of numerous subjective evaluations of the facts in Stone’s case and in his personal background. In my career as a state judge in New Jersey, I sentenced more than 1,000 persons using a system similar to the current federal one. The guidelines give the judge a range, and the judge can deviate, upward or downward, based on the facts in the case. Facts, not bias.
Some of the questions that justify deviations are: Is the defendant remorseful? Does he consider his criminal behavior the cost of doing business? Is the defendant a danger to society? Was his threat to kill a witness’s cat real or fanciful? Did he even have the present apparent ability to kill the cat?
If you love Stone, you will have one set of answers. If you hate him, you will have another. If you are truly neutral — as judges, but not prosecutors, must be — you will base your answers only on the evidence in the case.
When Attorney General William Barr learned of Trump’s displeasure with the recommendation from the prosecutors, he made it known that he would offer to the trial judge a different recommendation. Upon learning that, the four prosecutors in the case resigned.
Then, on the same day that the prosecutors resigned, the foreperson of the jury — herself a lawyer — outed herself as a stalwart opponent of all things Trump and a supporter of the now-resigned prosecution team.
Barr’s intervention in the case set off a firestorm in the Department of Justice, as long-standing DOJ procedures give federal prosecutors the discretion to suggest punishments for defendants whom they have prosecuted — with little input from their superiors. When Barr bigfooted his prosecutors and they resigned, all hell broke loose among the thousands of prosecutors across the country employed by the DOJ.
Then Barr went on national television and, with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek, criticized Trump for his tweets, which he described as a “running commentary… that make it impossible for me to do my job.” At first, those of us who monitor these things could not believe our eyes or ears. Was Barr publicly challenging Trump to cease a process that has brought the president unimaginable success? Of course not. This was a political effort to quell the uprising among his troops, and a dog whistle to Trump that the DOJ gets his messages.
All this has created a monstrous headache for the trial judge, but the judiciary has the tools with which to address this. The judge needs to call Stone’s lawyers and the resigned prosecutors into her courtroom, along with the jury foreperson. She should interrogate the foreperson. Why didn’t you tell us of your antipathy to Trump? Don’t you know as a lawyer that even an accurate answer can be misleading and thus frustrate a criminal trial? Are you, were you, a truly neutral juror?
And to the resigned prosecutors: Why did you resign from the case? Did you know of the foreperson’s prejudices? Would you want a juror who felt about the prosecution the same way this juror felt about Trump and his supporters?
Stone continues to maintain his innocence — now more so knowing he was tried unfairly. And he is entitled to a new trial, no matter what his jury found. Why? Because it is better that a thousand guilty persons go free than one unfairly be punished. Because the history of human freedom is the history of paying careful attention to procedure. Because in America we only punish those who were fairly convicted. Because politics and bias have no moral or lawful place in American criminal prosecutions.
#1: hondo68 To: Ada, pardon Assange and Manning first, MAGA (#0)
President Donnell Trump needs to pardon Julian Assange & Bradley Whatever Manning today, and maybe Stone someday.
Fire Barr, Pompeo and the rest of his administration too.
hondo68 posted on 2020-02-20 11:55:45 Reply Private Reply
#2: GreyLmist To: Ada, 4 (#0)
From the Comments @ redstate.com:
Fruit of the poisonous tree - Wikipedia
GreyLmist posted on 2020-02-25 16:41:38 Reply Private Reply
#3: randge To: Ada (#0)
It is instructive to hear what this witness has to say.
There is not much of this stuff out in the MSM - or available in most other places.
An interview is up now on YouTube.
Whatever his pretty much leftist political leanings, Randy Credico makes it clear that he had nothing to do with the Wikileaks email intel, and it’s reasonable to conclude from the interview that Roger Stone is something of a professional bullshitter that never had any real connection to the net based publisher himself.
It’s also clear that:
1. Stone himself volunteered to testify to Congress where he put his own head in the noose. It’s plain that he should have kept his trap shut.
2. Credico was subject to pressure from Stone with whom he shared influence and intelligence, despite political differences. Credico nevertheless believes that Stone does not deserve prison time for tampering.
3. The Trump-Russia-Wikileaks conspiracy is a giant fraud.
randge posted on 2020-02-25 18:50:20 Reply Private Reply
#4: BTP Holdings To: randge (#3)
BINGO! ;)
BTP Holdings posted on 2020-02-25 18:56:11 Reply Private Reply
#5: randge To: BTP Holdings (#4)
Stone is a talented but crazed egomaniac up on charges with fanatic for a judge.
That Berman Jackson is all king hell for protecting the privacy of jurors.
She should be facing charges herself - for judicial misconduct.
randge posted on 2020-02-25 19:32:45 Reply Private Reply
#6: BTP Holdings To: randge (#5)
No doubt there.
But did you see where the Jury Forewoman's social media posts identify her as being anti-Trump? She never should have been allowed on that Jury. ;)
BTP Holdings posted on 2020-02-25 19:54:46 Reply Private Reply
#7: GreyLmist To: randge (#5)
Archiving an example of her judicial misconduct in his case:
Andrew Napolitano on Roger Stone case ... YouTube | Published on Feb 20, 2020 by Fox News
GreyLmist posted on 2020-02-25 20:55:42 Reply Private Reply