So... it appears that the judge in the stone sentencing trial did wimp out, at least partially... there really are two justice systems in America now. One for the wealthy and connected... the other for the rest of us. I've seen people spinning that as a good thing (eg "if it is delayed past the election it may prevent stone from getting a pardon") but I simply seeing it as the judge feeling pressured by politics, and that's never a good thing.
Judge Jackson must be getting ready to have a meltdown... Says this re: newly assigned prosecutors (after previous prosecution team withdrew after barr interceded... Then lasers into last week's new sentencing recommendations: Did the new prosecution just reverse field again? Meanwhile... trump tweets about roger stone while the hearing is going on. Folks should be immediately contacting barr... This twitter thread covers the sentencing hearing indepth...
Is it possible that trump's team decided it would better to have the sentencing big and quick so he could pardon him right away?
... and yet, now that BOTH prosecution teams have recommended the same 7-9 years... it appears that judge jackson will be lenient and not go the recommended 7-9 years.
Ignoring the 7-9 year recommendation, stone sentenced to 40 months (3 years, 4 months; all 40 on the first count, and 12 months for each additional count, to be served concurrently as the 40, so 40 total). So judge jackson was very lenient, despite her pointing out how serious a crime and how stones behavior afterwords added to the seriousness of his offense.
Its quite possible that the judge's statement was intended to make it tougher for trump to pardon stone...
Aside from the dog's breakfast that the prosecution made for their recommendation, the defense also made a recommendation (for just probation) that I assume was also backed with some reasoning -- though I haven't found the text of the defense recommendation. Usually in court cases, the prosecution asks for something bullishly long and the defense asks for something ridiculously light and the court lands somewhere in the middle, weighing the merits of the two arguments. So, even though the sentence is half what the prosecutor's guidelines would ask for, I don't have any firm ground from which to say the verdict is lenient. It might be the going rate for people convicted of this kind of stuff. Though I am a bit uncomfortable, if it is the going rate, that we don't consider baldfaced lies to congress to be more serious. I foresee some Trumpers taking the sentence as a vindication for Barr interfering with a revision, and it absolutely is not. One, it's the court's job to avoid excessive punishment, not the prosecutor's. There should be a compelling reason to divert from their own guidelines. And it is not a surprise a court would deliver a sentence lighter than the prosecution asked for. Two, non-political prosecutors should be making the recommendation for their own cases, not the political cadre appointed to oversee the department. Three, the political cadre should have especially stayed away from this case given the obvious appearance of impropriety in interfering. And four, it looks straight-up amateurish to revise the recommendation after it was submitted. If they were any good at cover-ups, they'd have leaned on their prosecutors to go light from the beginning.
And trump continues to attack the judicial system including the jury that unanimously found stone guilty... again, at an event for inmates.
