Why not just pardon him already?

https://www.pilotonline.com/nation-world/ct-nw-roger-stone-donald-trump-tweet-sentencing-20200211-yk544zgx6zf4tckpmr2yhbrb4i-story.html

The sentencing recommendation is based on Federal Sentencing Guidelines (the article does note this). Also, the sentencing judge has latitude in deviating from the guidelines, either up or down. I would not be surprised if Judge Jackson goes up because Stone refused to follow her orders during trial. The prosecution can recommend time outside of the guidelines, but they have to justify that deviation, as does the judge.

Further proof that the Trump DOJ, under the leadership of William Barr, has absolutely NO independence from the administration, as it is supposed to.

And instead of tweeting that the prosecutors, who are doing their jobs, are asking for too much time, just pardon him and be done with it already.

35 thoughts on “Why not just pardon him already?

    1. And when the judge sentences Stone to. let’s say, 7 years (the low end of the original GUIDELINES based recommendations), will Trump tweet a demand she be impeached because she DID HER JOB? And would Magic Mitch begin proceedings against the judge? Would THAT be curious too?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. And she will. She does not need to follow the recommendations of the prosecution. She is free to sentence him however she wants, within reason. And the initial 7-9 years IS within reason. That number was not pulled out of a hat, but from a fairly large volume titled Federal Sentencing Guidelines. It computes the recommended sentence based on a score concerning the crimes, the attitude of the defendant (did he/she take responsibility) and other persona factors. The new “recommendation” may say 3-4 years, but the judge has the latitude to deviate in either direction. She would have to justify her reasoning in writing, but she is within her rights (and duties) to do so.

        Liked by 1 person

  1. If you recall, when they originally arrested him, the swamp-state conducted a pre-dawn, 17-man SWAT Team raid on his home. They were equipped with assault rifles, an armored personnel carrier and a SEAL team boat!

    He was so “dangerous” that the judge released him on personal recognizance and he was back home by lunch.

    Congress lies to the people every single day. Seven to nine yrs for lying to them is an utter joke. Clearly, the swamp-state has a hard-on for Mr Stone. Mr Zelinsky and rest of these swamp creatures should be fired for prosecutorial misconduct.

    Like

  2. @Roberts

    I am sure that you do find it “curious” that people would honorably resign on a matter of principle. Honor and integrity are unknown in Trump World. The sentencing guidelines for Stone’s multiple crimes were followed in the original recommendation to the court. Neither Trump nor his toady Barr have any legitimate reason to weigh in. There are many, many examples of the Barr DOJ acting politically. This is another. Time to impeach him.

    I would add, that Trump publicly attacking the judge in the case even before she passes sentence is not only disrespectful of the Constitutional separation of powers, but is just plain dumb. Stone already showed contempt for her in court. This will not help. She should throw the book at him. He deserves it. He has skirted around the law throughout his long career as a GOP “ratfucker.”

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/25/roger-stone-and-rating-a-short-history-224218

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “I am sure that you do find it ‘curious’ that people would honorably resign on a matter of principle.”

      I find it curious because none of the prosecutors who resigned from the case gave an explanation. You assume too much.

      Like

      1. You’re right. They haven’t signed their book deals yet. But, while it might be an assumption, I feel it is a pretty safe one. You, of course disagree. But those who don’t open their eyes (or minds) very wide tend to miss a LOT.

        And I do wonder what your response will be if (or better yet, WHEN) they hit the interview circuit and answer the why with something to the effect of “our work was undermined by the Attorney General and the DOJ offices in Washington, DC.” Or some other connotation of the same thing.

        Is it speculation? Absolutely. I don’t deny it. It’s kind of fun to do that. You did it yesterday saying that Dunham’s report won’t necessarily be a report, but possibly just indictments.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “And I do wonder what your response will be if (or better yet, WHEN) they hit the interview circuit and answer the why with something to the effect of ‘our work was undermined by the Attorney General and the DOJ offices in Washington, DC.'”

        Let it happen. Then, maybe, we can have a fact-based conversation. Until then, the smart thing to do is to avoid making unsupportable assumptions.

        Like

      3. @Roberts
        “You assume too much” is your go to accusation for denying facts that you do not like. There is virtually zero doubt that the President interfering in their case is what triggered the four different prosecutors to resign at the same time.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. RE: “There is virtually zero doubt that the President interfering in their case is what triggered the four different prosecutors to resign at the same time.”

        “Virtually zero” and actually zero are not the same. The fact remains you don’t know why they resigned. Factually speaking, you assume too much.

        Like

        1. @Roberts

          “Actually zero” versus “virtually zero.”

          Oh my! Such and important distinction.

          I suggest you grow up and learn to deal with facts. In this case, just accept the fact that the four prosecutors who have been working on the Roger Stone case for years ALL resigned the day their sentencing recommendation was over-ruled by the political hacks doing the President’s bidding. There is virtually zero chance that there is any reason for such an extraordinary event other than their shared disgust with the politicization of the DOJ.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “I suggest you grow up and learn to deal with facts.”

          I suggest you take your own advice. There are many possible explanations for the resignation of the prosecutors. One is that they were told to resign from the case after having been caught lying to their superiors about the sentence they planned to recommend.

          That they lied has been reported. So, again, your claim that you know why they resigned is proved to be just another example of Humpty Dumpty reasoning on your part. You don’t really what you’re talking about.

          Like

          1. @Roberts

            Like I said, grow up. You are acting like a child. Again. “Possible” does not mean “probable.” There is zero chance that these resignations were forced by anybody. Even Trump is not stupid enough to fire four prosecutors all on the same day for the crime of doing their job by the book.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “Why not just pardon him already?”

      Technically, the president may pardon Stone at any time. However, the full range of pardon options doesn’t become available until both conviction and sentencing are complete. The options include pardon, conditional pardon, commutation of sentence, conditional commutation of sentence, remission of fine or restitution, respite, reprieve and amnesty (Wikipedia).

      Like

      1. Fair enough. You are correct in the timing of when any one of the pardon options become available.

        SO the post question is answered. The next question is what will Trump do? Based on his history of protecting those who work hard t protect him, I surmise it will be a full pardon. And Stone and his creepy Nixon back tattoo won’t be subjected to prison assault.

        Like

      2. RE: “The next question is what will Trump do?”

        Who cares? Pretending Trump is bad because of something he hasn’t even done is a waste of time.

        Like

          1. You appear to be historically challenged. This leopard (to be clear, I am referring to Mr. Trump) ain’t changing his stripes. Collins may think Trump “learned his lesson”. I say he has learned nothing. And the power of the executive has grown to epic proportions with no check by the Senate.

            Like

          2. RE: “You appear to be historically challenged.”

            I’m not talking about history. I’m talking about the current instance.

            But if you want talk about history, I recommend the cliche: Doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result is a sign of insanity. This applies to the Never Trumpers who swore his election would be reversed, then that Mueller would prove the Russian Hoax to be true, then that the impeachment would be successful.

            Like

          3. Not sure who said the election would be reversed as there was no grounds for it. He won the Electoral College.

            The only part of the Russian story that MAY be a hoax is the fact the Trump campaign was not proven to have worked with the Russians. Roger Stone, on the other hand…

            No one believed that the Impeachment trial would end with a verdict removing him form office. McConnell made that clear even before the articles were delivered.

            There is the history.

            The history I am talking about was summed up in this statement: “This leopard ain’t changing his spots”… Susan Collins may expect him to change his ways, but she has been proven foolish to even suggest it. So in the current instance, you expect Trump to do something differently, then you are as foolish as the gentle lady from Maine.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. RE: “The history I am talking about was summed up in this statement: ‘This leopard ain’t changing his spots'”

            Obviously. The challenge for you is in whether there’s a leopard to begin with. For example, Stone’s trial and conviction had nothing to do with the Russia Hoax.

            Like

          5. @Roberts

            “Stone’s trial and conviction had nothing to do with the Russia Hoax.”

            One of your most stupid LIES ever. And that is a high hurdle. As a Trump apologist you have to spread whoppers all the time. The only question is . . . Are YOU the liar or just a dumbass who believes and repeats Trump lies? Out of politeness I will go with dumbass.

            Stone was tried and convicted on several counts involving his role in Russia-gate and his lying to the House Intelligence Committee in an effort to conceal the Trump campaign’s involvement.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s