Roger Stone Indicted - Press conference on rn

Fox News

RUSSIA INVESTIGATION
Published January 25, 2019
Last Update 26 minutes ago
Mueller indictment: Roger Stone communicated with Trump campaign about WikiLeaks

By Alex Pappas | Fox News

Continue Reading Below


Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team is accusing former Trump adviser Roger Stone of communicating with unnamed Trump campaign officials about the WikiLeaks release of hacked emails of Democrats during the 2016 campaign.

The indictment unsealed Friday does not charge Stone with conspiring with WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy website that published the emails, or with the Russian officers Mueller says hacked them. Instead, it accuses him of later engaging in witness tampering, obstruction and false statements about his interactions related to WikiLeaks' release during probes by Congress and Mueller’s team.

ROGER STONE INDICTED ON SEVERAL CHARGES AS PART OF MUELLER’S RUSSIA COLLUSION PROBE

Still, the indictment raises questions about who Stone – who advised Trump for years but left the campaign in 2015 – spoke with about the hacked emails.

The indictment states that during the summer of 2016, Stone spoke to senior Trump campaign officials about WikiLeaks and information it might have had that would be damaging to Democrat Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Continue Reading Below


It also said Stone was contacted by senior Trump campaign officials to inquire about future releases, and that Stone continued to communicate with members of the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks.

For months, Stone has warned that he could be indicted, repeatedly denying the accusation he actually had advance knowledge of WikiLeaks releasing hacked emails of Democrats during the 2016 campaign.

Jay Sekulow, a lawyer for Trump, said Friday, "The indictment today does not allege Russian collusion by Roger Stone or anyone else. Rather, the indictment focuses on alleged false statements Mr. Stone made to Congress.”

A spokesman for Mueller’s office said Stone, 66, was arrested in Fort Lauderdale on Friday morning after being indicted by a federal grand jury a day earlier. Video aired by CNN shows numerous FBI agents with guns banging on Stone’s door and demanding that he come outside.

The 24-page indictment alleges that Stone worked to obstruct the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election by making false statements to the committee, denying he had records sought by the committee and persuading a witness to provide false testimony.

WHO'S BEEN CHARGED BY MUELLER IN THE RUSSIA PROBE SO FAR?

Stone served as an adviser to Trump for years before he ran for president. He left Trump’s campaign in August 2015, but maintained regular contact with and publicly supported the Trump campaign through the 2016 election.

Mueller’s investigation, which was initially ordered to look into the 2016 election, has gone on for more than a year and half. It has expanded to probe financial crimes of Trump associates before the election, conversations Trump’s national security adviser had with the Russians during the transition and whether Trump obstructed justice with his comments and actions related to the probe.

While the indictment provides some new insight into the Trump campaign, it deals largely with what prosecutors say were Stone's false statements about his conversations with conservative writer and conspiracy theorist, Jerome Corsi, and New York radio host, Randy Credico. Corsi is referred to as Person 1 in the indictment, and Credico as Person 2.

The indictment accuses Stone of carrying out a "prolonged effort" to keep Credico from contradicting his testimony before the House intelligence committee. During that effort, prosecutors note that Stone repeatedly told Credico to "do a 'Frank Pentangeli,'" a reference to a character in "The Godfather: Part II" who lies before a congressional committee.

Stone is also accused of threatening Credico. The indictment cites several messages, some of which have already been public, that Stone sent to Credico last year. On April 9, Stone called Credico a "rat" and a "stoolie" and accused him of backstabbing his friends. Stone also threatened to "take that dog away from you," a reference to Credico's dog, Bianca.

"I am so ready. Let's get it on. Prepare to die (expletive)," Stone also wrote to Credico.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Alex Pappas is a politics reporter at FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter at @AlexPappas.

 

[Übertroon]

Would you get a tattoo of his cherubic face on your no-doubt hunky muscles?

Not everyone is dumb enough to get the tattoo of politicians on their body. That Bernie Sanders tattoo is getting cringier by the day

 

[Super-Chevy454]

Time to bump this thread, but is Roger Stone indictment will be a big "nothing burger"? That's what Styx think about this in this vlog posted on Bitchute. http://archive.ph/lkjNp

Styxhexenhammer666

The Roger Stone Over-Sentencing Debacle (Bitchute Exclusive)

www.bitchute.com

And Hillary posted that tweet who'll not age well. The replies are worth to see.

Hillary Clinton on Twitter

“Do you realize intimidating judges is the behavior of failed-state fascists? Just asking! https://t.co/kcEzirsGUF”

twitter.com

 

[Übertroon]

All the prosecuting attorneys quit because DOJ didn't like the draconian sentence the prosecution demanded

Good riddance, they were all people who got promoted during the Obama administration and at least one of them had a leading role in the disastrous Mueller probe

Failed ideologues the lot of them, who the fuck decided these exact men would lead a highly politically volatile prosecution?

 

[It's HK-47]

Okay, uh.. The juror mentioned in this story, Tomeka Hart, sure has an interesting social media history. She was also apparently a Democratic candidate for Congress in 2012, and she's married to an official who still works at the DOJ division that sent that pre-dawn raid--With a special invitation sent to CNN!--to Roger Stone's house. Apparently, Stone's lawyers tried to argue to have the woman removed from the jury late last year, and the judge declined.

Tomeka Hart wasn't just some random schlub on the jury, either, she was the fucking lead juror.

Now, if any journalists out there still care about a real story, they should be incredibly interested in how these two questions were answered on Tomeka Hart's questionnaire. An answer in the positive should have immediately disqualified her from serving on the jury, and an answer in the negative meant that she fucking lied.

 

[HOMO FOR LIFE]

View attachment 1142686

Okay, uh.. The juror mentioned in this story, Tomeka Hart, sure has an interesting social media history. She was also apparently a Democratic candidate for Congress in 2012, and she's married to an official who still works at the DOJ division that sent that pre-dawn raid--With a special invitation sent to CNN!--to Roger Stone's house. Apparently, Stone's lawyers tried to argue to have the woman removed from the jury late last year, and the judge declined.

...Tell me again how in the fuck any part of this trial was normal, exactly?

I can't believe, even with all the corruption, all the abuse of institutional power, to remove trump, they still managed to fuck it all up.

I mean wow.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

That was the big story from 2016, not that they didn't ratfuck Bernie (they did) - but they had no NEED to; he was going to lose either way.

They see a rat, they fuck it. They see a deck, they stack it. They're riggers. They can't resist.

 

[Stoneheart]

Tomeka Hart wasn't just some random schlub on the jury, either, she was the fucking lead juror.

No Rigging here, nothing to see, go the other way.

 

[It's HK-47]

Ah. Yeah, that could wind up being a problem for her. I'm starting to see why all the prosecutors dove off the stage and why Liu didn't get that promotion that she wanted. It's becoming increasingly likely that the juror lied during jury selection. The question I have now was how she made it to jury foreman. Depending on the district the jury foreman is either selected by the judge or 'voted' to that position by the jury itself.

Roger Stone's case was handled in the D.C. district, and I'm not sure which way it's handled there, but if the judge specifically placed her as the foreman then I've got a whole lot of fuckin' new questions.

 

[Thomas Talus]

she's married to an official who still works at the DOJ division that sent that pre-dawn raid--With a special invitation sent to CNN!--to Roger Stone's house. Apparently, Stone's lawyers tried to argue to have the woman removed from the jury late last year, and the judge declined.

In my jdx, "are you related to or friends with a member of law enforcement" is one of the basic questions you always ask during voir dire in a criminal case. Had they already used all their peremptories, or do they just not have those?

 

[CWCchange]

If this is the left's next attempt to stump the Trump, they're not scraping the shit from the bottom of the barrel.

They're scraping the corrosion until it's a hole.

 

[FlappyBat]

View attachment 1142686

Okay, uh.. The juror mentioned in this story, Tomeka Hart, sure has an interesting social media history. She was also apparently a Democratic candidate for Congress in 2012, and she's married to an official who still works at the DOJ division that sent that pre-dawn raid--With a special invitation sent to CNN!--to Roger Stone's house. Apparently, Stone's lawyers tried to argue to have the woman removed from the jury late last year, and the judge declined.

Tomeka Hart wasn't just some random schlub on the jury, either, she was the fucking lead juror.

Now, if any journalists out there still care about a real story, they should be incredibly interested in how these two questions were answered on Tomeka Hart's questionnaire. An answer in the positive should have immediately disqualified her from serving on the jury, and an answer in the negative meant that she fucking lied.

View attachment 1142713 View attachment 1142714

Source for her having a husband in the related DOJ department:

And that first juror was an only-in-D.C. character, a former Obama-era press secretary for the Office of Management and Budget whose husband still works at the Justice Department division that played a role in the Russia probe that ultimately snagged Stone. She even acknowledged having negative views of President Donald Trump, and said she had followed the media coverage of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Medical emergencies and Milo Yiannopoulos: Roger Stone’s trial opens

It was a fittingly unpredictable opening to the trial of the longtime conservative provocateur, who is fighting charges he lied to Congress.

www.politico.com

Medical emergencies and Milo Yiannopoulos: Roger Stone’s trial opens

archived 6 Nov 2019 17:34:11 UTC

archive.li

 

[Honka Honka Burning Love]

If Trump wins re-election he needs to spend like 2 months going over every single person in every single part of the government and checking them to see if they are clean and firing every single corrupt scrub in the bureaucracy.

 

[Mike Stoklasa]

Reading through this article: https://reason.com/2020/02/12/roger...-sentence-but-not-because-he-is-trumps-buddy/

Spoiler: Full Article

This week President Donald Trump and his appointees at the Justice Department intervened in the sentencing of Roger Stone, a longtime Trump crony who was convicted last November of obstructing a congressional investigation, lying to a congressional committee, and witness tampering. Yesterday, the day after four prosecutors assigned to the case recommended a sentence of seven to nine years, Timothy Shea, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, overrode them, suggesting "a sentence of incarceration far less" than the one originally proposed.

That reversal, which came after Trump called the original recommendation "horrible and very unfair," is unseemly and smacks of legal favoritism. At the same time, a prison sentence of seven to nine years is disproportionate given the nature and consequences of Stone's crimes.

The decision to recommend a more lenient sentence for Stone reportedly involved Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and officials in Attorney General William Barr's office as well as Shea and his chief of staff. After Shea filed the amended sentencing memo, the four original prosecutors resigned from the case, apparently in protest, and one of them left the Justice Department altogether.

​

Not only is Stone a Trump pal, but his crimes were aimed at insulating the president from embarrassment and scandal related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. The new sentencing recommendation therefore looks an awful lot like an attempt to tilt the scales of justice for personal and political reasons.

"This is a horrible and very unfair situation," Trump tweeted early yesterday morning in response to the original sentencing recommendation. "The real crimes were on the other side, [and] nothing happens to them. Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!"

Later that day, Shea filed the amended sentencing memorandum. Today Trump thanked Barr for "taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought" but denied discussing Stone's case with the Justice Department. Although Justice Department officials insist they were not following the president's orders, the coincidence is troubling. And while Trump has the legal authority to override prosecutorial decisions, such meddling compromises the Justice Department's independence and creates the appearance that the president's friends can expect special treatment when they break the law.

Having said all that, I still think there are sound reasons to question the original sentencing recommendation. A prison sentence of seven to nine years is excessive for nonviolent process crimes aimed at concealing legal behavior.

Stone's lies to the House Intelligence Committee and his dogged attempts to dissuade a potential witness from contradicting those lies were all related to the embarrassing emails that Russian hackers stole from the Democratic National Committee and from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, in 2016. Stone was excited about the potential political benefits of those emails, which WikiLeaks obtained and began to release in July 2016. Although his attempts to indirectly contact WikiLeaks about the emails were mostly fruitless, he presented himself to Trump campaign officials as a man with inside information, and they seemed to buy it.

There was nothing illegal about any of that. But it was still inconvenient for a president who rejects both the idea that Russia helped him win the election and the charge that his campaign welcomed the assistance. Stone, who testified voluntarily before the House Intelligence Committee in September 2017, also seemed to think he would make the president look bad if he avoided answering its questions about WikiLeaks and the purloined emails by invoking the Fifth Amendment's protection against compelled self-incrimination. Instead he lied, repeatedly and flagrantly, about his contacts with people he thought could relay messages to WikiLeaks, about his communications with Trump campaign officials, and about the emails and text messages that documented those interactions.

Having lied, Stone repeatedly urged one of his WikiLeaks go-betweens, radio host Randy Credico, to back up his story or avoid testifying. When Credico received a subpoena from the House Intelligence Committee, he invoked the Fifth Amendment, just as Stone had suggested. But he later cooperated with Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian election meddling and testified against Stone during his trial.

Stone did not stumble into his crimes or get into legal trouble due to a momentary lapse of judgment. As the prosecutors pointed out in the original sentencing memorandum, he "knew exactly what he was doing," and he did it for more than a year, reaffirming in an unsolicited December 2018 letter to the House Intelligence Committee that everything in his testimony was true. Since he easily could have avoided prosecution by declining to testify or by telling the truth, Stone has no one to blame but himself for his current predicament.

​

But that does not mean a sentence of seven years or more is an appropriate punishment for Stone's reckless mendacity. As Mueller's report showed, there is no persuasive evidence that the Trump campaign's hankering for useful dirt on Clinton ever crossed the line into an illegal conspiracy with a foreign government or any other sort of crime. When Stone lied, he was committing crimes, but he was not concealing any.

"Because of Stone's conduct," the original sentencing memo says, "the House
Intelligence Committee never received important documents, never heard from Credico (who pled the Fifth), and never heard from [Jerome] Corsi [another WikiLeaks intermediary]….The Committee's report even wrongly stated that there was no evidence contradicting Stone's claim that all his information about WikiLeaks was from publicly available sources." Yet Stone's overtures to WikiLeaks, which came out anyway, were neither consequential nor criminal.

The original memorandum also argues that Stone qualifies for a sentencing enhancement because his witness tampering included threats of violence. "I'm going to take that dog away from you," he told Credico in an April 2018 email exchange about Stone's congressional testimony, referring to Credico's tiny Coton de Tulear. "Not a fucking thing you can do about it either, because you are a weak, broke, piece of shit." Later that day, Stone added, "I am so ready. Let's get it on. Prepare to die, cocksucker." Yet Credico himself said these comments were typical Stone bombast that he did not perceive as genuinely threatening. "I never in any way felt that Stone himself posed a direct physical threat to me or my dog," he testified.

The prosecutors also thought Stone deserved a sentencing enhancement for various public comments he made after he was indicted, some of which violated U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson's orders. But as Shea notes in the amended sentencing memorandum, "it is unclear to what extent the defendant's obstructive conduct actually prejudiced the government at trial."

The second memorandum suggests that a sentence of seven to nine years is excessive for nonviolent crimes—a position that may surprise drug offenders serving prison terms that long or longer for peaceful transactions with consenting adults. The enhancements recommended by the first memorandum, Shea says, "more than double the defendant's total offense level and, as a result, disproportionately escalate the defendant's sentencing exposure to an offense level of 29, which typically applies in cases involving violent offenses, such as armed robbery, not obstruction cases."

The new memorandum also suggests that Judge Jackson, who is scheduled to sentence Stone a week from tomorrow, "should consider the defendant's advanced age [67], health, personal circumstances, and lack of criminal history in fashioning an appropriate sentence." While "the defendant committed serious offenses and deserves a sentence of incarceration," it says, "a sentence of between 87 [and] 108 months' imprisonment…could be considered excessive and unwarranted under the circumstances."

Regardless of its motivation, the revised memorandum is admirably measured and fair-minded, noting that prosecutors have a duty to pursue justice, not simply to clobber defendants with the heaviest penalties the law allows. It would substantially improve the quality of justice in this country if prosecutors more often took that approach with defendants who are not the president's buddies.

And this is really all you need to know. I'm sure some of you have already read this gem, but for the uninitiated... Roger Stone, American hero:

"I'm going to take that dog away from you, [...] I am so ready. Let's get it on. Prepare to die, cocksucker."

I love this man.

 

[Iron Hamster]

In my jdx, "are you related to or friends with a member of law enforcement" is one of the basic questions you always ask during voir dire in a criminal case. Had they already used all their peremptories, or do they just not have those?

Apparently not:

Juror Qualifications

To be legally qualified for jury service, an individual must: be a United States citizen; be at least 18 years of age; reside primarily in the judicial district for one year; be adequately proficient in English to satisfactorily complete the juror qualification form; have no disqualifying...

www.uscourts.gov

 

[Thomas Talus]

Apparently not:

Juror Qualifications

To be legally qualified for jury service, an individual must: be a United States citizen; be at least 18 years of age; reside primarily in the judicial district for one year; be adequately proficient in English to satisfactorily complete the juror qualification form; have no disqualifying...

www.uscourts.gov

Those are basic qualifications, not the jury selection process.

Each trial gets a batch of potential jurors from the jury pool, who have (at least in my area) answered some survey questions about themselves to be provided to the lawyers, then the lawyers ask questions to try and weed out jurors who might be biased or otherwise unable to render a reasonable verdict. Jurors can be excused by the judge for various reasons (wife about to go into labor, hold a vital position at work and the trial will take weeks, etc.), or for clear cause (declaring "I can't stand jungle bunnies like the defendant"), but each side also gets a certain number of peremptory challenges where they can remove a potential juror without having to state why (although that can be challenged if it appears they're trying to weed out based on protected classifications like race or sex). Once that person is removed, someone from the backup jurors moves into the jury box to take their place.

Generally, one of the questions asked is "Is anyone here related to or friends with a member of law enforcement?" followed by what the connection is and whether they think they would give greater weight to testimony by a member of law enforcement because of that connection.

So if it came up during the process that she was married to someone from the department that brought the charges, she'd be at the top of the list for your peremptory challenges.

 

[LordofTendons]

Roger Stone sentenced to 3 years for lying, witness tampering as case roils DOJ

GOP operative Roger Stone was sentenced to more than 3 years in prison on Thursday after days of drama ensnaring career prosecutors, the attorney general and the president over how severe Stone's punishment should be for making false statements to investigators during the Trump-Russia probe.

www.foxnews.com

Roger Stone sentenced to 3 years for lying, witness tampering as case roils DOJ

Spoiler: Going to jail!

GOP operative Roger Stone was sentenced to more than three years in prison on Thursday after days of drama ensnaring career prosecutors, the attorney general and the president over how severe Stone's punishment should be for making false statements to investigators during the Trump-Russia probe.

Before announcing the sentence in a federal courtroom in Washington, the judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, took a firm stance toward the Republican operative, faulting him for the actions that led to the charges. She sentenced him to 40 months in prison.

“Mr. Stone lied,” Jackson said in court. She also said Stone injected himself “smack” into a political controversy and was not “persecuted.”

Stone chose not to speak when given the opportunity.

Stone, a longtime adviser to Donald Trump before he was elected president, was convicted in November on seven counts of obstruction, witness tampering and making false statements to Congress on charges that stemmed from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Stone was not charged with any underlying crime of coordinating with Russia during the election though Mueller's team investigated Stone over tweets claiming to be in touch with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

During an oral presentation Thursday in court before the sentence was announced, Stone attorney Seth Ginsberg downplayed the charges, saying there was no real planning or preparation involved in the obstruction conviction against Stone that would justify an aggravating enhancement of the sentencing guidelines.

Jackson, though, also referenced how Stone had violated court orders not to talk about the case, accusing him of “intimidating behavior” including a social media post that included a picture of her with what looked like gun crosshairs over her head. Stone blamed staff for the Instagram post, but the judge sharply rebuked him.
“He knew exactly what he was doing,” Jackson said, adding that it “was designed to disrupt” the proceedings.During Stone’s sentencing hearing, President Trump himself weighed in, questioning the “fairness” of prosecuting his former associate. It follows widespread speculation of a possible pardon for Stone.“’They say Roger Stone lie to Congress.’ @CNN. OH, I see, but so did Comey (and he also leaked classified information, for which almost everyone, other than Crooked Hillary Clinton, goes to jail for a long time), and so did Andy McCabe, who also lied to the FBI! FAIRNESS?” he tweeted.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1230513001054097415

“They say Roger Stone lied to Congress.” @CNN OH, I see, but so did Comey (and he also leaked classified information, for which almost everyone, other than Crooked Hillary Clinton, goes to jail for a long time), and so did Andy McCabe, who also lied to the FBI! FAIRNESS?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1230513001054097415

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

““They say Roger Stone lied to Congress.” @CNN OH, I see, but so did Comey (and he also leaked classified information, for which almost everyone, other than Crooked Hillary Clinton, goes to jail for a long time), and so did Andy McCabe, who also lied to the FBI! FAIRNESS?”

twitter.com

The case doesn't end with Thursday's sentencing: Earlier this week, Jackson indicated she would sentence Stone as planned on Thursday but could delay the implementation of the sentence until after she decides whether to grant the defense's motion for a new trial over claims of juror bias.On Thursday, the high-profile sentencing drew colorful figures to the federal courthouse in Washington, including some anti-GOP protestors.

Tyler Olson on Twitter

“Outside of the D.C. federal court house ahead of Roger Stone sentencing - some anti-GOP protestors and a giant, blow up rat version of Donald Trump, complete with a cell phone in one hand and crime scene tape wrapped around the base.”

twitter.com

https://twitter.com/TylerOlson1791/status/1230496360610357248
The lead up to Thursday's sentence was full of drama: Federal prosecutors had recommended a prison sentence of 87 to 108 months for the charges, but in a stunning reversal last week, senior leadership at the Justice Department, including Attorney General William Barr overruled and scaled back the proposed prison sentence.

A prosecutor representing the government apologized in court on Thursday “for the confusion” caused by the change of the sentencing recommendation, saying there had been a “miscommunication” between the career prosecutors and the leadership of the Justice Department over the sentencing recommendation. Jackson replied that the original sentencing recommendation was well within the guidelines.

Barr’s move to intervene in Stone’s sentencing led to all four members of the prosecution team quitting the case. Jonathan Kravis resigned as an assistant U.S. attorney in Washington and Aaron Zelinsky filed a notice that he would leave his post as a special prosecutor in Washington but would remain as an assistant U.S. attorney in Baltimore. Prosecutors Adam Jed and Michael Marando also withdrew from the case.

The mass withdrawal caused Democrats to accuse Trump of interfering in the process, and the intervention at the DOJ level sparked an emergency meeting for the Federal Judges Association, an independent national association of federal judges, to tackle mounting concerns about Trump and Barr’s intervention in cases involving Stone and other Trump associates.

Ahead of the hearing, Stone’s defense made several requests for a new trial in the wake of revelations of possible political bias of a juror in his first case.

Former Memphis City Schools Board President Tomeka Hart said last week that she was the foreperson on the jury that convicted Stone, and revealed a history of Democratic activism after a string of her anti-Trump social media posts came to light—including the retweeting of an argument mocking those who considered Stone’s dramatic arrest in a predawn raid last year by a federal tactical team to be excessive force. Hart also suggested Trump and his supporters are racist and praised the investigation conducted by Mueller, which ultimately led to Stone’s prosecution.

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.

Fox News' Alex Pappas and Tyler Olson contributed to this report.

 

[ConfederateIrishman]

Roger Stone sentenced to 3 years for lying, witness tampering as case roils DOJ

GOP operative Roger Stone was sentenced to more than 3 years in prison on Thursday after days of drama ensnaring career prosecutors, the attorney general and the president over how severe Stone's punishment should be for making false statements to investigators during the Trump-Russia probe.

www.foxnews.com

Roger Stone sentenced to 3 years for lying, witness tampering as case roils DOJ

Spoiler: Going to jail!

GOP operative Roger Stone was sentenced to more than three years in prison on Thursday after days of drama ensnaring career prosecutors, the attorney general and the president over how severe Stone's punishment should be for making false statements to investigators during the Trump-Russia probe.

Before announcing the sentence in a federal courtroom in Washington, the judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, took a firm stance toward the Republican operative, faulting him for the actions that led to the charges. She sentenced him to 40 months in prison.

“Mr. Stone lied,” Jackson said in court. She also said Stone injected himself “smack” into a political controversy and was not “persecuted.”

Stone chose not to speak when given the opportunity.

Stone, a longtime adviser to Donald Trump before he was elected president, was convicted in November on seven counts of obstruction, witness tampering and making false statements to Congress on charges that stemmed from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Stone was not charged with any underlying crime of coordinating with Russia during the election though Mueller's team investigated Stone over tweets claiming to be in touch with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

During an oral presentation Thursday in court before the sentence was announced, Stone attorney Seth Ginsberg downplayed the charges, saying there was no real planning or preparation involved in the obstruction conviction against Stone that would justify an aggravating enhancement of the sentencing guidelines.

Jackson, though, also referenced how Stone had violated court orders not to talk about the case, accusing him of “intimidating behavior” including a social media post that included a picture of her with what looked like gun crosshairs over her head. Stone blamed staff for the Instagram post, but the judge sharply rebuked him.
“He knew exactly what he was doing,” Jackson said, adding that it “was designed to disrupt” the proceedings.During Stone’s sentencing hearing, President Trump himself weighed in, questioning the “fairness” of prosecuting his former associate. It follows widespread speculation of a possible pardon for Stone.“’They say Roger Stone lie to Congress.’ @CNN. OH, I see, but so did Comey (and he also leaked classified information, for which almost everyone, other than Crooked Hillary Clinton, goes to jail for a long time), and so did Andy McCabe, who also lied to the FBI! FAIRNESS?” he tweeted.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1230513001054097415

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

““They say Roger Stone lied to Congress.” @CNN OH, I see, but so did Comey (and he also leaked classified information, for which almost everyone, other than Crooked Hillary Clinton, goes to jail for a long time), and so did Andy McCabe, who also lied to the FBI! FAIRNESS?”

twitter.com

The case doesn't end with Thursday's sentencing: Earlier this week, Jackson indicated she would sentence Stone as planned on Thursday but could delay the implementation of the sentence until after she decides whether to grant the defense's motion for a new trial over claims of juror bias.On Thursday, the high-profile sentencing drew colorful figures to the federal courthouse in Washington, including some anti-GOP protestors.

https://twitter.com/TylerOlson1791/status/1230496360610357248
The lead up to Thursday's sentence was full of drama: Federal prosecutors had recommended a prison sentence of 87 to 108 months for the charges, but in a stunning reversal last week, senior leadership at the Justice Department, including Attorney General William Barr overruled and scaled back the proposed prison sentence.

A prosecutor representing the government apologized in court on Thursday “for the confusion” caused by the change of the sentencing recommendation, saying there had been a “miscommunication” between the career prosecutors and the leadership of the Justice Department over the sentencing recommendation. Jackson replied that the original sentencing recommendation was well within the guidelines.

Barr’s move to intervene in Stone’s sentencing led to all four members of the prosecution team quitting the case. Jonathan Kravis resigned as an assistant U.S. attorney in Washington and Aaron Zelinsky filed a notice that he would leave his post as a special prosecutor in Washington but would remain as an assistant U.S. attorney in Baltimore. Prosecutors Adam Jed and Michael Marando also withdrew from the case.

The mass withdrawal caused Democrats to accuse Trump of interfering in the process, and the intervention at the DOJ level sparked an emergency meeting for the Federal Judges Association, an independent national association of federal judges, to tackle mounting concerns about Trump and Barr’s intervention in cases involving Stone and other Trump associates.

Ahead of the hearing, Stone’s defense made several requests for a new trial in the wake of revelations of possible political bias of a juror in his first case.

Former Memphis City Schools Board President Tomeka Hart said last week that she was the foreperson on the jury that convicted Stone, and revealed a history of Democratic activism after a string of her anti-Trump social media posts came to light—including the retweeting of an argument mocking those who considered Stone’s dramatic arrest in a predawn raid last year by a federal tactical team to be excessive force. Hart also suggested Trump and his supporters are racist and praised the investigation conducted by Mueller, which ultimately led to Stone’s prosecution.

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.

Fox News' Alex Pappas and Tyler Olson contributed to this report.

Thoughts @It's HK-47 ?

 

[Kacho]

I endorse Scott Adams strategy of waiting until Super Tuesday to pardon Stone to destroy the news cycle for the Dems.

 

[It's HK-47]

Thoughts @It's HK-47 ?

Judge Jackson deferred the execution of the sentence and gave Stone a chance to file an appeal for a new trial. I did think it was a little bizarre that she went on some kind of Orange Man Bad rant halfway through the hearing by talking about how the House Intelligence Committee's "Russian Collusion" probe was hampered by Stone and "led to an inaccurate, incomplete and incorrect report." Like, look lady I'm sorry that the Mueller report shat the bed, but Stone really had very little to do with how that went down. Mueller's team just sucked, get over it.

I still think that the sentence is a bit much, but at least it's not psychotic overkill anymore and Stone actually has a chance to appeal for a new trial. I'm just not convinced that anything about his trial was the least bit impartial after that one head juror turned out to be a complete lunatic, and now that we've seen the Judge herself get all bent out of shape about the Mueller report. Whole thing looks a little bit odd, but like I said, at least they're not trying to shove him in there for a fucking decade anymore.