Roger Stone Sentenced to 40 Months

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 11:50:31 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Judge Amy Berman Jackson sentenced Roger Stone today to 40 months in prison.

COUNT 1 - 40 MONTHS
COUNT 2 to 6 -- 12 MONTHS
COUNTS 7 -- 18 MONTHS
all to run concurrently*

Stone will remain free, at least for now while she still has a motion for new trial pending. (His motion for new trial based on the supposed juror misconduct issue was roundly denied by the Judge last week. Here is a copy of the Order.

The Government today seemed to back off its revised sentencing memo a bit by agreeing with the judge that some enhancements applied. Still, the sentence she imposed was inline with the Government's lower revised sentencing memo.

There's a lot of talk that Trump may pardon Stone if Judge Jackson does not grant his subsequent motions for new trial.

< Dems and Bloomberg Debate in Las Vegas | Nevada Primary and Reader Poll >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Roger Stone Sentenced to 40 Months | 23 comments (23 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

This statement (1.20 / 5) (#7)
by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 09:54:37 AM EST

Demeaned her and her courtroom. Was not based on fact or proven, was just her personal opinion.

"He was not prosecuted, as some have claimed, for standing up for the president," she said, according to Vox's Andrew Prokop. "He was prosecuted for covering up for the president.

Covered what up? Trump didn't do anything, everything Stone was saying he made up, how could you cover up for someone who didn't do anything?

You left one thing out (5.00 / 6) (#8)
by Repack Rider on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 10:33:03 AM EST

Without the /s tag, people will not understand that you are making a joke.


: Please explain (1.50 / 2) (#9)
by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 12:12:07 PM EST

What Stone was covering up?
Stone made up lies to make himself important, and doubled down on those stories to Congress. There never was any connection to Trump. Judge crossed over the line, although Stone is looking for her to be removed from the case

As summarized by trial prosecutors (5.00 / 4) (#10)
by Peter G on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 05:30:39 PM EST

in the sentencing memorandum, "In his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Stone told the Committee five categories of lies. Those lies were designed to conceal Stone's communications with Corsi, Credico, and the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks in 2016." What was the purpose of that concealment? To "cover up for the President" the connections between his 2016 campaign and the Wikileaks disclosures of DNC emails, which were believed to be Russian-sourced. A successful coverup of this fact would benefit Tr*mp (or Stone believed it would) by endorsing Tr*mp's narrative of a "hoax" and the promotion of the general claim that he and his numerous criminal associates "had done nothing wrong."


I just don't like (1.33 / 3) (#11)
by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 05:52:48 PM EST

The way she phrased, and intentionally so. "He was prosecuted for covering up for the president."

But he wasn't, because he didn't cover up for the President, because the President didn't do anything. Everything took place in Stones mind. There were no connections between the wiki disclosures and the Trump campaign. Only the lies Stone told everyone hinting that there was.
He was prosecuted for lying...and perhaps..thinking he was helping the President, when no help was needed.

She is part of The Resistance and wanted to get her 2 cents in


If Stone successfully covered up (5.00 / 6) (#12)
by MKS on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 06:17:07 PM EST

how would you know if Trump did nothing wrong?

The point in covering up is to prevent the truth from coming out.c


So Stone risked (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by MKS on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 06:21:05 PM EST

everything to cover up nothing? That does not make sense.


: Yes (none / 0) (#15)
by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 23, 2020 at 05:51:28 AM EST

Thank you. We are talking Roger Stone here. He was full of himself and his image. He made statements alluding to Wikileaks, giving the impression he knew. He knew nothing, had no contacts, he was quite frankly, talking shit. And continued ti lie in front of Congress.
That is what he was convicted of

Not what the evidence at trial showed (5.00 / 7) (#14)
by Peter G on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 07:20:24 PM EST

But you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. It's still (at least for now) a (relatively) free country, as we used to say. And covering up (obstructing justice and committing perjury) for the benefit of someone who stands at the top of a large and complex operation, which functions entirely in his interest, does not require anything so clumsy as for the head guy to get his hands dirty directly.


: Sorry (1.67 / 3) (#16)
by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 23, 2020 at 05:55:36 AM EST

There was no evidence of Stone working with Wiki , there was evidence of Stone talking about it with others, where he made up out of whole cloth his deeds and importance, and carried that facade through to Congress.
For the Judge to imply he was covering up for any misdeeds of Trump was beneath her and her position. She should have stuck to the facts.
Stone is still trying to piss her off though, requesting she be removed from the case, using her statement complementing the all jurors for their work, when the 1 juror appeared to lie directly (or by omission) in getting on the jury.

Well, I think you should write Judge Jackson ... (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 23, 2020 at 07:43:48 PM EST

... a sternly-worded letter in which you tell her in no uncertain how to do her job. I mean, after all, she's only a federal judge who likely has security clearance to see evidence in the case otherwise not available for public review, whereas you're somebody who watches Fox News religiously on a daily basis.

Why, I'd be surprised if, after talking to you, Judge Jackson doesn't immediately throw out the Roger Stone verdict and order a new trial, before recusing herself and turning herself in to her state bar association for disciplinary purposes after admitting her subversive role as part of the Deep State.

Of course, I was also surprised when the Seahawks didn't make it to the Super Bowl, so what do I know?

Ciao 4 now.


Why would I do that (1.67 / 3) (#19)
by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 23, 2020 at 08:02:27 PM EST

. a sternly-worded letter in which you tell her in no uncertain how to do her job

I am far from alone in the opinion that the judge overstepped her bounds with that statement.

besides...

This case, and many others concocted by the fraudulent Special Counsel will most likely require serious corrections...the Special Counsel was created solely based upon fraudulently generated evidence , "Dossier". Our justice system usually protects our citizens from political prosecutions, and it will probably occur here as well.


Jeez. Are you for real? (5.00 / 4) (#20)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 24, 2020 at 12:26:40 AM EST

TrevorBolder: "This case, and many others concocted by the fraudulent Special Counsel will most likely require serious corrections...the Special Counsel was created solely based upon fraudulently generated evidence, 'Dossier'. Our justice system usually protects our citizens from political prosecutions, and it will probably occur here as well."

You are completely detached from fact and reality.

Pity.


: Seriously? (1.00 / 2) (#21)
by TrevorBolder on Mon Feb 24, 2020 at 07:09:02 AM EST

Barr has already assigned outside US Attorneys to review Special Counsel cases...it is happening whether you like it or not
Topline: The New York Times reported Friday that attorney general Bill Barr assigned an outside prosecutor to review former national security advisor Michael Flynn's criminal case, at a time when Barr faces intense criticism for undermining the Department of Justice professional staff.
According to the Times, Barr has assigned additional outside prosecutors to review other politically sensitive cases, but it's unclear which those cases are.

Pretty much (none / 0) (#1)
by Peter G on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 12:34:33 PM EST

What I predicted last week.

: Referring to (none / 0) (#4)
by Peter G on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 01:19:08 PM EST

this comment

: Nailed it! (none / 0) (#5)
by Steve13209 on Fri Feb 21, 2020 at 09:29:00 AM EST

One word: (none / 0) (#2)
by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 12:56:10 PM EST

Jeralyn: "Judge Amy Berman Jackson sentenced Roger Stone today to 40 months in prison."

Good.

It is awful (none / 0) (#3)
by KeysDan on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 01:12:41 PM EST

that the country has become engulfed in discussions of how much jail time should be given, or the likelihood of pardons or sentence commutations will be given to Trump's criminal appointees, friends, and cronies.

: Reading the sentencing transcript was (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by oculus on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 01:07:03 AM EST

enlightening. Judge summarized Stones criminal actions.

Stone's latest nonsense motion (none / 0) (#17)
by Peter G on Sun Feb 23, 2020 at 07:34:30 PM EST

to remove the judge based on 3 words she used while explaining her sentencing decision has been promptly denied, with a six-page explanation. She has not yet ruled on the juror-bias motion for a new trial, which is not nonsense (but from what I have read will probably not succeed).

Hearing for a new trial (none / 0) (#22)
by ragebot on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 12:34:28 PM EST

Tuesday afternoon.

: Hearing concluded after 5 pm (none / 0) (#23)
by Peter G on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 05:12:03 PM EST

without an announced decision. I predict a 6-8 page written denial tomorrow or the next day.