BREAKING: Stone judge calling for "on the record" ph conf 2 days before sentencing

[Dennis Donovan]

Link to tweet

Megan Mineiro @MMineiro_CNS

BREAKING: judge on the Roger Stone case has called an on the record phone conference from her courtroom two days out from the sentencing this week. @CourthouseNews



12:37 PM - Feb 16, 2020

[dewsgirl]

1. It looks like she doesn't want to just roll over, I didn't think

she would.

[triron]

4. Wonder what kind of threats she is getting and from where?

[dewsgirl]

8. I've been thinking about this, I'm sure many. I have no doubt,

this is what happened with Mueller, he didn't dig that deep and open all those avenues, just to choke.

[certainot]

21. limbaugh is/was the master at ginning up death threats

here's some egs from feb 12--- hopefully his last show his last show

when he was attacking christine blasey ford, for 3 weeks, he talked generally about where her parents lived so they didn't have to look so hard for the right fords to go after

This whole thing was a setup. And so Roger Stone is charged with some crime having to do with the Russia hoax, some involvement he had with WikiLeaks and the Hillary emails. It was specious because this whole thing has been made up, this entire hoax, this entire coup started out with the Steele dossier. Four FISA warrants were granted on a fake document to spy on the Trump campaign via Carter Page.

There was never anything to it. Not a single crime was committed by the Trump campaign at any stage. There was never any evidence of a crime having been committed. So anything that was charged along the way here was purely political. What happened to Manafort, those things that they charged and convicted Manafort on had nothing to do with when he was in charge of the Trump campaign or working there.

Sentenced to solitary confinement. Sentenced to die in jail. And that's what they did to Roger Stone. They gave him a seven- to nine-year sentence hoping he would die in jail. Roger Stone didn't do anything. There's not a person in the world that can tell you what Roger Stone did of a criminal nature that threatened the people of this country, that violated the laws of the country, that somehow helped the Trump campaign win an illegal election. Nothing. Roger Stone didn't do diddly-squat.

xxxx

And they're moving and they've totally withdrawn those sentencing guidelines seven to nine years. So the four prosecutors resign. Now, who are these four prosecutors? One of the prosecutors was Robert Mueller's lead investigator. These four prosecutors are holdovers from the Mueller investigation who are still trying to make all of their time pay off somehow, some way.

And this is Trump and this is Barr blocking them. This is justice taking place. But it's still a matter of some question because the judge, Amy Berman Jackson, can do whatever she wants when Stone is sentenced on February 20th. Now, this judge -- and Trump has tweeted about it -- this judge is the judge who demanded that Manafort be put in solitary confinement.

Seven to nine years. Can anybody up there tell me what Stone did? Do you know what the average rapist sentence is? Four and a half years. Beat somebody up, grand larceny, one and a half to two years. Manslaughter second degree starts at 15 years, plea bargained down to under 10. Here's Roger Stone, seven to nine years, and he hasn't done diddly-squat, certainly by comparison.

So Trump's out there attacking the judge as well, in addition to praising Barr for moving in on the case this way. It is a gutsy thing for Barr to do. This goes flat-out, smack-dab right in the face of the Washington establishment and the people who are in charge and responsible for this coup. But the thing is, the judge can do whatever she wants. Now with Trump attacking the judge, the judge can sentence the guy to maintain the seven to nine years if she wants on February 20th.

She could do it out of spite. She could do it on the grounds, "You're the president; I understand that. But you don't get to tell me how to do my job. I'm independent. I got a lifetime appointment; you don't, you schlub. You can't talk to me this way. Your guy's going to jail for seven to nine years!" Despite all this, she can still do that -- and then Trump could still pardon him.

I have no idea what the judge is gonna do, but my guess would be that she's gonna slap the seven to nine years back on him. My guess, that's what some people want to happen here so that the establishment will show they're vindictive. (interruption) What do you mean? You don't think they want that to happen? I think they do. Barr's not a dummy. Barr's not just playing one move ahead.

But this is outrageous.

Every aspect of this case was outrageous.

This should have never happened. This remains the most outrageous political scandal that has occurred in our lifetimes, folks, and there's nothing even close, including Watergate, which is nothing but Romper Room compared to what happened here. They can't find a single crime involved or undertaken by anybody in the central charge of the case, and that is that Russia meddled with the election, and Trump helped, to benefit him and hurt Hillary.

That's what they said. There's no evidence. It didn't happen. In fact, the meddling with Russia was occurring between Hillary and the DNC, their law firms. The meddling with Russia did happen. The rigging elections did happen against Crazy Bernie: The 2016 Democrat primary. But Trump didn't do anything. Trump nor his team did anything. They had 40 FBI agents from the Mueller investigation. Forty FBI agents!

Again, folks, Robert Mueller takes the job of special counsel. He shows up to the office on day one and says, "Show me the file. What do we got on the Russians?" "Uh, nothing, Bob. Uh, there's no evidence yet." "What do you mean, no evidence? Okay. Get me 40 FBI agents and we're gonna find it!" They had 40 -- 40 -- FBI agents. Everybody in this case -- and I'm sorry. This makes me so mad, I can't see straight, which is why I'm yelling.

Everybody on the Mueller side, the Democrat side, the special counsel side -- everybody on this side -- knew that there was not a shred of evidence ever to back up one single charge they were making. This was a made-up, manufactured attempt to get rid of Trump, and they had 40 FBI agents looking for dirt, trying to make up dirt. Talk about Ukraine and making things up?

And even with that and with spies from the FBI and informants, they couldn't find one thing that Trump or anybody in his immediate circle had done that violated election law. Forty FBI agents. What did they do for two years? Forty FBI agents, 16 Hillary lawyers, Robert J. Mueller III, whatever, and they got Roger Stone? Did you say to yourself, "Who the hell is this?" when that indictment came down and they're ramrodding his house with the jackbooted thugs and the CNN cameras?

After Manafort's been given solitary confinement, did you say, "What did he do?" You find out he did nothing with the Trump campaign. The stuff they got him for happened in his businesses before he was even part of the Trump campaign. How can any so-called crime have occurred in a bogus, no-evidence allegation of collusion between Trump and Russia? If they couldn't find one shred of evidence to support it, what the hell crime occurred anywhere?

If there was no Trump-Russia collusion, then what the hell did Stone do with WikiLeaks that was criminal? Zip, zero, nada. WikiLeaks got hold of John Podesta's emails 'cause John Podesta fell for a phishing scam on his own computer. So it only makes sense that the attorney general, seeing an outrageous seven- to nine-year sentence for a guy.

[dewsgirl]

22. That was an infuriating read, I forget how awful he is

the only time I have ever listened, was when I first got my new car stereo and couldn't figure out how to change the station. lol.
I didn't realize he was that dangerous, wow.

[certainot]

23. thanks for reading! his possible departure from the airwaves it should be a major story

because this whole propaganda operation that gave us trump came out of his butt, fed probably by russia

and the most significant climate denial spreader and enforcer - doing russia's bidding

this shit needs to get eh recognition he needs for whatever global warming disasters hit

[dewsgirl]

24. Look where his denial has got him, cigarettes aren't bad, blah, blah.

[dawg day]

26. Also: "I'm not addicted to oxycontin!"

"And if I am, it's fake news that it causes sudden hearing loss!"

"And if I suddenly have lost my hearing, it has nothing to do with my addiction!"

He always acts like he's such a tough guy, but he sure is afraid of the truth.

[dewsgirl]

34. So much talk about him lately, I forgot all about his opioid addiction.

[Dennis Donovan]

7. "On the record" tells me she's ready to read DoJ and Barr the Riot Act

...and wants everyone to hear it!

[dewsgirl]

9. 🤞🤞🤞

[2naSalit]

32. That's how I read it.

[duforsure]

33. She wants to hear why they changed

Their position so suddenly, and hear their excuses now they've made up for her. This will be interesting when she responds on Thursday to them for doing this. Will she allow them to corrupt the sentencing? Lets hope not, and instead makes an example of them, or next time it will be much worse.

[triron]

2. What's she got up her sleeve?

[Maeve]

3. THAT should be interesting! eom

[rzemanfl]

5. I wonder if she wants a record of who will appear in case more resignations

or firings happen.

[Sanity Claws]

6. Maybe she wants to know what attorney is left to represent the government on this case.

[slumcamper]

10. CALLING THEM OUT--literally. What a thing of beauty!

[tiredtoo]

11. Darn, I would like to get the number and password to listen in. EOM

[wishstar]

12. Bet she is displeased will all their last minute delay tactic shenanigans

She very generously gave Stone's defense and the DOJ prosecutors over 3 months from his conviction, only for Stone's team and Barr's DOJ meddling to try to throw a wrench into the sentencing procedure.

[onenote]

13. Probably will be addressing the new motion for a new trial

She is going to play this completely by the book. She's not going to do anything that might increase the chances for a successful appeal by Stone.

I doubt very much that she'll address the change in the sentencing recommendation.

[machoneman]

14. Yes! This is really bad news for the DOJ and Stone's lawyers, you can bet on that!

I'll bet she throws the book at the DOJ, Barr and maybe even Trump. Knowing that Trump will likely bail him out, I do hope she adds 99 years to the 7-9 that was asked for!

[onenote]

15. I'll take that bet.

Last edited Mon Feb 17, 2020, 02:26 AM - Edit history (1)

It's a "scheduling" call. Not a substantive hearing.

I bet that she doesn't do anything about the reversal on the sentencing recommendation and focuses on the new motion for a new trial.

I think a lot of DUers have unrealistic expectations about this hearing. I also suspect that most of the lawyers on DU don't share those expectations.

[Sneederbunk]

16. The sentencing is not going to happen on February 20.

[Takket]

17. what i would do if i were her.........

DOJ has already recommended 7-9 years.

now word has come that isn't "appropriate" and all the prosecutors have left the case.

7-9 currently stands and if i were Jackson i would want someone to come before my court and argue as to why there has been a change. in other words if Barr wants to save Stone by drumpf's order, he's going to have to show up and argue the fact HIMSELF and if i were jackson i would ask him exactly, on the record, before the court, if drumpf asked him for the change. If i were the judge i would not accept a "tweet" or "memo". I want to hear it from the traitors mouth if what has already been argued is supposed to change at this late hour.

[malaise]

18. Great news

Rec

[onenote]

30. Actually, it may be terrible news.

This scheduling conference almost certainly is about the new motion for a new trial and nothing else.

[Karadeniz]

19. Judge is such a tease!!!!!! Can't wait to see what's up her sleeve!

Also, someone gave me hearts and I really appreciate them!❤

[Fritz Walter]

20. My perspective on conference calls

Prior to my retirement a few years ago, these weekly/monthly torture sessions were the bane of my existence! They should be classified as cruel and unusual punishment, especially when they are not carefully planned, skillfully managed, and a productive use of all participants’ time. Most were inept, letting some diesel-on about petty sidebar issues. To say I don’t miss them is the understatement of the day.

This call, however, will most likely be different! Like others here, I’d love to listen in to Her Honor as she conducts the call in a professional, fair, and just manner. I used to say that I wish I could be a fly on the wall for this one. Then, I’ll realized that flies can get hit by shrapnel. And that’s a strong possibility here. Being able to listen-in on this call could be most enlightening and entertaining.

[hangaleft]

25. I don't see the need for a conference call

The ratfucker was found guilty by a jury and the prosecution recommended 7-9 years as an appropriate sentence.

Give the dirtbag nine years. Done and done. No conference call necessary.

I respect Judge Jackson. I’m quite sure she knows what she’s doing, and I’m confident that when the dust settles Stone will begin serving a minimum sentence of seven years.

[onenote]

27. It's a scheduling call, presumably to discuss the new motion for a new trial

The judge will be discussing with both sides a schedule for the government to respond to the motion. I suspect she will directly ask the government whether they are even going to oppose the motion.

And of course there is a need for it -- she's not going to do something that would create grounds for an appeal.

[hangaleft]

28. Understood

I wasn’t aware of a new motion for a new trial. On what grounds does Stone claim he was denied a fair trial?

[onenote]

29. While the motion is sealed, presumably it claims the jury forewoman hid her bias during voir dire

It's a serious charge and if it turns out the juror misled the court in responding to the jury questionnaire or the oral voir dire, Judge Jackson is going to be put in a difficult position. It all depends on what the juror was asked and how she responded.

[hangaleft]

31. I get it

What a mess. As you said, it depends on what was asked and how it was answered.

I am gonna be furious if Jackson has to declare a mistrial. I’m utterly despondent. One of the few bright spots in recent years was the day that scumbag was found guilty. If the verdict is negated and a new trial ordered I am gonna hang my head in disgust.

Eleven jurors did find him guilty. So, I guess we’ll just have to hope that twelve unbiased jurors find him guilty on retrial (if a mistrial is declared).