“How far will Trump go in abusing his pardon authority?”
That is the title of Joe Conason’s column. He’s a liberal columnist who
apparently has psychic access into Trump’s mind, to wit: “But as he prepares to
bestow that favor on Roger Stone …,” Conason wrote. That column suggested that
in doing so Trump might open himself up to a criminal investigation, as
then-President Bill Clinton did after he pardoned "fugitive
financier" Marc Rich on the last day of his presidency, Jan. 20, 2001.
Stone was found guilty by a federal jury on the seven
charges that he faced, including lying to Congress, witness tampering and
obstruction. That is the part of the Stone story that is pretty straight
forward. Regardless of whether you like Stone, whether you trust or approve of
Trump, you really ought to fairly consider the various aspects of the Stone
investigation and prosecution.
Stone became a subject of interest in the Mueller
investigation into who aided Russian interference into the 2016 election. More
than a dozen FBI agents wearing night goggles, full SWAT gear, with rifles and
side arms, knocked on Stone’s door before dawn in January, 2019, and arrested
Stone in his jammies after he answered the door.
Oh, and somehow a CNN news crew just happened to be there on
the scene, set up and ready when the SWAT team arrived.
What had Stone done to require a SWAT team with weapons
drawn? Murder? Armed robbery? Rape? Gang activity?
Nothing, other than being a Republican and friend of Trump.
He could have been served a warrant during waking hours, or even notified by a
phone call.
No one — not Stone, not anyone — was charged with a crime of
helping the Russians. Stone was convicted of process crimes: crimes he
allegedly committed during the investigative process, an investigation which
found no crimes of Russian involvement, the purpose of the investigation. He was
convicted of obstructing an investigation into a crime that never occurred; an
investigation trying to find a crime.
Of the charges against Stone, witness tampering carries the
heaviest sentence, up to 20 years. Randy Credico, the witness with whom Stone was
convicted of tampering, wrote a letter to the judge in the case, Judge Amy
Berman Jackson, asking that Stone not be sent to prison because he
didn’t really believe Stone would ever harm him or his dog Bianca, the
target of the alleged threat.
So, the alleged victim did not feel any tampering, rose to
defend Stone from the charge, but Stone still was convicted of witness
tampering.
Many observers are urging Trump to pardon Stone. And there
are other odd things about his case and his sentence that should be considered.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson, on his opinion show “Tucker
Carlson Tonight,” said, Stone is “A 67-year-old man with no criminal record
caught up in the Russia hoax, farce, caught up in an investigation that proved
to be fruitless.”
He then listed the following average lengths of time served
for certain crimes, for comparison with the prosecution’s recommendation for Stone’s
sentence of seven-to-nine years.
“Do you know what the average rapist does in this country?
We checked today. Four years. Do you know what the average armed robber gets?
Three years. The average thug who violently assaults somebody? Less than a year
and a half. But the left, CNN as well, demanding that Roger Stone dies in
prison. Hmm. This man needs a pardon.”
Yet the prosecution recommended Roger Stone get a longer
sentence for crimes far less serious that killed no one, assaulted no one,
robbed no one, and did not tamper with a witness, according to that witness.
Why did a supposedly neutral, objective
prosecution team recommend such a severe sentence for a non-violent person with
no criminal background? And why did the judge ignore the exculpatory statement
by the witness who was the supposed victim of tampering?
There is also a question of the objectivity of at least one
of the jurors.
The jury foreperson, Tomeka Hart, is a former Democrat
candidate for Congress who in her tweets refers to Trump as
#KlanPresident.
While Hart was serving on the jury, she tweeted about Trump’s
impeachment. In a letter to the editor of The
New York Times, Hart requested The
Times use more direct language accusing Trump of committing a crime in his
dealings with Ukraine.
She recently defended the prosecutors for advocating a
seven-to-nine-year imprisonment for Stone. Attorney General Bill Barr lowered
the recommended sentence to something more normal and reasonable, and the four
prosecutors resigned in protest.
Was Hart an objective juror? Did she, as foreperson of the
jury, leave her bias aside, the bias she readily showed before, during and
after the trial?
Several irregularities exist: The FBI inappropriately raided
Stone’s home. Hart should have declared her bias in pre-trial jury forms. The
judge should have dropped the tampering charge. It was appropriate for Barr to
reduce the sentence recommendation.
As a result of these irregularities, Stone convictions
should be overturned, and he should get a new trial. A
fair trial. Or, a pardon.
Even Trump friends and Republicans deserve objective
justice.
2 comments:
I seem to recall that the judge in the case after sentencing put a gag order on him. I just can not get my head around some of the court's decisions on all kinds of matters, from this case to sanctuary cities to late-term abortion and throw-in ignoring federal laws.
You remember correctly, Steve. He was prevented from saying anything about his case. Many legal authorities slammed the judge's action.
Liberal judges do not adhere to the meaning (original intent) of the Constitution or the or original intent of many laws.
They like to change the rules in the middle of the game.
Disgraceful!!
Post a Comment