Donald Trump

Trump Commutes Ally Roger Stone's Prison Sentence

Stone was set to report to federal prison to serve 40 months for lying to Congress and witness tampering.

|

President Donald Trump issued a commutation today for his former campaign consultant Roger Stone, a notorious conservative political operative who was convicted last year of lying to Congress and witness tampering.

When Trump announced the commutation, Stone was days away from reporting to a federal prison in Jessup, Georgia, to serve 40 months behind bars. Stone's allies had been lobbying Trump as Stone's prison sentence approached, and Trump had hinted at the pardon in radio and TV interviews this week.

"Well, I'll be looking at it," Trump told reporters outside the White House Friday. "I think Roger Stone was very unfairly untreated, as were many people."

The White House released a statement Friday night saying Stone was "a victim of the Russia Hoax that the Left and its allies in the media perpetuated for years in an attempt to undermine the Trump Presidency."

"Mr. Stone was charged by the same prosecutors from the Mueller Investigation tasked with finding evidence of collusion with Russia," the White House statement continues. "Because no such evidence exists, however, they could not charge him for any collusion-related crime.  Instead, they charged him for his conduct during their investigation. The simple fact is that if the Special Counsel had not been pursuing an absolutely baseless investigation, Mr. Stone would not be facing time in prison."

The White House also cited the "egregious facts and circumstances surrounding his unfair prosecution, arrest, and trial," such as the "spectacle" of Stone's arrest by armed FBI agents, jury bias against Stone, and his advanced age, which puts him at risk of COVID-19 if he catches the virus in federal prison.

As with the Justice Department's unprecedented attempt to dismiss charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn after he pleaded guilty in open court to making false statements to the FBI, Stone's pardon is a case of the Trump administration citing legitimate problems with the criminal justice system for nakedly cynical and self-serving ends. The Justice Department did not care about excessive sentencing or unfair prosecutions before. It does not care about them now, and it will not care about them when they're used again to railroad defendants who aren't Trump's allies.

This isn't the first time the Trump administration has stepped in to protect Stone. A federal grand jury indicted Stone last January on seven counts of obstruction of justice, false statements, and witness tampering stemming from Special Prosecutor Roger Mueller's probe of Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election. Stone was convicted on all counts in November.

Federal prosecutors originally recommended a seven- to nine-year prison sentence for Stone, prompting Trump to fume on Twitter that this was "horrible and very unfair." A day later, the Justice Department overrode the line prosecutors' recommendations—an almost unheard of event—saying Stone deserved a far lighter sentence.

As Reason's Jacob Sullum wrote, Stone's sentence was indeed excessive, but the Justice Department's sudden about-face was still "unseemly and smacks of legal favoritism."

Stone's lawyers tried to appeal his conviction, arguing the jury was politically biased against him. They also asked the court to delay sending Stone, 67, to federal prison because of the ongoing threat of COVID-19.

But U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson rejected his appeal and his request for a two-month delay to the beginning of his prison sentence, instead granting him a two-week delay.

Stone got his start in politics in Richard Nixon's infamous Committee for the Re-election of the President. From those auspicious beginnings, he carved out a career as a flamboyant campaign consultant, lobbyist, and "dirty trickster." He got a tattoo of Nixon's face on his back to complete the image.

Naturally, Stone gravitated toward Trump, whose tawdry brand of soap-opera politics and intrigue fit his style quite well. ("Politics with me isn't theater. It's performance art, sometimes for its own sake," Stone told The Weekly Standard's Matt Labash in a definitive 2007 profile.) 

After he resigned from Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign—following a National Enquirer story reporting that he had placed ads in several publications for swingers—Stone was a casino lobbyist for Trump and advised his brief Reform Party presidential campaign in 2000. 

Stone jumped to the Libertarian Party in 2012 and started a PAC to support Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. He also considered running for Florida governor as a Libertarian in 2014, but ultimately decided against it.

Although Stone left Trump's 2016 campaign under a cloud of recriminations and drama, he remained a staunch supporter of the president, and memorably showed up to the inauguration dressed like Snidely Whiplash, or perhaps the Babadook.

Success did not temper Stone's passions. Once, on Twitter, he called former RNC chairman and White House chief of staff Reince Priebus "rancid penis." Tragically, that tweet is now lost to the ether: Stone's Twitter account was suspended in 2017, after he sent a series of profanity-laden messages to various CNN anchors. Judge Jackson later barred Stone from using social media, after he repeatedly violated a gag order during his trial.

The trial and Stone's muzzling turned him into a martyr among hardcore Trump fans, complete with popular "Roger Stone did nothing wrong" t-shirts. 

Stone was no more a martyr than any other defendant who finds him or herself in the crosshairs of federal prosecutors—all the less so because he couldn't seem to figure out that federal investigators, prosecutors, juries, and judges don't appreciate political performance art.

Lucky for him, his old business associate Trump is a master of the medium.

"Roger Stone has already suffered greatly," the White House statement concludes. "He was treated very unfairly, as were many others in this case.  Roger Stone is now a free man!"

NEXT: Judge Delays First Federal Execution in 17 Years Due to Coronavirus Fears

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Cant wait for the outraged “libertarians” in here upset a man isnt in jail for almost 4 years for lying to Congress. Congress lies every day, but somehow deserves legally required respect.

      The act of process crimes as the primary crime is not justified. Yet some here have cheered it on for political reasons.

      1. But why did he lie? Why lie and subject yourself to this miserable grueling process? The answer is because telling the truth was riskier. Stone lied to protect Trump. Maybe one when Trump is beyond protection we may get the truth from Stone. The truth could sell alot of books.

        1. The truth could sell alot of books.

          For a guy like Stone, lies that push narratives will sell a lot more books.

          1. It’s a shame you haven’t figured out your life has no value and no one could ever love such a loathsome weasel like you.

            1. You really are a disgusting person.

                1. I have not threatened to murder anyone, as Shithead does on a nearly daily basis.

                  1. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h…FSv someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i’m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink…

                    strive it, you…………….Home Profit System

        2. What crime did he lie about? Everything that came out said there was no crime. Yet you are advocating a 4 year sentence for it.

          Totally libertarian.

          Dont care about his motivations. Crimes should be settled on evidence anyways and not solely testimony. Testimony is not reliable for the most part. Prosecutors are granted leverage to lie. So honesty is not the courts sole goal.

          1. It’s too bad Stone didn’t send emails to Sidney Blumenthal on how to make a banana creme pie on a government-issued IPhone. Then, this shit would be serious!

            1. Kill yourself. Or at least pay your mortgage.

            2. “It’s too bad Stone didn’t send emails to Sidney Blumenthal on how to make a banana creme pie on a government-issued IPhone. Then, this shit would be serious!”

              Lefty shits who claim some intelligence still push the “HRC’s private comm network was just like sending stuff on gov’t phones!!!!!!!”
              Abysmal stupidity is far more likely than any serious attempt to pitch that steaming pile of shit to those who are intelligent.
              Oh, and fuck off and die. commie kid.

            3. You mean the emails she erased on the phone she had destroyed?

              1. And the server that was wiped ‘you mean like with a cloth’ by an IT security company and the DNC server that was destroyed.

                How those weren’t obstruction of justice is beyond me.

        3. Lied to protect Trump from what exactly? The Russian hoax? That’s just stupid on its face.

          Plenty of reasons to not cooperate, including the very fact that as evidenced by the Russia hoax, they will stop at nothing to destroy you and your family including paying for knowingly fraudulent “evidence” to be used as a legal battering ram. Or maybe just because of the presumption that you’re guilty because you support the wrong candidate and you are pretty sure you’re about to be railroaded.

          Lying to investigators can be a serious crime, particularly when being used to shield others or push them down the wrong path. However, when feds are making this charge when there is no supervening crime and someone was looking to avoid having their life purposely and illegitimately turned to upside down, it’s bullshit to hold onto this as a crime to salvage “a win” for the prosecutor.

          As far as “lied to Congress”, let me know when they indict James Clapper for saying that the NSA wasn’t spying on ordinary citizens, even though he later came back and admitted it was. Might be a tad more serious, and certainly for the purposes of covering up for a crime.

          1. “…The Russian hoax?..”

            The rev asshole, turd, and several others who post here still cling to this as if it were ever believable.

            1. If they weren’t so contemptible I’d feel sorry for them.

      2. So what should happen to people whose only crime is perjury?

        1. Nothing. I thought you claimed to be libertarian.

          Who is the victim in lying about a non crime. Lying should at most be a modifier to the sentence of a crime.

          Damnit keep forgetting you’re not actually a libertarian.

          1. Nothing. I thought you claimed to be libertarian.

            Who is the victim in lying about a non crime. Lying should at most be a modifier to the sentence of a crime.

            Well, I would say that if a witness lies in court and that lie causes a defendant to be wrongfully convicted, then the defendant is certainly a victim of that perjury. Wouldn’t you agree?

            1. Did that happen here or is this going back into sophistry?

              Even then the answer is no as I think most testimony is error prone anyways.

              And proving the lie of a witness is fraught with other moral arguments such as proving intent.

              To prove your scenario would require so many specific assumptions as to be useless as even a thought process. We have discussed this before. This is why you’re a sophist. You try to create such a specific situation as to prove your general claim. That is a fundamental tactic is sophistry.

              But do please continue defending a 4 year sentence for lying about a non crime.

              Totally working in your favor.

              1. Jesse, you call it “sophistry”, but what I am actually doing is trying to examine the general principle of the matter instead of looking at specific cases.

                On the contrary, you are the one who is using the specific Roger Stone case to try to argue that perjury in general should not be a crime if it is the only crime.

                I am trying to examine what the general rule should be with respect to perjury so as to have a better discussion about what the role of the state ought to be in this general case.

                I haven’t actually said a word about Roger Stone’s specific case at all.

                But would you agree that if an innocent defendant is wrongfully convicted on the basis of perjured testimony, that that defendant can rightfully claim to be a victim of that perjury?

                If so, doesn’t that speak to the need of having a discussion on the concept of perjury that goes beyond the specifics in the Roger Stone case?

                1. No, it’s sophistry.

                2. You dishonest piece of shit, every time you get called on your bullshit, you try to invent some hypothetical that might excuse it if you squint real hard.
                  Grow up.

                  1. It’s not my fault you can’t read.

                    I asked, “So what should happen to people whose only crime is perjury?”

                    I did not ask, “So what should happen to Roger Stone?”

                    I did not say, “Roger Stone is totally guilty and should go to jail!”

                    But those latter two statements seems to be what you all thought I said rather than what I actually said.

                    I asked about the general case in order to try to have a discussion about how to consider the crime of perjury, in general, from a libertarian framework.

                    If that is not the discussion that you want to have then no one is compelling you to participate.

                    1. Lying Jeffy still thinks he can make up bullshit and everyone else is required to play his bullshit games.

                    2. What is the ‘bullshit’ that I supposedly made up in this case?

                    3. It seems to me that if the Feds make even one misstatement to a witness during interrogation or investigation, then the witness should be free to lie back to them with impunity. The Feds lies are entrapment.

                    4. And it’s not my fault you’re a pathological liar.
                      You dishonest piece of shit, every time you get called on your bullshit, you try to invent some hypothetical that might excuse it if you squint real hard.
                      Grow up.

                    5. “I asked, “So what should happen to people whose only crime is perjury?””

                      Nothing, if it not material to the outcome of the proceedings.

                      It doesn’t matter if Stone lied or not. It only matters if Stone’s lie is material to the outcome of the proceedings. Which it was not.

                      Criminal culpability attaches only at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements (made or to be made) that are material to the outcome of the proceeding.

                      For example, it is not perjury to lie about one’s age except if age is a fact material to influencing the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits or whether a person was of an age to have legal capacity.

              2. “or is this going back into sophistry?”

                It’s Lying Jeffy, so yes.

          2. Perjury is a crime, at least in courtroom settings, because the process of seeking justice cannot occur reliably unless there is some method to compel honest testimony from perhaps uncooperative individuals. So how can that process occur in your view if perjury by itself is not to be regarded as a crime?

            1. I’ve literally already answered your question of you cared to read. Trials should be done on evidence virtually always, not based on testimony.

              So now answer the question. In a libertarian world where prosecutors can lie to induce plea bargains, should a citizen be threatened 4 years for merely lying without an underlying crime?

              Hint, since you seem to not understand basic reality, this is a favorite tactic of dictators and authoritarians.

              1. Trials should be done on evidence virtually always, not based on testimony.

                Witness testimony is a type of evidence, you know.

                I will be happy to address your question once you begin to address mine.

                1. Witness testimony is a type of evidence, you know.
                  Yes, the worst type.

                  1. Well, it is a type.

                  2. “Yes, the worst type.”
                    Not quite. The worst type is the stuff that claims to be ‘scientific’ but is really just a guy in a suit “confirming” what the police claim is true. There is witness testimony that is more reliable than that. Not, “That’s definitely the guy who stole the purse,” but rather, “I woke up to the sound of gunfire and grabbed the phone beside my bed and called 911,” as evidence that the gunfire occurred a little bit before the time of the 911 call.

                    1. How post-truth are Trump cultists?

                      So post-truth that they want all witness testimony to be disregarded at all times.

                    2. Lying Jeffy 2 jumps in with more bullshit!

                    3. “So post-truth that they want all witness testimony to be disregarded at all times.”

                      How dishonest are lefty shits? Totally.

            2. So, the people who filed false FISA affidavits? How many were convicted?

              1. I don’t know. Was it perjury? Why do you think this is relevant?

                1. Yes, it was perjury.

                2. “Why do you think this is relevant?”

                  This from the guy that makes up complete bullshit hypotheticals and thinks they’re relevant.

                3. The false FISA is like falsifying records, so worse than testimonial perjury.

                  1. I frankly have not kept up with the details about that. I’m generally against secret courts so I think FISA ought to go. Falsifying warrants before any court, secret or otherwise, should be treated like any other type of fraud.

                4. I don’t know. Was it perjury? Why do you think this is relevant?

                  There was no criminal culpability, or at least there should not have been.

                  Contrary to popular misconception, no crime has occurred when a false statement is (intentionally or unintentionally) made while under oath or subject to penalty. Instead, criminal culpability attaches only at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements (made or to be made) that are material to the outcome of the proceeding.

                  For example, it is not perjury to lie about one’s age except if age is a fact material to influencing the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits or whether a person was of an age to have legal capacity.

                  In this case, Stone was lying about the fake Russian hoax that Mueller was embarrassing himself with. Did the Russians take a part in the election? To a small degree, yes, by only pointing out the truth of Hillary Clinton, which, in my opinion, they did a favor for us. Did Donald Trump collude with the Russians to hijack an election (if you call telling the Truth about Clinton hijacking) – No.

            3. “Perjury is a crime, at least in courtroom settings, because the process of seeking justice cannot occur reliably unless there is some method to compel honest testimony from perhaps uncooperative individuals. So how can that process occur in your view if perjury by itself is not to be regarded as a crime?”

              Negative.

              Contrary to popular misconception, no crime has occurred when a false statement is (intentionally or unintentionally) made while under oath or subject to penalty. Instead, criminal culpability attaches only at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements (made or to be made) that are material to the outcome of the proceeding.

              For example, it is not perjury to lie about one’s age except if age is a fact material to influencing the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits or whether a person was of an age to have legal capacity.

              In this case, Stone was lying about the fake Russian hoax that Mueller was embarrassing himself with. Did the Russians take a part in the election? To a small degree, yes, by only pointing out the truth of Hillary Clinton, which, in my opinion, they did a favor for us. Did Donald Trump collude with the Russians to hijack an election (if you call telling the Truth about Clinton hijacking) – No.

          3. The libertarian view, at least as far as I understand it, holds that courts ought to be used more often, instead of pre-emptive coercive regulation by the state, to settle matters of dispute between parties. So instead of the state imposing regulations on, say, workplace safety, and forcing everyone to comply with a set of rules on how employers must treat their employees, instead, employers should be permitted to act in their best judgment and if an employee is harmed on the job, the employee should seek restitution in court. In a more libertarian-centered world, the role of courts is MORE important, and therefore being able to compel honest testimony becomes even MORE critical.

            1. Three nonsensical replies in a row to rationalize locking someone up you despise for 4 years over a non crime.

              Lol.

              Totes libertarian.

              1. I haven’t said a word about the Roger Stone case either way.

                This is pointless. You aren’t even going to bother discussing the general issue, you’re just going to hyperventilate about current events.

                1. He refuses to indulge your sophistry. Which is the correct response.

                2. Shorter Jeff: I know this is an article about Roger Stone, but I want to make it about regulations.

            2. I also that you used the word “compel testiomony.” Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition.

              Lol.

              1. Yes, “under penalty of perjury”. That is what I mean by “compel”. Not torture. Sheesh.

                1. Sure you did.

          4. “Lying on the witness stand shouldn’t be a crime!” – JesseAz

            The Ten Commandments disagree with you, Jesse. And so do most libertarians.

            1. I’m not terribly interested in the Ten Commandments argument, personally. But it’s hard to imagine how Jesse could conceive of a rational system of justice without some means to compel honest testimony in a courtroom from potentially uncooperative individuals.

              He’s upset over this particular case, and that’s a legitimate complaint IMO. The hard part is how to keep perjury for when it’s legitimately needed but not give unscrupulous prosecutors a tool to harm innocent people at the same time.

              1. The hard part is how to keep perjury for when it’s legitimately needed but not give unscrupulous prosecutors a tool to harm innocent people at the same time.

                chem, it comes down to prosecutors not abusing their discretion and power, which appears to have happened here, IMO. My guess is that in the fullness of time, we will come to learn much more about the tactics used by the Mueller team, and reject it.

                1. So what is to be done then?

                  Perjury has to remain some type of crime, because otherwise there can’t be any rational type of judicial system.

                  1. Isn’t perjury only a crime when it is pertinent to a case about a crime? If he says he was wearing a blue shirt when it was a white shirt, that has no impact on the guilt or innocence of the accused of the crime. When there is no crime, what difference, at this point, does it make? (to borrow a phrase)

                    1. Well I’m sure the state would argue that “a crime’s a crime” and to let lawbreakers get away with crimes here and there undermines the rule of law in general.

                      I would go back to the real purpose of why perjury has to be considered a crime in the first place, and that is so there can be some means to compel testimony from uncooperative individuals in the pursuit of justice. So in that light, if there is no justice to be pursued, then there can not be any perjury.

        2. Everyone who pleads not guilty and/or testifies in court that they are not guilty is guilty of perjury. Should they then be tried for perjury?

        3. Criminal culpability attaches only at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements (made or to be made) that are material to the outcome of the proceeding. Key words – “Material to the outcome of the proceedings.”

          For example: it is not perjury to lie about one’s age except if age is a fact material to influencing the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits or whether a person was of an age to have legal capacity.

          The underlying premise of the federal indictment of Roger Stone, contained in the first two pages of his indictment, is that the Russians hacked the DNC and provided this allegedly hacked data to Wikileaks. All of the questions Stone allegedly lied about relate to this alleged action, yet Judge Amy Berman Jackson would not allow Stone’s lawyers to disprove this by calling forensic witnesses, as with NSA Bill Binney. Having based their prosecution of Stone on this premise, Federal Prosecutors now insisted it was irrelevant.

          So they tried Stone on perjury but wouldn’t let his defense address the matter, material to the outcome of the proceedings.

          It was a sham. What was Stone protecting the president from? A fake Russian collusion accusation.

          Stone should have been released. The jury of democrats can go F themselves. The biased juror that said insulting remarks about stone and trump before being selected as a juror can go F themselves. The hand picked judge can go F herself. And you can F yourself also.

      3. Well, I actually agree with you, so…

      4. Looks like we didn’t have to wait for the “libertarian” who will tolerate no end of corruption by the most powerful government official in the world (as long as he has an R after his name). He can literally do the most corrupt thing imaginable in front of your face. Anyone there? Helloo?

      5. Today’s Republicans/Conservatives preach law and order up until they have to abide with law and order.

      6. Are the editors of _National_Review_ libertarians? Here is some of what they wrote in an editorial titled “An Indefensible Commutation”:

        “There is no doubt, though, that Stone was guilty of perjury and a laughably ham-handed attempt at witness tampering. He was justly convicted of these charges and deserved to go to jail…”

        “…Trump’s handling of the matter is indefensible. It is another indication of his perverse, highly personalized view of the criminal-justice system — and another reminder of the loathsome characters he’s surrounded himself with his entire adult life.”

        https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/an-indefensible-commutation/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

    2. Fuck you. Fuck all of you traitors. This is open corruption. There is no other word for it.

      A jury of 12 found him guilty of crimes he committed in service to Trump. This is self dealing.

      1. Wow. I’ve never seen somebody so angry over a process crime. Wait. You’re mad because you had a political reason for sending him to jail for 4 years.

        And traitor? Lol.

        Please never claim you dont have a side again you dishonest twit.

        1. Trump will be under indictment by this time next year. There’s no escaping New York for that mfer.

          1. You can’t indict a sitting president. And if we are going to get in the business of indicting former Presidents, Obama better get his tooth brush and maybe learn to speak Spanish after they extradict him to Mexico for selling guns to Drug gangs

            1. When’s that happening? I’ve been hearing that bs for damn near 12 years.

          2. If there is any justice in the world, Trump will be utterly humiliated by senile Biden in November, then be indicted and tried in New York for all his corrupt financial dealings, and spend the rest of his miserable life in jail, without his amphetamines.

            1. “If there is any justice in the world,..”

              You would actually have to grow up.

      2. You tears and misery are lovely. Suck it loser. Thank you for not depriving us of the pleasure of your misery

        1. Keep poking the tiger. The cage opens the second that son of bitch leaves office.

          1. Sp you admit you’re pro political prosecutions. Nice of you to admit you’re an immoral pos.

            1. If the prosecution is political then it fails.

              1. Way to speak nonsense.

              2. That’s almost a better example than the namesake example of the No True Scottsman fallacy.

              3. Realized how awful you sounded I see.

          2. You. Progtards might have a lot more to worry about than Trump after you all continue to escalate the civil war you progtards started

        2. You are a traitor, John. You have no loyalty to the constitution. You chose a fat orange conman over the values and tradition that kept us free and prosperous for almost 250 years.

          Now we are travel banned from the rest of the 1st world, and have become the laughing stock of free nations.

          Trump vowed to build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it. In this, he exceeded his goals. He got the whole world to build their walls against us. Is this what winning feels like?

          What a sad, pathetic wretch you are.

          1. You need some Tangeroff™ (insipidal vacuousfate)
            When orangemanbad is getting to be too much for you to get on with your daily life reach for some Tangeroff and forget about colors and the people who are represented by them.
            Ask your doctor about Tangeroff™ from sanofi aventis

            ‘Wow, I can’t even remember the guy from School of Rock!. It must be working’

          2. You need some Tangeroff™ (insipidal vacuousfate)
            When orangemanbad is getting to be too much for you to get on with your daily life reach for some Tangeroff and forget about colors and the people who are represented by them.
            Ask your doctor about Tangeroff™ from sanofi aventis

            ‘Wow, I can’t even remember the guy from School of Rock!. It must be working’

          3. You’re the traitor. You and every other progressive. I only that many of you are culled in the escalating civil war you and your fellow travelers have started.

          4. Says the fake green beret.

            Die of cancer

      3. At this point, the naked corruption of Donald Trump no longer surprises. He is the most corrupt President in history, and it’s only gonna get worse.

        1. You.
          Are.
          Full.
          Of.
          Shit.

        2. Tulpa brike you bud. Find a hobby.

        3. Hahaha!!

          Trump is the most transparent and investigated president of all time, and yet was not removed from office. Hence he must be among the least corrupt.

      4. “Fuck you. Fuck all of you traitors…”

        Cry some more, you stinking pile of lefty shit.

      5. “Fuck all of you traitors”

        Oh god you’re one of those

    3. Nardz is a fascist Russian loving traitor and he’s admitted half that accusation already and the other half is obvious. Fuck you traitor.

      1. Pod, give it a rest. Seriously. Just chill.

      2. The only traitors are you progressives.

    4. Since I started with my online business I earn $90 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out. Click For MoreDetail.

  1. Yes, good.

    Trump should now give a full pardon to Mike Flynn, and publicly scold the dimwit judge who is dragging out this politically motivated shit show.

    1. Sullivan should be ordered to fulfill the mandamus. Now he is interceding an appeal to keep the process is alive. It is incredible.

      1. Good. His conviction was purely political anyway.

        1. Umm… how is keeping the process alive good if you believe it was a political prosecution?

      2. It’s truly amazing when a judge hires his own lawyer in a case he decided.

  2. Roger Stone formed a PAC against Hillary Clinton called Citizens United Not Timid. Note the acronym. I bet all the misogynist male virgins here are still cackling at that.

    1. Poor mistreated Hillary.

    2. Ah, someone who worships the arch demon hag Hillary. What a pathetic loathsome wretch you must be.

  3. It’s a sideshow.

  4. What’s a President to do when prosecutorial dirty tricks get turned against his own people?

    Ideally, he should learn the broad freedom-affirming lesson that prosecutors have too much power and need to be curbed, regardless of who the defendant is.

    But at minimum, the President should use his powers to counteract partisan prosecutions aimed (de facto) at himself. Why should I respect a President if he backstabs and turns his back on his friends as Reason urges?

    1. A presidents using his pardon and clemency powers to help him or his friends is a textbook example of corruption.

      1. It’s corrupt to resist corruption? Orwell rules.

        The President is not supposed to allow any prosecutorial dirty tricks whatsoever. It’s not some kind of favor to protect someone from such tricks, it’s a Presidential duty. And if the person who got targeted was targeted because of his association with the President, all the more reason to protect him.

        1. 1. It is the job of the courts to sort that out and make sure the law is followed. I have heard no indication that his prosecution was illegal.
          2. Trump shows no interested in helping the many other people screwed over by dirty prosecutorial tricks. That is the corruption, when his allies get one form of justice and everyone else gets another.

          1. Molly, wrt #1, there is a credible case to be made that this prosecution was an abuse of prosecutorial power and discretion.

            1. Which is why Stone had his sentence commuted rather than being pardoned.
              He will now fight it on appeal to clear his name, and won’t die in prison awaiting a decision

          2. “1. It is the job of the courts”

            And yet, the Constittuion give the President the power to pardon.

            Weird.

            1. In fairness there were like three federal crimes when the nation was founded.

          3. Trump hasn’t pardoned anyone else? Haha you’re ignorant.

      2. That’s a new one. Bill Clinton, still highly regarded by Dems, was selling the damned things in addition to giving them to loyal subordinates.

        Fuck off.

        1. One of the women he pardoned was a legit terrorist who is now working for BLM

      3. Yes. Like the way Bill Clinton and Barack Obama used pardons.

    2. Great point Eddy, except I don’t think this article urges Trump to turn his back on his friends. Though I do believe a few of the staff are still trying to recover from TDS. C.J.’s article is quite fair in just reporting the acts IMHO.

      I’d like to thank C.J. for a excellent article, especially the background on Stone!!! Thank you!!!

      My personal opinion, is the commutation seems fair as putting Stone in prison with Covid going around is a potential death sentence, and still allows him to defend his case AFAIK. He’s already suffered huge legal bills. His dirty trick lies pale in comparison to the fraud Hillary and Obama committed with the dossier.

  5. Hopefully he’ll pardon Flynn over the weekend.

    1. Flynn, who plead guilty twice? Flynn, who knowing took money from a foreign government and then lied about that several times?

      You guys are disgusting traitors. This isn’t a questions of politics. This is a question of loyalty to country.

      1. You sound unhinged.

        The fbi acted maliciously to convict people they disliked politically. You support many people who have taken money from foreign government. You defend biden and his son for fucks sake.

        And now the traitor word. You really are a pathetic person.

        At least your claims to being a libertarian are finally in ashes.

        1. Sniveling partisan cuck. Name something a Republican could do that you would criticize.

      2. Bill Kristol? Is that you?

      3. — then lied about that several times —

        Can you please identify the false statement that Michael Flynn made regarding his acceptance of money from dirty for-ners?

        Thanks in advance.

        1. Flynn can help you out. He sworn to it under oath. He’s a liar anyway you look at it.

          1. I love this new world where liberals no longer believe in coerced confessions or prosecutorial misconduct.

            1. Oh they do. But only for their side.

              Only good progressive is a very, very dead one.

          2. He certainly did. Right after they threatened to bankrupt his entire family and rip a new one in his son. I’d take one for the family too thanks. Admitting to lying in order to avoid malicious prosecution which the prosecutors have already shown they are willing to do is a process of taking the best of a bad situation.

            Or perhaps if a guy was fleeing police shooting at him for a crime he didn’t commit and in doing so jaywalked, you’d be alright with prosecuting him for the latter even if the former was shown to be bullshit?

        2. He and his lawyers don’t even argue that he did not lie. He lied several times over. His argument is that he was enticed to lie, and it is a damn weak argument.

          He lied about many contacts with Russian ambassadors and separately filed false information on his dealings with the Turkish government. Flyn confessed to both instances of lying to investigators, and then reaffirmed his confession much later. He then also plead guilty twice.

          Flynn was lobbying for a foreign government while holding a job with Trump’s transition team. That alone should get him in jail, and make him persona non grata for true patriots who don’t love traitors. He then lied several times over about his contacts with Russians. What is so interesting is how none of you Trump cultists ever question why so many people around the president can’t just tell the truth? Why are they always getting in trouble for lying? If it is so much trouble to lie, why not tell the truth? You guys can create and believe a conspiracy theory every time someone the Clintons were once in a room with has a heart attack, but an honest to god conspiracy of dozens of Trump associates all getting busted for lying and refusing to go under oath doesn’t interest you?

          https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-redux-what-those-fbi-documents-really-show

          1. Yes, yes. Let the hate consume you.

      4. “who knowing took money from a foreign government and then lied about that several times?”

        Amateur. You’re supposed to GIVE the money to foreign governments (preferably in cash stacked on top of pallets) and ACCEPT it in the form of jobs for your idiot son.

      5. “Now, Durham is conducting a comprehensive global probe of the U.S. government’s investigation of the Trump Campaign’s connections with Russia. The investigation covers pre- and post-election matters, and reportedly has come to include the unmasking of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, and the basis for the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia tried to help Donald Trump win the election in 2016. These are all matters on which President Trump has publicly commented. Before and after Durham began his investigation, Trump has often claimed, in fiery rhetoric, that the Trump campaign investigation, and the unmasking of Flynn, and the intelligence community’s assessment, were illegitimate. He has also charged that some of the people apparently under investigation by Durham engaged in misconduct on matters under investigation. Attorney General Barr has also publicly commented that some of the people under investigation engaged in serious wrongdoing.

        The fruits of the Durham investigation will reportedly be disclosed later this summer, or in the fall.

        https://www.lawfareblog.com/durham-investigation-what-we-know-and-what-it-means

        Do you know how embarrassing it’s going to be for the people who went after Flynn when the Durham Report comes out?

        Imagine a panel of DC Court judges reinstating a plea that the Justice Department withdrew on the basis that the charges were indefensible–even while the people who brought charges against him are prosecuted for filing politically motivated and baseless charges against him.

        “Embarrassing” is exactly the right word.

        There aren’t any caves deep enough to crawl into and hide from that kind of shame.

        1. Who are “these people” that you’ve decided are guilty and of what exactly are they guilty?

          1. Leaking classified documents.

              1. It goes all the way to Obama.
                That much has been clear from the beginning

            1. Have at it. Why do you think I give two fucks about the FBI? Knowing you fuckers though I suspect it’s all bs.

              1. Your crying is how we know.

              2. “Why do you think I give two fucks about the FBI?”

                Haha you’re a real dipshit.

          2. Are you completely unaware of the problems with the FBI’s investigation, not only of Flynn but of the Trump campaign and Trump administration?

            If this is the first time you’ve heard about this stuff, go educate yourself.

            1. I’m very aware of the police state. But it’s no deep state. Republicans worship it openly. This little exception to the worshiping is apparently necessary to keep that clownish crook of a president out of trouble but otherwise Republicans are the greatest defenders of the everyday application of police power.

              1. So, you are completely ignorant of the facts.

                1. He’s just ignorant of your cult’s “alternative facts”, cultist.

        2. Ken, where did you get the idea that these Donkeys have any conscience so that they can feel shame?

      6. The only traitors are democrats and their henchmen. Democrats are almost inherently treasonous. You should acknowledge this fact, and kill yourself.

      7. Gross stolen valor loser.

  6. I’ve only ever read this place to laugh at the cosmo retards, but even I’m shocked that Reason is still 100% behind the Mueller probe.

  7. Flynn is free. The DoJ brief will tear apart the appeal of the judge to a circuit court.

  8. While the commutation was celebrated by Trump’s most stalwart supporters, the muted response by Republican lawmakers and Stone’s own history as a self-described “dirty trickster” indicated that the president’s decision to interfere with the nation’s justice system could be fraught with political risk.

    Trump, who has declared himself the president of “law and order” in recent weeks, used his unique presidential authority to undermine the unanimous finding by a jury that Stone broke the law multiple times by lying to Congress and obstructing justice.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-hes-looking-at-pardoning-roger-stone-ahead-of-prison-term/2020/07/10/d1a1e5ea-c2b7-11ea-b4f6-cb39cd8940fb_story.html

    1. How does a president interfere with the justice system by using a constitutional power?

      How does quoting wapo prove anything?

      1. Because he isn’t aware of Media Matters and Vox, and likely didn’t think about using Biden’s fact-checking team for honest reporting.

  9. Javicia Leslie has been cast as the new Batwoman for the upcoming television series. Hollywood sure does seem to be determined to lose as much money as possible these days.

    1. Interesting that Stone backed GayJay in 2012 since that arguably helped Obama win a second term.

      1. I appreciate Jo’s efforts to cement Trump’s 2nd term.
        It’s going to be fun

  10. Yay constitution. Boo commies and fake libertarians.

  11. O/T: So Trump is planning to “fix” DACA after all – with a path to citizenship.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/506844-trump-says-hell-sign-order-with-road-to-citizenship-for-daca

    In an interview with Telemundo anchor José Díaz-Balart, Trump blamed Democrats from walking away from a deal on DACA and said the Supreme Court’s decision last month blocking his administration’s plan to end the Obama-era program gave him “tremendous power.”

    “The deal was done. DACA is going to be just fine. We’re putting it in. It’s going to be just fine. And I am going to be, over the next few weeks, signing an immigration bill that a lot of people don’t know about. You have breaking news, but I’m signing a big immigration bill,” Trump told Díaz-Balart.

    “Is that an executive order?” the anchor asked.

    “I’m going to do a big executive order. I have the power to do it as president and I’m going to make DACA a part of it,” Trump responded. “But, we put it in, and we’ll probably going to then be taking it out. We’re working out the legal complexities right now, but I’m going to be signing a very major immigration bill as an executive order, which Supreme Court now, because of the DACA decision, has given me the power to do that.”

    Asked whether the executive order would provide temporary relief for DACA recipients, Trump said its scope would be much wider.

    “No, what I’m going to do is that they’re going to part of a much bigger bill on immigration. It’s going to be a very big bill, a very good bill, and merit-based bill and it will include DACA, and I think people are going to be very happy,” said Trump.

    “But one of the aspects of the bill is going to be DACA. We’re going to have a road to citizenship,” he added.

    This is hilarious. He fought so hard against Obama’s EO and now he’s going to replace it with one that is even more ambitious.

    1. Aren’t you judging the bill before it is written? Who knows what Trump means; haven’t you even learned that much?

      1. Lying Jeffy is almost as dumb as he is dishonest, so he doesn’t learn much at all.

  12. O/T: Oh this is even more rich.
    Tucker Carlson’s chief writer is a no-shit racist who got outed.
    https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/media/tucker-carlson-writer-blake-neff/index.html

    1. Some of what Tucker’s chief writer had to say:

      “Would u let a JET BLACK congo n****er do lasik eye surgery on u for 50% off?”

      “I wouldn’t get LASIK from an Asian for free, so no.”

      “Black doods staying inside playing Call of Duty is probably one of the biggest factors keeping crime down.”

      1. Third one was true.

        1. You’ve got to be kidding me. Racist AF.

            1. Because “Black doods” cause crime. Got it.
              Geez do you have any shame for the racist crap that you endorse?

              1. Stats = racism

                1. Stats lacking context and deliberately stripped of relevant context = racism. Yes.

                  1. correction: stats jeff doesn’t like = racism

                    1. Stats lacking context and deliberately stripped of relevant context = racism.

                    2. Did you learn that in the White Fragility booklet?

                    3. I can generate any statistic you want to support any conclusion you want. But without an understanding about what that statistic means, you would be led to the wrong conclusion. That is exactly what the alt-right has done. Taken raw numbers devoid of context and presented it as “the truth” without any thought whatsoever about how those numbers were obtained and if there was any bias in it whatsoever. And people like you fall for it because you place too much faith in raw numbers over the context in which the numbers were generated.

                    4. I can generate any statistic you want to support any conclusion you want.

                      Black contributions to theoretical physics?

                    5. Sure. The 21st century physicist with the most active social media presence is black – Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

                      But if I omitted some of those details and context, and said something like “The most widely cited physicist is black” (counting retweets as “citations”) or “The modern physicist who has done the most to influence popular opinion is black” (counting Twitter as ‘most influential’) then you would not have an accurate impression about Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s impact on actual physics research. To be honest I don’t know how much he has impacted the understanding of physics, maybe it is enormous and I just don’t know. But I am able to frame statistics in a way to elevate his performance in a manner that he doesn’t deserve at face value. That is the type of crap that alt-right “race realists” pull all the time. They give you numbers without context.

                    6. I thought about giving you a B for effort but you didn’t even include the “theoretical” part.

                    7. Black contributions to theoretical physics?

                      Sure. The 21st century physicist with the most active social media presence

                      Wanted to highlight this amazingness.

                    8. It is a “contribution to physics”, is it not?

                      Oh, it wasn’t the one you were expecting? Huh.

                    9. No, social media presence is not a contribution to theoretical physics.

                      What is wrong with you?

                    10. Sure it is, in a sense. It makes physics more accessible to the wider world. It is a contribution to the advancement of physics broadly speaking. See, I can make any statistic say anything if I torture it enough. The problem with the race realist crowd is the lack of context behind their numbers.

                    11. That is exactly what the alt-right has done. Taken raw numbers devoid of context and presented it as “the truth”

                      Of course, all those murders in Chicago/Baltimore/New York/any Democrat-run city are completely irrelevant and no indication of anything.

                      Black Lives Matter, after all.

                    12. “I can generate any statistic you want to support any conclusion you want.”

                      We know, it’s one of your favorite dishonest tactics.

                    13. Lol at Lying Jeffy telling on himself.

                2. Furthermore, there are some “Black doods” who cause crime, but there are also some “Black doods” who don’t. Why should they be lumped together on the basis of race? For that matter, there are “White doods” who cause crime and “White doods” who don’t. Or “Asian doods” or “Hispanic doods” or whomever. Why is it fair or just to lump them all into some category based on race?

                  1. Why should some “black doods” be lumped together with other “black doods” on the basis of race? This is a real question you’re sincerely asking?

                    1. Why should “black doods” who commit crime be lumped together with “black doods” who don’t commit any crime, solely based on the color of their skin? Are the “black doods” who don’t commit crimes somehow responsible for the ones who do?

                    2. “black doods who commit crime” is a subset of “black dudes” who are subset of both “blacks” and “doods.” Sad this needs to be explained.

                    3. “Black doods who commit crime” is also a subset of “people who wear clothes”. Should I now assume that there is some connection between wearing clothes and criminal activity? What is the meaning behind the connection behind why you want to connect “black doods who commit crime” to all black people?

                    4. What is the meaning behind the connection behind why you want to connect “black doods who commit crime” to all black people?

                      LMAO you’d be dangerous if you were 10% as clever as you think you are.

                    5. I think it’s obvious that you’re trying to connect skin color to criminal activity. That is the noxious part. There are a great deal of confounding factors, and stripping all of that context away is a recipe for generating racist conclusions that are supposedly supported by “stats”. That is the big lie that the alt-right has played on people. They just present plain numbers and say “look, those black people are violent, it’s just math!” without offering any context or analysis or anything else.

                    6. What are the confounding factors?

                    7. You’re being called out, actually.

                      Holy shit LOL it just keeps getting more amazing.

                    8. For example, the frequency of police patrols in certain areas. If the police patrol more heavily in minority areas, it is reasonable that they are going to find more crime and arrest more people. That doesn’t mean that minorities are more violent, it only means that more criminal activity was actually discovered.

                      Another one is on poverty rates. To the extent that there is a connection between poverty and crime, since minority groups tend to have lower incomes they will have more crime. But that isn’t because they are inherently more prone to crime based on skin color, it is because of a lack of wealth.

                      Another one is the nature of the crime that is reported. People like Jared Taylor tend to report only violent crime. What about all the other crime? Sure some black gangbanger killing some child is a terrible crime. The crimes of a white-collar criminal like Bernie Madoff are also terrible. But if I only examine violent crime, not white-collar crime, or vice-versa, I would get a distorted view of who is actually responsible for more crime.

                      Then there is the entire history of slavery and segregation in this country. Black people were only allowed to own their own wealth in 1865, while white people could do so (in general) for much longer periods of time. And then there were Jim Crow laws, redlining, and other policies which made it needlessly more difficult for minority groups to acquire and pass on wealth to future generations. That plays a role in the social status that people have in current society. Do people like Jared Taylor ever take that stuff into consideration?

                      It is more complicated than just “black people = more crime”. That is the racist simplistic conclusion that the demagogues like Taylor want you to draw.

                    9. p1 conflicts with victim surveys

                      p2 assumes causation

                      p3 not true https://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t4102008.pdf

                      p4 denies holocaust

                    10. p1 conflicts with victim surveys

                      What do you mean? Be more specific.

                      p2 assumes causation

                      No it just assumes that there is some connection, whether there is a direct causation or not. A poor family living in a poor neighborhood is going to be under increased police surveillance even if that poor family does everything right, so minor crimes are more likely to be reported. The poverty of that poor family may not have *caused* the increased enforcement of crimes on that family, but there was a connection nonetheless.

                      p3 not true https://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t4102008.pdf

                      Your statistics are out of date, and I would also like to know how they were collected.

                      p4 denies holocaust

                      WTF does this even mean in this context?

                    11. If you don’t know that NCVS and FBI crime data agree almost perfectly, you’ve never spent any time researching this issue. There’s no shortage of people much more intelligent and knowledgeable for me to waste my time arguing with.

                      Re: holocaust. Who was better positioned for the second half of the 1900’s during redlining: European Jews or American blacks?

                    12. In cosmo libertarian terms, this is like arguing the wage effects of immigration and not knowing about Card’s study after the Mariel boatlift. Totally disqualifying.

                    13. As I said originally, the FBI crime data only has a small subset of total crime out there. It also has only the crime that was reported, not all crime.

                      With regards to your Holocaust claim. Why don’t you clarify what you mean here?

                  2. ^^wrong thread

                    1. It’s hilarious watching Jeff get a virtue boner that leads him to the incredibly racist conclusion that black people are not individuals and have no agency though

                    2. Umm where did I say anything of the sort?

      2. The first isn’t even him you lying retard.

        1. And his response was pro-Asian.

        2. It wasn’t? How do you know this?

          1. I can read.

            1. Okay, you are right, I misread the CNN article.
              But he did write the second statement, “I wouldn’t get LASIK from an Asian for free, so no.” Still racist AF.

              1. pro-Asian compliments = racism

                1. How is that “pro-Asian”? WTF?

                  By the way, racism is not just denigrating others based on race, it is also elevating others based on race. “Asians are great a math” is just as much of a racist stereotype as “Asians suck at sports”.

                  1. But Asians are good at math.

                    reality = racism

                    1. But Asians are good at math.

                      Some are and some aren’t.

                      How difficult is it for you to treat people as individuals and not based on their race?

                    2. Do you honestly think I assume all Asian people .36 standard deviations better at math than white people?* Or is that just your standard NPC response to anyone noticing anything about races?

                      *Of course if that were actually true they’d be shitty ophthalmologists so this accusation doesn’t actually make any sense at all.

                    3. You said “Asians are good at math”. If you want to make a statement about average abilities, and not just perpetuate a racist stereotype, then maybe you should clarify your statement. Sure there are some groups who are on average better at something than other groups. But it is not fair nor reasonable to assume everyone who belongs to any group possesses the same qualities as some stereotype belonging to that group. Furthermore, why are we even talking about group-level abilities, particularly ones based on race? What is so challenging about treating people as individuals and judging them on that basis?

                    4. Frankly it doesn’t seem like you care much about treating Asians or Blacks as individuals with their own unique talents which may diverge from some average stereotypical property.

                    5. Is it sexist to say “Men are taller than women?”

                    6. Without the “on average” qualifier? Yeah it is.

                      People are individuals and there are some women who are taller than some men.

                      And people get touchy and sensitive on issues of race. Don’t be assuming some stereotype is true about people based on nothing but skin color.

                    7. People are individuals and there are some women who are taller than some men.

                      I can’t fathom being a grown ass human and saying this to another grown ass human.

                    8. I can’t fathom being a grown ass human and saying this to another grown ass human.

                      But it’s true. There are some women who are taller than some men. Simply stating “women are taller than men” obliterates that distinction and creates a stereotype that is not always true. If you want to make some statistical argument and say “on average, men are taller than women”, then that would be a very defensible statement I think.

                    9. There are some women who are taller than some men.

                      Thanks, guy.

                  2. How is that “pro-Asian”? WTF?

                    How stupid are you?

                    1. Could you explain why you regard this statement to be pro-Asian?

                      “I wouldn’t get LASIK from an Asian for free, so no.”

                    2. He’s saying “I have so little interest in Service X that I don’t want it even if it is both free and performed by the most skilled practitioner.”

                    3. Is that so?
                      Could you explain how you arrived at that conclusion, as opposed to the more straightforward conclusion of, “I wouldn’t want this procedure performed by Asians because I think they will do a poor job”?

                    4. No. You’re a very stupid person and there’s no way I’m going to attempt that.

                    5. So you are giving racist boy the benefit of the doubt and won’t explain why. Okay then.

                    6. LMAO you really think white racists think Asians are bad doctors?!?! Holy shit this is a new low.

                    7. I think there are white racists out there who are white supremacists and don’t give a shit about anyone who isn’t white. I think it is telling that you rush to the defense of this guy and put the most positive spin that you can on his actions.

                    8. I think it’s telling that you’ve never had normal male conversations.

                    9. You think “normal male conversations” means engaging in racist stereotypes?

                    10. This is fascinating. So you think being a “normal male” means being a racist sexist dickhead?

                    11. You think “normal male conversations” means engaging in racist stereotypes?

                      When I realized I was being trolled^^

                    12. You’re being called out, actually.
                      Thanks for admitting openly that you think “normal male” behavior is to be a racist sexist dickhead.

                    13. You’re being called out, actually.

                      Holy shit LOL it just keeps getting more amazing.

                  3. “How is that “pro-Asian”? WTF?”

                    Dude are you serious? Is this your game? Pretend to be extremely obtuse to blatant facts with the hope of winning an abstract argument based on semantics (that is 100% refuted by the actual context in which it was said)?

                    Also this schtick that the SJW’s are busting out that any characterization, even positive, about a person’s race is “racist”…sure fine. Call these non-aggressions racist. But don’t be surprised when “racist” is just met with an eye roll and laughing at you instead of getting any traction.

                    1. What is the context that is lacking here that supposedly exonerates Neff?

                    2. exonerates

                      LOL you’re such a bitch

        3. Oh here’s another good one.

          He wrote:
          “Honestly given how tired black people always claim to be, maybe the real crisis is their lack of sleep.”

          WTF?

            1. I have no idea what that is supposed to prove.

              1. “I am so fucking tired” is so popular among shitty far left black activists at this point that even Cathy Young and Chris Arnade are laughing at it.

                1. Okay I have no idea what you are talking about.

                  1. Thanks for finally answering “How stupid are you?”

                    1. I guess I am not hip to the most recent Twitter nonsense. Woe is me.

                    2. No you’re just obtuse.

                2. You idiots ever consider that the rest of the world isn’t actually interested in whatever infinitesimally small grievance du jour you’re suffering through?

                  1. A white woman in Indianapolis was ambushed and executed this past week for saying All Lives Matter to a bunch of feral BLM hogs. If you don’t consider that to be a grievance, then you’re just demonstrating why anything that hurts the left is automatically good.

                    1. Well, the motive is speculative, but congratulations on digging up an obscure gun death you could exploit. I’ll be sure to contemplate the righteousness of your call to execute all liberals as you bemoan one random shooting.

  13. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page………Click For Full Details.

  14. I didn’t like the guy. I think he was guilty and deserved every minute of his sentence for being such an ahole. But, one of the great and excellent powers of the presidency, and governers for state crimes, is pardoning and commuting. As a libertarian, I think this power should be used more not less. So good for him!

    For those who love Roger Stone, what do you think about how Governer Newson commuting all death penalty cases in California when he got elected? Are you cool with that too or are you just a hypocrite?

    1. I didn’t realize Roger Stone murdered someone.

  15. This is a small price to pay for the increased likelihood of a Biden presidency and the Obama Court.

    Especially when one recognizes even a pardon wouldn’t interfere with a state prosecution.

    1. HERE► The smart move would be to ditch it and come up with some constructive policies around exercise, cooking and education instead.”. I would rather just be left alone… ReadMore.

    2. Dunham’s booked up for the next year, so there’s scant chance of getting a coherent sentence of of gropin’ Joe’s yap.

  16. The Flynn case was an example of much of the prosecutorial abuses to coerce a guilty plea Reason is usually against. Including badly obtained warrants, entrapment, and a specious process crime. Yet Ciaramella thinks overturning the result is untoward…because Trump is bad, it seems.

  17. C. J., you wear your bias on your sleeve.

    Which means you are not being persuasive, you are just pandering to your fan base.

    This is not the kind of writing I come to Reason for. I can read this kind of bile anywhere on the web.

  18. It does not care about them now, and it will not care about them when they’re used again to railroad defendants who aren’t Trump’s allies.

    Indeed. If only people would use this as a wake up call on the arbitrary and political nature of many federal prosecutions and many, many federal laws.

  19. Who broke the law first – should be the sentiment on this situation. If prosecutors filed an indictment before legitimate ‘proof’ was gathered they should be indicted.

    This smells like a case of a robber holding up a gas station – the cashier pulls a gun and shoots the robber – then the robber’s family sues the cashier. Was Roger Stone lying to congress in a matter of self-defense? Because self-defense should never be considered a crime.

    1. Explain how sending threatening messages to other witness is self defense.

      1. He’s a crook so justice is a real threat.

  20. The US is officially a shithole nation.

    Laws don’t matter when the fascist in charge doesn’t want them to.

    Maybe it’s time to read the constitution.

    1. The whole world is watching.

      “So what, who cares” brings it right in the shithole sweet spot.

    2. “The US is officially a shithole nation.”

      You could leave and we’d see a marked improvement.

    3. Maybe you should read it? Since the president just exercised a Constitutionally enumerated power

  21. Government charges an American citizen on a nonsensical charge, entraps him on a non material lie after having listened in on the conversation, holds back exculpatory evidence, and coerces the citizen to a guilty plea.

    “But he already pled guilty! It is unprecedented for the case to be dismissed AFTER someone pleads guilty!”

    According to Reason’s logic, Ross Ulbricht should rot in prison for the rest of his life because (1) he broke the law and (2) Trump’s DOJ never cared about criminal justice reform, rendering any prosecutorial misconduct a moot point.

    It’s obviously nonsense, since Trump pardoned blacks who weren’t his “allies” and Barr has expressed interest in reform. The Russian probe and impeachment were acts of government overreach themselves, ran by people who were arguably biased against the president. Remember – the FBI is police on the federal level, and what they did was little different than the Houston narcotics team that busted a house based on false info.

    Should Stone not have received clemency to avoid appearance of favoritism? Is that what libertarianism is now? They adopted the left’s “If you can’t help everyone, then you can’t help anyone” mantra?

    1. I can’t wait for their next ‘everyone in prison is in danger of COVID’ article.

      Though, to be fair, if Stone and Flynn were the ONLY people in federal prison, and they weren’t in the same one, the COVID risk would be minimal, and we could still have our political gulags for the wrongthinkers.

  22. “Like people don’t remember, nobody ever heard of it until I came along, nobody remembered it for a long time, or they didn’t use it at least, I use it all the time: Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. You know you say that and people say, ‘I didn’t know that’, but he was Republican, so we’re doing a great job.”

    Donald Trump President of the United States of America

    I will let that stand upon itself.

  23. Trump as poor innocent persecuted victim. You people are the most embarrassing excuses for sentient blobs of flesh in the history of the world. You have all the world’s information at your fingertips, and you use that tool to reinforce the most obvious and desperate partisan spin dreamed up by the dumbest human being ever to run a country. Trump was treated unfairly by prosecutors! There’s not a corrupt hair on his combover! Jesus goddamn Christ you people.

    1. Anything that hurts leftists is good.

      1. You have the dumb, overemotional, gullible, blind tribalism part down, now we just have to make sure you never have any power.

        1. Obama freed a guy who was responsible for 130 bomb attacks, including invasions of both the Carter and Bush campaign headquarters. I’m not going to give two shits about Roger Stone as long as that fucker is walking around free as a bird.

          Anything that hurts the left is automatically good.

          1. “Anything that hurts the left is automatically good.”
            Said every fascist ever. Why do you want to be like Hitler?

            1. “Anything that hurts the National Socialist (i.e. Nazism <<— Yes, that's a dictionary defined synonym) left party is like Hitler", said every lefty complete moron. How can they be sooooooo stupid?

  24. Trump must be insane.
    He let a non-violent offender off the hook.
    How many times do we have to tell him: Only violent criminals are to be released.
    You would think Trump would’ve got the message by now.

    1. One of them. Purely random choice.

      Let him let all of them off the hook. Then we talk.

  25. “President Trump’s decision to commute the sentence of top campaign advisor Roger Stone, who could directly implicate him in criminal misconduct, is an act of staggering corruption,” [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi said.

    Uh, Nancy…

    Carlos Vignali had his sentence for cocaine trafficking commuted, after serving 6 of 15 years in federal prison.

    Almon Glenn Braswell was pardoned of his 1983 mail fraud and perjury convictions.[19] In 1998 he was under federal investigation for money laundering and tax evasion charges.[20]

    Braswell and Carlos Vignali each paid approximately $200,000 to Hillary Clinton’s brother, Hugh Rodham, to represent their respective cases for clemency. Hugh Rodham returned the payments after they were disclosed to the public.

    Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg, members of the radical Weather Underground organization, both had sentences for weapons and explosives charges commuted: Evans served 16 years of her 40-year sentence, and Rosenberg served 16 of her 58 years.[24][25]

    Marc Rich, a fugitive who had fled the U.S. during his prosecution, was residing in Switzerland. Rich owed $48 million in taxes and was charged with 51 counts for tax fraud, was pardoned of tax evasion. He was required to pay a $1 million fine and waive any use of the pardon as a defense against any future civil charges that were filed against him in the same case. Critics complained that Denise Eisenberg Rich, his former wife, had made substantial donations to both the Clinton library and to Mrs. Clinton’s senate campaign. According to Paul Volcker’s independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels (640,000 m3) of oil.[26] Longtime Clinton supporters and Democratic leaders such as former President Jimmy Carter, James Carville and Terry McAuliffe, were all critical of the Clinton pardon. Carter said the pardons were “disgraceful.”[27]

    Susan McDougal, who had already completed her sentence, was pardoned for her role in the Whitewater scandal. McDougal had served the maximum possible 18 months, including eight in solitary confinement, on contempt charges for refusing to testify about Clinton’s role.

    Dan Rostenkowski, a former Democratic Congressman from Illinois and Chairman of House Ways and Means Committee, was pardoned for his role in the Congressional Post Office scandal. Rostenkowski had served 13 months of a 17-month sentence before being released in 1997.[28] After his release from prison, Clinton granted him a pardon in December 2000.[29][30]

    Mel Reynolds, a Democratic Congressman from Illinois, was convicted of bank fraud, 12 counts of sexual assault of a child, obstruction of justice, and solicitation of child pornography. His sentence was commuted on the bank fraud charge and he was allowed to serve the final months under the auspices of a halfway house. Reynolds had served his entire sentence on child sex abuse charges before the commutation of the later convictions.

    Roger Clinton, the president’s brother, was pardoned for drug charges after having served the entire sentence more than a decade earlier.[citation needed] Roger Clinton would be charged with drunk driving and disorderly conduct in an unrelated incident within a year of the pardon.[32] He was also briefly alleged to have been utilized in lobbying for the Braswell pardon, among others. However, no wrongdoing was uncovered.

  26. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use these.Make 5000 bucks every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our website………………ReadMore.

  27. Mcafee My Account Login: Mcafee Pro is a popular antivirus protection product that secures your computers and laptops from malware attacks. You can download this antivirus from the website mcafeepro.com and login with a few steps. I personally used it and it has secured my system for 6 years. you can log in by using mobile through mcafeepro my account login. For more information visit our: https://mcafeepro.com.

  28. This article is just another “cherry-picking” hack job. There is zero mention on the DOJ also declined the exact same charges as Stone, against Brennan and Comey.
    I would argue the Brennan and Comey cases were more compelling, as these two were on the government payroll. Brennan and Comey, as top government officials, engaged in underhanded acts and lied in order to hide their questionable conduct.
    The entire premise of an old man “lied-to-Congress” with an embellishing narrative is a waste of time (Stone should have never been before Congress). Old senile people (and anyone with a brain) knew Stone was embellishing the facts in order to look cooler and more in the “know” than he really was.
    The bottom line, it is hack jobs like this is why I will not be renewing my subscription. What is that old saying, “GO WOKE, GO BROKE.” It is sad to see Reason stumbling. . . .

  29. Hey I am Sophia Smith. If you have any issue with McAfee Login then you you can contact to us we provide you the instant solution to the problem you can also visit our McAfee website and follow the basic troubleshooting steps how to McAfee login and you can feel free to contact us.
    Visit:- https://mcafeecomactivates.com/mcafee-login/

Please to post comments