Roger Stone's much-watched sentencing hearing is underway, with a Judge Jackson starting with minor objections by the defense to language in a pre-sentence report.
Jackson confirms she will take up Stone's motion for a new trial after sentencing.
Jackson notes the initial sentencing memorandum in the case, (with 7-9) year recommendation, "has not been withdrawn."
Jackson noted without further comment, so far, that she received both sentencing memos from DOJ in the case.
Jackson noted she is generally required to follow sentencing and says that people who "are new to this" or don't like that sometimes they are harsh, should note many judges and defense attorneys agree.
Defense now making the case that Stone's "prepare to die" email was not a threat of violence. This is important because that carries a sentencing enhancement of around four years to the recommended sentence.
Jackson is trying to get at how important Credico's statement that he didn't feel Stone posed a direct physical threat to him, ie. how important his subjective view is, versus anyone else's assessment of whether "Prepare to die, cocksucker," is threat.
Prosecution says that government now thinks "this enhancement applies, and we ask the court to apply it."
Jackson: "I conclude that the enhancement does apply."
That doesn't mean she's sentencing him to 7-9 years, but that she accepts the original sentencing rec. She can then decide to diverge from it, but it forms baseline.
The big news here is that DOJ's new lawyers seem to have just backed off the second, Barr-influenced second memo and stuck by the initial sentencing recommendation. Wow.
That was John Crabb, of the DC US Attorney's office. He sure seems to pulling back from the second DOJ sentencing memo that came after Trump's tweet.
Prosecutors are now asking for ANOTHER enhancement of Stone's sentence based on a finding that his obstructive behavior was "extensive in scope."
The new prosecutors seem to be rebelling against the effort by Barr and top DOJ officials to effectively take over this case, and are siding with their former colleagues who withdrew.
Jackson ruled against the gov's request to add two levels by arguing Stone's "obstructive conduct" was "extensive in scoop." Said she didn't buy that.
Defense is now done and Jackson is going through the sentencing guidelines and explaining how she is supposed to read them.
Jackson on Stone's instagram with a target next to her head: "The defendant engaged in threatening and intimidating conduct toward the court...that could and did impede the administration of justice."
Jackson: "This is intolerable to the administration of justice...and the court cannot sit idly by, shrug it's shoulders and say 'That's just Roger being Roger.'"
"Therefore I am gonna add the two levels and we are now at a level 27."
Jackson notes the she now, under the guidelines, has Stone at "5.8-7.25 years." But she can still apply a downward departure.
Crabb is now addressing "the confusion" over the multiple filings, after Jackson noting may know less about the case than anyone present.
Jackson is questioning Crabb about communications between the US Attorney's Office and the Attorney General's office about the first sentencing recommendation. Crabb is citing "a miscommunication between" his office and the Attorney General, ie. what Barr has said publicly.
Crabb: "The initial sentencing recommendation was done in good faith" and says "yes" when Jackson asks him if it was "fully consistent with Justice Department policy." Which she adds is to ask to for the longest sentence available under the guidelines."
Crabb: "The Department of Justice and the United States States Attorney's Office is committed to following the law without fear favor or political influence."
Questioned by Jackson on who wrote the second memo, Crabb says he cannot disclose that.
Defense notes Stone, at 67 is an unlikely to engage in recidivism. Also notes that he cares about animals, will soon be a great-grandfather, helps former NFL players facing brain injuries, and is a "mentor" to many people.
"The process...has already been the punishment."
Stone, offered the chance to address the court, declined. Jackson noted this may be because he plans to appeal and doesn't want to complicate that. She said she won't hold not speaking against him.
Court recesses for 10-15 minutes, then the judge will sentence Stone. Given her statements so far, she sounds likely not to give him any downward departures and to sentence him to six or seven years.
Trump appears to have tweeted about Stone during this hearing.
Jackson so far has not explicitly mentioned the president, his tweets about her and this case, or the prospect of his pardoning Stone. She did ask about the Attorney General's role in influence the second sentencing recommendation prosecutors submitted.
Jackson: "Unsurprisingly, I have a lot to say." Says she will now go through every factor she has to consider.
Jackson noted that Stone was not prosecuted by his political enemies but because "Roger Stone characteristically injected himself smack in the middle of" the DNC hacking scandal, by claiming to have access to Assange. Then lying to Congress when asked about those claims.
"That (lying to Congress) was why he was indicted. Not for his political activities," Jackson says. She notes Devin Nunes, then Chair of the Intelligence Committee, gave Mueller the panel's transcript of Stone's interview "without reservations."
Jackson notes that both Bannon and Gates testified that they got updates on WikiLeaks Mr. Stone. (Stone told the Intelligence Committee he didn't have communications with the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks.) "They took him seriously" Jackson says, and welcomed his help.
Jackson: "I really did appreciate the sensitivity and the concern that went Randy Credico's letter" but says this says more about Credico than Stone and notes that Credico may want to reduce his association with a tough sentence for Stone.
Jackson. "Whether or not Stone was ever actually in communication with Assange, he understood full well that it could reflect badly on the President," if it came out that he communicated with the Trump campaign about what WikiLeaks was supposedly about to do.
Jackson, on pleas from people who say Stone is good person: "I am not passing judgement on Roger Stone as a man. That falls to a higher authority...It falls to me to sentence him just for the conduct for which he was found guilty by a jury."
Jackson says 7-9 years "would be greater than necessary" and that even the 6-7 years her guideline calculation suggests may be too much.
Jackson on having to sentence a 67-year old with no record while following congressional direction to promote respect for the law. "The only people who think this is easy are the ones who don’t have to make the decision."
Jackson notes that "many people have weighed in" through various means regarding Stone's sentence. Still doesn't directly mention Trump's tweet.
Now she mentions the tweets. Says Trump's tweets "were totally inappropriate" but says she is not gonna hold Stone responsible for them.
Jackson refers to Trump as having a longstanding personal relationship with Stone, notes that Trump's own conduct was at issue in the case.
Jackson, as prosecutors did, and even one juror did, tees off on defense lawyer Bruce Rogow dismissing the government's case by saying "So what?":
After all that, Stone gets 40 months.
Jackson said that she probably would have given the same sentence regardless of DOJ’s switheroo and all the drama. She was rebuking the Department, Barr and Trump for being such a mess.
Failed earlier to tweet this, but Jackson addressed Rogow's "So what" question, posed during the defense's closing argument in Nov. "Of all the circumstances in this case,"" she said, it idea that none of this matters, "may be the most pernicious."
"The truth still exists, the truth still matters. Roger Stone’s insistence that it doesn’t, his belligerence, his pride in his own lies are a threat to our most fundamental institutions, ...If it goes unpunished it will not be a victory for one party or another. Everyone loses."
Jackson: "So what? Who cares… I’ll say this. Congress cares. The Department of Justice cares. The jurors who [acted] with integrity under difficult circumstances care. And I care."
In arguing that "truth matters" in the face of the pick-your-own-truth nihilism of Stone, and Trump, Judge Jackson echoed the closing argument made by Michael Marando, one of the guys who withdrew from the case. motherjones.com/politics/2019/… And one juror. washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-was…
Adam Schiff also some similar remarks in his closing argument in Trump's impeachment trial. motherjones.com/politics/2020/… 
