The Morning Dispatch: Stone Sentenced

Plus, a closer look at Richard Grenell’s promotion to acting director of national intelligence.

By
31

Happy Friday! “What the hell was that all about?” That’s what Trump asked his rally goers in Colorado Springs last night on the subject of Parasite winning Best Picture at the Academy Awards. (It’s an excellent movie, by the way.) Coincidentally, it’s also what your Morning Dispatchers often find ourselves asking whenever we wrap up a conversation with Jonah. But we digress.

Quick Hits: Today’s Top Stories

  • Longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone was sentenced to 40 months in prison for obstructing Congress, lying to investigators, and witness tampering.

  • More details emerged surrounding President Trump’s decision to make Richard Grenell acting director of national intelligence. According to The New York Times, intelligence officials briefed House lawmakers last week that Russia is attempting to interfere in the 2020 campaign to reelect Trump. The president is worried Democrats will use this against him. 

  • Some 2020 election numbers: Tuesday’s debate was the most-watched Democratic contest of all time, with nearly 20 million viewers tuning in. Elizabeth Warren has raised more than $5 million since the debate, while the Trump campaign reported $200 million cash on hand at the end of January.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
31
By
Comments (31)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Michael Carpenter

    Cinnabon candles have been available in the past, although I am not sure if they were ever officially licensed.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    PWLaw

    Trump is angry that Maguire’s deputy warned the House Intelligence Committee of Russia’s plan to interfere in the 2020 election in support of Trump. Trump replaced Maguire with Grennel, who has no relevant qualifications for the job. Trump’s public response to the DNI briefing: he said it is a partisan attack against him and tweeted that it is “Another misinformation campaign...being launched by Democrats in Congress...”

    Trump’s response is nonsensical but his base will nonetheless believe it. And, of course, Trump is not at all concerned about the fact Intelligence agencies have determined Russia will continue to interfere in the 2020 election on his behalf. I wonder who the Russian military will target for emails and other documents this time around. Certainly not Sanders, since the Intelligence agencies have also determined that Russia is meddling in the election to assist Sanders.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      "Not concerned" is charitable. I think it's much closer to "glad".

      The Russians will certainly target Sanders because they are working to make him the nominee, and thus expect they will be successful in that. That way when Sanders wins the nomination they will be ready to launch their attack on him.

      Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Michael

    Auntie Anne’s pretzels, I can smell ‘em from Macy’s at the mall

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    NATHAN S.

    Lou Malnati's pizza for the candle win!

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Amy

    Chick-fil-A should totally have a candle

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    JohnF

    In other news, Rod Blagojevich is looking forward to his new appointment as Ambassador to Germany.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kevin Durant?

      You can’t send Blagojevich to Germany. What if there’s a Supreme Court vacancy?
      😂😂

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        JohnF

        As I understand things, the Senate no longer holds confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justices in Presidential election years. Mitch was very clear about that four years ago. Surely you're not going to tell me that he's changed the rules?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kevin Durant?

          We still have a Senate???

          Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Jenny

    Ferguson's essay is a gem! I will be assigning it to my students soon. Thanks for the recommendation!

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Azlefty

    Thanks, Gweneth Paltrow. You win.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Azlefty

      To clarify: I unhappy about this trend generally. It was not a direct response to the question.

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Alex

    Cinnabon for the candle scent all the way. Though, I wouldn't mind a Cinnabon/Krispy Kreme crossover just to sate my diabetic tendencies. They could do that last one with candles and the real confections.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    Re this:

    "While some of Stone's ardent defenders, including the president, have pointed to the jury forewoman's "significant bias" because of her association with the Democratic Party, our own David French has provided a lengthy analysis of why this argument doesn't hold much legal water and a fellow juror has said "[w]ithout her in the room, we would have returned the same verdict, and we would have returned it more quickly and without looking as deeply into the evidence." Regardless, as French noted, "[t]he question isn’t whether Hart is a Democrat, it’s whether she hid facts that would have provided a valid basis to challenge her presence on the jury."

    This is correct, but you've actually understated the import of David French's revelations, drawn with link and quotes from the actual voir dire transcript: Hart having disclosed the relevant facts — including her social media posts, enthusiastic Democratic partisanship, failed run for Congress, and specific prior knowledge of the Stone proceedings — and both Judge Jackson and Stone's lawyers having questioned her about them, Stone's lawyers declined to ask more questions, and most spectacularly significantly, 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑒 ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑜𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑗𝑢𝑟𝑦. That means his argument "holds no water" at all, i.e., it has been conclusively waived for purposes of motions for new trial and appeal.

    David's post should have conclusively ended this discussion, in other words. His analysis was better than anything else I've seen on the web, and in particular, it was better than an op-ed by Prof. Jonathan Turley at TheHill.com which inexplicably and inexcusably fails to disclose that Stone's lawyers willingly accepted Hart as a juror notwithstanding her honest disclosures.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      OMG italics. I'm sending them more money.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        𝐼𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑐. 𝐁𝐨𝐥𝐝! Okay, this is still harder than it should be, but it's a start I guess...

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Man-Eating Cow

      Beldar, I'm delighted to see you in the comments here. You've never posted a comment at other sites that was not informed and intelligent, which this non-lawyer greatly appreciates.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

        Thanks Mr. Budge!

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Man-Eating Cow

          You may remember me from way, way back when blogging was still somewhat new. "Trolling in Shallow Waters." Long since defunct.

          Collapse
Load More