Trump commutes sentence of Alice Marie Johnson

[holbritter]

While I'm against the war on drugs, a little quick poking around has brought some info that this women may not be the naive & innocent choirgirl she's portraying herself to be. Here's some things I found:

1] She was part of an ongoing coke importation & distribution ring that was monitored for at least 3 years.

2] She was involved in several dozen high-level deals during this time.

3] 15 co-conspirators were indicted

4] She was found to have moved 2000-3000 Kilograms of coke during this period. (Yes, that's 2-3 tons!)

5] She coordinated cash movements of as much as $1.5M at a time.

6] The conspirators' meetings and her directives were given at her house, and at an apartment she rented in her daughter's name.

7] She received Life + 25.

8] Her harsh sentence, mandatory minimums notwithstanding, was due to the excessively large quantities of the deals and total quantity imported.

9] Her co-conspirators named her as the kingpin, along with the prosecutors & judge naming her as well. 10 conspirators testified against her, to that effect

10] She maintains she was only a "communications coordinator", not the actual leader.

Wow! Is it possible the entire group set her up to take a fall? Perhaps. But I don't think I find it that likely. I'd argue even just communicating and coordinating dozens of multi million dollar coke deals over a period of years, importing literally tons of coke, is a pretty serious crime.

Anyway, it is what it is.

I'm also suspicious of Trump's motives here, especially after this recent speech of his

I take back any previous posts expressing sympathy for this person.

 

[PoS]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

:lamo

 

[HowardBThiname]

While I'm against the war on drugs, a little quick poking around has brought some info that this women may not be the naive & innocent choirgirl she's portraying herself to be. Here's some things I found:

1] She was part of an ongoing coke importation & distribution ring that was monitored for at least 3 years.

2] She was involved in several dozen high-level deals during this time.

3] 15 co-conspirators were indicted

4] She was found to have moved 2000-3000 Kilograms of coke during this period. (Yes, that's 2-3 tons!)

5] She coordinated cash movements of as much as $1.5M at a time.

6] The conspirators' meetings and her directives were given at her house, and at an apartment she rented in her daughter's name.

7] She received Life + 25.

8] Her harsh sentence, mandatory minimums notwithstanding, was due to the excessively large quantities of the deals and total quantity imported.

9] Her co-conspirators named her as the kingpin, along with the prosecutors & judge naming her as well. 10 conspirators testified against her, to that effect

10] She maintains she was only a "communications coordinator", not the actual leader.

Wow! Is it possible the entire group set her up to take a fall? Perhaps. But I don't think I find it that likely. I'd argue even just communicating and coordinating dozens of multi million dollar coke deals over a period of years, importing literally tons of coke, is a pretty serious crime.

Anyway, it is what it is.

I'm also suspicious of Trump's motives here, especially after this recent speech of his:

I would say Trump's motives might have centered on being asked by a pretty face -- but, as far as the other allegations -- she wasn't convicted on any of those so I can't justify condemning her for them now. Allegations exist everywhere, but if they aren't proved in a court of law, they don't really hold sway, in my opinion. It's like the current rash of MeToo accusations, they may or they may not have actually happened, but until proven in a court of law, we accept that the accused is innocent of those charges. Or, we should.

I'm not sure why this Kardashian person was so insistent on freeing this specific woman, but, unless she's family, I'm guessing that she feels the woman was not treated fairly under the law.

We know there are hanging judges out there, and we also know that black people have run into more than their fair share.

I say let the woman go.

 

[Crosscheck]

I would say Trump's motives might have centered on being asked by a pretty face -- but, as far as the other allegations -- she wasn't convicted on any of those so I can't justify condemning her for them now. Allegations exist everywhere, but if they aren't proved in a court of law, they don't really hold sway, in my opinion. It's like the current rash of MeToo accusations, they may or they may not have actually happened, but until proven in a court of law, we accept that the accused is innocent of those charges. Or, we should.

I'm not sure why this Kardashian person was so insistent on freeing this specific woman, but, unless she's family, I'm guessing that she feels the woman was not treated fairly under the law.

We know there are hanging judges out there, and we also know that black people have run into more than their fair share.

I say let the woman go.

I don't think she was the little grandmother pulled over and found to have a marijuana cigarette in her purse. Appears she may have been doing major dealing. But she has served longer than some have served for being drunk driver and killing someone.

I have no idea why Kim Kardashian was given a private audience with the president in the first place.

 

[HowardBThiname]

I don't think she was the little grandmother pulled over and found to have a marijuana cigarette in her purse. Appears she may have been doing major dealing. But she has served longer than some have served for being drunk driver and killing someone.

If she did the crime then certainly she deserved a tough sentence, but I can't figure out how she got Life+25 for what they convicted her on. And, yes, she still has served longer than DUI killers. I'm just not prepared to judge her for allegations that were never proved.

I have no idea why Kim Kardashian was given a private audience with the president in the first place.

View attachment 67233980

I think you nailed it there!!!

 

[Hypothetical]

Yes, I most certainly am. I wish we could prohibit the production, distribution, possession and consumption of alcohol. Knowing what we now know about alcohol and the toll it has taken on our society, who could possibly argue that alcohol consumption overall is somehow a good thing? If I could somehow go back in time and stop recreational alcohol use from being introduced into our society, I would do it in a heartbeat. I would miss cooking wine and vermouth, but I think that the millions of people who would have been spared being killed or crippled for life due to drunk driving, the beaten spouses and children, and cirrhotic derelicts would probably thank me for it.

to add the other side of the debate, I have to disagree with this. To me the whole point to being "free" is to not have to live in a police state where your every personal action can be judged or monitored. You cannot possibly spare everyone from danger or making mistakes without policing them in an extreme, dystopian fashion. That cure is more painful than the disease.

 

[Sweden]

Article Here.



Every now and then, something good comes out of the Trump Administration. I dislike Donald Trump very much, but I will applaud him for doing this. But, I don't think he should stop here. Ms. Johnson was able to get out in large part because of Kim Kardashian's influence. Not everyone that's in jail for non-violent offenses has that kind of advantage. But anyways, good on Trump and good outcome.

Of course you are free to dislike Mr Trump. But at the same time you might recognize him as being the champion of of the common man and woman. He is detested by the US political, financial, media, legal and academic elites. The American Establishment has used every trick and subterfuge in an unrelenting attempt to blacken his name; I find it sad and upsetting that so many ordinary Americans have become the unwitting dupes of the Clintons and their ilk, arrogant, grasping and with a truly astounding sense of entitlement.

Were I a US citizen I would have voted against Clinton and all the rest of the high and mighty; next time I would vote for Trump, who tells it like it is and keeps his promises.

 

[cabse5]

I suspect the female and attractive part helped as well.

You mean Johnson or Kardashian?

Was it a private conference Trump had with Kardashian?

 

[cabse5]

IMO, if N.Korea sends in a 'beautiful' negotiator in the denuclearization talks with the US, will the US cave?

 

[tres borrachos]

She imported between 2-3 tons over at least 4 years.

Check out my post #25 above, where I bullet-point what a little quick research brought up.

Wait. Seriously? 2-3 tons of cocaine?

This wasn't some inconsequential moron who was found with a small bad and a $100 bill.

If what you posted is true, then IMO this was not a good pardon. There are many people more worthy than she is/was.

 

[Ikari]

Wait. Seriously? 2-3 tons of cocaine?

This wasn't some inconsequential moron who was found with a small bad and a $100 bill.

If what you posted is true, then IMO this was not a good pardon. There are many people more worthy than she is/was.

She got "caught up" in a drug ring. It's all good so long as you have a Reality-TV star willing to talk to our Reality-TV President on your behalf.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

There I must respectfully disagree. I do not think we can say "prohibition has never worked" because I don't think prohibition was ever properly tried in the United States. Prohibition in the United States throughout the 1920s to the early 1930s punished the production and distribution of alcohol; not its possession and consumption.

And? It still produced the results I mentioned and likely would have been far worse had your suggestion been implemented.

Likewise, very few people in the United States are tried and convicted simply for possession or use of illegal drugs. They are punished for distribution of illegal drugs. Thus, the law only punishes supply; not demand. As long as there is a demand for illegal drugs, there will be someone willing to take the risk to supply it. Therefore, for a prohibition to actually be of any effectiveness, the suppliers of illegal drugs must be caught and punished, but so must people who demand the drugs.

Absolutely untrue. Our current laws punish demand and there are many people doing hard time for mere use/possession.

Japan and South Korea have very low incidences of illegal drug use compared to the rest of the developed world, and incidentally, much lower crime rates.

Correlation does not imply causation, and still have very violent criminal orgranization involved in contraband. That, and their culturees are radically different from ours.

That is because you are not just punished for selling drugs; you are punished if you are caught in possession of drugs for personal use. You are also punished if you are found to be addicted to illegal drugs. Because of that fear of punishment, most people who might otherwise be tempted to use drugs recreationally shy away from it.

"Might" doesn't fly. I'm going on proven history, not groundless speculation.

To draw what I believe is another salient comparison, we do not simply punish people producing and selling child pornography; we punish the people buying and consuming child pornography. As a result, while there will always be disgusting pedophiles who seek out such prurient material, the incidence is relatively low because it is so brutally punished at both ends of the exchange. If we treated the production, distribution and consumption of illegal drugs with the same level of harshness that we do for the production, distribution and consumption child pornography, I do not think we would have nearly as bad a drug problem as we do now.

That is just my thought on the matter.

Drugs and child pornography are not even remotely comparable. Drug users are not even remotely comparalbe to pedophiles.

 

[faithful_servant]

While I'm against the war on drugs, a little quick poking around has brought some info that this women may not be the naive & innocent choirgirl she's portraying herself to be. Here's some things I found:

1] She was part of an ongoing coke importation & distribution ring that was monitored for at least 3 years.

2] She was involved in several dozen high-level deals during this time.

3] 15 co-conspirators were indicted

4] She was found to have moved 2000-3000 Kilograms of coke during this period. (Yes, that's 2-3 tons!)

5] She coordinated cash movements of as much as $1.5M at a time.

6] The conspirators' meetings and her directives were given at her house, and at an apartment she rented in her daughter's name.

7] She received Life + 25.

8] Her harsh sentence, mandatory minimums notwithstanding, was due to the excessively large quantities of the deals and total quantity imported.

9] Her co-conspirators named her as the kingpin, along with the prosecutors & judge naming her as well. 10 conspirators testified against her, to that effect

10] She maintains she was only a "communications coordinator", not the actual leader.

Wow! Is it possible the entire group set her up to take a fall? Perhaps. But I don't think I find it that likely. I'd argue even just communicating and coordinating dozens of multi million dollar coke deals over a period of years, importing literally tons of coke, is a pretty serious crime.

Anyway, it is what it is.

I'm also suspicious of Trump's motives here, especially after this recent speech of his:

Definitely a very bad apple, but not deserving of life in prison. After over 20 years, I think that as a society, we can take a chance on her.

 

[Chomsky]

I take back any previous posts expressing sympathy for this person.

No biggie at all, Holbritter.

I'm just blown away how the details from the court proceedings seem to be missing in the media. And regardless of whatever our personal feelings on drug prohibition, I think it's safe to say her actions of bringing-in literal tons of coke likely indeed caused at least some death & violence, beside ruining lives and destroying families.

 

[Chomsky]

Wait. Seriously? 2-3 tons of cocaine?

This wasn't some inconsequential moron who was found with a small bad and a $100 bill.

If what you posted is true, then IMO this was not a good pardon. There are many people more worthy than she is/was.

Yep, carried in reputable sources like CBS, NPR, in local media, and also a matter of court record and the Judge's finding.

During the trial, evidence showed an operation with Texas-based Colombian drug dealers and their Memphis connections trading tons of cocaine for millions of dollars in cash.

At the time of Johnson's February 1997 sentencing the amount of drugs and money involved meant that federal laws mandated a life sentence, despite the fact Johnson was a first-time, nonviolent offender.

US District Judge Julia Gibbons, who sentenced Johnson, called the then 42-year-old the 'quintessential entrepreneur' of the drug ring.

'And clearly the impact of 2,000 to 3,000 kilograms of cocaine in this community is very significant,' Gibbons said at the sentencing.

The quantity of cocaine - up to three tons - would now be worth about $85 million.

Source: (Daily Mail UK) Kim Kardashian 'will meet the grandmother she helped free this week' as she has emotional family reunion after her sentence was commuted by President Trump

 

[tres borrachos]

Yep, carried in reputable sources like CBS, NPR, in local media, and also a matter of court record and the Judge's finding.



Source: (Daily Mail UK) Kim Kardashian 'will meet the grandmother she helped free this week' as she has emotional family reunion after her sentence was commuted by President Trump

Okay, thanks for the link, Chom. The more I read, the more confused I am. This wasn't an inconsequential drug runner. Why exactly did he pardon her?

 

[Atomic Kid]

Definitely a very bad apple, but not deserving of life in prison. After over 20 years, I think that as a society, we can take a chance on her.

There are many others that are serving very long and sometimes even life sentences for non-violent drug convictions whose transgressions were FAR less serious than the crimes this woman had committed. They just don't happen to know anyone who is rich and famous.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Article Here.



Every now and then, something good comes out of the Trump Administration. I dislike Donald Trump very much, but I will applaud him for doing this. But, I don't think he should stop here. Ms. Johnson was able to get out in large part because of Kim Kardashian's influence. Not everyone that's in jail for non-violent offenses has that kind of advantage. But anyways, good on Trump and good outcome.

Welcome to America's newest reality TV game show. Celebrity Pardons.

 

[Chomsky]

I would say Trump's motives might have centered on being asked by a pretty face --

"In part", I agree. Along with the celibrity draw, here.

but, as far as the other allegations -- she wasn't convicted on any of those so I can't justify condemning her for them now. Allegations exist everywhere, but if they aren't proved in a court of law, they don't really hold sway, in my opinion. It's like the current rash of MeToo accusations, they may or they may not have actually happened, but until proven in a court of law, we accept that the accused is innocent of those charges. Or, we should.

I'm not sure why this Kardashian person was so insistent on freeing this specific woman, but, unless she's family, I'm guessing that she feels the woman was not treated fairly under the law.

We know there are hanging judges out there, and we also know that black people have run into more than their fair share.

I say let the woman go.

Yes she was indeed convicted of drug charges. She was convicted of 8 charges total. All by jury. The fact that she never touched the stuff herself, is immaterial. Few high-level dealers do handle the stuff personally, and consequently they are convicted of "conspiracy to possess" as she was. This is not uncommon.

Unless that is, you believe her claim that she was a "communication coordinator". But the judge says otherwise, 10 of the other 14 co-conspirators testified against her to that effect, and the jury didn't believe her either.

IMO even if there were some doubts as to whether she was the kingpin, I haven't seen enough evidence possibly proving otherwise that would warrant overturning the justice system. Neither did Obama see evidence to the contrary when her petition crossed his desk, even though he was specifically pardoning - en masse - those with non-violent drug convictions! Obama pardoned 330 drug offenders in one day, as well as 1700 pardons in total, but rejected hers. I suspect he rejected her for good reason.

 

[Chomsky]

Okay, thanks for the link, Chom. The more I read, the more confused I am. This wasn't an inconsequential drug runner. Why exactly did he pardon her?

A young pretty skirt, celebrity renown, PR, and political motivation?

 

[Gaius46]

Trump stumped some time ago on prison reform, and Jared Kushner is working on that as his project.

If you have ever hired people in California it's amazing how many people have drug and drug related felonies. We have to find a way to get it off their backs so they can get decent jobs and join the world again.

Seattle, where marijuana has been legal since 2012, is in the process of vacating all misdemeanor marijuana convictions from 1997 to 2010. Those people all get a clean slate.

 

[Chomsky]

I still think that's too long of a sentence. 'Desperate for money' doesn't cut it, imo, and instantly turns my sympathy off. It was a factor of her personal decision, and it was her personal decision to become involved in a drug trafficking organization.

I agree 100%! It's a huge turnoff for me, as well.

Many of us have been broke, or had economic travails. Few of us turn to drug-dealing, prostitution, B & E's, hold-ups, car theft, or other sundry criminal or sordid activities. Instead we work harder and hustle harder, and do without until we have better times.

 

[Chomsky]

I don't think she was the little grandmother pulled over and found to have a marijuana cigarette in her purse. Appears she may have been doing major dealing. But she has served longer than some have served for being drunk driver and killing someone.

I have no idea why Kim Kardashian was given a private audience with the president in the first place.

View attachment 67233980

Well played!

 

[Atomic Kid]

"In part", I agree. Along with the celibrity draw, here.

Yes she was indeed convicted of drug charges. She was convicted of 8 charges total. All by jury. The fact that she never touched the stuff herself, is immaterial. Few high-level dealers do handle the stuff personally, and consequently they are convicted of "conspiracy to possess" as she was. This is not uncommon.

Unless that is, you believe her claim that she was a "communication coordinator". But the judge says otherwise, 10 of the other 14 co-conspirators testified against her to that effect, and the jury didn't believe her either.

IMO even if there were some doubts as to whether she was the kingpin, I haven't seen enough evidence possibly proving otherwise that would warrant overturning the justice system. Neither did Obama see evidence to the contrary when her petition crossed his desk, even though he was specifically pardoning - en masse - those with non-violent drug convictions! Obama pardoned 330 drug offenders in one day, as well as 1700 pardons in total, but rejected hers. I suspect he rejected her for good reason.

Do you happen to know of or have any information as to how and when Kim Kardashian became friendly with this woman?

 

[HowardBThiname]

"In part", I agree. Along with the celibrity draw, here.

Yes she was indeed convicted of drug charges. She was convicted of 8 charges total. All by jury. The fact that she never touched the stuff herself, is immaterial. Few high-level dealers do handle the stuff personally, and consequently they are convicted of "conspiracy to possess" as she was. This is not uncommon.

Unless that is, you believe her claim that she was a "communication coordinator". But the judge says otherwise, 10 of the other 14 co-conspirators testified against her to that effect, and the jury didn't believe her either.

IMO even if there were some doubts as to whether she was the kingpin, I haven't seen enough evidence possibly proving otherwise that would warrant overturning the justice system. Neither did Obama see evidence to the contrary when her petition crossed his desk, even though he was specifically pardoning - en masse - those with non-violent drug convictions! Obama pardoned 330 drug offenders in one day, as well as 1700 pardons in total, but rejected hers. I suspect he rejected her for good reason.

I have to be honest -- I'm not finding that.

This is what I'm finding:

Johnson has already served 21 years of a life sentence after she was convicted on charges of conspiracy to possess cocaine and attempted possession of cocaine, according to the nonprofit Can-Do, which advocates for clemency for non-violent drug offenders.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/06/politics/alice-marie-johnson-commuted-sentence/index.html

Johnson, 63, was convicted in Tennessee in 1996 and sentenced to life in prison on federal drug and money-laundering charges.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which had also provided legal support to Johnson, praised Trump as well.

The organization, a frequent critic of the president, said on Twitter that “overly harsh sentences hurt families and are not justice.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...4e693b38637_story.html?utm_term=.f22068103ce6

The arguments advanced on Ms. Johnson’s behalf were essentially the same that were made for thousands of other nonviolent drug convicts whose petitions for presidential clemency have been languishing at the Justice Department without action. While Mr. Obama pardoned 212 people and commuted the sentences of 1,715 prisoners, including 568 serving life sentences, Mr. Trump has acted mainly on a few high-profile cases brought to him by associates and allies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/06/...on-sentence-commuted-kim-kardashian-west.html

I'm not really seeing what you're putting out there. I'm hearing that it was a first-offense for her and a non-violent offense. On the post where you listed her infractions, you didn't offer a link. Since I can't find them -- I'd really like the link so I can look it over.