Trump commutes sentence of Alice Marie Johnson

[Chomsky]

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.

Perhaps. But then only if all those that got life for less than 3 tons are let out firstly.

My suspicion is Trump is politicizing this after being woo'd by Kardashian.

 

[HowardBThiname]

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

I actually found that when I was looking -- it was a video that Kardashian saw last year that detailed Johnson's circumstances. You can see it here:

https://twitter.com/mic

 

[Atomic Kid]

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

This is what I'm finding:


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


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


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.

Ah! There's the rub! Money laundering! Definitely helps in getting oneself a pardon you with this President if you happened to have been convicted of a crime that our Celebrity in Chief or his family members and close friends are likely to be charged with shortly. Are you watching money launderer Paul Manafort? This one's for you!

 

[faithful_servant]

Perhaps. But then only if all those that got life for less than 3 tons are let out firstly.

My suspicion is Trump is politicizing this after being woo'd by Kardashian.

Just like almost all Pres. pardons, this is political point scoring. Just look at the history of political pardons and it's pretty obvious. Personally, I think that giving the President this kind of power with no oversight is a mistake that desperately needs to be fixed. I'd like to see a board of judges appointed by SCOTUS (1 each) that review the pardons and can deny them.

 

[Superfly]

Certainly one instance in which I believe the Department of Justice under Obama made the correct decision.

I have to agree. While I am not one who thinks all drug offenders should go to jail, this woman was no innocent. She wasn't caught with a little coke in her purse after a party. She was a drug trafficker.

 

[Superfly]

I think the pardon of the money laundering is the key to Trump's MO here. Desensitize the words a bit. Grandma's do it. Friends do it.. and there ya go. Sounds almost good, like washing your sheets and towels, hanging em up to dry in the sun. :roll:

Everyone that he has pardoned (or commuted) thus far are guilty of the same crimes that Manafort, Cohen, et al, are guilty of.

Trump does nothing without an agenda. Nothing.

 

[Chomsky]

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

This is what I'm finding:


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


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


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.

Firstly, I'm not disputing these were her first convictions, nor that she was convicted of using violence. But I am stating she was involved with a great many multiple high-level offenses over a four year period (at least).

My bullet points in my first post was a compendium of multiple sources. I've put out several sources in my replies since then. Part of the problem I suspect many are having, is that her conviction in 1997 was local and before the internet. Now, all we're seeing via Google is predominately her and her celebrity team's PR.

Here's an original snippet of the Tennessean, where the judge found her the leader and references the 2-3 tons:

(Tennessean) Memphis Drug Dealer gets Life in Prison

Here's a Daily Mail article describing the fifteen conspirators, and ten of them fingering her:

(Daily Mail) 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

Here's a Time article attesting to her finding of guilt on eight counts, and her & the ring doing dozens of deliveries over the years:

(Time) President Trump Commutes Woman's Life Sentence After Kim Kardashian Asked Him To

And here's a Heavy.com compendium of sorts:

(Heavy.com) Alice Marie Johnson: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

I think most of my earlier bullet points are represented above. But what we really need, is the complete Tennessean article and even more critically the court transcript.

But my overriding point is this: Given the evidence at the trial, and the findings of the judge & jury, I have not seen any evidence to the contrary to bolster Johnson's claims. Obama and his drug-pardon initiative passing on her petition, give me further doubts concerning her.

 

[Superfly]

You're very welcome.

Yeah. Three tons over four years, does not sound very innocent to me.

Oh hell no.

 

[Chomsky]

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

Apparently she was motivated by a video produced by "Mic", whoever/whatever that is:

It's all happened very quickly. West came across Johnson's story in October through a video filmed by Mic and was compelled to put her influence behind the case.

Source:

(Elle) Kim Kardashian West Is More Than Cosmetics and Selfies, Whether You Like It or Not

 

[Gaius46]

Just like almost all Pres. pardons, this is political point scoring. Just look at the history of political pardons and it's pretty obvious. Personally, I think that giving the President this kind of power with no oversight is a mistake that desperately needs to be fixed. I'd like to see a board of judges appointed by SCOTUS (1 each) that review the pardons and can deny them.

The pardon is essentially an executive branch check on the judiciary. It would stop being that if the judiciary could overrule the President. It's an old power going back probably to the days of the Magna Carta. Aside from the president, most state governors have pardon powers and in those states where the governor doesn't have the power outright it's usually delegated to a board that's appointed by the governor.

 

[Chomsky]

Just like almost all Pres. pardons, this is political point scoring. Just look at the history of political pardons and it's pretty obvious. Personally, I think that giving the President this kind of power with no oversight is a mistake that desperately needs to be fixed. I'd like to see a board of judges appointed by SCOTUS (1 each) that review the pardons and can deny them.

I agree.

Usually pardons come through a defined process in the DOJ. At the least, the DOJ investigates and makes a recommendation. In Trump's case, he bypasses them and acts unilaterally. Since the power to pardon is a unique plenary power of the President's, I'm not even sure Congress can constitutionally reign his pardons in, except through the threat of - or actual - impeachment.

 

[apdst]

From here on out all requests for pardons and commuted sentences should be sent through a reality tv star.

Reality tv stars have the same 1st Amendments rights as the rest of us.

 

[Chomsky]

Oh hell no.

Thing with my original post with the bullet points, is not to necessarily say Johnson should not be commuted. That's a fair discussion to have.

But my research seems to indicate she was guilty of offenses that are quite a bit more heinous, than the simple descriptions of "first offense" and "non-violent" might otherwise lead one to believe.

 

[Gaius46]

I agree.

Usually pardons come through a defined process in the DOJ. At the least, the DOJ investigates and makes a recommendation. In Trump's case, he bypasses them and acts unilaterally. Since the power to pardon is a unique plenary power of the President's, I'm not even sure Congress can constitutionally reign his pardons in, except through the threat of - or actual - impeachment.

In Ex Parte Garland the SC said the President's pardon power is unlimited with regard to the those crimes that he can actually pardon. Judges, Congress, no one can Constitutionally tamper with his power.

The DoJ review is procedural and isn't necessary for the President to exercise the power - I get the impression it's more there to filter requests that are truly unworthy of pardon so they don't waste the President's time. In any case Trump isn't the first President to bypass the DoJ in issuing pardons.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Reality tv stars have the same 1st Amendments rights as the rest of us.

Absolutely they do. But in addition to that they also have the ear of the President.

 

[Gaius46]

Absolutely they do. But in addition to that they also have the ear of the President.

And the eye it would seem.

I was going to make a comment about scanning the oval office with a black light but decided I didn't really want to be crude today.

 

[Chomsky]

In Ex Parte Garland the SC said the President's pardon power is unlimited with regard to the those crimes that he can actually pardon. Judges, Congress, no one can Constitutionally tamper with his power.

The DoJ review is procedural and isn't necessary for the President to exercise the power - I get the impression it's more there to filter requests that are truly unworthy of pardon so they don't waste the President's time. In any case Trump isn't the first President to bypass the DoJ in issuing pardons.

I believe this is accurate.

Trump has the absolute plenary right to pardon, and his only check is Congress' threat - or actual - impeachment. Well, except that he cannot pardon himself in matters of impeachment.

 

[apdst]

Absolutely they do. But in addition to that they also have the ear of the President.

Some people have more access than others. It is what it is.

 

[ajn678]

Its strange to me all the people praising this action. The lady was a massive drug dealer. People are generally weaker when it comes to marijuana but she was dealing and trafficking cocaine around. Cocaine isn't marijuana even if some people in this thread seem to equate it to being less worse than alcohol and marijuana. Trump's recent comments make me believe that he pardoned this lady simply because Kanye's wife went and asked him to and he wanted to seem cool in the community that Kanye appeals to. I don't feel very upset that someone that brought millions of dollars of coke into their neighborhood is punished for their crimes.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Some people have more access than others. It is what it is.

True. The current President is more inclined to listen to such requests coming from a celebrity he likes then if it merely goes through the regular channels.

So while I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, my actual message is true. If you are applying for a pardon or commutation you will increase your odds greatly by getting a celebrity that Trump likes to intervene on your behalf.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Firstly, I'm not disputing these were her first convictions, nor that she was convicted of using violence. But I am stating she was involved with a great many multiple high-level offenses over a four year period (at least).

My bullet points in my first post was a compendium of multiple sources. I've put out several sources in my replies since then. Part of the problem I suspect many are having, is that her conviction in 1997 was local and before the internet. Now, all we're seeing via Google is predominately her and her celebrity team's PR.

Here's an original snippet of the Tennessean, where the judge found her the leader and references the 2-3 tons:

(Tennessean) Memphis Drug Dealer gets Life in Prison

Here's a Daily Mail article describing the fifteen conspirators, and ten of them fingering her:

(Daily Mail) 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

Here's a Time article attesting to her finding of guilt on eight counts, and her & the ring doing dozens of deliveries over the years:

(Time) President Trump Commutes Woman's Life Sentence After Kim Kardashian Asked Him To

And here's a Heavy.com compendium of sorts:

(Heavy.com) Alice Marie Johnson: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

I think most of my earlier bullet points are represented above. But what we really need, is the complete Tennessean article and even more critically the court transcript.

But my overriding point is this: Given the evidence at the trial, and the findings of the judge & jury, I have not seen any evidence to the contrary to bolster Johnson's claims. Obama and his drug-pardon initiative passing on her petition, give me further doubts concerning her.

Thank you for that post and links. It offers a little more explanation into her history, and explains why she might have received such a long sentence for the convictions.

I have to say, however, that I think the War on Drugs has failed America. I think although Reagan was well-intended, that he really didn't foresee the black market that would be created by getting tough on drugs. Without the War on Drugs, there would be cartels and no illegal dealers. As far Johnson, if the stories are to be believed, she moved a lot of cocaine -- not good, but she couldn't do that if there wasn't a market for it.

I'm not going to defend her -- she broke the law - but I think 20 years is a long time to pay for that crime, especially when we have rapists getting out of prison before that. I don't see a problem with commuting her sentence, but I do see a problem in giving anyone more than 20 years in prison, unless they are truly dangerous criminals, like child predators and gangbangers.

Plus, I'd like to see the War on Drugs ended. Look what we did with cigarettes. Just by providing information to the public, we greatly reduced the number of smokers. Look at this:


WE have the power and the ability to influence people in choosing healthier habits. We don't have to pass laws making them illegal.

I think the trend of legalizing marijuana is going to spread, and then perhaps we'll see more open minded views of other drugs. Once drugs are no longer illegal, there will be no money to be made by the Alice Johnsons of the world.

Just my two cents.

 

[apdst]

True. The current President is more inclined to listen to such requests coming from a celebrity he likes then if it merely goes through the regular channels.

So while I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, my actual message is true. If you are applying for a pardon or commutation you will increase your odds greatly by getting a celebrity that Trump likes to intervene on your behalf.

That's true about any president--anyone for that matter.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Its strange to me all the people praising this action. The lady was a massive drug dealer. People are generally weaker when it comes to marijuana but she was dealing and trafficking cocaine around. Cocaine isn't marijuana even if some people in this thread seem to equate it to being less worse than alcohol and marijuana. Trump's recent comments make me believe that he pardoned this lady simply because Kanye's wife went and asked him to and he wanted to seem cool in the community that Kanye appeals to. I don't feel very upset that someone that brought millions of dollars of coke into their neighborhood is punished for their crimes.

I don’t think that most people think she shouldn’t have served time. I just think they believe 21 years is a sufficient punishment for the particular crime and in light of her good behavior during that period and proactive steps she took to improve her life and the lives of others. 21 years isn’t exactly a slap on the wrist.

I agree with on the actual reason Trump chose to do it, though.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

That's true about any president--anyone for that matter.

It might increase the odds of them hearing about it in the first place, but looking back on past pardons and commutations having a celebrity’s endorsement doesn’t seem to affect the odds of it being approved under past presidents. Being a well known case in the public eye might increase the odds, but simply having the support of a particular celebrity doesn’t seem to matter much...in the past.

 

[Chomsky]

Thank you for that post and links. It offers a little more explanation into her history, and explains why she might have received such a long sentence for the convictions.

I have to say, however, that I think the War on Drugs has failed America. I think although Reagan was well-intended, that he really didn't foresee the black market that would be created by getting tough on drugs. Without the War on Drugs, there would be cartels and no illegal dealers. As far Johnson, if the stories are to be believed, she moved a lot of cocaine -- not good, but she couldn't do that if there wasn't a market for it.

I'm not going to defend her -- she broke the law - but I think 20 years is a long time to pay for that crime, especially when we have rapists getting out of prison before that. I don't see a problem with commuting her sentence, but I do see a problem in giving anyone more than 20 years in prison, unless they are truly dangerous criminals, like child predators and gangbangers.

Plus, I'd like to see the War on Drugs ended. Look what we did with cigarettes. Just by providing information to the public, we greatly reduced the number of smokers. Look at this:
View attachment 67233992

WE have the power and the ability to influence people in choosing healthier habits. We don't have to pass laws making them illegal.

I think the trend of legalizing marijuana is going to spread, and then perhaps we'll see more open minded views of other drugs. Once drugs are no longer illegal, there will be no money to be made by the Alice Johnsons of the world.

Just my two cents.

And thanks for your extremely cogent response!

To be quite honest, I too am vehemently against the WoD. My purpose with my earlier bullet points was not to necessarily argue against Johnson being commuted; that's a fair discussion to have. Instead, I wanted to try to bring to light the details of her conviction, because on the surface it made no sense in the context it was widely portrayed in the media and on our board.

But I pretty much agree with your entire post. What Nixon started, Reagan personified, and since then it's gone even more downhill since then. Probably nothing has done more to shred the Constitution in so many ways, than the WoD. It's hideous. It's a war on the Constitution & the American People.

I just don't want to hear how poor innocent little Ms. Johnson got caught-up because she was broke. I've been broke, too.

BTW Howard, are you aware of Portugal's decriminalization policy? And the excellent results they're getting from decriminalization? Wiki or Google if you aren't. It's pretty phenomenal.