Normal sentencing guidelines were 50 months or so more lenient but this case shouldn't fall under normal sentencing guidelines. Stone was actively breaking the law and failing to follow the judge's legal orders during the trial. There is nothing normal about that.
Judicial contempt is something totally different, that doesn’t necessarily factor into sentencing guidelines. There are other remedies for that.
Was Stone even held in contempt or charged with new crimes? He’s a first-time, non-violent offender. His sentencing range should be at the low to mid-range of guidelines, not the upper end.
I get the “screw Trump” mentality, but it’s important that even the lowest criminals be treated consistently and fairly. Otherwise, we allow prosecutors with a grudge or a bias to seek out disproportionate justice related to certain people.
We had the same argument over the FBI cutting corners and lying on warrant applications. We can’t overlook civil rights abuses just because they happen to people we dislike.
And the most frustrating part to me is that there’s really very little discussion in the MSM of whether the original sentencing recommendation was fair or justified. Instead, the media pushes a biased narrative with no regard for actual justice. I’m an attorney who is quite familiar with much of this, and I found it hard to find the actual truth of it. What hope does the average viewer / reader have?