If you're going to use a sentencing multiplier for threatening a witness to increase a typically months long sentence to nine (9) years, the person that you are purported to have threatened should testify that they took the threat seriously … or at least they were concerned. That is not the case with Roger Stone. He was convicted for threatening a potential witness with bodily harm … but the person threatened didn't take him seriously … and didn't believe that he had the ability to make good on the threat. The witness testified that "I never felt that Stone himself posed a direct physical threat to me or my dog." (ECF No.273). Additionally, it was not established that Stone's obstructive conduct disadvantaged the prosecutors at trial.
Does that sound familiar? Attempting to convict someone of a crime that the putative victim said didn't actually occur? That isn't "justice." That's "just-us."
BE VERY AFRAID. Unless you're a 'Corruptocrat.'