Posted on 05/26/2024 5:51:58 PM PDT by Miami Rebel
"We're going to be asking everyone who sells drugs, gets caught selling drugs," former President Donald Trump said in November 2022 as he launched his 2024 presidential campaign, "to receive the death penalty for their heinous acts."
That promise was not an offhand remark; it has been core to Trump's platform. Which made one of his comments yesterday at the Libertarian National Convention all the more interesting. "I will commute the sentence of Ross Ulbricht," he said, referring to the man serving two life sentences plus 40 years for a slew of convictions, including distributing narcotics. Ulbricht's legal troubles stem an online marketplace he founded and operated called the Silk Road, where users could buy and sell illegal substances.
Ulbricht has long been of interest to libertarians, many of whom have been dogged about their belief that his sentence was perversely disproportionate to his actual conduct. Taking Trump's words at face value, it would appear the former president agrees, at the very least, that the nearly 11 years Ulbricht has served are sufficient punishment. That is hard to square with his supposed view that people who sell drugs should be put to death. The inconsistency here may be puzzling, but—as Reason's Jacob Sullum highlighted last year—it isn't new to his remarks on Ulbricht. While in office, Trump famously commuted Alice Marie Johnson's sentence after she was sent to prison for life without parole for her alleged role in a cocaine conspiracy. He widely touted the move (which was the right one) as a sign his saner approach to criminal justice.
Not long after, Trump signed legislation that bolstered that narrative: the FIRST STEP Act, which lessened several mandatory minimum sentences and increased "good time" credits, among other modest provisions. It remains one of the more lasting and effective parts of Trump's legacy, particularly when considering the very low recidivism rates for those released under the law.
Now Trump, it seems, would allegedly pursue policies that would have many of those same beneficiaries killed. That would include not only Johnson but also the bulk of the people who were set free by the FIRST STEP Act, the majority of whom were serving time for drug trafficking offenses. It would almost certainly include Ulbricht, one of the more famous drug offenders on the planet.
Trump also attempted to pull off this balancing act while he was in the White House. "We have to get tough on those people. We can have all the blue ribbon committees we want, but if we don't get tough on the drug dealers, we're wasting our time. And that toughness includes the death penalty," he said—in 2018, the same year he commuted Johnson's sentence and signed the FIRST STEP Act.
It's possible that the former president's drug-warrior rhetoric is another part of the flamboyant performance art that has become one of his defining traits. Whether his Ulbricht promise is yet another element of that, just on the flip side of the coin, remains unclear—although one possibly instructive fact is that Trump had the opportunity for four years to sign such a clemency grant and opted not to.
It would be hard to find a felon more unworthy of special consideration. And it hardly jibes with President Trump's call to execute drug dealers.
That said, aside from the inconsistencies in his policy proclamations, the fact is that Libertarians laughed in his face and made his appearance an exercise in futility.
Libertarians laugh at everyone and everything.
And why was no evidence of this brought out at trial?
You would think that would be the sort of thing you should be able to produce evidence of at trial.
Was he even charged with these crimes?
Huh. Reason Magazine is blasting away at Trump. Go figure.
This speech Trump gave only proves again the vast economic, social and political differences between liberaltrians and conservatives.
But just as Trump courted the homo Log Cabin group, he felt it necessary to venture into this enemy terrority also.
“Who did he pay to do the killing and who did he want killed?
And why was no evidence of this brought out at trial?”
The murder-for-hire was never brought to trial.
Not at all. He earned votes and that's all that matters.
Trump was excellent yesterday. He showed up to a hostile crowd and basically called them losers to their faces. And then he did what he does best. He made deals. Trump makes deals. He wrote a book about making deals.
And, he was hilarious. Classic Trump! The crowd was booing and there's Trump, calling them a bunch of three percenters.
Did he win over the Libertarian Party? Nope. Did he win some of them? Undoubtedly. Trump is playing to win. He understands that a few thousand votes in some critical states might be all that matters.
He was found guilty of building a safe and secure system for private parties to conduct transactions.
And .. . The most heinous of all . . .cutting out the Goobermint.
Read the charges and the sentencing docs.
Don’t add your own fever dreams into them.
So for the votes of a few folks in key states, he commutes the sentence of a drug dealer?
The evidence that Ulbricht had commissioned murders was considered by the judge in sentencing Ulbricht to life and was a factor in the Second Circuit’s decision to uphold the sentence
https://www.wired.com/2017/05/silk-road-creator-ross-ulbricht-loses-life-sentence-appeal/
Why do folks adopt other’s opinions as facts?
“He was found guilty of building a safe and secure system for private parties to conduct transactions.
And .. . The most heinous of all . . .cutting out the Goobermint.
Read the charges and the sentencing docs.”
—————Read the charges and the sentencing docs———————
“Make no mistake: Ulbricht was a drug dealer and criminal profiteer who exploited people’s addictions and contributed to the deaths of at least six young people,” Bharara said at the time. “Ulbricht went from hiding his cybercrime identity to becoming the face of cybercrime and as today’s sentence proves, no one is above the law.”
He was never convicted of contracting murder. Get your facts right.
He got double life + 40 years for several “conspiracy” charges. Sounds a bit harsh for the Eagle Scout and considering ALL the circumstances.
He got more than the Manson Family.
You asked several questions.
My reply gave answers to all.
I think that his appearance in enemy territory, the liveliness of the crowd, the booing and Trump being strong voiced and unfazed all were a very effective demonstration of his being in reality about 20 years younger than Biden.
For the general public it is yet another look at the age contrast of the vigorous alert Trump versus the old man doddering around in short scripted campaign shadows.
“The evidence that Ulbricht had commissioned murders was considered by the judge in sentencing Ulbricht to life and was a factor in the Second Circuit’s decision to uphold the sentence”
Your link offers no support for the above. It discusses his appeal.
“Why do folks adopt other’s opinions as facts?”
You said to read the sentencing details. That is what I posted, in part.
He was not charged for contracting murder and there is speculation he was flexing to build street cred.
Double Life + 40 years, excessive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Web_(film)
https://collider.com/deep-web-documentary-review/
“They note that the deaths of Silk Road customers don’t figure into the life sentence, so much as Ulbricht’s alleged attempts to pay for the murders of a witness, an informant, and three others.”
Why don’t folks read the material before replying?
That’s a good summary of what happened yesterday. I agree with your take. I commented yesterday that Trump didn’t pander to the Libertarians. He made the case that they agree on more than they disagree and that they have more to gain by voting for him than by not voting for him. The once exception to that might have been the Ulbricht pardon. But that’s a small price to pay if it can make the difference between winning a crucial state and losing it, and it’s worth noting that Trump spoke of commuting his sentence, not pardoning him. He said “He’s been in long enough”, which is not the same as saying he wasn’t guilty or should never have been locked up.
Absolute garbage in my opinion. If they have proof of this then prosecute him for it. As far as I can tell he never actually sold drugs, he just opened a commerce channel that people used to buy and sell things that they did not want tracked. Yes, that often was narcotics but he was not selling narcotics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.