Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Yeah, there's been a lot of talk from folks on both sides about how draconian the federal justice system is. 

As someone who works in a state's criminal justice system, I find that fucking laughable.

Posted
  On 2/20/2020 at 7:31 PM, Foosters said:

Yeah, there's been a lot of talk from folks on both sides about how draconian the federal justice system is. 

As someone who works in a state's criminal justice system, I find that fucking laughable.

Expand  

To be fair, rich whites are used to doing as they want in this country. So 40 months for choosing to mislead about the truth is a shock to that group 

Posted
  On 2/20/2020 at 7:31 PM, Foosters said:

Yeah, there's been a lot of talk from folks on both sides about how draconian the federal justice system is. 

As someone who works in a state's criminal justice system, I find that fucking laughable.

Expand  

Depends on the state.  Federal is absolutely draconian compared to Texas' for example.  In almost every single respect.

Posted
  On 2/20/2020 at 7:56 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Depends on the state.  Federal is absolutely draconian compared to Texas' for example.  In almost every single respect.

Expand  

Fair enough, I guess. I'm trying to imagine a scenario in my local court in which a defendant goes down at trial on SEVEN felonies and only gets three years and change. Perhaps Texas is different. But never seen it where I practice.

Posted
  On 2/20/2020 at 8:06 PM, Foosters said:

Fair enough, I guess. I'm trying to imagine a scenario in my local court in which a defendant goes down at trial on SEVEN felonies and only gets three years and change. Perhaps Texas is different. But never seen it where I practice.

Expand  

Well, Jackson seems to be fairly lenient within the constraints of federal practice.

And, I suspect that it's rather unlikely that your client would be charged with seven felonies like this in your jurisdiction.

Posted

Stone isn't going to jail right away because they're challenging that a juror was biased, I think.  Hopefully Roger can get ahead of this and threaten the juror with death and the removal of a household pet.  That's the smart play and Roger always plays smart.

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 2/20/2020 at 8:20 PM, Chooky said:

Stone isn't going to jail right away because they're challenging that a juror was biased, I think.  Hopefully Roger can get ahead of this and threaten the juror with death and the removal of a household pet.  That's the smart play and Roger always plays smart.

Expand  

That will tack on another month of probation. 

Posted (edited)
  On 2/20/2020 at 8:20 PM, Chooky said:

Stone isn't going to jail right away because they're challenging that a juror was biased, I think.  Hopefully Roger can get ahead of this and threaten the juror with death and the removal of a household pet.  That's the smart play and Roger always plays smart.

Expand  

In federal prosecutions, unless there is pretrial detention, the defendant is usually permitted to "self report" to a federal prison several weeks later when that assignment is made.

That is one bigger difference between federal and most states, where the defendant is taken into custody after conviction.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Posted
  On 2/20/2020 at 6:04 PM, Chad Fuck said:
This.  He's very aware of public perception among his base.  While we know he could shoot someone and his base wouldn't care, why risk anything that could potentially turn that base?  The base does not care about Stone or Manafort that much.  They care about Trump.  So Trump will only pardon them when it's advantageous for himself to do so.  That's only after the election in November.

There is nothing that could turn his base. Not even Jesus flying in on a unicorn Pegasus could command them.
Posted

Judge Jackson:

"I have received letters urging me not to silence an important voice in the public arena, but that will not be an element of this sentence in any way. I expect he will keep talking. And as you've just heard when I went through the elements of the offense, he was not convicted and is not being sentenced for exercising his First Amendment rights, his support of the President's campaign or his policies. 
"He was not prosecuted, as some have complained, for standing up for the President. He was prosecuted for covering up for the President."
Posted
  On 2/21/2020 at 4:39 AM, Cairn Horn88 said:

Judge Jackson:

"I have received letters urging me not to silence an important voice in the public arena, but that will not be an element of this sentence in any way. I expect he will keep talking. And as you've just heard when I went through the elements of the offense, he was not convicted and is not being sentenced for exercising his First Amendment rights, his support of the President's campaign or his policies. 
"He was not prosecuted, as some have complained, for standing up for the President. He was prosecuted for covering up for the President."
Expand  

And yet she gave him only 40 months?

  • Like 1
Posted

I'm sure it's been covered but it probably deserves repeating. Stone lied to Congress about his connection to Assange. Claiming it was Credico when it was actually Corsi. Then he threatened Credico and his pet godfather-style. He clearly lied and witness tampered. 

But how did this lie cover for Trump? I'm not asking because I'm skeptical. I need the dot connected for me like I'm a child. Shortest simplest answer wins.

Posted
  On 2/21/2020 at 4:25 AM, Nivek said:

There is nothing that could turn his base. Not even Jesus flying in on a unicorn Pegasus could command them.

I agree with you.

But the hallmark of a good con man is knowing how to push right up to the line and not over it. For whatever reason, he thinks a pardon now would be over the line. Perhaps he’s angling for those two or three “undecideds” left in the middle.
Posted
  On 2/21/2020 at 12:24 PM, B00M said:

I'm sure it's been covered but it probably deserves repeating. Stone lied to Congress about his connection to Assange. Claiming it was Credico when it was actually Corsi. Then he threatened Credico and his pet godfather-style. He clearly lied and witness tampered. 

But how did this lie cover for Trump? I'm not asking because I'm skeptical. I need the dot connected for me like I'm a child. Shortest simplest answer wins.

Expand  

I think it is because Stone and Trump shared a phone call wherein WikiLeaks etc was the subject. That is what Rick Gates testified to in court.

Posted (edited)
  On 2/21/2020 at 12:01 PM, SydneyCarton said:

And yet she gave him only 40 months?

Expand  

As much partisan bickering there has been about the judge/juror/DOJ, that's about average for the crimes committed.

Without the witness tampering he probably wouldn't have made it to trial.  His false statement was about the primary source of his wikileaks info.

  On 2/21/2020 at 12:24 PM, B00M said:

But how did this lie cover for Trump? I'm not asking because I'm skeptical. I need the dot connected for me like I'm a child. Shortest simplest answer wins.

Expand  

Shortest answer is that it doesn't. 

It saves some embarassment for Stone. Credico does or at least did at the time have real connections to Assange, but Corsi is just a quack spreading internet rumors.

Stone was pretending to provide some inside knowledge to Trump and Gates about the Wikileaks dumps. He got this info from Corsi who read it on twitter.  At the same time, he was reaching out to Credico to try to get some real information.

Edited by JBJ
Posted
  On 2/21/2020 at 1:36 PM, Mrs Whiggins said:

I think it is because Stone and Trump shared a phone call wherein WikiLeaks etc was the subject. That is what Rick Gates testified to in court.

Expand  

No, Trump and Stone were in communication about Wiki email drops multiple times over a sustained period of time, and others were in the loop for Trump's knowledge including Gates and Manafort.  It was a roll out.  I'm trying to find the court transcript from Judge Jackson who gave a lengthy speech yesterday explaining this.

and what JBJ said above is false.

Posted

I don't like to be wrong. I've dug into this about as much as the next guy, but admittedly not any further.  What is incorrect?

Posted
  On 2/21/2020 at 4:41 PM, JBJ said:

I don't like to be wrong. I've dug into this about as much as the next guy, but admittedly not any further.  What is incorrect?

Expand  

Evidence obtained from several search warrants showed Stone was in direct communication with Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks.  

According to Special Counsel, Stone’s obstruction and false statements “did not arise in a vacuum,” but rather were made in “the course of an investigation into possible links” between Russian hackers, WikiLeaks, and US persons (including Stone himself).

Posted (edited)

Here's what he did:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5694707-Stone-Indictment-012419.html#document/p7

See particularly p. 22 concerning the false statements.

In summary, he lied to Congress about his contact with Wikileaks in order to obstruct the investigation of links between the Trump Campaign and Wikileaks.  He tampered with Credico to avoid discovery of his lies.

Nothing in his convictions bears on the criminality of his contacts with Wikileaks.

The fact that he obstructed on these issues implies that it was, at minimum, embarrassing for the Trump campaign, if not somehow criminal.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Posted
  On 2/21/2020 at 4:24 PM, triplehorn said:

No, Trump and Stone were in communication about Wiki email drops multiple times over a sustained period of time, and others were in the loop for Trump's knowledge including Gates and Manafort.  It was a roll out.  I'm trying to find the court transcript from Judge Jackson who gave a lengthy speech yesterday explaining this.

and what JBJ said above is false.

Expand  

That's the long(er) answer correct? I'm saying "they (Trump and Stone) talked."

Kinda like if my friend and I have a conversation about a murder to commit and then my friend goes and does the deed or has it done for us and we talk and then my friend goes to court and lies that I was involved. Isn't that covering for me short answer style?

Posted
  On 2/21/2020 at 5:13 PM, Mrs Whiggins said:

That's the long(er) answer correct? I'm saying "they (Trump and Stone) talked."

Kinda like if my friend and I have a conversation about a murder to commit and then my friend goes and does the deed or has it done for us and we talk and then my friend goes to court and lies that I was involved. Isn't that covering for me short answer style?

Expand  

Except it wasn’t one conversation in passing.  It was multiple conversations sustained over time, the subject of which was reinforced by at least two others we know of.

Posted (edited)
  On 2/21/2020 at 5:06 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Here's what he did:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5694707-Stone-Indictment-012419.html#document/p7

See particularly p. 22 concerning the false statements.

In summary, he lied to Congress about his contact with Wikileaks in order to obstruct the investigation of links between the Trump Campaign and Wikileaks.  He tampered with Credico to avoid discovery of his lies.

Nothing in his convictions bears on the criminality of his contacts with Wikileaks.

The fact that he obstructed on these issues implies that it was, at minimum, embarrassing for the Trump campaign, if not somehow criminal.

Expand  

Thanks for the link.

Read the background starting on the bottom of page 3.

Organization 1 = Wikileaks.

Person 1 = Corsi.

Person 2 = Credico.

Ranking Trump official = (supposedly) Bannon with the journalist friend being someone at Breitbart.

Senior Trump official = someone else

Corsi and Credico have both reaffirmed this narrative.

Edited by JBJ
Posted
  On 2/21/2020 at 5:23 PM, triplehorn said:

Except it wasn’t one conversation in passing.  It was multiple conversations sustained over time, the subject of which was reinforced by at least two others we know of.

Expand  

Yes, and *he was guilty as hell. So is/was Trump. I'll be surprised if Stone spends any time in the hoosegow, though.

*They.

Posted
  On 2/21/2020 at 5:06 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Here's what he did:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5694707-Stone-Indictment-012419.html#document/p7

See particularly p. 22 concerning the false statements.

In summary, he lied to Congress about his contact with Wikileaks in order to obstruct the investigation of links between the Trump Campaign and Wikileaks.  He tampered with Credico to avoid discovery of his lies.

Nothing in his convictions bears on the criminality of his contacts with Wikileaks.

The fact that he obstructed on these issues implies that it was, at minimum, embarrassing for the Trump campaign, if not somehow criminal.

Expand  

Thank you.

Hard to imagine someone risking jail to save Trump embarrassment since he brings it upon himself daily with zero fucks.

So what's the most likely way that Trump's contact with wikileaks was criminal? Is there an agreed upon theory?

 

 

Posted
  On 2/21/2020 at 5:49 PM, B00M said:

Thank you.

Hard to imagine someone risking jail to save Trump embarrassment since he brings it upon himself daily with zero fucks.

So what's the most likely way that Trump's contact with wikileaks was criminal? Is there an agreed upon theory?

 

 

Expand  

One theory is that it is acceptance of a benefit from a foreign national in connection with an election, which violates campaign finance law, specifically 52 USC 30201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121.

That law is normally enforced by fines levied by the Federal Election Commission, but may also be prosecuted as a crime.

Posted
  On 2/21/2020 at 5:49 PM, B00M said:

Thank you.

Hard to imagine someone risking jail to save Trump embarrassment since he brings it upon himself daily with zero fucks.

So what's the most likely way that Trump's contact with wikileaks was criminal? Is there an agreed upon theory?

 

 

Expand  

For one, it ties directly to evidence that Trump repeatedly lied to the Special Counsel, obvious felonies.

"In written responses to the prosecutors last year, Trump stated, “I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with [Stone], nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign.” Trump also told Mueller: “I do not recall being told during the campaign that Roger Stone or anyone associated with my campaign had discussions with any of the entities named in the question [including WikiLeaks] regarding the content or timing of release of hacked emails.”"

Posted
  On 2/21/2020 at 8:02 PM, triplehorn said:

For one, it ties directly to evidence that Trump repeatedly lied to the Special Counsel, obvious felonies.

"In written responses to the prosecutors last year, Trump stated, “I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with [Stone], nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign.” Trump also told Mueller: “I do not recall being told during the campaign that Roger Stone or anyone associated with my campaign had discussions with any of the entities named in the question [including WikiLeaks] regarding the content or timing of release of hacked emails.”"

Expand  

"I do not recall.." ~30 times in written responses.

Does that successfully cover his ass? What degree of doubt could a jury have to find guilt?

I guess it's moot. 

So in a sentence:

Roger Stone lied to Congress and intimidated a witness in order to cover up Trump's acceptance of benefit from a foreign national (Assange/wikileaks) in the run-up to the 2016 election, and protect him from potential purgery committed during the Mueller investigation. 

Sweet!

 

Posted
  On 2/21/2020 at 8:29 PM, B00M said:

"I do not recall.." ~30 times in written responses.

Does that successfully cover his ass? What degree of doubt could a jury have to find guilt?

I guess it's moot. 

So in a sentence:

Roger Stone lied to Congress and intimidated a witness in order to cover up Trump's acceptance of benefit from a foreign national (Assange/wikileaks) in the run-up to the 2016 election, and protect him from potential purgery committed during the Mueller investigation. 

Sweet!

 

Expand  

Not too many prosecutors want to take someone to trial over "I don't recall" as a perjury charge.  There's almost built-in reasonable doubt with that answer.

The penalty for "I don't recall" answers at trial is generally diminished credibility.   Assuming the fact-finder is sentient.

Posted
  On 2/21/2020 at 11:48 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Not too many prosecutors want to take someone to trial over "I don't recall" as a perjury charge.  There's almost built-in reasonable doubt with that answer.

The penalty for "I don't recall" answers at trial is generally diminished credibility.   Assuming the fact-finder is sentient.

Expand  

I think the difference here is that in those written responses its probably the only time he's ever uttered those words in his life.  We've all seen that his normal response to not recalling is to make something up.  Had his attorneys not written that for him, that's what we would've gotten this time around as well.  I guess the better question is what's the penalty for signing your name to someone else's answers, because we know for certain those aren't his.

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 2/22/2020 at 1:29 AM, NameAlreadyInUse said:

I think the difference here is that in those written responses its probably the only time he's ever uttered those words in his life.  We've all seen that his normal response to not recalling is to make something up.  Had his attorneys not written that for him, that's what we would've gotten this time around as well.  I guess the better question is what's the penalty for signing your name to someone else's answers, because we know for certain those aren't his.

Expand  

Lawyers prepare answers to written questions every day.  Their clients subscribe to them under oath every day.  Unless they can be proven false, nothing happens.

Even when the client is a blabbermouth wordsalad fuck like Trump.  

Posted
  On 2/22/2020 at 1:55 AM, TwiceHorn said:

Lawyers prepare answers to written questions every day.  Their clients subscribe to them under oath every day.  Unless they can be proven false, nothing happens.

Even when the client is a blabbermouth wordsalad fuck like Trump.  

Expand  

What if later the blabbermouth states something to the contrary, indicating memory of the event?  Can that be used against him?  Is it just written off as "his memory was jogged at some point after he submitted written responses'?

Posted
  On 2/22/2020 at 2:41 PM, jimmyjazz said:

What if later the blabbermouth states something to the contrary, indicating memory of the event?  Can that be used against him?  Is it just written off as "his memory was jogged at some point after he submitted written responses'?

Expand  

It would have to be nailed down pretty tight.  Impossibly tight.  

Posted (edited)
  On 2/22/2020 at 2:41 PM, jimmyjazz said:

What if later the blabbermouth states something to the contrary, indicating memory of the event?  Can that be used against him?  Is it just written off as "his memory was jogged at some point after he submitted written responses'?

Expand  

It’d be something to look at Trump’s phone records, wouldn’t it?  Not just to corroborate Gates being present in the limo when Trump talked to Stone about pending Wikileaks email drops for his campaign, but just how many times he spoke with Stone over the course of weeks and months.  That’s when “I can’t recall” is demonstrated to be an obstructive lie and you prosecute - same thing for which Stone is sentenced to 3.5 years of prison.  When it’s clear the lying “does not arise out of a vacuum” and manifests intricately as a function of what is being investigated, it becomes an easy call.

Edited by triplehorn
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...