The Roger Stone Trial

[RomaVicta 30512]

Why isn't he going straight to prison?

[DigDug 1735]

And why he not go jail right way

Edit: 2 above faster smarter

Edited February 20, 2020 by DigDug

[4th&Five 41911]

because he's rich and white.

[tx 3 putt 78492]

White rich people have a different justice system in the Us 

[Foosters 18242]

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.

[tx 3 putt 78492]

23 minutes ago, 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.

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 

[TwiceHorn 32003]

24 minutes ago, 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.

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

[Foosters 18242]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

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

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.

[TwiceHorn 32003]

6 minutes ago, 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.

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.

[Chooky 13340]

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.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5854]

1 minute ago, 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.

That will tack on another month of probation. 

[TwiceHorn 32003]

3 minutes ago, 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.

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 February 20, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 46994]

Is Roger getting a Trump tramp stamp to go with his Tricky Dick tattoo?

[GW Hayduke 1957]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Is Roger getting a Trump tramp stamp to go with his Tricky Dick tattoo?

That would be awkward for old man Bernie after he takes office and goes deep on all these corrupt actors

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Is Roger getting a Trump tramp stamp to go with his Tricky Dick tattoo?

All I know is that his prison jumpsuit ought to be yellow with large red polka dots if anyone in the penitentiary has a sense of humor.

[Gil Bang 26188]

Heh

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1230536607712894977

 

[Gil Bang 26188]

 

[Francisco 2.0 32545]

Tweets incoming:

 

 

 

[tx 3 putt 78492]

tucker carlson is a huge choad 

[Underdog 29112]

Who willingly chokes down a huge load. 

[jimmyjazz 46994]

44 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

tucker carlson is a huge choad 

That's not a very nice thing to say about huge choads.

[Nivek 17357]

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.

[Cairn Horn88 8500]

2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Tweets incoming:

 

What an asshole.  Really.

 

 

[Cairn Horn88 8500]

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."

[SydneyCarton 49416]

7 hours ago, 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."

And yet she gave him only 40 months?

[B00M 6728]

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.

[Chad Fuck 18101]

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.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

1 hour ago, 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.

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.

[JBJ 3780]

3 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

And yet she gave him only 40 months?

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.

3 hours ago, 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.

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 February 21, 2020 by JBJ

[triplehorn 2664]

2 hours ago, 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.

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.

[JBJ 3780]

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?

[triplehorn 2664]

6 minutes ago, 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?

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).

[TwiceHorn 32003]

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 February 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

46 minutes ago, 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.

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?

[triplehorn 2664]

7 minutes ago, 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?

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.

[JBJ 3780]

26 minutes ago, 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.

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 February 21, 2020 by JBJ

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

8 minutes ago, 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.

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.

[B00M 6728]

39 minutes ago, 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.

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?

 

 

[TwiceHorn 32003]

31 minutes ago, 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?

 

 

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.

[triplehorn 2664]

2 hours ago, 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?

 

 

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.”"

[B00M 6728]

5 minutes ago, 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.”"

"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!

 

[TwiceHorn 32003]

3 hours ago, 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!

 

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.

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

Just to jog our memories. 

 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5169]

1 hour ago, 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.

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.

[TwiceHorn 32003]

24 minutes ago, 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.

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.  

[Francisco 2.0 32545]

The actions of a man who knows absolutely, positively he is going to get pardoned:

 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 32003]

Disagree.  Stupid move, though.

[jimmyjazz 46994]

12 hours ago, 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.  

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'?

[TwiceHorn 32003]

7 minutes ago, 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'?

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

[triplehorn 2664]

55 minutes ago, 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'?

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 February 22, 2020 by triplehorn