Roger Stone trial set to begin (Update: Stone found guilty on all 7 counts)(Update: Trump commutes sentence) (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    superchuck500

    U.S. Blues
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages
    4,722
    Reaction score
    11,960
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Offline
    Jury selection will begin Tuesday morning. Note that Steve Bannon intends to testify for the prosecution.

    Roger Stone will go on trial starting Nov. 5 in Washington, the federal judge presiding over the high-profile case said Thursday.

    U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson set out a calendar for a two-week trial that will pit the longtime Trump associate against special counsel Robert Mueller on charges Stone lied to Congress and obstructed lawmakers’ Russia investigations.

    Stone entered the D.C. courthouse for Thursday’s status hearing uncertain whether he’d face any penalties — including jail — for violating the terms of a gag order restricting his ability to talk about any aspect of the case.

    But Stone was spared any punishment after Jackson opened the proceedings saying she didn’t “intend to dwell” on the dispute, which centers on discrepancies over whether Stone mislead the court about plans to rerelease a recent book with a new introduction bashing Mueller’s investigation.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/14/roger-stone-trial-1221289


    https://www.law.com/nationallawjour...n-roger-stones-trial/?slreturn=20190931143946
     
    Thank you for your patience. I've been doing an edit and rewrite on a technical manual that's three years out of date. Tedious.
    I was working on my 3rd novel and finishing my re-read of War and Peace. No one cares what you say you were doing.
    Your original post was 1,114 words of unattributed narrative, which you have now confirmed was cobbled together from at least 15 Internet sources, some of which was original documentation. This is essentially background information that anybody can look up on their own.

    I'll remember to use this excuse the next time someone posts something that I can't refute or don't want to discuss. Very original and creative. I've never seen anyone use it.

    Only the 126 words (10% of the content) in the first and last paragraph appear to have been your own original thoughts, ideas and opinion, so that's what I'll address.

    Your response this time was 276 words in total. However, 135 words (48.91% of the content) was a mere BS filler attempt to discredit the Ops post. You then resort to the "but we did to other countries" defense with the first link and follow that up by using a sliver of information from the second link as the basis for your entire BS diatribe how russian interference has been going on since the 50's and everyone knew it. That's not at all what it said and you fail to mention that in those 60+ years, the trump campaign was the first and only one to ask for and accept russian help. Here's a direct quote from that link:

    When, during his election campaign, Donald Trump publicly called for Russia to hack into Hilary Clinton’s emails, he became the first presidential candidate in American history to invite a foreign intelligence operation on a rival candidate.

    Stone's an over-the-top jerk. Agreed. His behavior drew attention and he's paid a price for it. Was it criminal? The courts have spoken and now a flag has been thrown and the play is under review.

    You ask the question "was it criminal?" Yes, it was. Full stop. Stone has been found guilty. And now an attempt to interfere with the law has happened. The DOJ has been corrupted. There's no review. Stone is still guilty and if justice is served, Judge Jackson will sentence his guilty arse to 9 years in prison despite the obvious attempt at interference from both Barr and trump.

    Thank you DD for providing the links necessary for me to sift through the other 51.09% of your BS post. It proved to be invaluable.
     
    I was working on my 3rd novel and finishing my re-read of War and Peace. No one cares what you say you were doing.
    This is a no smack talk area.
    Please take your smack talk to the designated board where I may respond more freely.
     
    Last edited:
    Work? All that writing, including dates and an entire paragraph of direct quoting and no links or attributions? I don't think so.
    Great. Links and attribution to the sites you copied, pasted and compiled that manifesto from?
    Post your sources, then. If you took the time to cobble together all this information, just share where you got it from. Otherwise, you're passing all this off as totally original. Obviously, the .pdf isn't.

    You want people to consume all information for whatever reason, but you won't name the sources?

    I don't eat Chinese crawfish and I don't read political diatribe from Lord-knows-where.

    Your original post was 1,114 words of unattributed narrative, which you have now confirmed was cobbled together from at least 15 Internet sources, some of which was original documentation. This is essentially background information that anybody can look up on their own.

    Only the 126 words (10% of the content) in the first and last paragraph appear to have been your own original thoughts, ideas and opinion
    , so that's what I'll address.

    Thank you for taking the time to separate the Internet-sourced background information (90% of your post) from your actual personal thoughts and ideas (10% of your post).

    Doing so allowed me to correctly address your post, your concerns, your ideas.
    It's self-evident from the post what I stated as fact vs. what I stated as my opinions. As the first line of the post literally stated, it was simply an effort to provide context for what was happening with Roger Stone. TV and internet media tend to only provide bits and pieces of the Trump-Russia story, such that people who don't follow closely have a hard time understanding the context of what's happening at a given moment.

    I follow the Trump-Russia (and Middle East - but that's for another day) story very closely, and although I don't practice criminal law, the fact that I have a legal background does help me better understand some legal issues like the implications of the Stone conviction and subsequent sentencing memo. Given that background, I thought it would be useful to boil down some of the most pertinent facts into a post to help people who don't follow as closely see the context of what was happening with Trump and the sentencing recommendations. Lots of people seemed to find it useful. You were, in fact, the only person that complained about it (SaintForLife has argued some of the substance -- in good faith, I might add).

    You knew that most of my information was being asserted as factual; that's why you demanded links and attributions and said you weren't interested in someone's political diatribe. You falsely accused me of copying and pasting it, and now that you've been proven wrong, you're trying to subtly vindicate yourself and further discredit me by pointing out that only a small percentage of it was my opinion. It was obviously not my opinion. Do you really think people are going to see your post and say, "wow, Dadsdream was right, this really wasn't TaylorB's original content." Do you think you'll convince people that I was acting like I had some intellectual property or creative rights over my statement that Stone and Manafort used to work together, or my recap of what Stone was convicted of? Those are obviously facts, and there would be no way for me to state those facts without either copying and pasting them from a website, which you've apparently outlawed, or stating them plainly, as I did. Now that I went back and gave you a link to every single one of them, you're acting like everyone knows all those background facts -- if you knew them, why didn't you just say so instead of discrediting the whole post as lacking proper sources?

    All I was doing was trying to connect a lot of complicated facts to help frame the story. If someone else on the internet -- whether major media, a blogger, or a poster -- had done that effectively, I'd have simply posted a link to that instead of spending the time putting it together. I truly don't care if people give me credit for what I write. What I want to do is help arm people with information against the gaslighting from Trump defenders about the so-called "3 year Trump Russia hoax." The story is very complicated, and the constant gaslighting from Trump defenders is designed to exhaust people who don't follow closely enough to push back. I am admittedly exhausted by your constant attempts to derail me from substantive discussions, but I truly care about what's happening right now, and I think it's important to call out your tactics for what they are, then to move on and fight back on the other gaslighting with facts.

    I never asked you for an apology for falsely accusing me of plagiarizing other people's work. All I asked you for was a good faith response. Instead, you just kept gaslighting in a transparent attempt to vindicate yourself and further discredit me. You tried to throw in a brief acknowledgement to my opinions to make your response look like something other than what it was, but I've seen enough to know I do not owe the benefit of any doubt as to what you're really doing. If I don't respond to you in the future, please know it's not because I'm unable to counter your arguments, but because I've moved on to engage in other discussions that might actually benefit people.
     
    Last edited:
    It's self-evident from the post what I stated as fact vs. what I stated as my opinions. As the first line of the post literally stated, it was simply an effort to provide context for what was happening with Roger Stone. TV and internet media tend to only provide bits and pieces of the Trump-Russia story, such that people who don't follow closely have a hard time understanding the context of what's happening at a given moment.

    I follow the Trump-Russia (and Middle East - but that's for another day) story very closely, and although I don't practice criminal law, the fact that I have a legal background does help me better understand some legal issues like the implications of the Stone conviction and subsequent sentencing memo. Given that background, I thought it would be useful to boil down some of the most pertinent facts into a post to help people who don't follow as closely see the context of what was happening with Trump and the sentencing recommendations. Lots of people seemed to find it useful. You were, in fact, the only person that complained about it (SaintForLife has argued some of the substance -- in good faith, I might add).

    You knew that most of my information was being asserted as factual; that's why you demanded links and attributions and said you weren't interested in someone's political diatribe. You falsely accused me of copying and pasting it, and now that you've been proven wrong, you're trying to subtly vindicate yourself and further discredit me by pointing out that only a small percentage of it was my opinion. It was obviously not my opinion. Do you really think people are going to see your post and say, "wow, Dadsdream was right, this really wasn't TaylorB's original content." Do you think you'll convince people that I was acting like I had some intellectual property or creative rights over my statement that Stone and Manafort used to work together, or my recap of what Stone was convicted of? Those are obviously facts, and there would be no way for me to state those facts without either copying and pasting them from a website, which you've apparently outlawed, or stating them plainly, as I did. Now that I went back and gave you a link to every single one of them, you're acting like everyone knows all those background facts -- if you knew them, why didn't you just say so instead of discrediting the whole post as lacking proper sources?

    All I was doing was trying to connect a lot of complicated facts to help frame the story. If someone else on the internet -- whether major media, a blogger, or a poster -- had done that effectively, I'd have simply posted a link to that instead of spending the time putting it together. I truly don't care if people give me credit for what I write. What I want to do is help arm people with information against the gaslighting from Trump defenders about the so-called "3 year Trump Russia hoax." The story is very complicated, and the constant gaslighting from Trump defenders is designed to exhaust people who don't follow closely enough to push back. I am admittedly exhausted by your constant attempts to derail me from substantive discussions, but I truly care about what's happening right now, and I think it's important to call out your behavior for what it is, then to move on and fight back on the other gaslighting with facts.

    I never asked you for an apology for falsely accusing me of plagiarizing other people's work. All I asked you for was a good faith response. Instead, you just kept gaslighting in a transparent attempt to vindicate yourself and further discredit me. You tried to throw in a brief acknowledgement to my opinions to make your response look like something other than what it was, but I've seen enough to know I do not owe the benefit of any doubt as to what you're really doing. If I don't respond to you in the future, please know it's not because I'm unable to counter your arguments, but because I've moved on to engage in other discussions that might actually benefit people.

    The fun thing is that the exhaustion runs both ways. A Trump supporter can spend all day coming up with a lengthy piece of gaslighting and all I'll do is respond with a .gif of Trump making fun of Serge Kovaleski.
     
    President Trump on Thursday suggested that the forewoman of the federal jury that heard the case against his friend Roger Stone had “significant bias,” his latest intervention ahead of Stone’s scheduled sentencing next week.

    “Now it looks like the fore person in the jury, in the Roger Stone case, had significant bias,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Add that to everything else, and this is not looking good for the ‘Justice’ Department.”........

     
    ......But perhaps most surprising was Trump’s decision to target U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson — who will determine Stone’s fate when he appears in her courtroom next Thursday.

    It was not the first time Trump had gone after a federal judge or questioned the judiciary, but Tuesday’s attack was nevertheless vexing to current and former judges as Jackson prepares to decide whether to send the president’s friend to prison — and for how long.

    “The timing is outrageous, and the notion that you’re attempting to influence a judge,” retired federal judge Nancy Gertner said.

    “He’s trying to delegitimize anyone appointed by someone other than him and say that the only people who can be trusted are Trump judges,” she said.............

     
    President Trump on Thursday suggested that the forewoman of the federal jury that heard the case against his friend Roger Stone had “significant bias,” his latest intervention ahead of Stone’s scheduled sentencing next week.

    “Now it looks like the fore person in the jury, in the Roger Stone case, had significant bias,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Add that to everything else, and this is not looking good for the ‘Justice’ Department.”........

    I am not sure how the Judge allowed that one juror to remain on the case if the reporting is true.
    Seems like an issue that will be appealed and I would think has a very good chance of overturning the verdict.

    I am not sure if that is the same juror that was an attorney at the IRS or not. If not, then that is another issue. As are the reports about the jury foreman and the bias exhibited on social media.
     
    Didn't Stone's attorneys participate in voir dire too? They didn't seem to think the foreperson was unfit to sit on the jury then, but now that Trump wants his pal to get off "Scott Free"...okay then.
     
    Didn't Stone's attorneys participate in voir dire too? They didn't seem to think the foreperson was unfit to sit on the jury then, but now that Trump wants his pal to get off "Scott Free"...okay then.
    My understanding is that the issue woth respect to one of the jurors was raised during jury selection but the judge allowed the juror.

    I could be wrong though - I only saw that from one source and don't remember who it was.
     
    It's self-evident from the post what I stated as fact vs. what I stated as my opinions. As the first line of the post literally stated, it was simply an effort to provide context for what was happening with Roger Stone. TV and internet media tend to only provide bits and pieces of the Trump-Russia story, such that people who don't follow closely have a hard time understanding the context of what's happening at a given moment.

    I follow the Trump-Russia (and Middle East - but that's for another day) story very closely, and although I don't practice criminal law, the fact that I have a legal background does help me better understand some legal issues like the implications of the Stone conviction and subsequent sentencing memo. Given that background, I thought it would be useful to boil down some of the most pertinent facts into a post to help people who don't follow as closely see the context of what was happening with Trump and the sentencing recommendations. Lots of people seemed to find it useful. You were, in fact, the only person that complained about it (SaintForLife has argued some of the substance -- in good faith, I might add).

    You knew that most of my information was being asserted as factual; that's why you demanded links and attributions and said you weren't interested in someone's political diatribe. You falsely accused me of copying and pasting it, and now that you've been proven wrong, you're trying to subtly vindicate yourself and further discredit me by pointing out that only a small percentage of it was my opinion. It was obviously not my opinion. Do you really think people are going to see your post and say, "wow, Dadsdream was right, this really wasn't TaylorB's original content." Do you think you'll convince people that I was acting like I had some intellectual property or creative rights over my statement that Stone and Manafort used to work together, or my recap of what Stone was convicted of? Those are obviously facts, and there would be no way for me to state those facts without either copying and pasting them from a website, which you've apparently outlawed, or stating them plainly, as I did. Now that I went back and gave you a link to every single one of them, you're acting like everyone knows all those background facts -- if you knew them, why didn't you just say so instead of discrediting the whole post as lacking proper sources?

    All I was doing was trying to connect a lot of complicated facts to help frame the story. If someone else on the internet -- whether major media, a blogger, or a poster -- had done that effectively, I'd have simply posted a link to that instead of spending the time putting it together. I truly don't care if people give me credit for what I write. What I want to do is help arm people with information against the gaslighting from Trump defenders about the so-called "3 year Trump Russia hoax." The story is very complicated, and the constant gaslighting from Trump defenders is designed to exhaust people who don't follow closely enough to push back. I am admittedly exhausted by your constant attempts to derail me from substantive discussions, but I truly care about what's happening right now, and I think it's important to call out your tactics for what they are, then to move on and fight back on the other gaslighting with facts.

    I never asked you for an apology for falsely accusing me of plagiarizing other people's work. All I asked you for was a good faith response. Instead, you just kept gaslighting in a transparent attempt to vindicate yourself and further discredit me. You tried to throw in a brief acknowledgement to my opinions to make your response look like something other than what it was, but I've seen enough to know I do not owe the benefit of any doubt as to what you're really doing. If I don't respond to you in the future, please know it's not because I'm unable to counter your arguments, but because I've moved on to engage in other discussions that might actually benefit people.
    You know, when my daughter was in college, she used to post large, canned narratives and talking points on websites and bulletin boards for various groups of one type or another, never mentioning that it was because she belonged to a group.
    She'd occasionally get kicked off of sites when the owners got wise and started asking her to pay advertising rates for her posts.
    Then, she'd change her screen name and start over.
    Are you affiliated with a group that follows such practices?
    I'm not.
     
    Last edited:
    My understanding is that the issue woth respect to one of the jurors was raised during jury selection but the judge allowed the juror.

    I could be wrong though - I only saw that from one source and don't remember who it was.

    According to the first WaPo article posted by Optimus, the defense sought a new trial due to alleged bias of a different juror who worked as an IRS lawyer, but the judge denied it because the juror didn't work with the DOJ on prosecution-related issues. So apparently the defense didn't raise this juror's bias in a written motion for new trial.

    I don't think that means the defense didn't object to her during voir dire, and frankly it would surprise me if they hadn't. Just superficially, her profile is pretty close to the opposite of an ideal juror for Stone regardless of her political views (like it or not, lawyers aggressively profile and stereotype potential jurors), plus it's my understanding her political affiliation would've been known to the attorneys. There's almost no way the defense didn't know every single detail about her online persona before, during, and after trial. I've been hired as counsel by national lawyers in local cases just to eyeball potential jurors from my area to give them any information I can derive by looking at them. And I've been in trials with much lower stakes than Stone's where I've scorched the ends of the earth looking for social media tidbits on every person in the courtroom.

    If she was truthful in voir dire but also credibly said she could fairly apply the law, then it might be hard for the defense to say the judge abused her discretion in allowing her over the defense's objections. If it turns out she was less than forthcoming, it could be very problematic for the prosecutors and for the politics of the case.
     
    You know, when my daughter was in college, she used to post large, canned narratives and talking points on websites and bulletin boards for various groups of one type or another, never mentioning that it was because she belonged to a group.
    She'd occasionally get kicked off of sites when the owners got wise and started asking her to pay advertising rates for her posts.
    Then, she'd change her screen name and start over.
    Are you affiliated with a group that follows such practices?
    I'm not.
    No. I'm a 33-year-old civil litigation attorney who has recently discovered a passion for writing, particularly about politics. I used to try to weigh in on Twitter, but I really struggled with the character limit, which should surprise no one, and I've really enjoyed the interaction I get with people on this site. I wish I got paid to write, which reminds me I've got to log off for a bit and do my real job.
     
    You know, when my daughter was in college, she used to post large, canned narratives and talking points on websites and bulletin boards for various groups of one type or another, never mentioning that it was because she belonged to a group.
    She'd occasionally get kicked off of sites when the owners got wise and started asking her to pay advertising rates for her posts.
    Then, she'd change her screen name and start over.
    Are you affiliated with a group that follows such practices?
    I'm not.

    Sounds like your daughter could have used a father who was willing to teach her how to properly use condescension and unrelated short stories to avoid the discussion entirely.

    Then instead of spending tens of minutes thinking and writing, she could share a story from her life that is probably mostly true that sure seems like it has some lesson for us all.

    It would only take a couple of minutes, then she could spend her valuable time on teaching battle tactics to Serbian Green Berets or updating the instruction manual for the sybian or one of the thousands of other important sounding tasks that keep her from providing an in depth or even remotely adequate response.
     
    No. I'm a 33-year-old civil litigation attorney who has recently discovered a passion for writing, particularly about politics. I used to try to weigh in on Twitter, but I really struggled with the character limit, which should surprise no one, and I've really enjoyed the interaction I get with people on this site. I wish I got paid to write, which reminds me I've got to log off for a bit and do my real job.
    We may find common ground yet.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom