Roger Stone trial set to begin Tuesday, Nov. 5 (Update: Stone found guilty on all 7 counts) (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >

superchuck500

does good at rockets
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
670
Reaction score
1,328
Location
Mt. Pleasant, 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
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
725
Reaction score
537
Location
Madisonville
Offline
All I can tell you at this point is to read the legal documents connected to these cases. The fact that you’re still unable to connect Stone and WikiLeaks either means you’re getting bad information, or you’re being deliberately obtuse about it. I know you love that one sentence from a New York Times article that you think exonerates everyone. I promise you will find more context for Stone and WikiLeaks in legal documents than from right wing twitter accounts re-posting a sentence from an outlet they call fake news the 99.9% of the time they don’t like what it says.

Read the indictment. It tells the story about what Stone did, then at the end it describes how the things he did amounted to 7 different federal crimes (pro-tip: Organization 1 = WikiLeaks). He got convicted of all the crimes described in the indictment. So the indictment is a good source if you really want to know what he did. The sentencing memos tell the story as well.

Although you keep repeating the false claim that none of the many convictions were relevant to the Trump Russia case (that’s not exactly what you’ve said, but that appears to be what you want people to take from it), at least if you’re saying they went to jail for lying, then we can get past the ridiculous talking points in that article suggesting Flynn didn’t lie?



Your premise that Mueller “knew there was no Russia Trump conspiracy” is false. Before you go back and try to quote a post of mine from last week as proof that I’m contradicting myself, read it closely, because I think from your subsequent posts that you read my comment more broadly than what I was saying. Mueller hadn’t established a very specific type of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt at the time he issued his report. There were lots of ongoing investigations when they closed up shop. Just as one limited example, read the Mueller report starting on p. 51 about the campaign and WikiLeaks, and look how much is redacted for tens of pages after that due to potential harm to ongoing matters. This is because there are still people being investigated, charged, and will potentially be cooperating and providing more information.

The short answer, therefore, is that Mueller was still going after Stone because (1) the investigation into what happened in 2016 and matters relating to it was, and still is, ongoing, and (2) the American justice system doesn’t work if people can show that kind of contempt for it without paying a price.



As I recall, the only thing I said about the guidelines is that Stone wasn’t charged separately for threatening Judge Jackson while he was awaiting trial, and instead it was treated as a 2 level enhancement. What that means is that instead of having the jury also render a verdict on that as an 8th crime, it can be considered in adding to his sentence. If he wins a motion for new trial there‘s a good chance that charge is tacked on as a new offense, which exposes him to more prison time if convicted (6 years, I think) than if it’s treated as an enhancement (6 months, or whatever the link in my post says). I offered no theory on the appropriateness of the recommendation overall, or what the judge will do with it, as that’s way above my pay grade.

You’re attacking arguments I didn’t make. Yes I know the guidelines are non-binding and up to the judge. If your point about the guidelines is that the judge should render a fair verdict based upon a consistent application of the guidelines notwithstanding the parties’ arguments, I’m fine with that. If you’re implying the hefty recommendation by the prosecution somehow excuses Trump weighing in, I’m not fine with that. If you think Trump weighing in has nothing to do with his legal exposure, I think you‘ll be proven wrong sooner or later. Hopefully sooner.
As I'm sure you are aware an indictment is not a statement of fact or guilt and is completely one sided. The prosecutor has to prove his case. I have read the indictment and the story that Mueller tells that you keep referencing in the indictment is not backed up with any evidence and he wasn't charged based on it.

If a prosecutor's alleges something in an indictment and he doesn't provide evidence or charge the defendant with those specific allegations it means nothing.

I know the Stone case was the last chance for the debunked Trump Russia conspiracy to seem credible. It's obvious from the trial that Mueller couldn't prove any of his elaborate story otherwise he would have presented evidence and charged him based on that. He was charged with lying and obstruction and he deserves to go to jail for that, but otherwise it was another big nothingburger and a big disappointment for the Trump conspired with Russia crowd.
 

CoolBrees

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
192
Reaction score
324
Age
43
Location
Portland, Oregon
Offline
Yes an indictment isn’t a statement of guilt, it is the hypothesis. The conclusion is what the verdict is for and he was found guilty on all counts; ie proving the indictment (theory) correct.

Why do you think Stone lied? What was his motivation to commit a felony? I am genuinely interested in a logical reason someone would lie to Congress, other than to protect the truth from coming out. And this is the guy that has a tattoo of Nixon on his back for god sakes.
 

TaylorB

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2019
Messages
197
Reaction score
811
Age
34
Location
Louisiana
Offline
As I'm sure you are aware an indictment is not a statement of fact or guilt and is completely one sided. The prosecutor has to prove his case. I have read the indictment and the story that Mueller tells that you keep referencing in the indictment is not backed up with any evidence and he wasn't charged based on it.

If a prosecutor's alleges something in an indictment and he doesn't provide evidence or charge the defendant with those specific allegations it means nothing.

I know the Stone case was the last chance for the debunked Trump Russia conspiracy to seem credible. He was charged with lying and obstruction and he deserves to go to jail for that, but otherwise it was another big nothingburger and a big disappointment for the Trump conspired with Russia crowd.
Prosecutors typically have to explain the nature of the crimes they're charging people with in writing. That's what an indictment is: a "formal charge or accusation of a serious crime." The prosecution provides a description of the defendant's behavior, then describes specific laws that behavior violated. A jury decides whether the government has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the behavior occurred and that it meets all the elements of each particular crime. When a jury finds a defendant guilty of all the crimes described in an indictment, one can infer that the underlying conduct has been proven, or else they would have acquitted the defendant on one or more counts in the indictment.

A jury is never going to find people like Stone guilty of "collusion." Collusion is not a crime; it is simply "a secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others." What Stone did meets the definition of "collusion." He obstructed an investigation, lied to Congress , and intimidated witnesses, all in an effort to cover up secret illicit behavior. Stone was charged because his collusive behavior violated at least 7 criminal laws.

When you say things like ->
It's obvious from the trial that Mueller couldn't prove any of his elaborate story otherwise he would have presented evidence and charged him based on that.
it's objectively wrong. Mueller proved the exact story he told in the indictment, and Stone is going to jail for it. You formed your own understanding of what Mueller would have to prove to you in order to legitimize the investigation, but your own understanding is not tied to how investigations work in real life. If you keep reading right wing twitter, you will continue chalking it up as a "win" every time someone in Trump's orbit goes to jail for something you've decided is unrelated to the Trump Russia case, and you will continue to be surprised as these investigations continue to reveal more of what these people did. Trust me when I say the prosecution is not disappointed with the result of the Stone case.
 
Last edited:

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
725
Reaction score
537
Location
Madisonville
Offline
Prosecutors typically have to explain the nature of the crimes they're charging people with in writing. That's what an indictment is: a "formal charge or accusation of a serious crime." The prosecution provides a description of the defendant's behavior, then describes specific laws that behavior violated. A jury decides whether the government has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the behavior occurred and that it meets all the elements of each particular crime. When a jury finds a defendant guilty of all the crimes described in an indictment, one can infer that the underlying conduct has been proven, or else they would have acquitted the defendant on one or more counts in the indictment.

A jury is never going to find people like Stone guilty of "collusion." Collusion is not a crime; it is simply "a secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others." What Stone did meets the definition of "collusion." He obstructed an investigation, lied to Congress , and intimidated witnesses, all in an effort to cover up secret illicit behavior. Stone was charged because his collusive behavior violated at least 7 criminal laws.

When you say things like ->

it's objectively wrong. Mueller proved the exact story he told in the indictment, and Stone is going to jail for it. You formed your own understanding of what Mueller would have to prove to you in order to legitimize the investigation, but your own understanding is not tied to how investigations work in real life. If you keep reading right wing twitter, you will continue chalking it up as a "win" every time someone in Trump's orbit goes to jail for something you've decided is unrelated to the Trump Russia case, and you will continue to be surprised as these investigations continue to reveal more of what these people did. Trust me when I say the prosecution is not disappointed with the result of the Stone case.
The only story that Mueller proved in the Stone case was that Stone lied to Congress, he was guilty of witness tampering, and he was guilty of obstruction of a proceeding. That's it. Those are the counts that he was found gulity. You can infer all you want, but it's not what you claim it is. Can you cite the evidence in the trial(not the story in the indictment) you claim proves Mueller's story?

I know you are well invested in the Democrats and Mueller's theories about Trump Russia conspiracy. But it has not been proven based on the fact that all of the former Trump campaign officials have been found guilty on process crimes and not a single one has been found guilty in regards to election interference with Russia. Manafort is the only exception and he was found guilty of 8 counts of financial crimes. Once again, nothing to do with Trump Russia election conspiracy.

I never mentioned collusion. You did. I specifically said conspiracy which is a crime. You and Mueller can keep saying that Stone engaged in the secret illicit behavior, but unless it can be proved in a court of law it's meaningless.
 
Last edited:

TaylorB

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2019
Messages
197
Reaction score
811
Age
34
Location
Louisiana
Offline
Mueller proved Stone lied to Congress, he was guilty of witness tampering, and he was guilty of obstruction of a proceeding.

all of the former Trump campaign officials have been found guilty on process crimes

Manafort was found guilty of 8 counts of financial crimes.
I copied and pasted your post ☝ but deleted the parts that aren't likely to matter to prosecutors handling the ongoing investigations.
I never mentioned collusion. You did.
You talk about "collusion" all the time -- I was simply illustrating the fact that when you're the one defining the crime and/or what Mueller needs to prove, you'll "win" every time.
unless [secret illicit behavior] can be proved in a court of law it's meaningless.
Trump defenders who champion that ☝as the bar for conduct of politicians and their associates only use it with respect to investigations into Trump and his associates. It's mind-boggling to suggest we cannot hold politicians accountable for anything we can't convict them for.

At the risk of ensuring this conversation never gets back on the rails, here's an anecdote:

Casey Anthony was found guilty of lying to investigators about her child's disappearance, and not guilty of murder because prosecutors couldn't show exactly how the child died. I doubt many people who watched that trial are calling Casey to babysit their own children thinking "I mean, she was convicted of process crimes that had nothing to do with Caylee's death, so the rest is meaningless..." You're not at all curious why Casey lied to investigators with all the other bizarre circumstances of Caylee's disappearance?

I thought the jury got Casey's verdict right based on the law and burden of proof, yet I also think she had something to do with her child's death and was lying to cover it up. It's a fair inference to draw from the circumstances -- why else did she lie so much? You can choose not to draw the same inference; you can even call her to be your babysitter if you want. I'm gonna call someone else 🤷‍♂️
 

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,372
Reaction score
881
Location
Nashville
Offline
Except that on basically every key point people made that "proved" collusion or conspiracy or whatever they want to call it - Mueller said it did not happen.
Which is nothing like Casey Anthoney (or OJ) - you know, where charges were actually brought.

 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
725
Reaction score
537
Location
Madisonville
Offline
I copied and pasted your post ☝ but deleted the parts that aren't likely to matter to prosecutors handling the ongoing investigations.

You talk about "collusion" all the time -- I was simply illustrating the fact that when you're the one defining the crime and/or what Mueller needs to prove, you'll "win" every time.

Trump defenders who champion that ☝as the bar for conduct of politicians and their associates only use it with respect to investigations into Trump and his associates. It's mind-boggling to suggest we cannot hold politicians accountable for anything we can't convict them for.

At the risk of ensuring this conversation never gets back on the rails, here's an anecdote:

Casey Anthony was found guilty of lying to investigators about her child's disappearance, and not guilty of murder because prosecutors couldn't show exactly how the child died. I doubt many people who watched that trial are calling Casey to babysit their own children thinking "I mean, she was convicted of process crimes that had nothing to do with Caylee's death, so the rest is meaningless..." You're not at all curious why Casey lied to investigators with all the other bizarre circumstances of Caylee's disappearance?

I thought the jury got Casey's verdict right based on the law and burden of proof, yet I also think she had something to do with her child's death and was lying to cover it up. It's a fair inference to draw from the circumstances -- why else did she lie so much? You can choose not to draw the same inference; you can even call her to be your babysitter if you want. I'm gonna call someone else 🤷‍♂️
You still failed to cite the evidence presented in the trial that proved Mueller's story. Stone was the last thing for y'all to hang your hat on as evidence of Trump Russia conspiracy. Don't worry. I know the Democrats won't stop looking for the next Trump scandal that fizzles out after closer examination. Their playbook is pretty obvious to most people.

When you guys try to compare the Trump situation to OJ and Casey Anthony it's very apparent how weak your argument is.
 

FullMonte

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
322
Reaction score
552
Age
52
Location
Bossier City
Offline
Except that on basically every key point people made that "proved" collusion or conspiracy or whatever they want to call it - Mueller said it did not happen.
Which is nothing like Casey Anthoney (or OJ) - you know, where charges were actually brought.

I know that it may be nitpicking, but I have to take issue with that article's conclusions. The article states "Mueller....also stated emphatically that there was no evidence...."

Then they highlight numerous times from the report where it says "The investigation did not identify evidence that...."

Saying that the investigation did not identify evidence is not quite stating emphatically that there was no evidence, especially when the report also says that part of the reason they were unable to identify evidence is because people lied to them, or deleted texts and emails.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
1,248
Reaction score
1,556
Location
Midwest
Offline
While you and I have certainly been willing to actually accept what was said by Mueller, on both sides of the coin, I don’t think SFL ever will admit that there was anything untoward going on. He’s bought the narrative, hook, line and sinker. For example, he “snickers“ at your post, but what you said is absolutely true and was stated by Mueller. Evidence was denied, lies were told, and evidence was destroyed.

Here is what a person should ask themselves, and I know this question has been posed before to people who say Trump did nothing wrong, but why all the lying? Why did so many people lie to the FBI and Congress so readily and so often? Why was evidence destroyed? Why the efforts to obstruct?

It only makes common sense that people lie to cover up wrongdoing.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
1,248
Reaction score
1,556
Location
Midwest
Offline
Judge Jackson has some words about the actions of Stone:

“At trial, the defense appropriately questioned Randy Credico's credibility and Rick Gates's credibility, but it was largely Stone's own emails and his own texts that proved the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. So what did the defense say to the jury on his behalf? So what? So what?”

"Of all the circumstances in this case, that may be the most pernicious. The truth still exists. The truth still matters. Roger Stone's insistence that it doesn't, his belligerence, his pride in his own lies are a threat to our most fundamental institutions, to the very foundation of our democracy."

"And if it goes unpunished, it will not be a victory for one party or another. Everyone loses because everyone depends on the representatives they elect to make the right decisions on a myriad of issues -- many of which are politically charged but many of which aren't -- based on the facts.”

“Everyone depends on our elected representatives to protect our elections from foreign interference based on the facts. No one knows where the threat is going to come from next time or whose side they're going to be on, and for that reason the dismay and disgust at the defendant's belligerence should transcend party.”

"The dismay and the disgust at the attempts by others to defend his actions as just business as usual in our polarized climate should transcend party. The dismay and the disgust with any attempts to interfere with the efforts of prosecutors and members of the judiciary to fulfill their duty should transcend party.”

"Sure, the defense is free to say: So what? Who cares? But, I'll say this: Congress cared. The United States Department of Justice and the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia that prosecuted the case and is still prosecuting the case cared. The jurors who served with integrity under difficult circumstances cared. The American people cared. And I care."
 

not2rich

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Messages
268
Reaction score
481
Age
51
Location
Denver, CO
Offline
You still failed to cite the evidence presented in the trial that proved Mueller's story. Stone was the last thing for y'all to hang your hat on as evidence of Trump Russia conspiracy. Don't worry. I know the Democrats won't stop looking for the next Trump scandal that fizzles out after closer examination. Their playbook is pretty obvious to most people.

When you guys try to compare the Trump situation to OJ and Casey Anthony it's very apparent how weak your argument is.
For someone who asserted that Obama was totally in on the alleged illegal Deep State conspiracy to spy on the Trump campaign, your application of evidentiary standards is - to put it mildly - inconsistent.
 

TaylorB

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2019
Messages
197
Reaction score
811
Age
34
Location
Louisiana
Offline
Except that on basically every key point people made that "proved" collusion or conspiracy or whatever they want to call it - Mueller said it did not happen.
Which is nothing like Casey Anthoney (or OJ) - you know, where charges were actually brought.

I don't have time to pick Glenn Greenwald's opinions apart, but for anyone who chooses to read his article, I would strongly encourage you to compare each of his assertions to the full sections of the Mueller report he's referring to, and to legal documents from matters Mueller's office referred to other jurisdictions, like Stone's. If the whole thing's over and debunked, I assume Barr will immediately remove the redactions in Mueller's report that relate to "harm to ongoing matters"? :unsure:
 

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,372
Reaction score
881
Location
Nashville
Offline
I don't have time to pick Glenn Greenwald's opinions apart, but for anyone who chooses to read his article, I would strongly encourage you to compare each of his assertions to the full sections of the Mueller report he's referring to, and to legal documents from matters Mueller's office referred to other jurisdictions, like Stone's. If the whole thing's over and debunked, I assume Barr will immediately remove the redactions in Mueller's report that relate to "harm to ongoing matters"? :unsure:
What referrals resulted in charges being brought on the issue of a conspiracy with Russia?
 

TaylorB

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2019
Messages
197
Reaction score
811
Age
34
Location
Louisiana
Offline
What referrals resulted in charges being brought on the issue of a conspiracy with Russia?
Other than Stone's, it appears the other referrals are still pending. I have no clue what, if any, charges they'll result in. I've never argued there must be a chargeable pre-election "conspiracy" with Russia for the investigation to be validated. I wanted the investigation to happen because I couldn't understand why Trump was so deferential to Putin in light of our intelligence community saying Russia was waging cyber-war against us. At the time, I had no idea Trump's son was meeting with Russians, that Trump was lying about a gigantic business deal in Moscow, that nearly his entire national security team had secret contacts with Russians, that his campaign manager was sharing proprietary polling data with them, nor did I know what reason all Trump's people would have to lie about it all. I think the point of the continued investigations is to try to continue to fill in the gaps, but I really don't know.

There's a lot I still don't know, but I'm glad I learned what I did in light of the fact that Russia appears to be planning to interfere again in 2020. I don't know if Trump will conspire with Russia to help them do it in a way that can be charged criminally, but I feel pretty confident he will do nothing to stop them, and will ensure there are as few people as possible standing in the way of it. I think it was disqualifying that he was told in 2016 what the Russians did and continued to publicly deny it.

This whole exchange was meant as a background for why I think Trump cares what happens to Stone. I don't think I'll be able to respond more on this any time soon as I think the discussion is no longer productive on that issue. I will be voting against Trump and his enablers in November and I hope we can achieve the very tall task of getting him out of office because I think he only cares about himself and is a danger to democracy and the nation.
 

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,372
Reaction score
881
Location
Nashville
Offline
Stone was never charged with a count of conspiring with Russian agents to violate U.S. campaign laws or any other conspiracy crime, so I am not sure why you answered "other than Stone"
 

TaylorB

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2019
Messages
197
Reaction score
811
Age
34
Location
Louisiana
Offline
Stone was never charged with a count of conspiring with Russian agents to violate U.S. campaign laws or any other conspiracy crime, so I am not sure why you answered "other than Stone"
What I meant was that all the other referrals are still pending but Stone's.
 

insidejob

Takes one to know one...
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
551
Reaction score
474
Location
Back in 70124
Offline
Stone was never charged with a count of conspiring with Russian agents to violate U.S. campaign laws or any other conspiracy crime, so I am not sure why you answered "other than Stone"
It's pretty clear that he's saying he doesn't know what any of the referrals were besides Stone's.
 

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.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Fact Checkers News Feed

Top Bottom