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
    4,944
    Reaction score
    12,571
    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
     
    @superchuck500 Chuck, can the judge in this case still impose a sentence of 7-9 years as was the original recommendation of the government before this obvious interference from trump and barr?
     
    The DOJ under Barr is a complete and utter joke. This unit will go down as one of the worst and most compromised in American History.

    Our descent into banana republic is almost complete. All that would be needed is for Trump to be reelected in November.
     
    For anyone who needs context on what's happening with Roger Stone:

    Stone is a longtime Trump friend, and one of the first people Trump told he was running for POTUS in 2016. Stone was also a longtime business associate of Paul Manafort, Trump's now imprisoned campaign manager who made millions between 2006 and 2014 working for a pro-Kremlin political party in Ukraine. Stone was also a friend and neighbor of Tony Fabrizio, a pollster who worked for the Trump campaign, and whose proprietary polling data on key battleground states was ultimately shared with the Russians by Manafort. Stone had done consulting work for Trump for years, and their relationship was such that Manafort recently said "it's hard to define what's Roger and what's Donald."

    In mid-2016 -- just a few days after Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner met with Russians in Trump Tower to get "dirt" on Hillary Clinton -- it was revealed that Russia hacked the DNC and obtained stolen emails. Russia began publicly releasing the stolen materials through "cut-outs" to give themselves plausible deniability over the hacks. The primary cutouts were an online persona named "Guccifer 2.0," and Wikileaks, founded by Julian Assange.

    Stone spent much of the second half of 2016 attempting to contact Guccifer and Assange (Wikileaks), trying to either obtain access to the stolen emails, or to find out the timing of the releases to get the information to Trump's campaign. Stone had his own "cutouts", including Jerome Corsi and Randy Credico, but also communicated some on his own. Stone tweeted publicly about Guccifer (calling him a "hero"), and wrote an article at one point claiming that Guccifer, not Russia, was responsible for the hacks. Stone also exchanged private messages with Guccifer on Twitter.

    In 2017, Stone was interviewed under oath by the House Intelligence Committee in its investigation into Russia's interference into the 2016 election. From that interview, Stone was later indicted, then a jury of his peers found him guilty of (1) lying to Congress about 5 separate topics, (2) obstructing a congressional investigation, and (3) witness tampering. All pertaining to his lies about contacts with Russian cutouts.

    The DOJ sentencing memo is a document wherein the government's prosecutors handling the Stone case makes recommendations to the judge about what Stone's sentence should be, within certain sentencing guidelines for federal judges' consideration in issuing a sentence. The judge is not bound by the DOJ recommendation, but their recommendations can be influential. The defendant also files his own sentencing memo.

    The DOJ's original sentencing memo on Stone shows that he lied about five topics, all designed to conceal his communications with the Trump campaign and his own associates about Wikileaks:
    • Stone lied when questioned about who his back-channel was to Wikileaks during an important time-frame, claiming it was Credico, when it was really Corsi;
    • Stone lied about the fact that he had directed Corsi to “get to Assange” and to “get the pending Wikileaks emails”;
    • Stone falsely claimed he did not tell members of the Trump campaign about his conversations with the Corsi and Credico regarding Wikileaks, when in fact he had communicated with Rick Gates, Steve Bannon, Paul Manafort, and Erik Prince about Wikileaks;
    • Stone lied about whether he discussed Wikileaks with Corsi or Credico;
    • Stone lied about whether he had emailed third parties about Assange, and whether he had documents, texts, or emails about Assange;
    Stone knew Credico was not the cut-out during the time frame -- Corsi was -- and knew Credico's testimony on that issue would take him down. Stone falsely telling the House that it was Credico also allowed for the destruction of numerous texts that further impeded the House's investigation. Stone then engaged in an aggressive pressure campaign to convince Credico to lie or take the 5th -- witness tampering -- culminating in this lovely exchange:

    1581465048286.png


    The DOJ's original sentencing memo asked for 7-9 years for Stone. The guilty pleas and convictions of other Trump associates have resulted in cooperation arrangements whereby the convicts provide prosecutors information on "bigger fish" in exchange for leniency.

    With respect to the information Stone has to offer, Trump is likely the only bigger fish the feds are interested in. Trump knows this. While Stone was contacting Assange via cutouts, Trump was publicly praising Wikileaks and asking Russia to find missing Hillary emails. Trump was being briefed by the FBI that Russia was behind the hacks, but publicly claiming it was not Russia. Trump refused to be interviewed under oath by Mueller, but later told Mueller in writing that he "spoke by telephone to Roger Stone from time to time during the 2016 presidential campaign," but that he did not recall any of the specifics of what they discussed :unsure: This was despite Mueller's determination that they had been in regular contact during that time frame.

    The harsher the sentence for Stone, the more pressure there is to flip on Trump, and the harder he is for Trump to pardon. Trump knows all of this; of course, the right wing campaign to convince Trump defenders to feel sorry for Stone ("poor guy was dragged out of bed at 5:00 AM, blah blah blah") is not an accident (same for Flynn, Manafort).

    When the sentencing memo comes out, Trump tweets furiously about the 7-9 year recommendation, then the DOJ -- headed by Trump lackey Bill Barr -- comes out and changes its mind on the sentencing recommendation. Suddenly, all 4 DOJ prosecutors on the Stone case but under Barr's authority resign, apparently in protest to direction from authorities in DOJ. The implication, which has yet to be confirmed, is that Barr ordered the prosecutors to back down on the recommendation and they chose instead to resign. It's not 100% known whether Trump issued orders directly to Barr, whether Barr simply understood the order from Trump's tweets, or whether it's something else. What it looks like at this point is that Trump's influence is causing the DOJ to rot from within while he attempts, yet again, to elevate himself above the law.

    The Stone case is yet another example of why the dismissive line about the "3 year Russia collusion hoax" is such utter garbage. So many of these people knew our election was being attacked by an enemy, and instead of reporting it, they did everything they could to encourage it to continue. The revelation of Stone's behavior by itself would vindicate the entire probe in terms of legitimacy. I can only hope that this destructive behavior takes Trump's approval down into the low 40% approval area (or lower) for good. The people mourning the destruction of the rule of law under Trump tonight are reacting appropriately.
     
    Last edited:
    For anyone who needs context on what's happening with Roger Stone:

    Stone is a longtime Trump friend, and one of the first people Trump told he was running for POTUS in 2016. Stone was also a longtime business associate of Paul Manafort, Trump's now imprisoned campaign manager who made millions between 2006 and 2014 working for a pro-Kremlin political party in Ukraine. Stone was also a friend and neighbor of Tony Fabrizio, a pollster who worked for the Trump campaign, and whose proprietary polling data on key battleground states was ultimately shared with the Russians by Manafort. Stone had done consulting work for Trump for years, and their relationship was such that Manafort recently said "it's hard to define what's Roger and what's Donald."

    In mid-2016 -- just a few days after Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner met with Russians in Trump Tower to get "dirt" on Hillary Clinton -- it was revealed that Russia hacked the DNC and obtained stolen emails. Russia began publicly releasing the stolen materials through "cut-outs" to give themselves plausible deniability over the hacks. The primary cutouts were an online persona named "Guccifer 2.0," and Wikileaks, founded by Julian Assange.

    Stone spent much of the second half of 2016 attempting to contact Guccifer and Assange (Wikileaks), trying to either obtain access to the stolen emails, or to find out the timing of the releases to get the information to Trump's campaign. Stone had his own "cutouts", including Jerome Corsi and Randy Credico, but also communicated some on his own. Stone tweeted publicly about Guccifer (calling him a "hero"), and wrote an article at one point claiming that Guccifer, not Russia, was responsible for the hacks. Stone also exchanged private messages with Guccifer on Twitter.

    In 2017, Stone was interviewed under oath by the House Intelligence Committee in its investigation into Russia's interference into the 2016 election. From that interview, Stone was later indicted, then a jury of his peers found him guilty of (1) lying to Congress about 5 separate topics, (2) obstructing a congressional investigation, and (3) witness tampering. All pertaining to his lies about contacts with Russian cutouts.

    The DOJ sentencing memo is a document wherein the government's prosecutors handling the Stone case makes recommendations to the judge about what Stone's sentence should be, within certain sentencing guidelines for federal judges' consideration in issuing a sentence. The judge is not bound by the DOJ recommendation, but their recommendations can be influential. The defendant also files his own sentencing memo.

    The DOJ's original sentencing memo on Stone shows that he lied about five topics, all designed to conceal his communications with the Trump campaign and his own associates about Wikileaks:
    • Stone lied when questioned about who his back-channel was to Wikileaks during an important time-frame, claiming it was Credico, when it was really Corsi;
    • Stone lied about the fact that he had directed Corsi to “get to Assange” and to “get the pending Wikileaks emails”;
    • Stone falsely claimed he did not tell members of the Trump campaign about his conversations with the Corsi and Credico regarding Wikileaks, when in fact he had communicated with Rick Gates, Steve Bannon, Paul Manafort, and Erik Prince about Wikileaks;
    • Stone lied about whether he discussed Wikileaks with Corsi or Credico;
    • Stone lied about whether he had emailed third parties about Assange, and whether he had documents, texts, or emails about Assange;
    Stone knew Credico was not the cut-out during the time frame -- Corsi was -- and knew Credico's testimony on that issue would take him down. Stone falsely telling the House that it was Credico also allowed for the destruction of numerous texts that further impeded the House's investigation. Stone then engaged in an aggressive pressure campaign to convince Credico to lie or take the 5th -- witness tampering -- culminating in this lovely exchange:

    1581465048286.png


    The DOJ's original sentencing memo asked for 7-9 years for Stone. The guilty pleas and convictions of other Trump associates have resulted in cooperation arrangements whereby the convicts provide prosecutors information on "bigger fish" in exchange for leniency.

    With respect to the information Stone has to offer, Trump is likely the only bigger fish the feds are interested in. Trump knows this. While Stone was contacting Assange via cutouts, Trump was publicly praising Wikileaks and asking Russia to find missing Hillary emails. Trump was being briefed by the FBI that Russia was behind the hacks, but publicly claiming it was not Russia. Trump refused to be interviewed under oath by Mueller, but later told Mueller in writing that he "spoke by telephone to Roger Stone from time to time during the 2016 presidential campaign," but that he did not recall any of the specifics of what they discussed :unsure: This was despite Mueller's determination that they had been in regular contact during that time frame.

    The harsher the sentence for Stone, the more pressure there is to flip on Trump, and the harder he is for Trump to pardon. Trump knows all of this; of course, the right wing campaign to convince Trump defenders to feel sorry for Stone ("poor guy was dragged out of bed at 5:00 AM, blah blah blah") is not an accident (same for Flynn, Manafort).

    This morning, Trump tweets furiously about the 7-9 year recommendation, then the DOJ -- headed by Trump lackey Bill Barr -- comes out and changes its mind on the sentencing recommendation. Suddenly, all 4 DOJ prosecutors on the Stone case but under Barr's authority resign, apparently in protest to direction from authorities in DOJ. The implication, which has yet to be confirmed, is that Barr ordered the prosecutors to back down on the recommendation and they chose instead to resign. It's not 100% known whether Trump issued orders directly to Barr, whether Barr simply understood the order from Trump's tweets, or whether it's something else. What it looks like at this point is that Trump's influence is causing the DOJ to rot from within while he attempts, yet again, to elevate himself above the law.

    The Stone case is yet another example of why the dismissive line about the "3 year Russia collusion hoax" is such utter garbage. So many of these people knew our election was being attacked by an enemy, and instead of reporting it, they did everything they could to encourage it to continue. The revelation of Stone's behavior by itself would vindicate the entire probe in terms of legitimacy. I can only hope that this destructive behavior takes Trump's approval down into the low 40% approval area (or lower) for good. The people mourning the destruction of the rule of law under Trump tonight are reacting appropriately.
    Excellent work

    There’re 5-6 guys on this board who need to read this thread until they realize/admit that the majority of their defense of Trump is utter factual nonsense
     
    Work? All that writing, including dates and an entire paragraph of direct quoting and no links or attributions? I don't think so.
     
    There’re 5-6 guys on this board who need to read this thread until they realize/admit that the majority of their defense of Trump is utter factual nonsense



    Dont bother, they never will.. They’re too focused on ‘sticking it’ to the people who they perceive as ‘looking down on them’ to ever see fault in their dear leader Trump.

    As to coldseat’s assertion a few posts up that we’re ‘almost’ a banana republic- i would submit that we are already living in a new paradigm... I’m becoming fairly certain that Trump will win again in November, because who is there to possibly beat him?? But oh well, at least those of us who think Trump and his cult followers are a bunch of unhinged maniacs, at least we will continue to be “owned”.. or at least in their small minds, we will.



    :rolleyes:
     
    Work? All that writing, including dates and an entire paragraph of direct quoting and no links or attributions? I don't think so.

    If there’s any statement of fact I made that you question whether I can support, name it and I’ll happily oblige, as I’ve done on past occasions when you’ve asked how I’m getting my info (FYI, it’s not from TV). You often reflexively question my posts as if I can’t support what I’ve said, then seem to disappear when I do. The 2016 story is complicated, and people who get news from a narrow range of sources always seem to be surprised when they hear things they didn’t know. So it’s worth the effort to help fill in those details even if some people roll their eyes about the length of the posts. When you get the time, I’d love to discuss the substance with you.
     
    I'm sure you recalled that entire quoted paragraph from memory.
     
    I'm sure you recalled that entire quoted paragraph from memory.

    I don’t know how to take this comment. I spent a good bit of time working on this to get it right. The bones that form the outline are from memory but the rest of it isn’t, but every fact or quote is checked for accuracy. Is whatever quote you referenced inaccurate?
     
    I don’t know how to take this comment. I spent a good bit of time working on this to get it right. The bones that form the outline are from memory but the rest of it isn’t, but every fact or quote is checked for accuracy. Is whatever quote you referenced inaccurate?
    Great. Links and attribution to the sites you copied, pasted and compiled that manifesto from?
     
    If you can refute a single item from that post, have at it. Otherwise just be quiet about it. Your snark is out of line, imo. In the vernacular, put up or shut up, with all due respect.
    Fortunately, you do not order me around here.
    I am asking for attribution from somebody else, who obviously copied and pasted a massive amount of material from elsewhere.
    With all due respect, it's not your concern.
     
    Last edited:

    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