Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Stone Case Prosecutors (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Ditkaless Wonders
- Start date
sho nuff
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Steve Bannon himself testified against Stone - Stone informed the President directly of the WL releases in advance and the prosecution showed his motive in lying about that was to protect the President.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow
Footballguy
Love page 9, line 16.
Everybody wants law and order and strict punishments until they don’t.
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
A Stone didn’t “know” anything that wasn’t already public knowledge
B it is not a misdeed to attempt to do research to find information
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
Have you noticed that exactly zero lawyers on this forum think that her statement was astoundingly inaccurate?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Bannon testified otherwise. So did Rick Gates.
It may or may not matter if it was illegal (see the Mueller report on that, it may have been illegal) but what’s clear is Stone lied about it and why.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mile High
Footballguy
Wait, what? The judge doesn't know what the case is about, but two guys who didn't go to one session of the trail do? I'm I understanding this right?
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Pretty solid Judge from what I have read. Seems a credit to her profession.
msommer
Footballguy
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
You are going to have to show your work with specific dates and specific knowledge that was not already public and you are going to have to explain what specific misdeeds the judge is claiming.SaintsInDome2006 said:
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
Why? The judge and jury were convinced.
That some Right Wing radio host or hack website convinced you otherwise is a you issue.
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
The jury said Stone lied. They said nothing about Trump. Still no answer to what the alleged misdeed was by Trump. If it was clear then we would have a specific answer.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I’m away from a real computer but if you take the time you’ll see Bannon testified against Stone - did you even know that?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
>>Bannon said the Trump campaign viewed Stone as an "access point" to WikiLeaks.
"The campaign had no official access to WikiLeaks or to Julian Assange, but Roger would be considered, if we needed, an access point -- an access point because he had implied or told me that he had a relationship with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange," Bannon said.
He also said that he believed that Stone had the relationship with WikiLeaks, and that an intermediary never came up.<<
CNN
- Stone and Trump were peas in a pod. At the first stage of Trump’s campaign Stone was Trump’s de facto campaign manager, later they talked almost every day, per Stone. I think you have to hit your head against a river rock bed to think the judge’s conclusion that Stone was protecting the President doesn’t hold merit.
"The campaign had no official access to WikiLeaks or to Julian Assange, but Roger would be considered, if we needed, an access point -- an access point because he had implied or told me that he had a relationship with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange," Bannon said.
He also said that he believed that Stone had the relationship with WikiLeaks, and that an intermediary never came up.<<
CNN
- Stone and Trump were peas in a pod. At the first stage of Trump’s campaign Stone was Trump’s de facto campaign manager, later they talked almost every day, per Stone. I think you have to hit your head against a river rock bed to think the judge’s conclusion that Stone was protecting the President doesn’t hold merit.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The Gates stuff is bonus. Now let me guess Sam - none of your right wing sources told you Trump’s campaign manager and campaign treasurer testified against Stone. Is that pretty fair?
Last edited by a moderator:
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
Doesn’t this totally prove the point that Stone’s issue was that he was trying to act like a player when he wasn’t? He had no relevant information on WL other that the public statements of Assange.
Of course people wanted to learn anything they could about what information was going to drop. Every candidate, every newspaper, every follower of politics wanted insight into WL. That is not a misdeed.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
So I can lie to police and the court to make it seem like I'm a bigger player than I am?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
One of those tweets...
Jackson said earlier that the attempts to identify the jury was “completely antithetical to the entire system of justice. “
Was there more here that i am not remembering? I thought the juror outed herself. Did they go after other names?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Apparently there was some sort of campaign to identify jurors and then the President acted to intimidate her and others:
>>U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson cited Trump’s public comments and Twitter posts, as well as an accompanying campaign from the president’s conservative media allies to identify and critique the jury, as one of the reasons for her decision to clamp down on public access to a hearing on Stone’s request for a new trial.
“Any attempt to invade the privacy of the jurors or to harass or intimidate them is completely antithetical to our entire system of justice,” Jackson said before issuing a ruling that cleared the courtroom of any public spectators.
Not long after Jackson made her remarks, Trump tweeted three times in rapid fashion about the judge and the Stone jury.“
Politico
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I don’t know how many synonyms there are for disgraceful and authoritarianism. The Constitution grants a grand jury and a fair trial under the 8th Amendment. The pardon power was designed to ameliorate Tory/rebel enmity after the war. Trump is a President who tries to interfere in justice and use the pardon power to obstruct those who could implicate him.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Just read a subsequent tweet where judge acknowledges two jurors outed themselves, but she was still taking precautions
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
I know Bannon is pretty awesome, but him believing that Stone has inside info on WL is pretty meaningless because the facts show Stone did not.
so still nobody here can identify what misdeed by Trump that the judge is alleging.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
If you want to know about the legality or illegality of it I’d have to cite from the Mueller report which has a nice summary of the legal basis.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Lol sorry - you mean facts shown during the trial? Because which ones as Stone has seven - 7 - different lawyers to show this.
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
We can go around in circles for weeks but you still will not identify any inside information that Stone has about WL nor can you demonstrate a Trump misdeed that Stone lied to cover up.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I have tried well in excess of 300 jury trials. So many I no longer have an accurate count. I do not recall a single one where once the trial was concluded where the judge did not take pains to make it quite clear that any contact with the jurors by us comes with the risk that if there is any disparagement of their verdict or their duty, intended or not but perceived by the jurors as such, that the court would use its contempt power to punish. They are not to be challenged or disparaged in the least. Now we could politely, and deferentially ask for critiques, but we could not push it.
I found that many jurors were anxious to share, to talk, and to ask further questions. They often initiated contact. Me, I rarely approached them. I was always deferential almost to the point of being obsequious.
Judge Jackson is, in my estimation, not taking unusual steps to protect the jurors, but rather routine ones, or as routine as anything can be in the face of a meddling President trying to use his bully pulpit, or misuse it, to pressure jurors inappropriately.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Well certainly you have made it clear that he will not be able to do so to your satisfaction. As to the satisfaction of others, who can say. Me, I'm satisfied.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Stone wasn't on trial for either of those things. You seem to be arguing about things which have nothing to do with the charges that Stone was convicted of.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I am pleased that you find me diverting Mr. Quentin. Before I lost interest in your routine I too found you diverting. Now, not so much. Still a good belly laugh is to be cherished. I am glad I could provide one for you.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Fascinating simultaneous conclusions from different evaluators. I wonder if that indicates anything?
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Isn't it on them that they didn't do their due diligence to vet the jurors thoroughly? Or are they falling on their sword to try and get a new trial for their client?
Essentially claiming that they themselves are incompetent, and thus their client needs a new trial.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Yes it’s on them.
Right it’s so ridiculous that it almost makes me think they left her in just so they could do this later. They’re looking at supposed bases for Trump to assert a pardon, not really to win their motion or an appeal.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Any word on this? Do hearings typically have a delay like this after?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Jackson took it under advisement, which yeah I think is pretty normal. I think she has already put out an order saying that when she does rule on this Stone will have 2 weeks to get his affairs in order. (I think).
joffer
Footballguy
always loved that phrase. for me i think all that it would entail would be finding someone to take the dog.
Zow
Footballguy
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
The Gator
Footballguy
NEWS: Aaron ZELINSKY, a prosecutor in Stone's case, describes significant political pressure in DOJ.
"What I heard – repeatedly – was that Roger Stone was being treated differently from any other defendant because of his relationship to the President."
"I was explicitly told that the motivation for changing the sentencing memo was political, and because the U.S. Attorney was “afraid of the President.”
"What I heard – repeatedly – was that Roger Stone was being treated differently from any other defendant because of his relationship to the President."
"I was explicitly told that the motivation for changing the sentencing memo was political, and because the U.S. Attorney was “afraid of the President.”
Similar threads
