Rove!
Footballguy
If Stone gets a new trial....
If Stone gets a new trial....
He would still end up convicted. He us guilty...If Stone gets a new trial....
Didn’t she sit through hours of testimony and review a pre-sentence?A statement like this makes me question if she understands this case at all. The whole case was about Stone pretending to be a bigger player than he actually was. There was no collusion and nothing to cover up....
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.A statement like this makes me question if she understands this case at all. The whole case was about Stone pretending to be a bigger player than he actually was. There was no collusion and nothing to cover up....
Love page 9, line 16.
That is what makes The inaccuracy of her statement so astounding....Didn’t she sit through hours of testimony and review a pre-sentence?
A Stone didn’t “know” anything that wasn’t already public knowledgeSteve 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.
Have you noticed that exactly zero lawyers on this forum think that her statement was astoundingly inaccurate?That is what makes The inaccuracy of her statement so astounding....Didn’t she sit through hours of testimony and review a pre-sentence?
Bannon testified otherwise. So did Rick Gates.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
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?Have you noticed that exactly zero lawyers on this forum think that her statement was astoundingly inaccurate?
New to the internet? Just wait until you find porn...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?
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: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.
Why? The judge and jury were convinced.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.
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.Why? The judge and jury were convinced.
That some Right Wing radio host or hack website convinced you otherwise is a you issue.
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?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.
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.>>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.
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.
- That's from the judge's ruling.Bannon also testified that he viewed Stone as the campaign's contact point with Assange. So this was yet another 25 lie that shut off important avenues for the committee to investigate. 2 This count is also important because it showed -- the 3 evidence showed that Stone was not just communicating with 4 campaign personnel, but he talked to the candidate himself. 5 Part of the evidence that supplied the basis for the conviction 6 on this count was from Rick Gates, who was in the car when then 7 Candidate Trump was talking to Mr. Stone on the phone. 8 who, as soon as the call was over, made a statement to Gates 9 about what Assange was about to do. 10 Count 7, tampering with a witness. And The evidence 11 established that the defendant knowingly and intentionally, 12 corruptly persuaded or attempted to corruptly persuade 13 Randy Credico with the intent to influence, delay, or prevent 14 his testimony in an official proceeding. 15 The evidence includes the numerous written 16 communications, including emails and texts in which the 17 defendant urged Credico, over and over again, to assert his 18 Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, to claim 19 a failure of recollection, to do a Frank Pentangeli, and/or to 20 advance a false narrative, that Credico had been the 21 intermediary between Stone and Julian Assange, to whom Stone 22 publicly referred in early August 2016. This went on for months, as Stone urged Credico to 24 stonewall Congress and then the FBI and the Office of Special 25 Counsel.
One of those tweets...
Apparently there was some sort of campaign to identify jurors and then the President acted to intimidate her and others: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?
Just read a subsequent tweet where judge acknowledges two jurors outed themselves, but she was still taking precautionsApparently 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
Right, I think she cut off access to prevent real time interference.Just read a subsequent tweet where judge acknowledges two jurors outed themselves, but she was still taking precautions
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.- That's from the judge's ruling.
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.I know Brannon 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.
Lol sorry - you mean facts shown during the trial? Because which ones as Stone has seven - 7 - different lawyers to show this.the facts show Stone did not.
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.Lol sorry - you mean facts shown during the trial? Because which ones as Stone has seven - 7 - different lawyers to show this.
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.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
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.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.
Sam Quentin said:
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.
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.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.
Just so you know you’re raising two different things - 1. advanced information, 2. misdeeds. I think you’re assuming 1 = 2. It doesn’t. I’ll follow up when posssible.
Fascinating simultaneous conclusions from different evaluators. I wonder if that indicates anything?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.
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?
Yes it’s on them.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.
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).Any word on this? Do hearings typically have a delay like this after?
always loved that phrase. for me i think all that it would entail would be finding someone to take the dog.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).
Yep. This isn't abnormal.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).
Well, he and his wife are swingers. They have more affairs.always loved that phrase. for me i think all that it would entail would be finding someone to take the dog.