Pissed off about Roger Stone

'The Borowitz Report' says Stone has been sentenced to ten years house arrest at the home of Senator Susan Collins, who is seemingly an incessant gasbag...Stone has protested rigorously.

Lock him up!
Lock him up!

a reply to: DBCowboy

pepito LMFAO

i gotta remember to use that name for everything now.

a reply to: jhn7537

Your post: Excuses for why criminals convicted by a jury shouldn't be punished.

Rigged prosecution.

Rigged Trial.

Rigged Jury.

The jury foreperson is a DNC operative.

Before this happened I had no idea who Roger Stone was,
but for the sake of giving a hand sign to The Mueller team
and The Coup Plotters, I would applaud President Trump
if he gives a pardon.

It would be refreshing.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: jhn7537

Your post: Excuses for why criminals convicted by a jury shouldn't be punished.

Its easy to look guilty when you have a sham investigation, biased prosecutors and a stacked jury against you, but you're right, he's a horrible criminal and should spend his last years behind bars, while people like Comey and McCabe (who are proven liars - while under oath) are walking around without a worry in the world. you dont see an issue there?

originally posted by: burntheships
Rigged prosecution.

Rigged Trial.

Rigged Jury.

The jury foreperson is a DNC operative.

Before this happened I had no idea who Roger Stone was,
but for the sake of giving a hand sign to The Mueller team
and The Coup Plotters, I would applaud President Trump
if he gives a pardon.

It would be refreshing.

jury foreman, She ran for congress, her social media full of her hate for Trump and his supporters.
REtrial at worst.

a reply to: nfflhome

Mistrial perhaps?

She tweeted specific things about Roger Stone.
Not looking good for justice.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: misskat1
Hes a harmless old man...

...who lied to Congress and obstructed justice.

Want the swamp drained? Then people like him are part of the problem.

So, you give Mueller's prosecutors a pass, and dismiss the idea that Stone was railroaded so Mueller could legitimize his investigation, because..

originally posted by: jhn7537
Its easy to look guilty...

...when you're convicted by a jury for lying to Congress and obstructing justice.

That's how your sentence should have been worded if you were being honest.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
So, you give Mueller's prosecutors a pass, and dismiss the idea that Stone was railroaded so Mueller could legitimize his investigation, because..

Whataboutism. This thread is about the convicted scumbag Roger Stone.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: jhn7537
Its easy to look guilty...

...when you're convicted by a jury for lying to Congress and obstructing justice.

That's how your sentence should have been worded if you were being honest.

A Jury that had bad actors/anti-trumpers on the panel. If you are cool with a stacked deck, then so be it..

originally posted by: jhn7537
A Jury that had bad actors/anti-trumpers on the panel. If you are cool with a stacked deck, then so be it..

Are you saying Stone's attorney was so inept he didn't have those jurors stricken during selection?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: jhn7537
Its easy to look guilty...

...when you're convicted by a jury for lying to Congress and obstructing justice.

Except that Stone clearly didn't lie to congress, he had text messages which he forgot about, however those messages proved everything he said about Credico being his source was true. Credico told him that Wikileaks had dirt on Hillary and that is what Stone told congress, the fact he forgot about messages sent to Credico on his old phone doesn't make him guilty of lying. Stone knew very well that his calls and messages were being monitored because it was public information, he had no reason to avoid mentioning those old text messages because they didn't at all prove he had any other contact with Wikileaks besides Credico. Stone explained all of this early last year before he was completely silenced, but I don't expect you to watch this interview because it's with the evil Tucker on the evil Fox News.



Meanwhile, people who demonstrably did lie to congress get away with a slap on the hand, that's why it's so hilarious when I read crap like "you can't lock up your enemies because you don't like them". This is a clear cut case of politically motivated incarceration if there ever was one, nine years is essentially the rest of Stones life, it takes a truly vile person to believe Stone deserves that punishment even if he did threaten Credico. Here is the full quote of the threats Stone made to Credico, which I was able to find in this Daily Beast article.

I have a constitutional right to call you a lightweight pantywaist cocksucker drunk asshole piece of # and I just did

You are a rat. A stoolie. You backstab your friends-run your mouth my lawyers are dying Rip you to shreds

I’m going to take that dog away from you. Not a #ing thing you can do about it either because you are a weak broke piece of #

I will prove to the world you’re a liar

Stone was angry because Credico had denied being his Wikileaks source. He was clearly making threats in a legal sense, he even says his lawyers are dying to rip him to shreds. It is a complete leap of logic to assume Stone was threatening to steal his dog, it seems far more likely he was implying that he wont have a dog if he goes to prison. That is also why he said he's going to prove he's a liar. Credico himself didn't view it as a real threat and said that Stone was a dog lover when called to testify on the Stone case.

Credico acknowledged during cross-examination Friday that Stone, who he has known since 2002, is a “dog lover.” Credico also testified that he had “many” associates, including some of his legal advisers, urging him to plead the Fifth to avoid cooperating with the House Intelligence Committee.

How The Star Witness In Roger Stone’s Trial Proved ‘Difficult’ For Prosecutors

Now lets take a look at how Stone tried to convince Credico to plead the Fifth, here's the message he sent:

"If you testify you're a fool. Because of tromp (sic), I could never get away with a certain (sic) my Fifth Amendment rights but you can. I guarantee you you (sic) are the one who gets indicted for perjury if you're stupid enough to testify."

The only thing he says is that he'd be a fool and stupid if he were to testify, and the same advice was given to him by many other people. The reality is that Credico was scared to testify because he didn't want to expose his Wilikeaks connection and because he denied being the source between Wikileaks and Stone, which was a lie because the text messages Stone forgot about prove beyond a doubt that Credico was the source.

New text messages show that Roger Stone learned about WikiLeaks’ plans to release Clinton-related emails through Randy Credico.

The messages, which Stone’s lawyers extracted from an old phone on Wednesday, back up Stone’s claims about how he learned of WikiLeaks’ plans. The messages severely undercut Credico’s denials that he was a source for Stone.

“Julian Assange has kryptonite on Hillary,” Randy Credico wrote to Stone on Aug. 27, 2016, according to text messages that Stone provided to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“You are not going to drag my name into this are you,” Credico wrote on Sept. 29, 2016, suggesting that he was worried that Stone would identify him as his source for public claims he was making about WikiLeaks’ plans.

Bombshell Text Messages Support Roger Stone’s Claims About WikiLeaks Backchannel

He clearly didn't want to be caught up in the investigations and he didn't want his friend caught up in it either. It's also clear he's petitioning for a lighter sentence for Stone because he feels guilty for throwing Stone under the bus, Credico made investigators believe that he wasn't the source for Stone instead of admitting he was the source, and he knows at some point the law of karma will come back around on him.

He said another reason he pleaded the Fifth was to avoid drawing his longtime friend, Margaret Ratner Kunstler, into the saga involving WikiLeaks.

Kunstler was an outside legal adviser to WikiLeaks during 2016. Stone has asserted that tips that Credico provided him prior to WikiLeaks’ release of Clinton campaign emails Oct. 7, 2016, came via Kunstler.

“I didn’t know what to do at that point,” Credico said of his deliberations about pleaded the Fifth.

How The Star Witness In Roger Stone’s Trial Proved ‘Difficult’ For Prosecutors

Credico also suggested in the texts that his source for some information about WikiLeaks was one of the group’s lawyers, who he said was one of his “best friends.” Stone has long claimed that the lawyer, Margaret Ratner Kunstler, was a source for Credico.
...
Credico has adamantly denied being Stone’s conduit, saying in numerous interviews over the past year that Stone was lying.
...
Credico also told CNN that his testimony to Mueller’s grand jury on Sept. 7 was consistent with his public denials about being Stone’s source.

Bombshell Text Messages Support Roger Stone’s Claims About WikiLeaks Backchannel

We have clear cut proof that Credico lied to a grand jury, so he is now a proven liar for all the world to see just as Stone said he would be, yet the person who is looking at spending a decade in prison is the one who was telling the truth all along, without a single shred of evidence to prove otherwise. And here you are trying to convince us we don't live in a clown world.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
So, you give Mueller's prosecutors a pass, and dismiss the idea that Stone was railroaded so Mueller could legitimize his investigation, because..

Whataboutism. This thread is about the convicted scumbag Roger Stone.

Call it what you want. The thread is about the case, not his character. So I ask again.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Except that Stone clearly didn't lie to congress...

Tell that to the jury who convicted him. Too bad you weren't his defense attorney, with all your 'evidence' you might have gotten him off as opposed to the law-degreed bozos he had representing him.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Call it what you want. The thread is about the case, not his character. So I ask again.

His character, or lack there of, is what got him into this mess in the first place.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Call it what you want. The thread is about the case, not his character. So I ask again.

His character, or lack there of, is what got him into this mess in the first place.

What got him in this mess was essentially a joke. The witness in question he supposedly intimidated testified that this was how they regularly communicated, and never felt intimidated.

Everything else is tenuous. There is no proof that Stone met or knew "Gucifer 2.0", and if anything it amounts to just him trying to shine the spotlight on himself.

Character aside, because being an ass or a fool is not against the law, what did he actually do? Does it deserve 9 years, and given the lead juror being biased, and the bias within the Mueller team (along with Mueller's near disastrous testimony), is there really a case here. Or is it possible he was railroaded.

Mueller and company needed someone to pin something on to save face, other than 12 Russians that he would never get into a courtroom.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Except that Stone clearly didn't lie to congress...

Tell that to the jury who convicted him. Too bad you weren't his defense attorney, with all your 'evidence' you might have gotten him off as opposed to the law-degreed bozos he had representing him.

When the defendant is a controversial political figure I think a jury is mostly useless, especially when the case is center to the election meddling narrative, most people either believe it or they don't. The jury was told that Stone had a secret source to Wikileaks besides Credico, despite no evidence to substantiate that claim, and overwhelming evidence to substantiate the claims made by Stone that Credico was the source. They took multiple statements by Stone out of context to make it seem as though Stone threatened to steal or kill Credico's dog in order to keep him quiet and conceal some grand conspiracy involving Stone and Wikileaks. However Credico was unable to provide any incriminating information about Stone when he did testify, that is why they had to get Stone for all these bogus charges. The initial crime he was accused of never happened, Credico was the source and the text messages prove that, and Kunstler was the source for Credico.

Since Stone didn't lie about his source there was also no attempt to conceal some vast election rigging conspiracy. Stone clearly wrote that Credico would get "indicted for perjury" if he lied about being the source under oath, he didn't threaten him not to testify. He wasn't trying to cover his own lies because he knew Credico was the one lying. The Jury either wasn't provided with this information or they simply wanted to believe the conspiratorial narrative being spun by the prosecutors regardless of the evidence. Even I have to admit the dog comment went a bit far even if it was purely a legal threat, along with that they had the judge "cross-hair" picture he posted which also appears to be taken out of context, it's easy to see how they could paint Stone in a very bad light. But the reality is he didn't try to obstruct the investigation, and until I see any evidence that there was some secret source besides Credico, these charges against Stone are completely bogus and a major injustice.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
What got him in this mess was essentially a joke.

Maybe so but the coverup is what is got him convicted.