Roger Stone trial: Guilty on All 7 Counts

Sho_Nuff82 · Nov 14, 2019

Feel like this trial went way faster than Manafort's. Stone didn't put up much of a defense really, obviously angling for a pardon.

Stone has been accused of lying during his Congressional testimony (impeding the Russia investigation) and intimidating witnesses. Seems pretty open and shut.

kris. · Nov 14, 2019

Nice. He deserves a very long, very confined prison sentence just like his friend.

LewieP · Nov 14, 2019

Would be such a shame if he had to produce his annual International Best & Worst Dressed list from a jail cell.

Nappuccino · Nov 14, 2019

If you don't put up much of a defense and get a harder, more damning sentence, will Trump still pardon you are will the optics be too much, even for him?

MonoStable · Nov 14, 2019

Hoping the jury makes the right decision but don't have a lot of faith =/

astroturfing · Nov 14, 2019

4-6 months is my guess.

scum almost always gets off easy.

raYne_07 · Nov 14, 2019

The hell? Feels like this thing just started.

Granted it's easy as hell to prosecute, but still.

Sho_Nuff82 · Nov 14, 2019

Good thread on all that Stone has been wrapped up in:

Have to say that Barr pushing the report out before this was public knowledge was his biggest stroke of genius.

Uncle Squingis · Nov 14, 2019

Nappuccino said:
If you don't put up much of a defense and get a harder, more damning sentence, will Trump still pardon you are will the optics be too much, even for him?

I'm thinking he's saving his pardons for his last day in office.

Lord Fagan · Nov 14, 2019

He knows he's gonna get pardoned.

Chaotic-Strike · Nov 14, 2019

Sho_Nuff82 said:
Good thread on all that Stone has been wrapped up in:

Have to say that Barr pushing the report out before this was public knowledge was his biggest stroke of genius.

Reason number 8756 that the Probe shouldn't be limited solely to Ukraine.

KHarvey16 · Nov 14, 2019

Chaotic-Strike said:
Reason number 8756 that the Probe shouldn't be limited solely to Ukraine.

There's no appetite to expand it backward to include this stuff. They have momentum on Ukraine.

Dahbomb · Nov 14, 2019

This is definitely open and shut case, unlike the corrupt Republican controlled Senate the American people will convict this conman.

Only question is if Trump will pardon or not.

Chaotic-Strike · Nov 14, 2019

KHarvey16 said:
There's no appetite to expand it backward to include this stuff. They have momentum on Ukraine.

They can multitask.

KHarvey16 · Nov 14, 2019

Chaotic-Strike said:
They can multitask.

Not on the timeline they need to avoid pulling senators running for president out of their campaigns. And without public support the whole thing could just fizzle out. Adding Russia back now is pretty much all downside politically.

Sqrt · Nov 14, 2019

Dahbomb said:
This is definitely open and shut case, unlike the corrupt Republican controlled Senate the American people will convict this conman.

Only question is if Trump will pardon or not.

Wouldn't it take just one MAGA in the jury for a mistrial?

Dahbomb · Nov 14, 2019

Lonely1 said:
Would it take just one MAGA in the jury for a mistrial?

I feel like in cases like these the jury had to be selected to remove any potential political extremists. So that greatly lowers the chance of a MAGA Trumper in there though not impossible.

Chaotic-Strike · Nov 14, 2019

KHarvey16 said:
Not on the timeline they need to avoid pulling senators running for president out of their campaigns. And without public support the whole thing could just fizzle out. Adding Russia back now is pretty much all downside politically.

Again, they've had plenty to use from the beginning the fact they waited so long to start the impeachment proceedings now is a problem, they themselves created.

The public support is there now because the actual proceedings has started and has been laid it out in the open in a concise way.

jeelybeans · Nov 14, 2019

Give the fucker life.

KHarvey16 · Nov 14, 2019

Chaotic-Strike said:
Again, they've had plenty to use from the beginning the fact they waited so long to start the impeachment proceedings now is a problem, they themselves created.

The public support is there now because the actual proceedings has started and has been laid it out in the open in a concise way.

Public support for action regarding Ukraine was immediately more pronounced than it ever was for Russia well before any process started.

Temascos · Nov 14, 2019

How it will go:

Judge - I find you guilty on all counts.
Roger - Oh no.
Judge - After deliberating on the sentence I charge you to sit in the corner and think about what you did for the next five minutes young man!
Court - The next case is a black man was found selling weed to adults in the seedy parts of town, it was to support his family.
Judge - LOCK HIM UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY!

andymcc · Nov 14, 2019

Temascos said:
How it will go:

Judge - I find you guilty on all counts.
Roger - Oh no.
Judge - After deliberating on the sentence I charge you to sit in the corner and think about what you did for the next five minutes young man!
Court - The next case is a black man was found selling weed to adults in the seedy parts of town, it was to support his family.
Judge - LOCK HIM UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY!

i dunno, this judge REALLY does not like stone and has had to issue gag orders to him in the past (he included a photo of her with a target on her head on instagram) so....

asmith906 · Nov 14, 2019

I wonder if he'll get probation because despite all his years of crime he lived an otherwise blameless life.

Chaotic-Strike · Nov 14, 2019

KHarvey16 said:
Public support for action regarding Ukraine was immediately more pronounced than it ever was for Russia well before any process started.

Yeah and Nixon's impeachment wasn't exactly popular at first either.

You don't think it would have risen when they called in more people and made the proceedings official instead of giving people the impression there wasn't anything to convict with in it? It certainly would have been easier to push harder for the un-redacted Muller's report instead of passively accepting Barr's summary of said report and waffling with the messaging for months.

I can't help, but remember that the reason we're even at this point is because the whistleblower took a chance into bringing this forward because of Trump's general incompetence rather than Congress actually doing it's job.

Firewithin · Nov 14, 2019

who will he swing with in the slammer?

FreezePeach · Nov 14, 2019

Remember when they were outing the jurors? Would be something if he didnt put up a defense cause they got to some of them.

KHarvey16 · Nov 14, 2019

Chaotic-Strike said:
Yeah and Nixon's impeachment wasn't exactly popular at first either.

You don't think it would have risen when they called in more people and made the proceedings official instead of giving people the impression there wasn't anything to convict with in it? It certainly would have been easier to push harder for the un-redacted Muller's report instead of passively accepting Barr's summary of said report and waffling with the messaging for months.

I can't help, but remember that the reason we're even at this point is because the whistleblower took a chance into bringing this forward because of Trump's general incompetence rather than Congress actually doing it's job.

The needle wasn't moving with regard to support for impeachment until the Ukraine story broke. The interest you're seeing now may be increased because of impeachment but the initial change in polling happened before any proceedings began. Assuming the same would occur with Russia isn't supported by any data.

Chaotic-Strike · Nov 14, 2019

KHarvey16 said:
The needle wasn't moving with regard to support for impeachment until the Ukraine story broke. The interest you're seeing now may be increased because of impeachment but the initial change in polling happened before any proceedings began. Assuming the same would occur with Russia isn't supported by any data.

It's up to the Democrats, to make the needle move not for the needle to move and then act on that.

I think we've seen the results of why waiting for the polls to change to do anything is bad politics and has ultimately landed us where we are today. You ultimately set a precedent when you refuse to to challenge clear corrupt and unethical behavior and encourage the opposition to do it more. No one has ever solved anything by becoming an enabler and the result of that is kids in cages and bunch of other stuff I shouldn't have to repeat.

How about instead of waiting for the people to come to our side you do what your job entails and give them a reason to believe you instead of throwing clearly impeachable behavior away and ensure it never be used again.

You should start an impeachment probe because he did it not because it would be politically convenient too.

KHarvey16 · Nov 14, 2019

Chaotic-Strike said:
It's up to the Democrats, to make the needle move not for the needle to move and then act on that.

I think we've seen the results of why waiting for the polls to change to do anything is bad politics and has ultimately landed us where we are today. You ultimately set a precedent when you refuse to to challenge clear corrupt and unethical behavior and encourage the opposition to do it more. No one has ever solved anything by becoming an enabler and the result of that is kids in cages and bunch of other stuff I shouldn't have to repeat.

How about instead of waiting for the people to come to our side you do what your job entails and give them a reason to believe you instead of throwing clearly impeachable behavior away and ensure it never be used again.

You should start an impeachment probe because he did not because it would be politically convenient too.

You're just asserting that things would have gone differently. What evidence is that based on?

Chaotic-Strike · Nov 14, 2019

KHarvey16 said:
You're just asserting that things would have gone differently. What evidence is that based on?

If that's all you took from my post then I ensure that you didn't really read it at all.

KHarvey16 · Nov 14, 2019

Chaotic-Strike said:
If that's all you took from my post then I ensure that you didn't really read it at all.

I absolutely read it. You're asserting where we are now is only because they didn't start proceedings despite tepid public support and that public support (for impeachment regarding Russia) would have increased had they started. I don't see any evidence to support those assertions.

BLEEN · Nov 14, 2019

Sho_Nuff82 said:
Good thread on all that Stone has been wrapped up in:

Have to say that Barr pushing the report out before this was public knowledge was his biggest stroke of genius.

"thread" Reading thru Twitter is like reading the world's most convoluted shopping list. Is there anywhere else?

Chaotic-Strike · Nov 14, 2019

KHarvey16 said:
I absolutely read it. You're asserting where we are now is only because they didn't start proceedings despite tepid public support and that public support (for impeachment regarding Russia) would have increased had they started. I don't see any evidence to support those assertions.

The response was always more than "tepid" considering the amounts calling for impeachment increase after Mueller spoke. Having a full blown proceedings would have only raised it more and allowed more witnesses to come forward and increased pressure on releasing the full Mueller report which we still do not have.

It was always the Republican base that was bringing the numbers down. I'll also go ahead and reiterate that it shouldn't matter how high it is in the first place or where it started at, but since you asked.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/08/7306...ings-grows-but-americans-split-on-way-forward

Bonus including Nixon's own numbers for your evidence.

E_i · Nov 14, 2019

KHarvey16 · Nov 14, 2019

Chaotic-Strike said:
The response was always more than "tepid" considering the amounts calling for impeachment increase after Mueller spoke. Having a full blown proceedings would have only raised it more and allowed more witnesses to come forward and increased pressure on releasing the full Mueller report which we still do not have.

It was always the Republican base that was bringing the numbers down. I'll also go ahead and reiterate that it shouldn't matter how high it is in the first place or where it started at, but since you asked.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/08/7306...ings-grows-but-americans-split-on-way-forward

Bonus including Nixon's own numbers for your evidence.

The numbers for impeachment were tepid across the board before Ukraine. You're trying to revise history here. That article is using the word "grows" in the headline deliberately.

Nixon is one data point from a long time ago. Simply arguing politics and the public would respond the same today doesn't make any sense and isn't supported.

Clefargle · Nov 14, 2019

Chaotic-Strike said:
Reason number 8756 that the Probe shouldn't be limited solely to Ukraine.

I agree fully

so1337 · Nov 14, 2019

RoGeR StOnE LeD aN oTHerWiSe bLaMElesS liFe.

Sho_Nuff82 · Nov 14, 2019

BLEEN said:
"thread" Reading thru Twitter is like reading the world's most convoluted shopping list. Is there anywhere else?

Politico is always good for coverage that is just below WaPo/NYT without a paywall.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/12/roger-stone-trial-donald-trump-wikileaks-070368

Despite the profane Stone texts and caustic friendships that have dominated chatter about the case, the Republican provocateur's court battle will likely be remembered for something far different: It revealed that Donald Trump's 2016 campaign aides knew more about WikiLeaks' plans than they have let on, and the president may have later misled Robert Mueller about it.

According to direct testimony and dozens of email and text messages introduced over the last week, the Trump campaign got its first heads up about Julian Assange's ability to upend U.S. politics as far back as April 2016. The timing is months earlier than any Trump aide has previously described, and months before WikiLeaks published its first cache of damaging materials that would go on to cripple Hillary Clinton's White House bid.

Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, campaign chairman Paul Manafort, campaign CEO Steve Bannon and senior adviser Stephen Miller were all part of those broader discussions about how to best turn the WikiLeaks surprises into political gold.

Perhaps most politically damning, Trump himself discussed the matter with Stone during a phone call in the heat of the summertime general election campaign, according to testimony from former-Trump campaign deputy Rick Gates

And from the Twitter thread:

Prosecutor: he was communicating with the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks' plans every chance he got. Roger Stone knew that if this information came out, it would look really bad for his longtime associate Donald Trump, so he lied to the committee.

Roger Stone told five categories of lies before the committee. He lied about the identity of his intermediary or go-between with WikiLeaks that he was publicly bragging about in August of 2016. He lied about asking his intermediary to get WikiLeaks to do things for him in 2016.

He lied about telling the Trump campaign about his conversations with the intermediary. He lied about his written communications with the intermediary, and he lied about his other written communications about Assange.

Roger Stone's longtime associate Donald Trump is running for president of the United States. Back in 2015, Mr. Stone was employed with the Trump campaign. By this time, July 2016, he is no longer employed with the Trump campaign, but he is talking regularly with the highest

levels of the campaign: Deputy Chairman Rick Gates; CEO Steve Bannon; Campaign Manager Paul Manafort; and even the candidate himself. So when this Twitter message comes out, Roger Stone sees a chance help the Trump campaign and he jumps at it.

June 14, 2016, on the day that the DNC announces that they have been hacked and they think it was the Russians. On the day that announcement comes out, Roger Stone has a phone conversation with the candidate, Donald Trump.

Again on June 30th, on the day that Guccifer 2.0, the entity that claimed credit for the hack, comes out and praises Donald Trump in a WordPress post, Stone has another phone conversation with Donald Trump.

One hour before Roger Stone sends this email to Jerome Corsi, "Malloch should see Assange," Roger Stone has a phone conversation first with Rick Gates, and then with the candidate, Donald Trump.

Remember, Gates testified, he said: Mr. Trump and I are in a car. It's a Suburban. We're going from Trump Tower to LaGuardia Airport. He said: I'm sitting diagonally. This is really like two and a half rows not three rows. I'm sitting diagonal from him.

He says: Candidate Trump has a phone call. Gates says: I can hear it's Roger Stone's voice on the other end of the phone. Trump hangs up the phone, and within 30 seconds, Trump says to Gates: More information is coming.

So when WikiLeaks finally does release more emails on October 7, who asks for credit? Roger Stone. And who gets the credit? Roger Stone. All of this evidence shows that Stone was discussing his conversations with the intermediary, with people involved in the Trump campaign.

Is that what Stone tells the committee? No. He lies again. Why is Stone lying about this? Ladies and gentlemen, Roger Stone is a political strategist. He knows how this is going to look.

A committee of the United States House of Representatives is examining whether the Russians were involved in the WikiLeaks releases, and here is Stone giving the campaign inside information on those releases over and over again. This is going to look terrible for Trump.

And Stone is worried that what he says and does in the hearing is going to reflect back on the president.

Stone's lawyers called zero witnesses in his defense. This trial basically closes the loop on the Russian interference laid out in the Mueller report. If he's convicted for lying to Congress, it's essentially an affirmation that the Trump campaign knew months before the first Wiki dump what was coming down the pipeline, and they kept in regular contact with Assange in order to maximize the damage of the releases. The president was directly involved. Whether it was worth blacking this all out of the initial Mueller report (including all of the Trump campaign knowledge of the wiki drops) just to convict a low-life like Stone is something we'll probably be debating for ages.

Surfinn · Nov 14, 2019

so1337 said:
RoGeR StOnE LeD aN oTHerWiSe bLaMElesS liFe.

White privilege is a hell of a drug

Chaotic-Strike · Nov 14, 2019

KHarvey16 said:
The numbers for impeachment were tepid across the board before Ukraine. You're trying to revise history here. That article is using the word "grows" in the headline deliberately.

Nixon is one data point from a long time ago. Simply arguing politics and the public would respond the same today doesn't make any sense and isn't supported.

You're right we shouldn't go by one data-point.

In the past few years since Trump was elected we had the Blue Wave which was sold on having Trump held accountable during the Midterms, Nixon, the current impeachment probe, and multiple polls having a decent amount of interest in having Trump impeached.

Even Republicans were successful at making Hilary's email scandal a thing in the 2016 election based on nothing, but having an impeachment probe on Trump committing treason with Russia in plain sight isn't feasible for Democrats because reasons.

BLEEN · Nov 14, 2019

Sho_Nuff82 said:
Politico is always good for coverage that is just below WaPo/NYT without a paywall.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/12/roger-stone-trial-donald-trump-wikileaks-070368

And from the Twitter thread:

Stone's lawyers called zero witnesses in his defense. This trial basically closes the loop on the Russian interference laid out in the Mueller report. If he's convicted for lying to Congress, it's essentially an affirmation that the Trump campaign knew months before the first Wiki dump what was coming down the pipeline, and they kept in regular contact with Assange in order to maximize the damage of the releases. The president was directly involved. Whether it was worth blacking this all out of the initial Mueller report (including all of the Trump campaign knowledge of the wiki drops) just to convict a low-life like Stone is something we'll probably be debating for ages.

Perfect! Thank you

dabig2 · Nov 14, 2019

Chaotic-Strike said:
You're right we shouldn't go by one data-point.

In the past few years since Trump was elected we had the Blue Wave which was sold on having Trump held accountable during the Midterms, Nixon, the current impeachment probe, and multiple polls having a decent amount of interest in having Trump impeached.

Even Republicans were successful at making Hilary's email scandal a thing in the 2016 election based on nothing, but having an impeachment probe on Trump committing treason with Russia in plain sight isn't feasible for Democrats because reasons.

To be fair to Pelosi/Dems, they DID launch an impeachment inquiry based on Mueller report late July. That Corey hearing was an impeachment hearing. But they're also currently undergoing some court cases to try to not only get more information out of the Mueller Report but to get their witnesses too.

Then again I'm one who thinks they should've launched a year long impeachment inquiry like day 1 which encompasses the concentration camps/separation policies, Trump's racism, emoluments, Mueller, and everything else. I want the Dems to show that this is literally a crime spree, not just "Trump did x and x was illegal".

Plus the Ukraine stuff WILL be bouncing back to Mueller related stuff and already has I think. Manafort hangs like a shitty shadow over the entire thing. Not to mention that practically this same bribery/extortion happened in 2017 that literally changed the course of the Mueller investigation and very successfully obstructed him...

tsampikos · Nov 14, 2019

My favorite thing was seeing him flip the fuck out for years every time he was told he was going to die in prison

Because yeah fuck him he deserves to die in prison for his crimes against our country

Literal fucking espionage

stew · Nov 14, 2019

No verdict today. Jury back tomorrow.

Vic Damone Jr. · Nov 14, 2019

Surfinn said:
White privilege is a hell of a drug

Innit.

Wilsongt · Nov 14, 2019

Pardon?

Zip · Nov 14, 2019

stew said:
No verdict today. Jury back tomorrow.

Starting to sound to me like there's a stupid holdout again like in the manafort trial.

Impressively stupid given there was minimal defence even offered.

Deleted member 1476 · Nov 14, 2019

O-Zips said:
Starting to sound to me like there's a stupid holdout again like in the manafort trial.

Impressively stupid given there was minimal defence even offered.

Yep.

Particle Physicist · Nov 14, 2019

O-Zips said:
Starting to sound to me like there's a stupid holdout again like in the manafort trial.

Impressively stupid given there was minimal defence even offered.

probably a diseased MAGA jurist.

Sho_Nuff82 · Nov 14, 2019

O-Zips said:
Starting to sound to me like there's a stupid holdout again like in the manafort trial.

Impressively stupid given there was minimal defence even offered.

It sounds like there is a hangup on whether a statement released by Stone's lawyers counts as "testimony". The actual answer is complicated, but the judge told the jury "no". That is relevant to 1 of the 7 counts against him.

The Manafort deliberations were long as well, but the only juror holdout was for one or two counts of a dozen plus.

Roger Stone trial: Guilty on All 7 Counts

Community Resettler

Community Resettler

One Winged Slayer

User requested account closure