Trump Ally Roger Stone Gets 40 Months for Lying, Witness-Tampering

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

The judge lied and should be impeached. She is clearly biased. Just another example of political corruption.

About WHAT?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

About WHAT?

She said on the record, that Stone was covering for the president. As far as I know, the charges didn't mention that.

The jury forewoman calls herself "a lieutenant with the Resistance", I believe?

The judge also barred Stone from speaking about it. So all the people at CNN can say whatever they want about him, and he's not allowed to speak his mind or defend himself?

Spence, we know the DOJ tipped off CNN, and we all saw the way the DOJ went in to get this senior citizen, armed like Seal Team 6.

Stone broke the law, and absolutely deserves to be punished. But it appears there was a significant political element to some of this.

Worst case, Trump pardons him after the election. My bet, the conviction gets tossed. That jury forewoman had no business being anywhere near that trial, she posted on social media that Trump was in the Klan and that all of his supporters were racist.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

She said on the record, that Stone was covering for the president. As far as I know, the charges didn't mention that. so judges are prevented from giving their opinion on why the def. did something?

The jury forewoman calls herself "a lieutenant with the Resistance", I believe?

The judge also barred Stone from speaking about it. So all the people at CNN can say whatever they want about him, and he's not allowed to speak his mind or defend himself?Is this after the verdict or during the trial when he posted a picture of the judge with what looked like cross hairs?

Spence, we know the DOJ tipped off CNNReally - when did that come out? Read up on what the CNN people said about why they were at his house., and we all saw the way the DOJ went in to get this senior citizen, armed like Seal Team 6.

Stone broke the law, and absolutely deserves to be punished. But it appears there was a significant political element to some of this.

Worst case, Trump pardons him after the election. My bet, the conviction gets tossed. That jury forewoman had no business being anywhere near that trial, she posted on social media that Trump was in the Klan and that all of his supporters were racist.

so what was the lie?

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

so what was the lie?

I think it was from a meme.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

She said on the record, that Stone was covering for the president. As far as I know, the charges didn't mention that.

The jury forewoman calls herself "a lieutenant with the Resistance", I believe?

The judge also barred Stone from speaking about it. So all the people at CNN can say whatever they want about him, and he's not allowed to speak his mind or defend himself?

Spence, we know the DOJ tipped off CNN, and we all saw the way the DOJ went in to get this senior citizen, armed like Seal Team 6.




Stone broke the law, and absolutely deserves to be punished. But it appears there was a significant political element to some of this.

Worst case, Trump pardons him after the election. My bet, the conviction gets tossed. That jury forewoman had no business being anywhere near that trial, she posted on social media that Trump was in the Klan and that all of his supporters were racist.

CNN tipped off By DOJ Conspiracy theory

The Jury forewomen was vetted by Stone Lawyers and she wasn't the only Juror to convict


The judge also barred Stone from speaking about it,,, its a gag order and not uncommon and apply to both parties

DOJ went in to get this senior citizen, armed like Seal Team 6.

Policy on Raids are not defined by the Targets Age but based on the safety of the officers involved .. funny again no issue with seal team 6 wannabes protesting in VA But actual law enforcement doing their Job OMG


and Trump can say what he wants interfering in the Trial and the Right called it Free speech This forewomen spoke after the trial and never during the trial about the trial and she's the one the right goes after Typical

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The Jury forewomen was vetted by Stone Lawyers and she wasn't the only Juror to convict


The judge also barred Stone from speaking about it,,, its a gag order and not uncommon and apply to both parties

i’m told that in federal court, the judge selects the jury, not the lawyers. either way, she should have been booted.

i’ve seen democrat lawyers who were stunned at the gag order. it’s not only sean hannity saying that was excessive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m told that in federal court, the judge selects the jury, not the lawyers. either way, she should have been booted.

i’ve seen democrat lawyers who were stunned at the gag order. it’s not only sean hannity saying that was excessive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A gag order doesn't change whats told in court by either side not sure of why this is problematic to you


The judge and the attorneys then ask the potential jurors questions to determine their suitability to serve on the jury, a process called voir dire. The purpose of voir dire is to exclude from the jury people who may not be able to decide the case fairly.

this is in All us courts Not sure how many they get to dismiss when I was selected the defendant was with his attorneys when then asked if i could be impartial even as a correctional officer , And didn't get bounced until the last round

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

A gag order doesn't change whats told in court by either side not sure of why this is problematic to you


The judge and the attorneys then ask the potential jurors questions to determine their suitability to serve on the jury, a process called voir dire. The purpose of voir dire is to exclude from the jury people who may not be able to decide the case fairly.

this is in All us courts Not sure how many they get to dismiss when I was selected the defendant was with his attorneys when then asked if i could be impartial even as a correctional officer , And didn't get bounced until the last round

it’s problematic to me because it violates his first amendment right. again, i’ve seen harvard law professors who identify as democrats, say she has no reason to prevent him from speaking, especially after its over. i haven’t heard one single person say it’s common. i guess you know more, but little old me, i have to rely on experts. unlike you, i can accept and process that which goes against my beliefs, i don’t need to deny all such things.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

especially after its over.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who has said this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device