What's new

Roger Stone asks for a new trial

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
4,950
Reaction score
445
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS...


Unless you are a republican, then you can break any law you want. The evidence is overwhelming, and he threatened a government witness, and was found guilty by every juror. Not 1 single juror found him not guilty.

Just another example of how the rules do not apply to republicans and they can commit any crimes they want. Trumpers are completely detached from reality.
And later the witness the prosecution claimed was supposed to be threatened, said that he never took what Stone said as a threat.
How do you explain that?
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
4,950
Reaction score
445
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Convicted of seven felony counts.
Proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
How many felonies did Hillary Clinton commit which went completely uninvestigated ?

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-emails-show-involvement-of-peter-strzok-and-lisa-page-in-launching-of-crossfire-hurricane/

A public affairs official whose name was redacted opens the WFO email chain, writing: “Various news outlets are reporting today that Julian Assange suggested during a recent overseas interview that DNC Staffer, Seth Rich was a Wikileaks source, and may have been killed because he leaked the DNC e-mails to his organization, and that Wikileak’s was offering $20,000 for information regarding Rich’s death last month. Based on this news, we anticipate additional press coverage on this matter. I hear that you are in class today; however, when you have a moment, can you please give me a call to discuss what involvement the Bureau has in the investigation.”
None. The Seth Rich lie has been debunked.
It is always impossible to tell who leaks something.
Hacking can be done without leaving a trace, and anyone with access could also released the emails.
There is almost never anyway to trace hacking.
The only way to prove the source is if they admit it.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
51,986
Reaction score
11,131
Points
2,070
Location
Maine
Wikileaks was protected whistleblowing, so there is no way at all that Stone should be liable for any sort of prosecution at all.
When called in front of a political organization like Congress, it is perfectly legal to lie.
That is because it is not a fair an impartial setting like a court of law.
If it were, than all of congress would have to recuse itself for bias.
nope!

it is illegal to lie before congress...a felony... and ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
14,363
Reaction score
1,320
Points
290
He was convicted by an Obama judge, the Obama prosecutors, and an Obama-loving lead juror. It's time to straighten out this mess or even dismissed the with prejudice and bias.

"Attorneys for Roger Stone on Friday requested a new trial, just a day after saying they were looking at potential bias by a juror who voted to convict the longtime Trump aide of lying to Congress and witness tampering..."

Roger Stone asks for new trial
That is the best you can do. It will be rejected as it should.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
14,363
Reaction score
1,320
Points
290
The lying jury foreman should mean a mistrial....Let the Swamp goon squad go through the effort to demand another trial.
You are the lying bastard. He does not deserve another trial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IM2

two_iron

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2019
Messages
1,066
Reaction score
235
Points
65
Location
Republic of Texas
If Stone gets 9 years, then thru proper extrapolation the Bag Lady should get 2470 years....

Just sayin'....
 

IM2

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
35,444
Reaction score
3,817
Points
1,170
None. The Seth Rich lie has been debunked.
Covered up, but far from debunked, unless you want to show some actual proof of your conspiracy theory. Many dots in a real investigation would point to Seth Rich being the hacker - NOT Russia.
Read the police report then shut the fuck up.
 

IM2

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
35,444
Reaction score
3,817
Points
1,170
Shhhh heck some of you feel bad for a man of stones ilk? I agree 9 years is too much but he won't get that anyway. If stone were some average working guy then he'd get the full sentence and you people would beg he got the full sentence. When did we tilt toward the wealthy getting all the breaks?
When you are a Trumper you live in a fantasy land void of facts and reason, therefore any trump supporter can commit any offense they want.
Yep, they live in fact free world where they can make up anything and claim it to be true.
More projection little man.
Truth.
 

SweetSue92

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
9,660
Reaction score
2,008
Points
290
Location
USA
The Left's obsession with Roger Stone just tells us all how profoundly THEY ARE LOSING.

They have nothing else...NOTHING.

Not the economy.

Not impeachment.

No candidates.

They are losing even on social issues.

Even in the culture: PC is cratering, they have no viewers even in entertainment--see the Oscars. Around the world: THEY. ARE. LOSING.

What do they have? Keeping a leftover from the "Russia" fiasco in jail--which btw, even contradicts their "prison reform" mantra--just to save some kind of face. Roger Stone, an old man.

Fellow Patriots, do not for one second lose the forest for the trees here. While they want to wander into the weeds with you about Roger Stone, just point at them and laugh. Think about all the things they CANNOT argue, because they have already lost, and REFUSE to engage.

Let them lose. Don't help them.
 

Lysistrata

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
11,436
Reaction score
1,617
Points
290
The OP's legal theory is that every convicted defendant who is affiliated with a political party is entitled to a new trial if the presiding judge at his/her original trial was appointed by a president of the other political party, the prosecutors in the original trial somehow have been shown to have "loved" the president of the other party (I don't know how one shows this), and anyone on the jury who voted to convict was a supporter of the other party.

The OP's theory boils down to an assertion that a defendant with ties to a political party cannot receive a fair trial, and cannot be validly convicted, unless all of those participating in his/her trial belong to or support the defendant's own political party.

Horseshit.
 

IM2

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
35,444
Reaction score
3,817
Points
1,170
The Left's obsession with Roger Stone just tells us all how profoundly THEY ARE LOSING.

They have nothing else...NOTHING.

Not the economy.

Not impeachment.

No candidates.

They are losing even on social issues.

Even in the culture: PC is cratering, they have no viewers even in entertainment--see the Oscars. Around the world: THEY. ARE. LOSING.

What do they have? Keeping a leftover from the "Russia" fiasco in jail--which btw, even contradicts their "prison reform" mantra--just to save some kind of face. Roger Stone, an old man.

Fellow Patriots, do not for one second lose the forest for the trees here. While they want to wander into the weeds with you about Roger Stone, just point at them and laugh. Think about all the things they CANNOT argue, because they have already lost, and REFUSE to engage.

Let them lose. Don't help them.
Completely wrong. That's why YOUR fake God, trump and his gestapo head, William Barr is trying to press the court to reduce Stones sentence. The fact free world is coming to an end and this will be shown to you during the fall presidential campaign. YOU, are losing.
 

SweetSue92

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
9,660
Reaction score
2,008
Points
290
Location
USA
The OP's legal theory is that every convicted defendant who is affiliated with a political party is entitled to a new trial if the presiding judge at his/her original trial was appointed by a president of the other political party, the prosecutors in the original trial somehow have been shown to have "loved" the president of the other party (I don't know how one shows this), and anyone on the jury who voted to convict was a supporter of the other party.

The OP's theory boils down to an assertion that a defendant with ties to a political party cannot receive a fair trial, and cannot be validly convicted, unless all of those participating in his/her trial belong to or support the defendant's own political party.

Horseshit.
The Left's obsession with Roger Stone just tells us all how profoundly THEY ARE LOSING.

They have nothing else...NOTHING.

Not the economy.

Not impeachment.

No candidates.

They are losing even on social issues.

Even in the culture: PC is cratering, they have no viewers even in entertainment--see the Oscars. Around the world: THEY. ARE. LOSING.

What do they have? Keeping a leftover from the "Russia" fiasco in jail--which btw, even contradicts their "prison reform" mantra--just to save some kind of face. Roger Stone, an old man.

Fellow Patriots, do not for one second lose the forest for the trees here. While they want to wander into the weeds with you about Roger Stone, just point at them and laugh. Think about all the things they CANNOT argue, because they have already lost, and REFUSE to engage.

Let them lose. Don't help them.
 

IM2

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
35,444
Reaction score
3,817
Points
1,170
You're losing Sue. The economy is not because of trump. Cheating the law and bragging about winning is not accepted in America. Ask the Houston Astros. And every democratic candidate is better than trump. Trump is running from a primary challenge in his own party. Fact free is coming to an end.
 

Lysistrata

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
11,436
Reaction score
1,617
Points
290
The OP's legal theory is that every convicted defendant who is affiliated with a political party is entitled to a new trial if the presiding judge at his/her original trial was appointed by a president of the other political party, the prosecutors in the original trial somehow have been shown to have "loved" the president of the other party (I don't know how one shows this), and anyone on the jury who voted to convict was a supporter of the other party.

The OP's theory boils down to an assertion that a defendant with ties to a political party cannot receive a fair trial, and cannot be validly convicted, unless all of those participating in his/her trial belong to or support the defendant's own political party.

Horseshit.
The Left's obsession with Roger Stone just tells us all how profoundly THEY ARE LOSING.

They have nothing else...NOTHING.

Not the economy.

Not impeachment.

No candidates.

They are losing even on social issues.

Even in the culture: PC is cratering, they have no viewers even in entertainment--see the Oscars. Around the world: THEY. ARE. LOSING.

What do they have? Keeping a leftover from the "Russia" fiasco in jail--which btw, even contradicts their "prison reform" mantra--just to save some kind of face. Roger Stone, an old man.

Fellow Patriots, do not for one second lose the forest for the trees here. While they want to wander into the weeds with you about Roger Stone, just point at them and laugh. Think about all the things they CANNOT argue, because they have already lost, and REFUSE to engage.

Let them lose. Don't help them.
I see nothing in your post that refers to any facts regarding Roger Stone's case. It is just a general rant about "leftists," "they," "PC," and every other propaganda point thought up by right-wingers, with the usual jargon. You even managed to stretch it to the Oscars, which is pretty far afield. If you are going to go that far, what, if anything, does the Stone case have to do with this year's NASCAR winners?
 

SweetSue92

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
9,660
Reaction score
2,008
Points
290
Location
USA
The OP's legal theory is that every convicted defendant who is affiliated with a political party is entitled to a new trial if the presiding judge at his/her original trial was appointed by a president of the other political party, the prosecutors in the original trial somehow have been shown to have "loved" the president of the other party (I don't know how one shows this), and anyone on the jury who voted to convict was a supporter of the other party.

The OP's theory boils down to an assertion that a defendant with ties to a political party cannot receive a fair trial, and cannot be validly convicted, unless all of those participating in his/her trial belong to or support the defendant's own political party.

Horseshit.
The Left's obsession with Roger Stone just tells us all how profoundly THEY ARE LOSING.

They have nothing else...NOTHING.

Not the economy.

Not impeachment.

No candidates.

They are losing even on social issues.

Even in the culture: PC is cratering, they have no viewers even in entertainment--see the Oscars. Around the world: THEY. ARE. LOSING.

What do they have? Keeping a leftover from the "Russia" fiasco in jail--which btw, even contradicts their "prison reform" mantra--just to save some kind of face. Roger Stone, an old man.

Fellow Patriots, do not for one second lose the forest for the trees here. While they want to wander into the weeds with you about Roger Stone, just point at them and laugh. Think about all the things they CANNOT argue, because they have already lost, and REFUSE to engage.

Let them lose. Don't help them.
I see nothing in your post that refers to any facts regarding Roger Stone's case. It is just a general rant about "leftists," "they," "PC," and every other propaganda point thought up by right-wingers, with the usual jargon. You even managed to stretch it to the Oscars, which is pretty far afield. If you are going to go that far, what, if anything, does the Stone case have to do with this year's NASCAR winners?
You are perseverating on Roger Stone because you have lost on every single other front
 

IM2

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
35,444
Reaction score
3,817
Points
1,170
The OP's legal theory is that every convicted defendant who is affiliated with a political party is entitled to a new trial if the presiding judge at his/her original trial was appointed by a president of the other political party, the prosecutors in the original trial somehow have been shown to have "loved" the president of the other party (I don't know how one shows this), and anyone on the jury who voted to convict was a supporter of the other party.

The OP's theory boils down to an assertion that a defendant with ties to a political party cannot receive a fair trial, and cannot be validly convicted, unless all of those participating in his/her trial belong to or support the defendant's own political party.

Horseshit.
The Left's obsession with Roger Stone just tells us all how profoundly THEY ARE LOSING.

They have nothing else...NOTHING.

Not the economy.

Not impeachment.

No candidates.

They are losing even on social issues.

Even in the culture: PC is cratering, they have no viewers even in entertainment--see the Oscars. Around the world: THEY. ARE. LOSING.

What do they have? Keeping a leftover from the "Russia" fiasco in jail--which btw, even contradicts their "prison reform" mantra--just to save some kind of face. Roger Stone, an old man.

Fellow Patriots, do not for one second lose the forest for the trees here. While they want to wander into the weeds with you about Roger Stone, just point at them and laugh. Think about all the things they CANNOT argue, because they have already lost, and REFUSE to engage.

Let them lose. Don't help them.
I see nothing in your post that refers to any facts regarding Roger Stone's case. It is just a general rant about "leftists," "they," "PC," and every other propaganda point thought up by right-wingers, with the usual jargon. You even managed to stretch it to the Oscars, which is pretty far afield. If you are going to go that far, what, if anything, does the Stone case have to do with this year's NASCAR winners?
She lives fact free. Because it's trump who is obsessed with the Stone case.
 

IM2

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
35,444
Reaction score
3,817
Points
1,170
The OP's legal theory is that every convicted defendant who is affiliated with a political party is entitled to a new trial if the presiding judge at his/her original trial was appointed by a president of the other political party, the prosecutors in the original trial somehow have been shown to have "loved" the president of the other party (I don't know how one shows this), and anyone on the jury who voted to convict was a supporter of the other party.

The OP's theory boils down to an assertion that a defendant with ties to a political party cannot receive a fair trial, and cannot be validly convicted, unless all of those participating in his/her trial belong to or support the defendant's own political party.

Horseshit.
The Left's obsession with Roger Stone just tells us all how profoundly THEY ARE LOSING.

They have nothing else...NOTHING.

Not the economy.

Not impeachment.

No candidates.

They are losing even on social issues.

Even in the culture: PC is cratering, they have no viewers even in entertainment--see the Oscars. Around the world: THEY. ARE. LOSING.

What do they have? Keeping a leftover from the "Russia" fiasco in jail--which btw, even contradicts their "prison reform" mantra--just to save some kind of face. Roger Stone, an old man.

Fellow Patriots, do not for one second lose the forest for the trees here. While they want to wander into the weeds with you about Roger Stone, just point at them and laugh. Think about all the things they CANNOT argue, because they have already lost, and REFUSE to engage.

Let them lose. Don't help them.
I see nothing in your post that refers to any facts regarding Roger Stone's case. It is just a general rant about "leftists," "they," "PC," and every other propaganda point thought up by right-wingers, with the usual jargon. You even managed to stretch it to the Oscars, which is pretty far afield. If you are going to go that far, what, if anything, does the Stone case have to do with this year's NASCAR winners?
You are perseverating on Roger Stone because you have lost on every single other front
Trump is the one doing that. Cheating the law is not a win and republicans know trump should have been convicted.
 

initforme

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
12,310
Reaction score
926
Points
250
Make stone work a$10 per hoyr job and force him to survive on those wages. That would be a fair sentence. Upon having to work he'd have a meltdown.
 

IM2

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
35,444
Reaction score
3,817
Points
1,170
Make stone work a$10 per hoyr job and force him to survive on those wages. That would be a fair sentence. Upon having to work he'd have a meltdown.
7-9 years. Because he'd still be free if he had to work for 10 per hour.
 

RodISHI

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
20,971
Reaction score
5,797
Points
280
Stone got a fair trial. For some reason Trumpers hate the rule of law. Trump and any politician or other influential Trump supporter believe there is a special kind of extraterritorial status that attaches to them. You know it is the same type of attitude they have in shit hole countries. One set of laws for the elites another for the masses. Dim witted Trumpers don’t realize they are part of the masses.
What were his actual crimes? He received information that WikiLeaks was going to release Hillary and DNC emails exposing their corruption, that was his crime. The “lies” he supposedly told Congress were inaccuracies with the details within those emails, exactly when he received them and what information was in each. Oh he got a date wrong, or didn’t remember what information was in which email, so he deserves 9 years in prison? It’s ridiculous.
While I don't think he should get 9 yrs, and he definitely will not get 9 yrs. He clearly lied and clearly threatened the witness. A jury clearly and quickly found him guilty. I know you hate facts, facts are kryptonite to a republican, but the evidence is overwhelming. Now man up and take the punishment like a man, and not a little faggot bitch.
Notice prosecutors said during the trial, not testimony of the witness but prosecutors said. Sorry that doesn't cut it even if I don't care for watching or listening to Stone this case all sounds pretty unjust too me. Just because attorneys say someone said something or did something without an actual witness giving the testimony as proof it doesn't mean jack.

Roger Stone trial witness defends prosecutors from Trump’s ‘vile smear job’
The witness;
Credico recently wrote to the court saying he did not think Stone was threatening him physically, but prosecutors noted that during the trial, Credico said he was concerned that Stone's statements could encourage others to become violent.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top