Jump to content
The Education Forum

Stoned


Ron Bulman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Doug:

That film has about forty people in it, but Stone is not one of them.

I know about Florida in 2000.

That indictment is about Stone lying about his contacts with Randy C and Jerome Corsi.  There is no proof advanced about Stone's direct connections with Wikileaks.  Or if there is, I missed it. But beyond that, both of those characters deny ever meeting with Assange or having direct communications with him. 

So it sure looks to me that Stone is convicted about lying about something he never had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

28 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Doug:

That film has about forty people in it, but Stone is not one of them.

I know about Florida in 2000.

That indictment is about Stone lying about his contacts with Randy C and Jerome Corsi.  There is no proof advanced about Stone's direct connections with Wikileaks.  Or if there is, I missed it. But beyond that, both of those characters deny ever meeting with Assange or having direct communications with him. 

So it sure looks to me that Stone is convicted about lying about something he never had.

Steve Bannon and Rick Gates testified that the Trump campaign gave Stone credit for having access to Wikileaks, and lots of circumstantial evidence indicates Stone had foreknowledge of impending Wikileaks releases.

Is Jim DiEugenio the Baghdad Bob of RussiaGate denial?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

That indictment is about Stone lying about his contacts with Randy C and Jerome Corsi.  There is no proof advanced about Stone's direct connections with Wikileaks.  Or if there is, I missed it. But beyond that, both of those characters deny ever meeting with Assange or having direct communications with him. 

So it sure looks to me that Stone is convicted about lying about something he never had.

I think it goes something like 4 charges of lying to feds which leads to 1 count of obstruction and (5 now) 1 witness tampering and another obstruction (7 total). The rumor I heard is these are only charges for what they care to reveal. IOW there may be ongoing items of interest regarding this but I don't know that.

It really appears that Stone was after cut outs to provide insulation for someone. There's a variety of reasons not to make information available in discovery if another matter is not yet matured. Could be that's it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Are you saying there is more to this story that could emerge later?

Possibly. I guess there were omissions in the questioning of Bannon and Credico (I believe) that were deemed too odd to be oversights with the known (maybe presumed) facts about their involvement. I'm only guessing here but it may have to do with ongoing investigations of Assange and/or Wikileaks. I'll try to post something in more detail but the thrust of the rumors are that the FBI's scouring of documentary evidence gave them more ammunition than the slam dunk prosecutions they eventually charged and convicted Stone of.

That would probably mean they're holding in abeyance additional charges to limit their discovery and interfere with any coordination between other parties which appears to have been a problem (ie Stone's demands that Credico not testify). There may be nothing to it but questions always get raised when apparently low hanging fruit is left dangling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Roger Stone should be a footnote in history. Instead, his life shows our descent to shamelessness.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/roger-stone-embodies-the-political-age-from-nixon-to-trump/2019/11/15/fd2a5006-07f2-11ea-8ac0-0810ed197c7e_story.html

 

No Sir Counselor.  Stone should not be a footnote.  He should be an example to future generations of how we have come from the hope of JFK to this.  With all due respect.  JMho.

I understand the current charges, under current laws, give rise to questions.  But in the bigger long term picture it is poetic justice.

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 11/18/2019 at 10:02 PM, Ron Bulman said:

No Sir Counselor.  Stone should not be a footnote.  He should be an example to future generations of how we have come from the hope of JFK to this.  With all due respect.  JMho.

I understand the current charges, under current laws, give rise to questions.  But in the bigger long term picture it is poetic justice.

Not hardly I guess.  But still...

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&id=44278581741772C1532ABE9FE1DEEBC45A822FC1&thid=OIP.Q_txY_9t5gXabCD20P5RvAHaLH&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2Falexasteroidastrology.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FRS-richard-nixon-tattoo-600x900.jpg&exph=900&expw=600&q=roger+stone+nixon+tattoo&selectedindex=1&qpvt=roger+stone+nixon+tattoo&ajaxhist=0&vt=0

Time served?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump has now attacked the judge who will sentence Stone on Feb. 20.

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/02/trump-lashes-out-with-dangerous-lie-at-the-federal-judge-overseeing-roger-stones-case/

https://www.theweek.com/speedreads/895357/twitter-rampage-trump-attacks-federal-judge-set-sentence-roger-stone

The thinking is that before Feb. 20 the judge will call a special hearing at which Trump's newly appointed U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia will be asked why he cast aside the 7 to 9 year recommendation of the DOJ prosecutors who tried Stone and whether President Trump's twitt the day before caused this to happen. She will also ask the four prosecutors to appear to explain why they felt they had to resign from the case after the action by the U.S. Attorney. The 7 to 9 year sentence they recommended was based on standard sentencing guidelines.

My hope is that the judge will also ask Attorney General William Barr (now known as Attorney General Roy Cohn) to appear at the hearing and answer questions.

Edited by Douglas Caddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2019 at 7:45 PM, S.T. Patrick said:

Interesting Twitter analysis from Aaron Mate of The Nation:

"Roger Stone was found guilty on charges stemming from his false claim of a Wikileaks backchannel. In reality, he had none. Let that sink in: the top proponents of Trump-Russia-Wikileaks 'collusion' are now pretending that this verdict doesn't undermine their conspiracy theory."

 

Mate doesn’t report anything. All just opinion. Never cites any sources for his claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...