Roger Stone

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Roger Stone

Postby alloneword » Sun Nov 10, 2019 12:08 pm

World Exclusive: Post Testimony Interview with Randy Credico
10 Nov, 2019 in Uncategorized by craig


Following his appearance as the main witness for the prosecution against former Trump aide Roger Stone, my good friend Randy Credico has had the entire American mainstream media chasing him for an interview. He has however decided to give only this single interview to me, which is put out here and which is free for everybody to use, with acknowledgement.

Five of the seven charges against Stone relate directly to Randy, who is the witness that Stone is accused of tampering with and attempting to intimidate. There is a tremendous irony here. The Mueller investigation was set up to reveal links between the Trump campaign, Russia and Wikileaks. There are no such links, as has already been proven in another US court. Roger Stone ends up being charged with lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee, by pretending he had links to Wikileaks when he did not. He is also charged with trying to intimidate Randy into saying there was such a link and Randy was the back channel; which I myself can attest is nonsense.

The Mueller investigation has thus ultimately ended up prosecuting people for telling the same pack of lies that Mueller himself was pushing. The Clinton media, including CNN, the Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this. They follow the Stone trial assiduously from delight in seeing a long term Trump hanger-on brought down, and in the hope something will come out about Wikileaks or Russia. Their reporting, as that of the BBC, has been deliberately vague on why Stone is being charged, contriving to leave their audience with the impression that Stone’s trial proves Trump connections to Wkileaks and Russia, when in fact it proves the precise opposite. A fact you will never learn from the mainstream media. Which is why I am doing this at 2am on a very cold Edinburgh night, for the small but vital audience which is interested in the truth.

So here is Randy...


Audio at link: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... y-credico/
User avatar
alloneword
 
Posts: 647
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:19 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Roger Stone

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:15 am

‏Jurors heard closing arguments yesterday. Today, Judge Jackson will give jury instructions and send them off to deliberate...may get a verdict today or tomorrow

DOJ says Stone lied, and talked to the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks. Stone's attorneys say, "so what?"

Shimon Prokupecz

Reading the transcript from yesterday’s closing arguments. Cause a lot of this got lost yesterday I am going to tweet some of the highlights. There were some big moments. What else is there to do while we wait for a verdict.

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.
https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/11 ... 6519066624


Darren Samuelsohn

Good morning from federal court in DC. Same drill. Different day, albeit one where we are set for closing arguments in the Roger Stone trial starting at 1 pm. There’s a conference to talk jury instructions at 10 am too just w/ judge & lawyers.

We're about to get rolling here in the other news story of the day: the Stone jury instruction conference. Milo Yiannopoulos sitting in front row behind Stone defense team. Michael Caputo is also here at the courthouse today after getting stuck in Buffalo snow & missing Monday.

"All Rise!" - Here we go. Judge Jackson takes her seat.

Jackson says she's gotten a communication from a juror. Sharing it w/ lawyers now. The juror says she's unwell and not able to be here. "This is why we have alternates," Jackson said. Kravis & Buschel says no objection.

The 'no objection' was on having one of the 2 alternates become one of the 12 jurors and eventual dismissal of the other alternate. Jackson says she doesn't need to see a doctor note from the sick juror.

Jackson praises DOJ/Stone lawyers for working together to get the right language for jury instructions. She signs off on them. Now talking about the verdict form the jury will fill out on the 7 counts Stone is facing.

Jackson now considering what the jury should see with respect to the transcript of the famous Godfather II scene involving Frankie Five Angels, aka Frank Pentangeli. She's not sure she wants stage directions in the transcript.

Jackson convening a bench conference on "scheduling matters."

And with that, Jackson adjourns the Stone trial conference on jury instructions. Back at 1 pm for closing arguments.

Funny moment before Jackson adjourned where she said she wasn't so keen on having so many adjectives in the Godfather transcript that the jury gets to see. My co-pilot @joshgerstein suggests we fire up a @politico AM story w/ headline - "Adjectives in crosshairs at Stone trial"

Closing arguments about 10 mins away in the Roger Stone trial. He just reentered the courthouse.

The courtroom is full and several people are being redirected to overflow, including former Mueller prosecutor Andrew Goldstein and Michael Caputo.

Spotted inside the courtroom - Jeannie Rhee, another former Mueller prosecutor.

Alas, Caputo got in. But it’s definitely very crammed in the courtroom.

"All rise!" - And here we go with closing arguments.

Jury entering the courtroom for first time today. They were told they didn't need to get here until after lunch. That's the latest they've had to arrive since the trial started last Tuesday.

As Judge Jackson indicted, there are only 13 jurors here today. One emailed in that they were sick and has been excused.

Jonathan Kravis opens pointing directly at Stone. "That man is Roger Stone," the federal prosecutor says. "The evidence you've seen and heard over the last week" shows Stone obstructed a congressional investigation.

Kravis recaps the case DOJ has presented in obstructing the House's Russia probe. "Why did Roger Stone do these things? Because, he knew if the truth came out about what he'd been doing it'd look terrible."

Kravis is giving his closing argument reading in part from his notes.

Darren Samuelsohn Retweeted WikiLeaks
Kravis showing jurors this @WikiLeaks tweet from 2016:
Darren Samuelsohn added,

WikiLeaks
Verified account

@wikileaks
RELEASE: 19,252 emails from the US Democratic National Committee https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/ #Hillary2016 #FeelTheBern

Kravits notes to jury the Stone trial isn't about putting the Russian hacks themselves on trial. "You are not being asked to decide it," he tells them.

Kravis playing brief audio clip of Roger Stone's opening statement in his deposition to HPSCI.

"Here's lie No. 1," Kravis says, playing audio of Rep. Quigley asking Stone about his Aug. 8, 2016, Broward Co. speech where he says "actually communicated with Julian Assange" and follow-ups about who he was referring to with Alex Jones on Aug. 12, 2016.

Kravis explains Stone mislead Congress when he's telling them his intermediary is Randy Credico when in fact it's Jerome Corsi. Shows jurors the July 25 email from Stone to Corsi, "get to assange" and also "get the pending wikileaks".

Those messages to Corsi, as well as another urging Ted Malloch to "see Assange" came just days after that WikiLeaks email about the first tranche of 19K+ emails.

Kravis shows jurors again the Aug. 2, 2016 email from Corsi to Stone, who wrote: "word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after i’m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.”

The other part of Corsi Aug. 2, 2016 email Kravis highlights says, "Would not hurt to start suggesting HRC old, memory bad, has stroke - neither he nor she well. I expect that much of next dump focus, setting stage for Foundation debacle.”

Kravis shows Aug. 19, 2016 text between Stone and Credico, where Credico says he's going to have Assange on his radio show. The FBI agent on the case, Kravis notes, didn't find any communications re. Assange between Stone & Credico prior to that. Credico also testified to this.

Kravis again explains to jurors that the Aug. 19, 2016, texts between Credico-Stone came after Stone had already been in touch with Corsi and made his boasts to the Broward GOP and on Alex Jones' show.

Kravis: "The defense would have you believe Randy Credico is some kind of Svengali or mastermind....That claim is absurd.” He reminds jurors of Credico's colorful testimony, says he's not the kind of person to "pull the wool" over Stone's eyes.

More Kravis: "The person you saw testify is just not the kind of person who’s going to fool Roger Stone." Also this, "Roger Stone wasn’t tricked. He lied.”

Kravis walking jurors through allegation Stone lied to Congress about his contacts w/ Trump campaign about WikiLeaks.

Reminds jurors about Bannon's "access point" testimony, Gates' descriptions of phone calls w/ Stone about WikiLeaks, Oct. 3, 2016 email with Erik Prince where Stone writes, "Spoke to my friend in london last night. The payload is still coming.”

Kravis shows jury phone records from Stone to Trump on three occasions: June 30, 2016; July 31, 2016; and Aug. 17, 2016, which is another day of WikiLeaks doc dumps.

Kravis: "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."

Kravis on Stone's testimony that he had no email communications with Credico. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this one is a whopper." And later, "Not an email guy? Are you kidding me?” He then explains there were 1,500 written communications between the men from 6/16 to 9/17.

Kravis now on the witness tampering & Randy Credico part of the government's case.

The reason "why Roger Stone picked Randy Credico” as his named intermediary is because "when the time came, he'd be able to bend Randy Credico until Randy Credico broke," Kravis says.

Kravis reminds jurors of what Credico was like on the witness stand. "You could see why Roger Stone picked him to be the patsy in all this," the federal prosecutor said.

Kravis noted Credico admitted he has struggled with alcohol addiction, and also brings up his background as a comedian. "He can be a little hard to take seriously. When he was on the stand he talked about Dick Tracy and characters in movies I’ve never even heard about.”

Kravis recapping the Frank Pentangeli scene from the Godfather again to the jury. "Stop me when this starts to sound familiar," he says, describing the film dialogue and what Credico understood the messages from Stone to be all about.

Kravis showing jury Credico emails telling Stone he went back and found emails on when his first outreach to Assange was, surrounding his ask on Stone's behalf for Libya files about his friend Margaret Kuntsler.

Kravis: "No one cares?” A committee of the United States Congress is investigating allegations that a foreign power interfered in our presidential election. Stone has just been told he gave the committee false information. And Stone replies, 'no one cares.'"

"That's not how this works," Kravis says. “Roger Stone does not get to pick and choose" which facts to share with a congressional committee.

Kravis explains Stone can be found guilty just based on proving he endeavored or tried to impede the House investigation. But he says Stone did indeed impede the probe, noting the House never got to see any of the emails or docs that the jury got to see.

That includes all the Stone emails and texts w/ Credico & Corsi, and all his communications with the Trump campaign.

Kravis says HPSCI report "contains inaccuracies." He points to section saying the panel "did not find any evidence contradicting Stone's claim " that everything he had was from publicly available information. "No evidence? Really? How about that Aug. 2 e-mail from Jerome Corsi.”

“The committee report is not accurate.” - That's Jonathan Kravis, who for first time I'm aware is taking issue w/ a section of the House GOP Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference back in 2016.

Kravis is now finished with his closing. Defense goes next, and then Michael Marando will do a rebuttal.

We are in a brief intermission. Back in about 7 mins.

Back for the defense arguments.

"I'm Bruce Rogow and I’ll be doing the closing for Mr. Stone."

Rogow to the jury: "If you hesitate about your conclusions in this matter then you have a reasonable doubt. My job is to create for you the reasons why you should have a reasonable doubt."

Rogow says there was no need for Stone to lie since the campaign was over and Trump had won.

"This is what happens in campaigns. They look for opposition information," Rogow says, noting this happens in elections from city commission to POTUS.

Rogow: "There was no purpose for Mr. Stone to have to lie about anything to protect the campaign when the campaign was doing nothing wrong in being interested in this information. And of course they were interested in WikiLeaks."

Rogow showing jurors the HPSCI statement about the parameters of its Russia probe, emphasizing the Russia part. He says Stone never saw what he was doing as part of Russian interference. "His state of mind is important here."

Rogow makes a point that neither Corsi nor Malloch got called by the government as witnesses. "These two people did not testify. They are not here. That’s all I’m going to say about this point.”

Rogow on the Stone email from 8/3/16 to Manafort about saving Trump's rump: "What does that mean? Why is there something nefarious about that?... There's nothing malignant about that."

Rogow: "Erik prince was not a member of the Trump Camping. Was he a supporter? Yes. But he was not on the campaign. He was not a Bannon. He was not a Gates. He was not one of the two Millers."

Rogow questions why Stone would be protecting Trump when his testimony was a year after he'd been elected president. "Mr. Trump had a lot of other things on his mind by the time Mr. Stone” testified.

Rogow: "What's he going to be protected from by Mr. Stone being candid about contacts with the campaign?"

Rogow now challenging Credico's testimony and how the government used him in the trial. Of Credico's messages to Stone w/ pics from outside the Ecuadorian embassy: "None of that proves anything except that Randy Credico was manipulating Roger Stone."

Rogow references Credico's explainer to the jury that he's a "lefty" and then references his offer to do a Bernie Sanders impression in court. "It's amusing," the Stone lawyer says. "But it's not really amusing in the context of a serious criminal prosecution.”

Asst. US attorney Michael Marando in his rebuttal tells jury Rogow's closing was meant to distract them.

He takes issue with Rogow's descriptions of Credico. "Credico was a manipulator? Randy Credico played Roger Stone? Randy Credico abused his friend? Please. You were all here. You saw Randy Credico. Are you kidding me?"

More from Marando about Credico: "You were presented the full man. Warts and all....Did that look like a mastermind to you who was going to manipulate or somehow control Roger Stone?"

I haven't been keeping count today but the jury just heard another F bomb from the prosecutors. There have been a good many in these last three hours is all I'll say.

Marando with a powerful finish. I've got the whole quote here. Going to break it up a bit.

But before I do that, Judge Jackson tells the jury they'll get instructions tomorrow AM and begin deliberating on Thursday.

Back to Marando, he was referring to Rogow in his own closing saying 'so what' to the charges against Stone. "If that's the state of affairs we’re in I'm pretty shocked. Truth matters. Truth still matters....

Marando: "I know we live in a world nowadays with Twitter, tweets, social media, where you can find any political view you want. You can find your own truth...

Marando: "However, in our institution of self government, courts of law, or committee hearings, where people are under oath and have to testify truth still matters and Mr. Stone came in and he lied to Congress, he obstructed their investigation and he tampered with a witness...

Marando: "And that matters and you don't look at that and say 'so what?' And for those reasons we ask you to find him guilty of the charged offenses." Then he rests.


Here's our @politico story on today's closing arguments. W/ @joshgerstein

https://twitter.com/dsamuelsohn/status/ ... 6231548931


LEGAL
Feds’ closing argument: Roger Stone made the House Russia report ‘not accurate
Prosecutors also implied that Stone’s misdirection caused special counsel Robert Mueller to potentially lose out on key evidence.

Roger Stone. | Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Photo

By DARREN SAMUELSOHN and JOSH GERSTEIN
11/13/2019 04:41 PM EST
Updated: 11/13/2019 04:46 PM EST

Roger Stone’s lies haven’t just put him at risk of being sent to federal prison.

They also caused lawmakers to produce an inaccurate report about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

That was part of the core message that federal prosecutors delivered Wednesday in their closing arguments in the trial of the longtime Donald Trump adviser who is fighting criminal charges of lying to lawmakers and tampering with a witness they tried to interview.
Story Continued Below

Jury deliberations are expected to begin Thursday morning in Stone’s case. But before the 12 Washington, D.C., residents start their deliberations, they got a final pitch from assistant U.S. attorney Jonathan Kravis, who argued that Stone’s attempts to mislead the House Intelligence Committee caused the panel to produce a factually incorrect report.

“Stone not only tried, he succeeded in impeding the committee’s investigation,” Kravis said. “The committee report is not accurate.”

The prosecutor pointed to where the House panel declared in its March 2018 report that it “did not find any evidence contradicting Stone's claim” that everything he said when boasting about the damage to Hillary Clinton’s campaign came from publicly available information.

“No evidence? Really?” Kravis said. “How about that Aug. 2 email from Jerome Corsi?”

That’s a reference to a message Kravis shared with the jury that gets to the heart of the government’s case against Stone. The communication showed that Stone was in contact with the conservative author and conspiracy theorist who apparently had links to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange through a conservative activist in England, Ted Malloch.

“Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps,” Corsi wrote to Stone. “One shortly after i’m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.”

Stone’s six-day trial has been replete with evidence of similar texts and emails from the height of the 2016 presidential campaign. Some show communications between Stone and New York talk show host Randy Credico about the timing and content of forthcoming WikiLeaks releases. Others show Stone in frequent contact with Trump campaign aides looking for intelligence on what the radical online transparency group had in store.
Story Continued Below
“The committee never saw any of those documents because Mr. Stone lied to the committee and told the committee that those did not exist,” Kravis said.

A spokesman for Rep. Devin Nunes, the GOP chairman of the House Intelligence Committee when it probed Russian interference in the 2016 election, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment about the prosecutor’s comment.

Kravis’ point, made for the first time near the end of his closing arguments, was intended to head off legalistic points from Stone’s defense that he’s not guilty because any possible misstatements or withheld emails were not “material” to the House committee’s probe. Stone’s attorneys have argued that the committee’s stated focus was Russian interference, not WikiLeaks or Assange.

“The documents were not relevant because they were not about Russian interference,” Stone defense attorney Bruce Rogow said in his own closing arguments. The lawyer added that Stone’s WikiLeaks-related communications with figures like Trump campaign deputy Rick Gates and campaign CEO Steve Bannon “had nothing to do” with Russian influence on the presidential race.

U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded, however, that Russian operatives laundered stolen emails through WikiLeaks.

“There was no purpose for Mr. Stone to have to lie about anything to protect the campaign when the campaign was doing nothing wrong in being interested in this information,” Rogow said, who added the Trump team broke no laws when it expressed delight at the prospect of WikiLeaks document dumps at the detriment of Clinton.

Rogow in his closing argument also insisted the lying allegations don’t make sense given the GOP operative volunteered to testify. And he claimed there wasn’t even a reason for Stone to lie since his efforts to glean insight into WikiLeaks’ plans was not illegal.

“So much of this case deals with that question that you need to ask, ‘So what?’” Rogow said.

Rogow also minimized Stone’s threats to Credico that prosecutors said constituted witness intimidation. The defense team said Stone’s allusions to a Godfather film and statements such as “prepare to die” are typical of a long history of outlandish banter between the two men.

“These two guys tampered with one another for 20 years over all kinds of crazy things,” Rogow said. “It was crude. It was odious. They used language that is terrible language, but that’s the way those two guys operated.”

Anticipating the Stone team’s attacks on Credico, Kravis maintained that Credico was not the kind of person to “pull the wool” over Stone's eyes. He reminded jurors that the witness himself testified to his own decades-long alcohol addictions and his career as a part-time comedian.

“He can be a little hard to take seriously. When he was on the stand he talked about Dick Tracy and characters in movies I’ve never even heard about,” Kravis said. “You could see why Roger Stone picked him to be the patsy in all this.”

Implicit in the prosecutor’s argument was that Stone’s misdirection also caused special counsel Robert Mueller to lose out on key evidence. Although Mueller indicted Stone as part of his broad criminal probe into 2016 election interference, Kravis argued that Stone’s dodging and weaving before congressional investigators meant some evidence of Stone’s activities are gone forever, including text messages he sent in 2017.

“Because Stone lied to them,” Kravis said, “the committee didn’t take that step and now those messages are gone.”

Michael Marando, a federal prosecutor who stepped in to make the government’s final points, became so animated as he railed against Stone's defense that fellow prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky poured extra water for his colleague and pushed it his way.

The government attorney then attacked Rogow’s “So what?” remark.

“So what? So what?” the prosecutor said, incredulously. “If that’s the state of affairs that we’re in, I’m pretty shocked. Truth matters. Truth still matters. OK?”

He barreled ahead.

“Mr. Stone came in and he lied to Congress, he obstructed their investigation and he tampered with a witness,” he added. “And that matters and you don't look at that and say, 'So what?' And for those reasons we ask you to find him guilty of the charged offenses."
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/1 ... ate-070720



Prosecutors Just Rested Their Case Over Roger Stone’s Lies: “Truth Matters”
“Mr. Stone lied to Congress. He obstructed justice and he tampered with a witness, and that matters. And you don’t look at that and you don’t say: ‘So what?'”


Roger Stone returns for his trial after lunch on November 13, 2019 in Washington, DC.Mark Makela/Getty Images
In his closing argument Wednesday, Roger Stone’s lawyer, Bruce Rogow, told the jury that there is really nothing to the government’s case against his client. “Much of this case, you have to ask, ‘So what?'” Rogow said.

Prosecutors offered an answer on Wednesday. Assistant US Attorney Michael Marando bluntly asked jurors to reject Rogow’s dismissal.

“So what? So what?” Marando asked, with what seemed like real indignation. “If that’s the state of affairs that we’re in, I’m pretty shocked. Truth matters. Truth still matters, okay.”

Over the past week, Stone has been on trial for five counts of making false statements to the House Intelligence Committee regarding his communications about WikiLeaks. He is also charged with obstruction of justice in impeding the panel’s probe and for witness tampering, which allegedly occurred when Stone pressured an associate, comedian Randy Credico, to not give testimony that would contradict Stone’s claims. Stone has pleaded not guilty. Jurors will start deliberating tomorrow.

Though it is not a charge that Stone faces, his lawyers have argued repeatedly that the longtime Trump consigliere, who did not take the stand in his own defense, did not collude with Russia. Since Russian interference was the focus of the Intelligence Committee’s probe, Stone’s lawyers insist their client should not be convicted of lying about contacts with WikiLeaks (which was publishing Democratic emails hacked by Russia). As for witness tampering, Stone’s lawyers said that since Credico overhyped his ties to WikiLeaks in messages to Stone in 2016, it was he who played Stone; Stone was just a harmless self-promoter in their version.

Behind these arguments is a mostly implicit but potentially powerful claim: None of this matters. This is a case of Stone, the self-described dirty trickster and a notorious bullshitter, bullshitting, his lawyers suggested. Stone didn’t conspire with Russia. So who cares if he fibbed to lawmakers? This argument taps into a common refrain from defenders of President Donald Trump that many of the convictions against the president’s associates have been for lying to the FBI or Congress, not for colluding. Perjury is a minor crime, the argument goes, one that’s charged when prosecutors lack a more serious case. So what?

“We live in a world nowadays with Twitter, tweets, social media, where you can find any political view you want,” Marando said in his closing statement. “You can find your own truth.”

While the prosecutor didn’t directly mention Trump, his description came as allies of the president continue to explicitly argue that truth is relative. “Everybody has their impression of what truth is,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) told reporters on Wednesday, amid testimony outlining Trump’s effort to force Ukraine’s president to announce investigations that would benefit Trump politically.

But Marando argued that no matter what happens elsewhere, “in American institutions of self governance, courts of law, committee hearings, where people have to testify under oath, truth still matters.”

“Mr. Stone lied to Congress,” Marando thundered at jurors. “He obstructed justice and he tampered with a witness, and that matters. And you don’t look at that and you don’t say: ‘So what?’ We ask you to find him guilty of the charged offenses.”

With that, the government’s case against Stone concluded.

FACT:

Mother Jones was founded as a nonprofit in 1976 because we knew corporations and the wealthy wouldn't fund the type of hard-hitting journalism we set out to do.

Today, reader support makes up about two-thirds of our budget, allows us to dig deep on stories that matter, and lets us keep our reporting free for everyone. If you value what you get from Mother Jones, please join us with a tax-deductible donation today so we can keep on doing the type of journalism 2019 demands.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... ers-movie/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Previous

Return to Data & Research Compilations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest