Posted on 11/15/2019 8:59:05 AM PST by TigerClaws
Rule 18 of Federal Criminal Procedure only says the same State.
DC ain’t a State, so up to Congress where the trial has to be held.
“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed”
Would assume his attorneys tried to move it if they could. If it was actually considered to be in Virginia, it would certainly make sense to move to a rural area. But it was probably DC and therefore DC only where he could be tried.
My comment is in opposition to this rule and regardless of current procedure points out that the political composition of the District of Columbia is very much at issue. Even if it means moving to another Federal District court for trial, that should be available - I’m positive that a federal jury in Miami or Tallahassee would be quite different from what he faced in DC.
And such rule does exist within Rule 18:
“28 U.S.C. former §114 (now §§1393, 1441) provides:
All prosecutions for crimes or offenses shall be had within the division of such districts where the same were committed, unless the court, or the judge thereof, upon the application of the defendant, shall order the cause to be transferred for prosecution to another division of the district”
May have been a tactical plan by the attorneys. Let Berman Jackson screw up the case so it could be overturned on appeal.
I read that, and the first thought I had when I saw “Scooter Libby” was “crook”. Then, I remembered, “No. Framed. Pardoned. Should have been by Bush if he’d been a real president.”
You’re right. Even those of us who know, who are aware of what happened, and the abysmal abuse of justice that happened with that situation, can’t stop the immediate reaction.
Stone was under investigation for talks with Wikileaks to see if they had the emails Hillary deleted while she was under investigation.
Yet Hillary hasn't been convicted for obstruction of justice. While Stone just got convicted for obstruction of justice trying to get to the bottom of Hillary's obstruction of justice.
I'm sure that makes perfect sense to the global-warming-causes-blizzards crowd.
I find the timing of this verdict to be interesting as it comes while the impeachment charade is underway and just before the imminent release of the FISA abuse report.
Posting pictures with no captions to explain the content is not very useful.
Only if an element of the crime occurred in that district. It’s called venue and governed by rules of criminal procedure.
Stone thought he was too clever for the feds. Don’t talk to them, you have a right to not incriminate yourself. That’s their goto, lying to the feds...
Yes, and not only that, but the one juror that seemed to be 'pro-Stone', 'fell down' yesterday, was injured, and replaced by another Trump-Stone hater.
Exactly.
I wasn’t referencing Rule 18, but rather Article 3 Sec. 2 of the Constitution, but rule 18 is just quoting the Constitution. “Crimes not committed within any state...” would apply to things like piracy, etc but would also apply to the District and no doubt very long ago Congress has set the place for where crimes committed in the District will be tried, i.e. the District.
If a famous Republican is accused of a crime in DC, the betting would be that he’ll be found guilty. The opposite result if it’s a dem.
As do I. I recommend[ed] it to a number of individuals. Some watched it and learned from it. Others ignored it and learned a lesson.
I love the point that even if you tell the truth it can hurt you.
Cops can’t mis-remember what you said, if you didn’t say anything. :)
bookmarking for later
And where the Detective said, “I can’t talk as fast as he does”.
“Gates testified that it was his understanding that Stone had inside, nonpublic information into WikiLeaks’ operation and that the campaign acted on it.
After the DNC announced it had been hacked and WikiLeaks planned a news conference, the campaign had “brainstorming” sessions about what to do with the information. Gates said that the Trump campaign chairman at the time, Paul Manafort, who was convicted earlier this year in the Mueller probe, told him he would update Trump with any information that he could get from Stone.”
Can someone thread this needle:
1) Someone hacked the DNC. But it wasn’t Stone and it wasn’t Wikileaks.
2) So Wikileaks explained to Stone that someone hacked the DNC server.
Sooooo...WHAT is the crime, outside the process crimes? The media, as in WikiLeaks, spoke to the Trump campaign. Trump campaign mulls over what to do with the information that Hillary had documents on an unsecured server. That’s it? What? Trump and Stone didn’t have the actual emails, right?
Then why are all those college admissoon crimes in a Boston courtroom.
Really???
OK, so the crime was to inquire if WikiLeaks had the emails?
So if they did have the emails and Stone asked for the emails, and then got the emails from Wikileaks, would THAT be a crime?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.