Something about indicting a ham sandwich?
Every one of these charges seems to be a “process crime”, some of which Roger Stone may have been coerced into, and of no real bearing on the original scope of the dragnet thrown out by the bottom feeders associated with the Mueller investigation.
Scooter Libby never got his good name back either.
> Every one of these charges seems to be a “process crime” <
One lesson coming out of this: Do not talk to the police. You cannot be charged with making false statements if you make no statements at all.
Be nice. Be polite. But do not talk to the police.
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.
Every one of these charges seems to be a “process crime”, some of which Roger Stone may have been coerced into, and of no real bearing on the original scope of the dragnet thrown out by the bottom feeders associated with the Mueller investigation.
It's a hyper-partisan era, and we are all hyper-partisans. But what's interesting is no one is really dealing with what the trial was about, what Stone was charged with , and convicted of.
You say it's a process crime but he threatened someone's DOG if that fellow testified. That's not exactly a "process crime"
Let me stipulate:
Anyone want to defend Stone on the actual charges, evidence and merits of the case?
Start here: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ROGER JASON STONE, JR., Defendant.
It's a short document, 24 double spaced typed pages. It's simple to summarize:
8. In response, STONE took steps to obstruct these investigations. Among other steps to obstruct the investigations, STONE:a. Made multiple false statements to HPSCI about his interactions regarding Organization 1, and falsely denied possessing records that contained evidence of these interactions; and
b. Attempted to persuade a witness to provide false testimony to and withhold pertinent information from the investigations.
Presumably, as Conservatives, we still believe in the rule of law.
And lying under oath is a crime. So, despite all the shiny, bouncing objects around the case, it still comes down to: Did Roger Stone lie to Congress under oath, and attempt to obstruct justice by witness tampering
Doesn't it?
If the answer is "yes" then he should be found guilty, because he is. Now "how bad a crime is it" and how common is it, those are all things that the Judge can take into consideration in the sentencing.
I want to see a lot MORE people go to prison for this sort of thing, not fewer.
You know: Mom always did say "two wrongs don't make a right"
If you want to see guys like Clapper, Comey and Brennan going to jail for lying, as I do, then I don't think you should simultaneously argue that Stone's crimes are no big deal.