Replies

Correct. If she amends her previous affirmation she personally loses. Her only choice is to repeat the story she said before. But the evidence undermines the story. She can say she ‘forgot about that’, though it hardly seems plausible for a political activist in particular, it may prevent her from getting into her own legal troubles. This judge’s comments during sentencing that Stone was “covering up” for the President also shows bias in the court. The case was mostly about lying about perfectly legal activities.

The jury deliberated 7 separate charges in 8 hours flat. That hardly sounds like much deliberation at all. He was even convicted of witness intimidation, even though the witness - a longtime Stone friend - testified that he never felt any pressure from Stone. The jury deliberated this charge, and the other 6 charges, when the main witness disputes it? Hardly.

Stone should never have lied about the things he wrote and did because they were all perfectly legal. But 40 months in federal prison for lying about legal activities is way out of proportion.

Aaron Zelensky resigned from the case. He’s also been recently named as having withheld exculpatory information that appeared on 302 interview forms in the Popadopoulous case. Congressman Nunes says that criminal referrals could be forthcoming against Zelensky and others for withholding important information in the plea deal they made with Popadopoulous. If they withheld exculpatory info on Carter Page, and they withheld exculpatory info in Flynn’s trial, and they withheld 302 information in the Popadopoulous case, then it only stands to reason that they may have withheld exculpatory information in the Stone case as well. They’ve probably been doing that kind of stuff all along, and since they were never caught, believed they could continue to get away with it, especially in the DC Courts which have mostly liberal Judges sitting on them. These FBI/DOJ scumbags are nothing but dirty pieces of $hit...and I hope they hang.