Actually, if you examine what stone was convicted of, he was proven guilty by documents. I can concede that he was proven guilty of foolishness as much as anything, but he was proven guilty by documents. Against that, we have the overreaching of the Moeller prosecutors and the utter unfairness of a Democrat aligned justice system which persecutes Republicans and exonerates Democrats. Finally, we should also consider the lies of the jury foreman which might (repeat "might") result in a mistrial.
We have an option of taking two perspectives on this matter: 1) it is a question of law; 2) it is a public relations matter. If it is a legal matter, it should be addressed in legal language, in a legal forum by a surrogate of the president but not he himself. If it is a public relations matter, we have to ask ourselves is Roger Stone the kind of individual we want to associate ourselves with by defending him? Is he not in the mold of Manafort and Cohen?
The political advantage is to demonstrate the overreaching of the prosecutors and the unfairness of double standard. These are process arguments so the assertion, "Now many are looking at the ridiculous charges and inexplicable conviction" is quite true quite true but true, alas, mostly for us junkies and conservatives. The overall effect when the mainstream media presents its side but not ours is to brand the president as one improperly interfering in the system of justice with an untrustworthy Atty. Gen. who now is compromised for any good he might do in the future.
This gain was not worth the cost; whatever gain there was to be had could well have been done through surrogates or through a prepared speech, or with better timing. Tweeting from the hip has cost the president untold approval points. He could still obtain a positive rating and the loyalty of his base with more care and his tweets.
Not even the Democrats would be foolish enough to commence impeachment on this issue, so we should dispose of that red Herring offered in support of tweets.
