Skip to comments.How The Star Witness In Roger Stone’s Trial Proved ‘Difficult’ For Prosecutors
Posted on 11/10/2019 9:42:56 AM PST by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
When the federal judge presiding over the trial against Roger Stone referred to the governments star witness, Randy Credico, as difficult on Friday, none of the members of the jury or others in the Washington, D.C., court room overheard her pointed remarks.
District Judge Amy Berman Jackson made the observation during a side bar discussion with lead government attorney Aaron Zelinsky and Stone lawyer Robert Bushchel, according to a transcript of the court proceedings obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Jackson made the remark after two days of testimony that saw Credico, a comedian and longtime frenemy of Stones, repeatedly chided for going off track in response to questions, and for attempting to perform impressions.
After one contentious exchange, Jackson called a side bar for Bushchel and Zelinsky, who was assistant special counsel on the Robert Mueller probe.
In our defense, the witness Bushchel began to tell Jackson, according to the court transcript.
Is difficult, Jackson interjected. Im doing the best I can.
Believe me, I think everybody is doing the best under difficult circumstances, Jackson also told the lawyers.
I dont usually insert myself in examinations as often as I have.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
My impression is the charges against Stone are ridiculous. They once hoped to pressure him to reveal something against Trump.
“Difficult” as in “not helpful” to the prosecution.
This isn’t going as planned by the coupsters. I think Roger Stone is going to win and then he’s going to take a big fat bite out of all their asses.
That includes the Obama judge Berman.
Another selective prosecution by a corrupt Mule prosecutor. We have serious provable crimes committed by multiple democrats that are totally ignored by the feds. But they pull out all the stops to prosecute people connected to the president for made up offenses. Their biases tell us everything we need to know about them. They are political hacks who suck democrat deep state ass.
Berman is a scum-sucking partisan Democrat wench.
My understanding of this case has been that the only thing Stone is really guilty of is - surprise - exaggerating his importance & alleged connections to Wikileaks - when he, in fact, had none. Rather he had this guy Credico tell him some 2nd/3rd hand things that really amounted to nothing. Credico takes the 5th and the DEMs allege that’s because of their ties to “Russia” - no ... he just didn’t want to get mucked up in the DEMs impeachment game. So the mule team alleged that he was being threatened and wanted to show Godfather movie clip to “prove” it ROFL. On the stand, however, Credico says that Stone was only one of MANY to advise him not to testify and said he valued his attorneys telling him not to testify more than Stone ... what about the “threat” to his dog? Even that was nothing in the mind of Credico, that Stone loves dogs & his dog in particular, it was just a bunch of stupid angry back and forth since Stone testified and Credico didn’t leading to the false charge being forwarded and tried. This has probably served a number of valuable purposes - the role of Berman being one (she stinks) as well as more mule team hijinx. And, most importantly, the predicate has been established - “lie” to Congress and face the music! So when the lame ambassador and Vindman deep state folks that think they run foreign policy and testify this week, and have already exposed themselves to perjury charges, and should really take the 5th themselves ... well ... this is going to be glorious!
OJ got a change of venue and then not guilty. Did Stone's lawyers even ask for a change of venue (DC registration 76% dem, 6% gop, 17% no party or other.) Wouldn't the fact that they never asked for change of venue weaken their ability to appeal on that basis?
Yes, but how will the jury vote? See #7.
If Stone is found guilty, this case is already ripe for appeal. The judge prevented the defense from excluding jurors for anti-Trump bias. Then the prosecution made the entire case about Trump in his opening argument. That’s pretty obvious bias against Stone and his defense.
“he only thing Stone is really guilty of is - surprise - exaggerating his importance & alleged connections to Wikileaks”
Correct. The worm is turning and it’s going to be a win for Stone and the Republic.
The defense still had 6 peremptory strikes to exclude leftists from the jury pool. But it seems to me curious why the defense did not even ask for a change of venue.
I agree. My point is that he didn’t turn out to be a great witness for Berman Jackson.
What hoax cases hasn’t this Clinton HACK Amy Jackson gotten?
She had a case with some of the Manifort charges, and put him in jail before the trial.
Doubt it. Dems don't get prosecuted for such things.
Jackson also told the lawyers. I dont usually insert myself in examinations as often as I have.
Unfit for the bench, partisan hack.
All of America’s political show trials happen in DC or NYC.
That would require an opinion as there is no way to know the honest answer.
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.