Posted on 11/15/2019 8:59:05 AM PST by TigerClaws
Yep, really.
This MSM report hints at it, but does not tell the whole truth.
Then why are all those college admissoon crimes in a Boston courtroom.
I used to teach Constitution to 7th graders. We went line-by-line through the whole thing—it’s not really that long—though it probably seemed a lifetime to them! Anyhow that’s how I know what’s in there. Here’s the text from Article 3:
“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.”
Boston was going after an investor. He gave up info about college admission to get a deal and gave them info on Singer. So dragged Singer in. That’s how the case is in Boston. Federal charges.
Was it a crime for Stone to contact Wikileaks about it? I don't see how.
Did Stone get the emails? I don't think he got any more new emails than the ones everybody else got when Wikileaks dumped the emails to the public.
If I was running anything related to Trump or the GOP I'd be shouting from the mountaintops that the Stone case is still about the fact that the DNC can't be trusted to run a fair primary, much less anything else.
Nonsense.
U.S. Constitution, Article III, section 2: "The Trial of all Crimes... shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed."
U.S. Constitution, Amendment VI: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district were the crime shall have been committed..."
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.
I do my best to explain that here:
What we learned in the Roger Stone trial, my explanation on another Free Republic thread
Be careful who you say anything to. President Trump may someday regret his open mouth policy.
I’ve watched that video before. If the cops can just make stuff up and say that you said it - how does saying you won’t talk to them change that?
Also - what about being a witness to a crime? If you see a crime and can give a description to catch the bad guys obviously I would like to do that. But then does one run the risk of getting tied into it.
“That guy that you were talking to - he was outside pumping gas when the two robbers came in. They looked at him and he returned their look. I think he was in on it.”
They were ALL process crimes, crimes that occurred during the investigation. None of them were charges stemming from what he initially was being investigated for.
That's because the Senate chose not to invoke the second half of the impeachment conviction penalty, ban from holding future offices of trust in the United States.
If President Trump were to be convicted in the Senate, they would most certainly invoke this clause and ban him from running for future office.
-PJ
It is amazing how justice is so swift for those on the right.
My heart goes out to him and his innocent family who are suffering right along with him.
Leni
They can make stuff up out of whole cloth, just as someone can steal your car even though you lock it. But it reduces the risk. Bad cops are gonna get you no matter what you do.
But if they are merely misremembering, or even “intentionally” misremembering, it’s harder when you didn’t say anything at all.
“But if they are merely misremembering, or even “intentionally” misremembering, it’s harder when you didn’t say anything at all.”
Good point. The lawyer did stress that he thought the number of dirty cops that would just make stuff up was pretty small.
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.