Why? He’s guilty. And it’s less than the recommended sentence anyway.

That’s a long time for impeding an unjust fishing expedition for which there was no underlying crime, especially for a first-time offender. It’s just difficult for me to watch people like Stone get rail-roaded while people like McCabe, Brennan and Comey get MSNBC contracts and book deals. Then again the swamp protects its own.

Even if it were an “unjust fishing expedition” - which it wasn’t as determined by the IG after his investigation - that’s no excuse for lying to the FBI and threatening witnesses.

And the proper recourse for other guilty people getting away with it is to push for more prosecutions, not to pardon those who have been prosecuted and found guilty.

If you pardon everyone then everyone will just keep doing it.

Even if it were an “unjust fishing expedition” - which it wasn’t as determined by the IG after his investigation - that’s no excuse for lying to the FBI and threatening witnesses.

And the proper recourse for other guilty people getting away with it is to push for more prosecutions, not to pardon those who have been prosecuted and found guilty.

If you pardon everyone then everyone will just keep doing it.

Found guilty by a jury with a foreman who displayed bias, and sentenced by a judge with a personal vendetta against Stone. He shared a picture of her on Instagram saying she was an Obama-appointed judge, and she accused him of threatening her and the court. It’s obscene. An appeal will be forthcoming but I hope a pardon comes first.

Found guilty by a jury with a foreman who displayed bias, — NOS4A2

And 11(?) others who didn’t. The evidence was clearly sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

and sentenced by a judge who with a personal vendetta against Stone. He shared a picture of her on Instagram saying she was an Obama-appointed judge, and she accused him of threatening her and the court. — NOS4A2

Was that the picture with the crosshairs on her head? That is threatening. And what was she supposed to do? Declare him innocent? Recuse? Then every criminal ever will just threaten all of their judges and avoid ever being sentenced.

Besides, she gave him less than the recommended sentence, so your implicit accusation of bias falls flat.

Yeah the crosshairs were a part of a logo.



Sorry, only an idiot would claim this is a threat. But the judge was swayed by the beltway intelligentsia to believe otherwise.

Stone deleted that picture and reposted it without the crosshairs and then deleted that too. I can't find where the judge stated she saw it as a threat. She did think it gave her reason to review the limited gag order that was in place. And that isn't so weird if you have such a dust storm of reactions to a post by him as you want to avoid jurors are influenced.

Stone deleted that picture and reposted it without the crosshairs and then deleted that too. I can't find where the judge stated she saw it as a threat. She did think it gave her reason to review the limited gag order that was in place. And that isn't so weird if you have such a dust storm of reactions to a post by him as you want to avoid jurors are influenced.

She states it here in her ruling on Stone's gag order.

The defendant himself told me he had more than one to choose from. And so what he chose, particularly when paired with the sorts of incendiary comments included in the text, the comments that not only can lead to disrespect for the judiciary, but threats on the judiciary, the post had a more sinister message. As a man who, according to his own account, has made communication his forté, his raison d'être, his life's work, Roger Stone fully understands the power of words and the power of symbols. And there's nothing ambiguous about crosshairs.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5746249/Transcript-Instagram-Post-Leads-ABJ-to-Broaden.pdf

It's hard for me to believe that the criticism of her in the post had zero bearing on her decision to silence Stone.

But that's not her stating Stone threatened her but that it could lead to threats to the judiciary and that there was nothing accidental about his choice in imagery.

EDIT: Even if it was accidental, he should've known better that it could be interpreted as or give rise to threats as people's reactions to the post proved. "Who will rid me of this meddle some priest?"

There is no transcript yet, but:

Jackson noted Stone threatened her personally during the trial and stirred up claims that the process was rigged. Doing so, she said, “willfully increased the risk that someone with even poorer judgment than” Stone would take action and put the entire courthouse in danger.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/roger-stone-sentence-due-thursday-in-federal-court/2020/02/19/2e01bfc8-4c38-11ea-9b5c-eac5b16dafaa_story.html

She’s an idiot.

Here we go again.

Russia Backs Trump’s Re-election, and He Fears Democrats [Schiff] Will Exploit Its Support

Seriously? Stone posts a picture. Then a lot of people interpret it as a threat. The judge concludes after that media fallout that someone with worse judgment could take action because of it and she thinks Stone should've known better. This is entirely reasonable.

Or are you know pretending only people on the left could've interpreted it this way because that would be patently ridiculous.

Seriously? Stone posts a picture. Then a lot of people interpret it as a threat. The judge concludes after that media fallout that someone with worse judgment could take action because of it and she thinks Stone should've known better. This is entirely reasonable.

Or are you know pretending only people on the left could've interpreted it this way because that would be patently ridiculous.

I never said anything about “the left”. I said only an idiot would interpret it as a threat.

Exactly. And between het full gag order and the post it was proved the US is full of idiots, which Stone (considering his profession) knew or should've known, hence it was entirely rational.

Exactly. And between het full gag order and the post it was proved the US is full of idiots, which Stone (considering his profession) knew or should've known, hence it was entirely rational.

Not a single person took Stone’s post as an incitement to violence but those who thought he put a crosshairs above her head, including the judge. They are idiots, and they prove they have “worse judgement” than anyone else.

Not a single person took Stone’s post as an incitement to violence but those who thought he put a crosshairs above her head, including the judge. They are idiots, and they prove they have “worse judgement” than anyone else. — NOS4A2

Sigh. Are you having problems with logic here? Why the hell should we wait until someone actually would use violence? That would be too late wouldn't it?

If a lot of people interpret his post as having crosshairs and they express that publicly then it is an observable fact that the post may incite violence as people have expressed that they think it could communicate a violent message. The "idiots" in your view were the people saying they were crosshairs. This is not an interpretation by the judge but by people in the public. The judge observes the reaction of the public to the post and can tell a significant number of them think it was a violent message.

Let's move all the players into a bar and pretend you're the judge. Stone calls you corrupt, an Obama stooge and Hillary shill. In the bar there's people who really like Stone and agree with that assessment. They don't like you. There are also people that are impartial and some that really don't like Stone. The people who like Stone have been looking angrily at you all night. He posts that picture with your face on it. Someone remarks "hey, that really looks like a crosshair!" Some of the threatening looking people say "Yeah, it kind of does!"

Did the risk of someone punching you in the face increase or decrease compared to before the post?

Trump puts an unqualified loyalist in charge of national intelligence

Does Trump ever actually appoint someone suitable, or is it just useless yes-men, donors, and family?

Here we go again. — NOS4A2

With what? Russian interference has never gone away.

Sorry, but she’s an idiot. She saw it as a threat, or worse, pretended she did and used that to justify silencing Stone's criticism.

"Roger Stone fully understands the power of words and the power of symbols. And there's nothing ambiguous about crosshairs."

In the US the test for incitement to violence (and the limits of free speech) is that it must produce, or is likely to produce, "immanent lawless action".

Your little scenario is ridiculous. Name one person in the history of the world who was incited to hurt someone after seeing a crosshair on their picture, let alone a crosshair in a logo. You, like the judge, are dealing in fantasy.

With what? Russian interference has never gone away.

With the selective leaking. Schiff receives a classified intelligence brief and immediately leaks it to the NYT — a federal crime. I suspect the Russian hoax true believers will be quick to point their fingers.

↪Punshhh Definitely. Easiest if you'd qualify as a highly skilled migrant and get a job in the Netherlands. After five years you could apply for naturalisation. You're highly skilled if:

you earn more than 29,149 EUR if you're 30 years or younger and have a masters degree or equivalent
you earn more than EUR 38,347 if you're above 30 years (no degree required
you do scientific research in the Netherlands

That also gives you a nice 30% reduction in taxes for five years

EDIT: aren't you British Punshhh? I think you can still move here before the end of the year. If you're employed I doubt the Dutchies will kick you out on the 1st of January 2021.

Yes, I did nearly move to France in the summer of 2018, but didn't in the end due to the uncertainty of Brexit. Now I have bought a nice new house with land in the UK, so am not going to be able to move to Europe anytime soon. I will keep an eye on what happens in Scotland as I would qualify for Scottish citizenship.

If Trump is the president of choice for Russia, and thus they meddle in order to get what they want, then why on earth would the same country meddle to get Bernie nominated?

Makes no sense. Bernie will crush Trump in national debates. Trump will lose the most reasonable of his supporters that hold putting American workers first.

This news today about Russian meddling in favor of Bernie just makes no sense whatsoever if Russia wants Trump to win. Unless the move is being made to offer plausible deniability. That's a stretch though... I mean... quite the stretch.

It's not a scenario but an analogy. Did the risk increase or not?

This news today about Russian meddling in favor of Bernie just makes no sense whatsoever if Russia wants Trump to win. Unless the move is being made to offer plausible deniability. That's a stretch though... I mean... quite the stretch. — creativesoul

It makes completely sense if they prefer Bernie. And why wouldn´t they?
In the event, everybody is meddling in everybody elses affairs, so the this fake meddling hysteria is complete nonsense.

I expect Trump will be spreading rumours about the rumours about Saunders being in collusion with the enemy.
The way he will do it will be to hint at the rumours in a joking, poking fun kind of way, such that on the media, it will come across as a serious statement, while winking at his audience, his base, hoodwinking them into going along with his roose on the suggestion that it is poking fun, or sarcasm.

You know, like those emails. Lock her up, send her back.

Snake oil salesman, sleight of hand stuff. A conjuring trick, rather than politics, to divide and deceive the American people. For nothing more than to give Trump what he wants, to stroke his ego, to make him a memorable president and secure his place in history. What happens to his country, his people in the meantime is irrelevant to him.

Bernie will crush Trump in national debates. — creativesoul

I don't think Trump will agree to debate. He has said as much. Why would he risk it?

It makes completely sense if they prefer Bernie. And why wouldn´t they?
In the event, everybody is meddling in everybody elses affairs, so the this fake meddling hysteria is complete nonsense. — Nobeernolife

Yeah. Someone mentioned plausible deniability.

:roll:

"Bernie" is unacceptable to the swamp, so he will of course be ditched. I don´t know why you people even debate this.... TDS again?

Afaik, I keep the popcorn ready for the show of furious Bernie supporters raising hell when he is sidelined.

I don't think Trump will agree to debate. He has said as much. Why would he risk it? — Monitor

Risk what? His best chance to lose on purpose?

:lol:

What are the opinions on Trump's Tweets?

Do you think he writes them himself, or does have a paid campaign staff do it?

What are the opinions on Trump's Tweets?
Do you think he writes them himself, or does have a paid campaign staff do it? — IvoryBlackBishop

Himself. Staff would produce something more slick and less effective.

You might want to check out Scott Adams on that topic, he has an interesting perspective.