Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Alex Jones has now named the person he says is on the jury for Roger Stone's trial and put her picture up on the broadcast. This person can now expect to receive a torrent of hate from Jones' followers.”
https://www.mediamatters.org/alex-jones/alex-jones-vows-release-name-potential-juror-roger-stone-trial

These people are like mobsters. I hope he gets into trouble.

That is highly illegal. Jones should be prosecuted and the juror and their family should receive 24/7 protection on Jones's dime.

Anonymous wrote:“Alex Jones has now named the person he says is on the jury for Roger Stone's trial and put her picture up on the broadcast. This person can now expect to receive a torrent of hate from Jones' followers.”
https://www.mediamatters.org/alex-jones/alex-jones-vows-release-name-potential-juror-roger-stone-trial

These people are like mobsters. I hope he gets into trouble.

“Alex Jones has now named the person he says is on the jury for Roger Stone's trial and put her picture up on the broadcast. This person can now expect to receive a torrent of hate from Jones' followers.”
https://www.mediamatters.org/alex-jones/alex-jones-vows-release-name-potential-juror-roger-stone-trial

“We are here today because one man obstructed Congress’s investigation,” prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky told the jury of nine women and three men at the federal courthouse in Washington.
“The evidence in this case will show Roger Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee because the truth looked bad for the Trump campaign, and the truth looked bad for Donald Trump,” Zelinsky said.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/trial-opens-for-roger-stone-accused-of-lying-about-wikileaks-and-trump-campaigns-interest-in-hacked-2016-democratic-emails/2019/11/06/647bd322-ff2b-11e9-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stone is GUILTY OF TREASON. HANG HIM

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Article III, sec. 3 of the United States Constitution.

What does law matter? He’s guilty.

He’s guilty of something but it’s not treason. Here’s the indictment with the charges: https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/01/Roger-Stone-indictment.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stone is GUILTY OF TREASON. HANG HIM

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Article III, sec. 3 of the United States Constitution.

What does law matter? He’s guilty.

Anonymous wrote:Stone is GUILTY OF TREASON. HANG HIM

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Article III, sec. 3 of the United States Constitution.

Stone is GUILTY OF TREASON. HANG HIM

So Roger Stone went home with food poisoning yesterday but they managed to pick a jury without him. Opening arguments today. Here’s the potential witness list:

Anonymous wrote:BUMP since Stone’s trial starts today.
https://news.yahoo.com/roger-stones-trial-could-hang-on-randy-credicos-drunken-texts-100040172.html

I can’t believe these wretched people are remotely involved in running the country.

BUMP since Stone’s trial starts today.
https://news.yahoo.com/roger-stones-trial-could-hang-on-randy-credicos-drunken-texts-100040172.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting tweet from a left-leaning journalist.

https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1140435091719675904

I won't be surprised if DOJ drops the Roger Stone prosecution. It's a joke anyway (he had no Wikileaks ties), & in discovery, his attorneys have uncovered interesting stuff: Crowdstrike gave the FBI redacted reports on the alleged Russia hack -- which Crowdstrike itself redacted.

In the courtroom today:
“Re: Stone's motion to discover the unredacted CrowdStrike report, Stone's atty Bruce Rogow concedes govt represented they don't have it, so the motion is moot. Judge notes Stone could seek a subpoena to CrowdStrike, but his lawyer says they haven't sought one. So that's done.”

https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/07/17/roger-stone-lawyer-bruce-rogow-concedes-his-crowdstrike-ploy-was-just-that/

Too many plots. . .

Occurred to me Roger must be complying with the gag order, so thought I'd check to see if I'd missed anything on here (also checking online of course). When I went to this thread, sort of eerie that the last post from July referred to crowdstrike.

Isn't he supposed to go to trial in a few weeks?

Anonymous wrote:Interesting tweet from a left-leaning journalist.

https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1140435091719675904

I won't be surprised if DOJ drops the Roger Stone prosecution. It's a joke anyway (he had no Wikileaks ties), & in discovery, his attorneys have uncovered interesting stuff: Crowdstrike gave the FBI redacted reports on the alleged Russia hack -- which Crowdstrike itself redacted.

In the courtroom today:
“Re: Stone's motion to discover the unredacted CrowdStrike report, Stone's atty Bruce Rogow concedes govt represented they don't have it, so the motion is moot. Judge notes Stone could seek a subpoena to CrowdStrike, but his lawyer says they haven't sought one. So that's done.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Federal judge bars Roger Stone from posting on Instagram, Facebook or Twitter, expanding gag order pending trial of Trump confidant
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2019/07/16/federal-judge-bars-roger-stone-from-posting-on-instagram-facebook-or-twitter-expanding-gag-order-pending-trial-of-trump-confidant/

Could a lawyer help me out here? Wasn’t that stuff technically included in the first gag order? Why is he allowed to violate with impunity?

Not a lawyer, but I think before he was forbidden from discussing the case on social media, now he is banned from doing anything on social media.

Ah. Thanks. I’m pretty sure he had been mocking the case on social media.