Roger Stone Indictment

[Forty Two]

Here is the full document -- https://www.scribd.com/document/3982073 ... =affiliate

Interesting read. Man, if that doesn't teach a lesson that one ought never voluntarily speak to the FBI, nothing will. Sloppy sloppy answering. This Stone guy handed them all this bullshit on a silver platter -- just say you don't know! One of his "false statements" is attributing conversations he had with one person to another person at about the same time. Another "false statement" is in describing what "documents" he has in his possession in whatever form -- I mean, Stone is smart enough to know they had all his emails without him having to turn them over. He's just answering that "not to my knowledge" do I have the documents they're describing, and he should have simply said - "I really don't remember, I'd have to look."

But, most of this crap wouldn't even be an indictment but for the investigation. In fact, I daresay none of it would. There is no underlying crime. He's being investigated for stuff, but there is no wrongdoing. His wrong doing are his misstatements to the FBI (which apparently in this case lot's of "reasonable prosecutors" would be willing to bring a case about...), and the communications to witnesses where he's talking about their testimony and calling them rats and such. But that's all a creation of the FBI's investigation.

I have my doubts about the seriousness of the "witness tampering" crap, given the fact that it's hard to get to the "context" of the statements they cite -- but he may well get whacked on that. Who knows. But, I just shake my head at the rest of the indictment.... Stone talked to wikileaks! Or did he? Maybe on this date -- was there a go-between -- who was the go-between -- was he told about wikileaks tranches of documents being released -- who the fuck cares??? None of that is even morally wrong, much less illegal. Wikileaks did not commit a crime, unless someone is saying THEY hacked servers, which nobody is saying. Wikileaks is allowed to publish documents, even if they are taken from government sources - under American law that is completely protected by the First Amendment and that was upheld under the Pentagon Papers cases.

But they're squeezing Stone. Let's see what he says.

[Jason]

You missed your calling 42. You should open a business educating the rich and powerful how they ought to deal with the FBI.

[Forty Two]

You missed your calling 42. You should open a business educating the rich and powerful how they ought to deal with the FBI.

It ain't just the rich and powerful. It's anyone accused, whether by the FBI, the IRS, or state and local police. It's only moreso epitomized by the FBI lately, who seems to be doing more crime-creation than law enforcement.

[pErvinalia]

I have my doubts about the seriousness of the "witness tampering" crap, given the fact that it's hard to get to the "context" of the statements they cite -- but he may well get whacked on that. Who knows. But, I just shake my head at the rest of the indictment.... Stone talked to wikileaks! Or did he? Maybe on this date -- was there a go-between -- who was the go-between -- was he told about wikileaks tranches of documents being released -- who the fuck cares??? None of that is even morally wrong, much less illegal. Wikileaks did not commit a crime, unless someone is saying THEY hacked servers, which nobody is saying. Wikileaks is allowed to publish documents, even if they are taken from government sources - under American law that is completely protected by the First Amendment and that was upheld under the Pentagon Papers cases.

Isn't the US seeking to prosecute Julian Assange for doing just that?

[JimC]

Some interesting changes. In the past, US conservatives would hold law enforcement as virtually sacred - the police and the FBI could do no wrong. Shoot a few long-haired demonstrators? Hell, they had it coming...

Now, it seems, law enforcement is the enemy. Perhaps it's because conservatives have edged so far into corruption that law enforcement is indeed their enemy...

[Svartalf]

Noooo, the GOP can do no wrong, you can't be right!

[Sean Hayden]

They are claiming he interfered with an investigation, and threatened a witness when it became clear that the witness would make statements contradicting his own testimony.

42's response? Without an investigation none of this would have happened, ergo, your bad feds.

[Svartalf]

well, the feds have a job to do, and if it means everybody that even talked to frump is going to jail, so be it, that guy is so corrupt it is a wonder his flesh is staying on his frame.

[Sean Hayden]

I always recommend never talking to the police. A lawyer once told me that the problem is that they're looking for a bad guy, and if you're not really careful, or if you're just unlucky, you might convince them they've found him. That's simplistic, but it's also not the only concern. They can also just use you to get at someone else. They have a lot of tools in their kit and I feel for anyone who has to deal with law enforcement.

Having said that, the feds were investigating possible collusion between Russia and our current President and his staff. I think we can all agree --unless you're some super spook and you've got your reasons-- that as Americans we want to get to the bottom of this. So it's hard to be sympathetic to a guy that goes out of his way to interfere with this investigation, especially if he's doing it because he's convinced it's a witch hunt to get his good man Trump.

If he tells them what he did, and as 42 said none of it is illegal, and they still go after him then he'd get a lot more sympathy.

[Svartalf]

well, talking to people is legal, it's up to Mueller to establish that the talks were actually a conspiration to meddle (successfully as it appears) with the electoral process.

[JimC]

I always recommend never talking to the police.

Personally, I recommend being extremely polite to our wonderful boys and girls in blue...

[Sean Hayden]

--indeed

[Cunt]

Isn't the US seeking to prosecute Julian Assange for doing just that?

What are they aiming to prosecute him for? I heard treason once, but he isn't a US citizen, so that doesn't make sense...

I always recommend never talking to the police. A lawyer once told me that the problem is that they're looking for a bad guy, and if you're not really careful, or if you're just unlucky, you might convince them they've found him. That's simplistic, but it's also not the only concern. They can also just use you to get at someone else. They have a lot of tools in their kit and I feel for anyone who has to deal with law enforcement.

If in doubt, ask your lawyer.

Basically, here is a great reason to not talk to the police.

If you tell them anything incriminating, they can and will use it against you. We all know that from the TV, right?

Well, if you tell them anything exculpatory, and they try to use it in your favour, a decent countering lawyer will object to them offering such as 'hearsay'.

So nothing you can tell them can help you. Anything you tell them can harm you (especially if you misspeak, or sound guilty)

Don't bother with them, unless you know better. (you probably don't)

[Animavore]

I don't see how anyone can day Stone was treated unfairly. They didn't burst through his door, shoot his barking dog, then charge him for the bullets.

He was treated far too good for a traitor compared to, say, someone like Mussolini.

I think he got off lightly.

[Brian Peacock]

But, most of this crap wouldn't even be an indictment but for the investigation.

"And I woulda gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky investigators and their pesky investigating."