- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 6/17/19 at 4:34 pm to bmy
quote:
don't see how evidence related to the origins of an investigation are relevant to charges of witness tampering.
That is not the standard. At all.
quote:
It's rock solid
Something no litigator has ever said. Good Lord.
quote:
solid -- he instructed someone to lie under oath, threatened him, etc
I doubt you know the elements/defenses etc. however, let’s assume you are correct. That has zero to do with evidentiary standards and procedures. Of which you clearly don’t care about. You just want your “side” to win.
It makes your inability to grasp a simple concept like “corrupt intent” all the more explainable. I was engaging you in good faith and honest debate. You are simply dishonest. This is now painfully clear.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 5:15 pm to Choctaw
quote:
he Mueller team has tried to keep Stone from the "evidence" against him stating it's not necessary for his defense
quote:
Isn't this unconstitutional? Or does that just pertain to accusers?
Not so certain Mueller nor TPTB behind him really give a damn about the Constitution.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 5:56 pm to Walter Kovacs
quote:
It's hard to believe this is real life.
When I was young and I naive, I watched the movie "Count of Monte Cristo" and thinking, thankfully that doesn't happen in the USA.
Wrong!
So sad!
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:51 pm to Tony Tiger89
Tony,
If it comes to that, you’ll be missed.
If it comes to that, you’ll be missed.
Posted on 6/18/19 at 7:07 am to BBONDS25
quote:
That is not the standard. At all.
That's up for the judge to decide, no? There hasn't been a trial yet so this is the process working as intended.
quote:
Something no litigator has ever said. Good Lord.
Good thing I'm just watching the ballgame. What % of cases do you think the federal government loses? They don't typically litigate when they could lose.. in other words -- rock solid.
quote:
Of which you clearly don’t care about. You just want your “side” to win.
We both know he is guilty You just care more about the process than about justice -- I respect that because the process is important. I'd prefer to see the scumbag headed to spend the rest of his life in jail. Then I can chuckle when he gets his pardon.
This post was edited on 6/18/19 at 7:08 am
Posted on 6/18/19 at 7:31 am to bmy
quote:
That's up for the judge to decide, no? There hasn't been a trial yet so this is the process working as intended.
It is pretty rare in a criminal case for the prosecutor to not just open their files (Brady and all). The fact that the prosecution has stated the material “isn’t needed for a defense” is an argument that reeks. Everything is up to the judge, I guess. My initial comment in this thread was simply to point out your disregard for evidentiary standards in favor of glee over your “side” “winning”.
quote:
Good thing I'm just watching the ballgame.
No shite.
quote:
What % of cases do you think the federal government loses? They don't typically litigate when they could lose.. in other words -- rock solid.
Your ignorance knows no bounds.
quote:
We both know he is guilty
No. You are a dishonest and ignorant useful idiot that doesn’t even know the elements of the crime. If the quote you posted is the “rock solid” proof you need....it is even more evident you don’t know what you don’t know. Stop playing lawyer. You are awful at it.
Posted on 6/18/19 at 8:01 am to 9th life
Good thing I'm not a liberal pussy boy, if I was I might give a frick what the liberal trash thinks about me!!
Posted on 6/18/19 at 8:10 am to bmy
quote:the rest of his life in jail?
I'd prefer to see the scumbag headed to spend the rest of his life in jail.
Are you demented?
Posted on 6/18/19 at 8:11 am to BBONDS25
quote:
No. You are a dishonest and ignorant useful idiot that doesn’t even know the elements of the crime. If the quote you posted is the “rock solid” proof you need....it is even more evident you don’t know what you don’t know. Stop playing lawyer. You are awful at it.
18 U.S. Code §?1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to—
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process;
Pretty sure the indictment covers this at a minimum
Stone is looking for a technicality to excuse his criminal conduct. The idea that crimes like witness tampering/obstruction of justice depend on the investigation resulting in charges (or even on the veracity of the investigation) is insane. They are crimes because the conduct can materially impair an investigation
You don't get to burn your house down to prevent a thorough investigation -- that's a crime.
This post was edited on 6/18/19 at 9:01 am
Posted on 6/18/19 at 8:14 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
the rest of his life in jail?
Are you demented?
He's old. The sentence won't be that long.
Posted on 6/18/19 at 8:22 am to bmy
quote:Do you understand what the charges are?
He's old. The sentence won't be that long.
Posted on 6/18/19 at 8:23 am to Tony Tiger89
Let’s wait to see if you can even post in 2020.
I expect one of Stone or Flynn to be rotting in a cell with Cohen and Manafort by then.
I expect one of Stone or Flynn to be rotting in a cell with Cohen and Manafort by then.
Posted on 6/18/19 at 8:26 am to tandrews37
Liberal alter pussy boy, your alter account will be gone , once all is said and done. Flynn will walk and Stone will walk, and your pussy arse will be using another account like most liberal vagina's on here do !!
Posted on 6/18/19 at 8:58 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Do you understand what the charges are?
one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five counts of false statements, and one count of witness tampering
Roger Stone acted corruptly to obstruct those investigations and his actions were capable of influencing the investigations. That is all the law requires. He gone.
This post was edited on 6/18/19 at 9:03 am
Posted on 6/18/19 at 9:03 am to Tony Tiger89
quote:
Liberal alter pussy boy, your alter account will be gone , once all is said and done. Flynn will walk and Stone will walk, and your pussy arse will be using another account like most liberal vagina's on here do !!
Next level alter given we are on at the same time. Maybe its a burner phone.
Posted on 6/18/19 at 9:09 am to bmy
quote:
Pretty sure the indictment covers this at a minimum
I bet you are pretty sure. And I’ll state again....you are really bad at playing lawyer. I’ll indulge, though. Is the quote you previously posted what you are relying upon to satisfy the elements above? Any other actions? I want to get it all out there before We look into the “rock solid” case.
Posted on 6/18/19 at 9:50 am to Jjdoc
No wonder they needed 30 officers in riot gear, a battering ram and, of course CNN for backup if Stone really got rough.
This post was edited on 6/18/19 at 9:53 am
Posted on 6/18/19 at 12:43 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
I bet you are pretty sure. And I’ll state again....you are really bad at playing lawyer. I’ll indulge, though. Is the quote you previously posted what you are relying upon to satisfy the elements above? Any other actions? I want to get it all out there before We look into the “rock solid” case.
Or you could just reference the indictment
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News