re: I do not understand why Mr. Stone chose to lie about dumb, innocuous shite

Dude, that’s the type of person Roger Stone is. He’s told the story many times of using a pseudonym to make a donation from a socialist cause to Nixon’s Republican opponent. He got a receipt for it and then gave it to the media to damage the guy. Complete fabrication. He’s a liar. That’s what he does.

Stone is a narcissist and sociopath

quote:

---

But it’s funny watching Trumpkins defend this guy. He’s no saint and anyone being honest with themselves knows this.

---

Yes it is, considering the fact that all these mouth-breathers, like Hail!Hail!Michigan! et. al were ready to crucify a past President over a lie about a BJ (because they couldn't pin him on the White Water witch hunt). These mouth-breathing Trumpkins certainly do have two sets of standards when it comes to "lying" and "treason."

quote:

---

Later during his testimony, STONE again falsely denied ever communicating with his intermediary in writing:

Q: So you never communicated with your intermediary in writing in any way?
A: No.
Q: Never emailed him or texted him?
A: He’s not an email guy.
Q: So all your conversations with him were in person or over the phone.
A: Correct.

In truth and in fact, as described above, STONE and Person 2 (who STONE identified to HPSCI as his intermediary) engaged in frequent written communication by email and text message. STONE also engaged in frequent written communication by email and text message with Person 1, who also provided STONE with information regarding Organization 1.

---

If this is the evidence for a perjury charge, then it is pretty weak.

#1: In writing usually means on paper. When a state sends you a tax bill and says all disputes must be in writing, you can't send a text or email. You have to write or type out a letter on paper and send it in.

#2: This is a nonanswer. He neither confirmed nor denied he never emailed or texted him.

#3: If he emailed and texted with his phone, then all his conversations were over the phone. Over the phone usually means voice chat, but the question should be more specific. I doubt this would stand in a fair court.

There is just too much leeway in the questions and his answers to definitively prove a perjury charge. It is on the prosecution and investigators to provide proof of the crime, and this, to me, does not meet that standard.

Either these investigators were too incompetent to ask more specific questions and press for straight answers or they intentionally permitted it in order to allow room for a flimsy perjury charge. I expect more out of people with the power to take away someone's freedom.

quote:

---

So you don't think lying to Congress under oath is a big deal

---

I guess it depends on whose side your on. Comey, McCabe, and half of HRC’s team have been caught lying to congress and federal investigators many times about things much more pressing than forgetting an email from 2 years ago. Maybe we can just apply the law consistently?