Crime Get me Roger Stone (for obstruction, lying, and witness tampering) (SCO thread v. 28)

[Quipling]

I asked this before, still curious. Isn't witness tampering/witness intimidation one of the more serious offenses one could commit due to its impact on the integrity of the whole justice system?

Yeah. I've seen people get 20+ years in pretty egregious cases.

 

[Andy Capp]

“WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service,” Mr. Pompeo said. To support his assessment, he cited how the group had encouraged followers to join the C.I.A. and steal secrets, and how “it overwhelmingly focuses on the United States while seeking support from antidemocratic countries.”

“It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a nonstate hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia,” he said.

“Russian military intelligence, the G.R.U., had used WikiLeaks to release data of U.S. victims that the G.R.U. had obtained through cyberoperations against the Democratic National Committee.”

He also said that Mr. Assange, who has spent nearly five years holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy in London to avoid extradition on sexual assault charges in Sweden, did not enjoy First Amendment protections.

“No one has the right to engage in the theft of secrets from America,” Mr. Pompeo said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/us/politics/mike-pompeo-cia-wikileaks.html

Fun little necro,

WikiLeaks Says it will Bring Hillary Clinton Down by October 21

President Donald Trump has one campaign yet to fulfill and WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange is vowing to see that one fulfilled sooner rather later. In his words – “If Trump doesn’t take Clinton down, we will.”

In a WikiLeaks letter he wrote:


Hillary Clinton’s crimes will not go unpunished. If she is not formally charged for mishandling sensitive material we will have no choice but to release proof that she is guilty of high treason against the United States for selling patented military secrets to the Saudi Arabian government.


We also have proof that she is guilty of crimes against Russia, Uzbekistan, Lithuania, Caledonia, and Brazil. The United States would be doing her a favor by putting her in prison and saving her from the severe punishments several of these nations would impose.


Assange showed his determination to see Clinton indicted by setting an October 21 deadline – indict her yourself or I will release irrefutable proof that she has committed high treason....

So, let's see, whom should we believe, former head of the CIA and now Secretary of State, or Assange?

 

[Andy Capp]

Yeah. I've seen people get 20+ years in pretty egregious cases.

Funny how people can take a 24 page indictment that includes witness intimidation as a charge and claim, oh he just lied about stuff=no big deal. And then on top of to that suggest others haven't read it or understood it?
<{cruzshake}>

 

[HereticBD]

Good to see @glenwo2 took up @waiguoren mantle of posting dershowitz

What is wrong with Dershowitz exactly?

Oh' wait, he's a Harvard Law Professor crushing your fantasies.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Fun little necro,

So, let's see, whom should we believe, former head of the CIA and now Secretary of State, or Assange?

I hope Assange burns in hell.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

What is wrong with Dershowitz exactly?

Oh' wait, he's a Harvard Law Professor crushing your fantasies.

Dershowitz pushes fringe legal theory and concepts that are easily attacked through good legal arguments . I stopped reading his shit after about the 50th time wai posted him and I debunked his retarded fringe legal arguments

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

Fun little necro,

So, let's see, whom should we believe, former head of the CIA and now Secretary of State, or Assange?

I'll admit to buying into Wikileaks at the start since Im a fan of transparency but selective transparency is easily weaponized

 

[HereticBD]

Dershowitz pushes fringe legal theory and concepts that are easily attacked through good legal arguments . I stopped reading his shit after about the 50th time wai posted him and I debunked his retarded fringe legal arguments

LOL.

Face it, you simply don't agree with him, so you must find a way to discredit the guy. I highly doubt you debunked a damn thing the Harvard Law Professor stated, nor would have the capability to do so.

Funny though, I remember y'all sucking his dick when he merely stated that the Mueller report would be bad for Trump. He's "Esteemed Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz" when you agree with him, and "Shilly McLawer, Alan Dershowitz" when you don't.

 

[44nutman]

This may be a tad late but :


Alan Dershowitz: I've read the indictment and it's a typical Mueller indictment. Very heavy on stories. Stories involving Wikileaks, but the indictment itself all relates to obstruction of justice and tampering with witnesses. In other words, crimes that occured as a result of the investigation. This is typical of Mueller. He has found almost no crimes that occurred before he was appointed Special Counsel.

He was appointed Special Counsel to uncover crimes that had already occurred. He has virtually failed in that respect in every regard. Almost all the crimes that he has indicted people for are crimes that resulted from his investigation. False statements, tampering with witnesses, obstruction of justice. I went through the list today of all the people who had been indicted by Mueller. It was very hard to find any American who had been charged with any crime that occurred before Mueller was appointed Special Counsel. So what's happened here is that these are crimes which were generated by the investigation---that doesn't make them any less criminal---but it really means that there has been a failure to uncover the basic crimes for which he was appointed. Namely, before he was appointed, was there illegal conspiracy with Russia? We don't find that.

In this indictment, he tells stories about alleged collusion, stories about Wikileaks but that's not the basis for the indictment. The basis for the indictment are all events that occurred after he was indicted. That's very significant.

YOu do know that Dershowitz was on the Lolita Express almost as much as Bill Clinton.
Trump also was on the same plane.
I don't trust philes, so quote Dershowitz all you want but please don't bring him around 15 year old girls.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...lita-Express-private-jet-anonymous-women.html

 

[MicroBrew]

What is wrong with Dershowitz exactly?

Oh' wait, he's a Harvard Law Professor crushing your fantasies.

So then you will defer to Obama's expert opinion on what is constitutional , seeing as how he was a professor of Constitutional Law at the U of Chicago Law School.

 

[44nutman]

Good to see @glenwo2 took up @waiguoren mantle of posting dershowitz

Dershowitz is a phile.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...lita-Express-private-jet-anonymous-women.html

 

[Trotsky]

It's a stupid summary, per the usual, from Dershowitz.

In an organized criminal case with over a dozen defendants, you wouldn't just lay out the laws you can prove Stone violated at the get go, and give every other defendant a heads up on where you're looking or what you've found.

Now from a practical standpoint, this may mean the prosecutor might have to hold off in regards to one defendant for a time. But that prosecutor is in luck if you have a dipshit defendant like Stone who's going around emailing, calling, and texting threats to various witnesses (and that's a crime in and of itself). Now you can take him in, put his feet to the fire, without having to show your hand.

Derpowitz argument is: Here goes Mueller again, arresting another Trump official for similar charges as other defendants. Yeah, that's because these defendants keep lying. That's not on Mueller, it's on them. What is Dersh even suggesting? That Stone was tricked or forced into threatening witnesses? And of course Dersh neglects the obvious question: Why a defendant would do something like that if he wasn't guilty?

Regardless, threatening the witnesses of a federal prosecutor is a crime, and I don't know how any lawyer can honestly act surprised that a defendant wouldn't be charged if found doing that.

lol I bet Harvard Law is really regretting his tenure.

He seriously is such an embarrassment to their brand. I'm sure the Yale dean chubs up every time this boot licking weasel pops his head up on a legal issue.

EDIT: Also, just lol @ a right winger appealing to Dershowitz's Harvard Law spot, despite constantly dismissing expert/qualified opinion anywhere else in the area of law, economics, and science, and rejecting as elitist the reality that highly intelligent and educated persons (especially in T14 law) are overwhelmingly far left of the American center.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

You know Trump eats at McDonald's right? You know he was in one of McDonald's commercials right? You know that's a running joke about Trump right? "Hamberders" right? You wanna pretend like you didn't make that post, get a good night of sleep, and think your next post through in the morning.

Lol Trump is paid to eat thst shit. You eat it because you're poor.

 

[HereticBD]

So then you will defer to Obama's expert opinion on what is constitutional , seeing as how he was a professor of Constitutional Law at the U of Chicago Law School.

Sure, along with a host other experts in the field. I certainly wouldn't personally attempt to claim that he doesn't know what he's talking about, like some fools on here do with Dershowitz, whenever he pops their balloon.

 

[Trotsky]

Sure, along with a host other experts in the field. I certainly wouldn't personally attempt to claim that he doesn't know what he's talking about, like some fools on here do with Dershowitz, whenever he pops their balloon.

No one is saying he doesn't know what he's talking about. They're saying that he's a shameless hack, attention hog, and reactionary douche that argues from predetermined positions. He's an embarrassment to his station and betrays the expectation that he would constructively form his positions in good faith and from his expertise rather than taking positions and then trying to cobble together justifications from his vast reservoir of knowledge.

 

[Rockapotomuss]

It's a stupid summary, per the usual, from Dershowitz.

In an organized criminal case with over a dozen defendants, you wouldn't just lay out the laws you can prove Stone violated at the get go, and give every other defendant a heads up on where you're looking or what you've found.

Now from a practical standpoint, this may mean the prosecutor might have to hold off in regards to one defendant for a time. But that prosecutor is in luck if you have a dipshit defendant like Stone who's going around emailing, calling, and texting threats to various witnesses (and that's a crime in and of itself). Now you can take him in, put his feet to the fire, without having to show your hand.

Derpowitz argument is: Here goes Mueller again, arresting another Trump official for similar charges as other defendants. Yeah, that's because these defendants keep lying. That's not on Mueller, it's on them. What is Dersh even suggesting? That Stone was tricked or forced into threatening witnesses? And of course Dersh neglects the obvious question: Why a defendant would do something like that if he wasn't guilty?

Regardless, threatening the witnesses of a federal prosecutor is a crime, and I don't know how any lawyer can honestly act surprised that a defendant wouldn't be charged if found doing that.

Good post but let's not strawman Dershowitz when you don't need to. Dershowitz didn't complain that Mueller's charges are similar as other defendants, his point was that almost all of the charges are post-investigation charges, meaning without the investigation there are no crimes. What is Dersh even suggesting? This is to illustrate the potential dangers of unrestricted investigations.

Why would a defendant do something like that if he wasn't guilty? Because either he is guilty or he believes he looks guilty and wants to look less guilty. You can't conclude with certainty that someone is guilty just because they lie. Witnesses are unreliable all the time, why are they lying? They're not necessarily lying. People just aren't very good at telling the truth all the time.

Dershowitz' second point is the double standard in favor of the state where they can show up with a swat team at 6am to intimidate a witness, legally, but if an individual so much as tweets that they hope someone doesn't testify that's a crime.

 

[vengeful]

What happened to @waiguoren? He was a funny guy with a huge gambling addiction, did he get fed to some crocodiles down under? "What's funny is that you think Dershowitz is defending Trump" lol

 

[HereticBD]

No one is saying he doesn't know what he's talking about. They're saying that he's a shameless hack, attention hog, and reactionary douche that argues from predetermined positions. He's an embarrassment to his station and betrays the expectation that he would constructively form his positions in good faith and from his expertise rather than taking positions and then trying to cobble together justifications from his vast reservoir of knowledge.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, he doesn't confirm your bias, therefore hack. I've been over this.

 

[vengeful]

Good post but let's not strawman Dershowitz when you don't need to. Dershowitz didn't complain that Mueller's charges are similar as other defendants, his point was that almost all of the charges are post-investigation charges, meaning without the investigation there are no crimes. What is Dersh even suggesting? This is to illustrate the potential dangers of unrestricted investigations.

Why would a defendant do something like that if he wasn't guilty? Because either he is guilty or he believes he looks guilty and wants to look less guilty. You can't conclude with certainty that someone is guilty just because they lie. Witnesses are unreliable all the time, why are they lying? They're not necessarily lying. People just aren't very good at telling the truth all the time.

Dershowitz' second point is the double standard in favor of the state where they can show up with a swat team at 6am to intimidate a witness, legally, but if an individual so much as tweets that they hope someone doesn't testify that's a crime.

That's not a double standard, one's legal, one isn't.

Is it a double standard that a cop can point his gun at me if he suspects I have one, but I can't point my gun at the cop when I know he has one?

 

[Rockapotomuss]

That's not a double standard, one's legal, one isn't.

Is it a double standard that a cop can point his gun at me if he suspects I have one, but I can't point my gun at the cop when I know he has one?

Yes it's a double standard but there's a good reason for why a cop can point a gun at you but you can't. What is the good reason for why the state is able to intimidate witnesses and individuals can't?