HUGE DEVELOPMENT: ROGER STONE Files Two Court Documents – BLASTS FBI and Mueller’s False Allegations

Popadopoulous cooperated with investigators, that is why his sentence was so small.

Stone intimidated witnesses, lied under oath, and interfered in an investigation. Whether Russia actually hacked the DNC server has absolutely zero influence on any of the "legal foundation" for the crimes allegedly committed by Stone.

 

The "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine does not apply.

 

You are being utterly simplistic and delusional to believe that allegation has not already been explained and defended a dozen times over.

 

The objective is to gin up our friend and give the old meme another run around the right wing block. That’s all.

This is nonsense. And it’s not even particularly clever nonsense.

 

Well no, that's not the Fruit of the Poisoned Tree Doctrine. That deals with evidence being collected illegally. There isn't any allegation in this motion that evidence was collected illegally, at least on his charges. Illegally, meaning without a warrant, or without a proper warrantless search exception. All that would be exclude if a Judge did believe that would be the evidence tainted.

If Russia hacked the DNC or not, has no relevance as to his actual charges. What was the purpose of the Motion? Who knows, there was likely a large number of motions filed. I don't even know if a trial date has been set in the this case, so delaying isn't really the goal....sometimes Attorneys will throw everything and see what sticks...heck maybe they were simply seeing if the FBI would actually answer the motion.

 

Then you can explain how you can have corrupt intent when you're innocent of the charge.

 

Am I?

Then tell us how the FBI determined the DNC was hacked by Russians.

Don't spare the ink.

 

not hardly, and the dnc was hacked... the emails were released...

 

I will let a jury decide

 

You do realize that the primary reason that I can avoid a "sparing of the ink" to explain how that happened is because that information is already public, right? And yet the public information for how it is known that the DNC server was hacked by Russia was enough to convince EVERY SINGLE TRUMP INTELLIGENCE OFFICER that Russia did in fact hack the DNC server.

 

I can answer your question with a real simple example.

Let us say that you are accused of robbing a convenience store. You are innocent of that charge, but you have a video tape that proves your brother committed the charge. You decide to destroy that video tape because you do not want your brother to get into trouble.

Well guess what that means? You are guilty of obstruction of justice even though you are innocent of the charge.

 

if your guilty of intimidating witnesses or obstruction, your not innocent

Nixon did not rob the DNC, he is guilty of the coverup after the fact

 

You don't really understand what you're saying, do you?

When one hasn't committed a crime, one would not be intimidating or obstructing. There is no corrupt intent, which is a requirement for both.

You clearly don't understand, and that is evident by you using Nixon.

In the Nixon case, there was an actual crime committed.

There was no crime in Trump being falsely accused of working with Russians to affect an election.

 

you seem not to understand the issues... sorry, if you commit a crime while trying to defend yourself of a crime... that is a crime

by your logic, lying under oath is not a crime if there was no crime, doesn't work that way

 

Well, counselor, I'd point to what should be obvious to you: there was an underlying crime actually committed.

The store was robbed. The tape was destroyed to protect the person who committed that crime.

Now please point to the crime committed in the false accusation of Trump colluding with Russia to affect the election.

You guys are struggling here, but please keep trying.

 

I was wondering if a HUGE DEVELOPMENT is better, worse, or the same as compared to a BOMBSHELL??

 

Who in the world made that accusation?? I have news for ya.... it was Trump, so he could say he didn't collude with Russia to affect the election...

 

No. It requires corrupt intent for both witness tampering and obstruction.

You can't point to the corrupt intent because there was none.

You can be charged for lying under oath for getting a date wrong after repeated questioning, so no, that doesn't actually require you to have done anything wrong.

 

Do you think that nonsense is actually going to work?

The left: Trump is colluding with Russia.

Also the left: Who said Trump colluded with Russia?

So weak.

 

A) Obstructing an investigation does not require that you prove the investigation would have resulted in an actual conviction of the underlying crime.
B) The Mueller report resulted in 100+ indictments, dozens of convicted individuals, and successful multiple felony convictions.

 

witness tampering and obstruction is illegal even if your innocent

 

No, you can not.

 

Waiting for specifics.... Certainly the letter appointing Mueller didn't state that.... If you are talking about some news pundits, several certainly suspected Trump and his campaign had a lot of connections and many of those were proven to be true...

Hard to just call everybody who was aware and concerned "the left" (but that's what "the right" does........)

 

Sure you can.

Ask Papadopolous.

He clearly committed no crime other than "lying". What was he "lying" about that didn't result in being charged for why he lied?

 

You have yet to make a single coherent argument. But if you need to see another example, I can easily make one.

Instead of a robbery, let us say that instead you are accused of murdering someone. You have video tape that shows it was your brother that shot the individual. You destroy the tape because you do not want your brother to get in trouble. Unknown to you, your brother killed that person in self-defense.

Guess what? There is no underlying crime (justifiable homicide is not a crime) and you are STILL guilty of obstruction of justice.