Quote (IceMage @ Jul 23 2020 12:57pm)
I don't know how this is an excuse or justification. Roger Stone's always been a liar and bullshitter, therefore his lies to Congress and witness intimidation are less serious? That makes no sense.
The process played out... if he wants to appeal the judge's decision he can do so. Juries are full of people with political opinions, it doesn't suddenly render their judgement illegitimate.
And even if we were to accept that talking point of an unfair jury, the facts are what they are. It's not a close case... a new jury would convict him. So focusing on the jury is a useless distraction.
i dont necessarily have an issue with a guilty verdict given what the law is, i have an issue with the sentence. judges make sentences, judges also excuse biased jurors. so when a judge strikes from the record proof a juror is biased and then goes on to sentence someone for what i feel is too high in the range they can based on a guilty verdict it's easy to think the judge is also biased and that affects the sentencing.
i do have a moral issue with lying to congress being taken so seriously in the legal system, i dont think that perjury should be worse in a congress or in a county court house. its a tenant out country is built on, we all know congress is more important, but that is my opinion.
none of this addresses however the fervor democrat congressmen had in pursuing Roger Stone, against basic logic knowing who Stone is, which made the lying possible in the first place. its like walking a crack head down to the court house as an eye witness then getting mad when he changes his story and refuses to talk unless u get him a few rocks.
i dont support commutation, i dont support a long sentence, but its not a binary. and i can have commentary on the senate trial, roger's trial, and commutation all at once that aren't strictly linear.
This post was edited by thesnipa on Jul 23 2020 12:22pm