Roger Stone Posts and Deletes Photo of Judge With Crosshairs

[NeverTrump]

This is why I said Roger Stone is bad guy, a crook, a liar, and an overall douchebag. What will it take to lift the partisan blinders??????

Furthermore,

18 USC § 115: Whoever "threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a ... [US] judge ... with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge ... while engaged in the performance of official duties ..." commits a felony.

Sure sounds like Stone wants to get thrown in jail.

Embattled political consultant Roger Stone on Monday posted and later deleted a photo of the federal judge presiding over his criminal court case with a crosshairs graphic looming over her head.

Roger Stone Posts and Deletes Photo of Judge With Crosshairs

 

[Captain Adverse]

This is why I said Roger Stone is bad guy, a crook, a liar, and an overall douchebag. What will it take to lift the partisan blinders??????

Furthermore,

Sure sounds like Stone wants to get thrown in jail.

Roger Stone Posts and Deletes Photo of Judge With Crosshairs

(Sigh)

Stone is a bombastic attention-seeker. But only someone suffering from confirmation bias would believe that photo was in any way an actual "threat."

IMO Stone's history of "bombastic free expression" would lead a reasonable person to interpret this as more of his typical "I've got my sights on this individual" rhetoric.

Before you ask, IMO he probably took it down as soon as he realized the post's meaning would likely be misinterpreted by the usual suspects. :coffeepap:

 

[tres borrachos]

This is why I said Roger Stone is bad guy, a crook, a liar, and an overall douchebag. What will it take to lift the partisan blinders??????

Furthermore,

Sure sounds like Stone wants to get thrown in jail.



Roger Stone Posts and Deletes Photo of Judge With Crosshairs

That is really, really not real bright. For so many reasons.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

(Sigh)

Stone is a bombastic attention-seeker. But only someone suffering from confirmation bias would believe that photo was in any way an actual "threat."

Stone's history of "bombastic free expression" would lead a reasonable person to interpret this as more of his typical "I've got my sights on this individual" rhetoric.

Before you ask, he probably took it down as soon as he realized the article's interpretation would be the expected response from the usual suspects. :coffeepap:

I think it's sad and pathetic that you would defend someone publicly threatening the judge presiding over his trial. Wtf do you think posting crosshairs on a judge's head means? I swear there is no depth you Trump cultists will not stoop to.

 

[NeverTrump]

(Sigh)

Stone is a bombastic attention-seeker. But only someone suffering from confirmation bias would believe that photo was in any way an actual "threat."

Stone's history of "excessive free expression" would lead a reasonable person to interpret this as more of his typical "I've got my sights on this individual" rhetoric.

Before you ask, he probably took it down as soon as he realized the article's interpretation would be the expected response from the usual suspects. :coffeepap:

B1. I've got my eyes on you is a direct threat. You don't say that **** to a judge. And Stone will get reprimanded for it. Hopefully his gag order will increase and his social media taken offline. He needs to learn the consequences of his actions and stop trolling.

B2. So the political consultant didn't think of that before he posted it???? So your defense is Roger Stone is an humiliated emotionally compromised idiot blowhard worse than Trump? Great Defense, either way prosecutors will want to speak with him again, about the image. It had very strong language towards the judge in his case.

Your piss poor defenses of criminals is not working anymore.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I think it's sad and pathetic that you would defend someone publicly threatening the judge presiding over his trial. Wtf do you think posting crosshairs on a judge's head means? I swear there is no depth you Trump cultists will not stoop to.

I am defending free expression and a reasonable (as opposed to confirmation biased) interpretation of same.

As for the rest of your typically ad hominin response? :doh

B1. I've got my eyes on you is a direct threat. You don't say that **** to a judge. And Stone will get reprimanded for it. Hopefully his gag order will increase and his social media taken offline. He needs to learn the consequences of his actions.

I've got my eyes on you is NOT a "direct threat." It simply means I am watching you carefully, so you better be good. Isn't that what parents, teacher's, and employer's usually mean when they say it?

B2. So the political consultant didn't think of that before he posted it???? So your defense is Roger Stone is an humiliated emotionally compromised idiot blowhard worse than Trump? Great Defense, either way prosecutors will want to speak with him again, about the image. It had very strong language towards the judge in his case.

Stone rarely seems to think before he speaks, so yeah I'd say his comment was par for the course. :shrug:

 

[NeverTrump]

I am defending free expression and a reasonable (as opposed to confirmation biased) interpretation of same.

As for the rest of your typically ad hominin response? :doh

No you are defending criminals threatening judges. Not everything is about free expression and crimes cannot be boiled down to that.

 

[SCrider]

(Sigh)

Stone is a bombastic attention-seeker. But only someone suffering from confirmation bias would believe that photo was in any way an actual "threat."

IMO Stone's history of "bombastic free expression" would lead a reasonable person to interpret this as more of his typical "I've got my sights on this individual" rhetoric.

Before you ask, IMO he probably took it down as soon as he realized the post's meaning would likely be misinterpreted by the usual suspects. :coffeepap:

you are funny.......

 

[Greenbeard]

IMO Stone's history of "bombastic free expression" would lead a reasonable person to interpret this as more of his typical "I've got my sights on this individual" rhetoric.

Can you post some prior instances of Stone using the language you've put into quotes here? Since it's apparently "typical" of him to use that phrase.

 

[NeverTrump]

1. I've got my eyes on you is NOT a "direct threat." It simply means I am watching you carefully, so you better be good. Isn't that what parents, teacher's, and employer's usually mean when they say it?

2. Stone rarely seems to think before he speaks, so yeah I'd say his comment was par for the course. :shrug:

1. In what world does stone have any rights to tell a judge what to do??? Criminals don't get to demand judges to behave. You are unbelievable.

2. And yet you are defending him.

 

[Yakshi]

Break out the Twister board! Let's watch the Trump sycophants turn themselves into pretzels trying to argue that Stone didn't just threaten a judge.

 

[Mach]

He's got to be angling for a pardon...just like Manafort, he's gonna ensure he gets a maximal sentence if he's convicted, because these guys don't seem to be worried at all. Whip up up it a giant ****-show the base loves, Trump pardons, the crowd of his base will cheer.

Before you ask, IMO he probably took it down as soon as he realized the post's meaning would likely be misinterpreted

Posting the judge you disagree with publicly, who is overseeing your criminal case, with cross-hairs on them...golly Captain Adverse, how ever could we misinterpret that?

 

[noonereal]

This is typical conduct we see around TRump.

We have never had a president who was so wrapped in slime balls.

The judge should send to straight to jail for this, very cool.

 

[noonereal]

He's got to be angling for a pardon...just like Manafort, he's gonna ensure he gets a maximal sentence if he's convicted, because these guys don't seem to be worried at all. Whip up up it a giant ****-show the base loves, Trump pardons, the crowd of his base will cheer.



Posting the judge you disagree with publicly, who is overseeing your criminal case, with cross-hairs on them...golly Captain Adverse, how ever could we misinterpret that?

I think they are very worried, just ass holes.

Too worried to talk.

No doubt they fear Trump's boss, Putin. They know he can strike them and or their families anywhere in the world. I am sure pray each night Trump will pardon them but I don't think TRump will because that is a political liability to him.

Even Cohen will only talk about some subjects in his plea deal. They are all scared of Putin.

 

[NeverTrump]

He's got to be angling for a pardon...just like Manafort, he's gonna ensure he gets a maximal sentence if he's convicted, because these guys don't seem to be worried at all. Whip up up it a giant ****-show the base loves, Trump pardons, the crowd of his base will cheer.



Posting the judge you disagree with publicly, who is overseeing your criminal case, with cross-hairs on them...golly Captain Adverse, how ever could we misinterpret that?

But regardless, Roger Stone is an innocent who deserves Captain's astute defense that threatening a judge is not threatening b/c he was only threatening the judge.

 

[Mach]

Stone rarely seems to think before he speaks, so yeah I'd say his comment was par for the course. :shrug:

Stone and Manafort spent their entire, professional lives, manipulating public image, messaging, and orchestrating schemes to help their clients in elections, for money and power. But he lacks impulse control about public messaging on matters important to him?

You're not fooling anyone with bull**** that stupid. How can you even write such trash?

Yes, this guy who made an entire lifetime career out of strategically manipulating media images, he rarely speaks before he acts in the media. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket!
See, when he threatens a judge, that's just a lack of impulse control..yeah, yeah, that makes it OK!

 

[Captain Adverse]

1. In what world does stone have any rights to tell a judge what to do??? Criminals don't get to demand judges to behave. You are unbelievable.

2. And yet you are defending him.

The same right you seem to feel free to use by telling me what I am or am not doing. The right of Free expression. How many times have you and the other echo chamber usual suspects told those you oppose or disagree with in this Forum what they can or can't, should or should not, are or are not?

He is free to say what he wants subject to actual slander or actual threats covered under appropriate law.

As for how I can defend the "indefensible?" Among several reasons I will remind you of what I consider the difference between a real Liberal and a Leftist:

5. Free Speech:

Liberal Position:

a. I wholly disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Left’s Position:

a. Identifies things they disagree with as “Hate Speech” which deserves no protection at all. In fact, it deserves punishment of some kind.

Now I see those same usual suspects are coming in to pile on (also) as usual. So tagline time. :coffeepap:

 

[Mach]

I think they are very worried, just ass holes.
Even Cohen will only talk about some subjects in his plea deal. They are all scared of Putin.

I hope you're right. But read back on Iran Contra...people that defend the higher-ups with lies and obstruction, were recommended for pardon, and pardoned.
I'm not kidding, Barr was the attorney that made that recommendation to pardon.

Fast forward to GWB and Scooter Libby. Not pardoned (Cheney thought that was a mistake not to pardon), but sentence commuted. For lying/obstructing for the higher-ups.

And lookie here, Barr just became the Attorney General.

Granted, Manafort is guilty if FAR more crimes, he'd be pardoning him despite most of his sentence being about crimes unrelated to "behaving like a criminal to further Republican efforts".
Stone is easier...a long time friend of Trump, a student of the Nixon era (who was another Republican pardoned immediately).

I don't know, history is filled with criminal ass-**** Republicans and their underlings committing crimes to defend them, and then pardoning them down the line. I don't have a lot of hope that will change with Trump.

 

[NeverTrump]

The same right you seem to feel free to use by telling me what I am or am not doing. The right of Free expression. How many times have you and the other echo chamber usual suspects told those you oppose or disagree with in this Forum what they can or can't, should or should not, are or are not?

He is free to say what he wants subject to actual slander or actual threats covered under appropriate law.

As for how I can defend the "indefensible?" Among several reasons I will remind you of what I consider the difference between a real Liberal and a Leftist:



Now I see those same usual suspects are coming in to pile on (also) as usual. So tagline time. :coffeepap:

No I do not have the right to threaten any judge and an anonymous internet forum is not the same as a public social media page (where he asks for $$$). How pathetic is it that you are comparing what Roger Stone did to you getting owned in every debate by "a bunch of leftists."

The photo in question was taken from a Russian Propaganda news site. I'm beginning to think you may not know much of what you are talking about here.

 

[Mach]

The same right you seem to feel free to use by telling me what I am or am not doing. The right of Free expression. How many times have you and the other echo chamber usual suspects told those you oppose or disagree with in this Forum what they can or can't, should or should not, are or are not?He is free to say what he wants subject to actual slander or actual threats covered under appropriate law.

No one is debating ****ing rights.
no one gives a **** that it's free speech.

In what sick world do you imagine that the only way to differentiate good from bad, ethical from unethical, are laws? Good gods we need to fund education.

 

[Mach]

But regardless, Roger Stone is an innocent who deserves Captain's astute defense that threatening a judge is not threatening b/c he was only threatening the judge.

Yeah, this guy who spent a career strategically manipulating people, events, etc., to get his clients elected or to sway public opinion...this guy never thinks -before he speaks to the press.
It's so stupid it hurts. It physically hurts me to imagine someone can be so stupid as to really believe such nonsense.

And yeah, as you point out, the ultimate defense is "he threatened the judge but he didn't think before he did it, therefore, it's OK".

And the fallback from that is "well it's approrpiate as long as its not illegal".

Madness.

 

[GDViking]

(Sigh)

Stone is a bombastic attention-seeker. But only someone suffering from confirmation bias would believe that photo was in any way an actual "threat."

IMO Stone's history of "bombastic free expression" would lead a reasonable person to interpret this as more of his typical "I've got my sights on this individual" rhetoric.

Before you ask, IMO he probably took it down as soon as he realized the post's meaning would likely be misinterpreted by the usual suspects. :coffeepap:

Of course it was a threat, he has already been charged with threatening a witness...

 

[GDViking]

Break out the Twister board! Let's watch the Trump sycophants turn themselves into pretzels trying to argue that Stone didn't just threaten a judge.

Yip, can you say additional charges???

 

[Tanngrisnir]

(Sigh)

Stone is a bombastic attention-seeker. But only someone suffering from confirmation bias would believe that photo was in any way an actual "threat."

IMO Stone's history of "bombastic free expression" would lead a reasonable person to interpret this as more of his typical "I've got my sights on this individual" rhetoric.

Before you ask, IMO he probably took it down as soon as he realized the post's meaning would likely be misinterpreted by the usual suspects. :coffeepap:

You cite what what a 'reasonable person' would conclude or interpret.

Objection: assumes facts not in evidence, as you clearly wouldn't know, given his history and your obvious ignorance of it.

 

[Mr Person]

(Sigh)

Stone is a bombastic attention-seeker. But only someone suffering from confirmation bias would believe that photo was in any way an actual "threat."

IMO Stone's history of "bombastic free expression" would lead a reasonable person to interpret this as more of his typical "I've got my sights on this individual" rhetoric.

Before you ask, IMO he probably took it down as soon as he realized the post's meaning would likely be misinterpreted by the usual suspects. :

Why do you think the number of words you type or the tone you use is fooling anyone?

PS: Are you trying to kill the God of Irony with that ending sentence, oh most usual of suspects? Stone is close to Trump, so you try to wrap a partisan knee-jerk defense with words. Same substance every time.

I've got my eyes on you is NOT a "direct threat." It simply means I am watching you carefully, so you better be good.

I'd love to see Attorney Adverse try telling a judge that he better be good because Attorney Adverse is watching him carefully. Be a shame if anything happened out there, so be careful judge 'ole pal....

:lamo