Roger Stone's trial - Part 2

Stone's lawyer Bruce Rogow's opening statement:

If that's what he's got, he's in trouble.  Oh, wait.  There's more...

The great and brilliant Roger Stone got duped and really wasn't important.  Desperate.  He's in trouble for sure.

Now that's just sad.

Sad and desperate.  The jury must already be rolling their eyes and preparing to vote guilty.

Was this the best lawyer Stone could get?

Roger Stone is on trial, and the proceedings are bad news for President Donald Trump, with federal prosecutors citing evidence that suggests Trump might have lied to Special Counsel Robert Mueller. And that sort of lying can be a crime.

[...]

The neo-fascist Proud Boys were there, as well as other luminaries of the alt-right, to support Stone, the dirty trickster and conspiracy theorist who has been a Trump adviser since the 1980s. Facing seven felony counts, Stone is charged with lying repeatedly to the House Intelligence Committee, obstructing justice, and witness tampering. But this case goes beyond Stone’s alleged lies: prosecutors have revealed new information about how Trump tried to benefit from the Russian operation during the 2016 campaign that hacked the Democratic National Committee’s servers. And they are producing material undercutting Trump’s claim to Mueller that he has no recollection of talking to Stone during the campaign about WikiLeaks.

  Mother Jones

Well, they may undercut it, but they can't disprove it if he's simply saying he has no recollection. I don't recall is the get out of jail free card of litigation.

Several of the queries Mueller submitted to Trump focused on whether he was ever told Stone had been in touch with WikiLeaks and whether he or anyone associated with his campaign had spoken to Stone about WikiLeaks. In his written response, Trump replied, “I do not recall being told during the campaign that Roger Stone or anyone associated with my campaign had discussions with any of the entities named in the question regarding the content or timing of release of hacked emails.” He also noted, “I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with [Stone], nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign.” And Trump, who has boasted of possessing a prodigious memory, claimed to have “no recollection of the specifics of any conversations I had with Mr. Stone between June 1, 2016” and Election Day. The impression Trump provided: as far as he knew, he and his campaign had had nothing to do with Stone and WikiLeaks.

Mueller’s report characterized Trump’s responses as “inadequate.” Zelinsky’s opening statement suggests Stone’s trial could show Trump’s statements were false.

[...]

Zelinsky told the court that [Steve] Bannon will testify that he and Stone “had been talking all summer long” about WikiLeaks and that Stone had told Bannon what he had been claiming publicly: that he had inside information on WikiLeaks. [...] In October 2016, when Assange gave a bizarre press conference widely seen as a dud because he did not disclose new material on Hillary Clinton, Bannon immediately emailed Stone to ask, “What was that?” Stone assured Bannon that Assange still planned to release additional emails. And days later, WikiLeaks began releasing messages the Russians had swiped from Clinton campaign chief John Podesta.

[Roger Stone] has found a defense that takes advantage of his unsavory reputation: Don’t believe me or anyone else.

[...]

Stone “did brag about his ability to try to find out what was going on,” Rogow said, but ultimately learned only what was in “the public domain.”

[...]

Stone, 67, claimed inside knowledge, Rogow said, because “he was playing others himself” and such claims “play in politics … in newspaper articles, in public.”

[...]

Stone, Rogow argued, thought he would be asked questions about Russia rather than WikiLeaks. “He goes into this bare, naked,” Rogow said of Stone’s exchanges with House investigators. “His state of mind undermines any argument that he did this in a conscious, evil, purposeful way to mislead the committee.”

  WaPo

Dude, you just said he was playing everybody.

What prosecutors labeled a conspiracy to thwart a congressional investigation, Stone’s lawyers framed as meaningless bragging and confusion among a group of eccentrics.

Stone and Credico had a “strange relationship,” Rogow said, and Credico is “an impressionist.” When Stone told Credico to “do a Frank Pentangeli” before the committee and feign forgetting information so as not to contradict Stone, Rogow suggested he was merely asking his friend to act out a scene from the second “Godfather” movie. Prosecutors used that quote as evidence that Stone wanted Credico to help him avoid a perjury charge by lying under oath, as the Pentangeli character does for Michael Corleone in the film.

[...]

In a text presented in court late Wednesday, however, Credico compared Hillary Clinton to a character from the first “Godfather,” saying she kills her enemies like Luca Brasi does. Stone urged Credico not to be scared.

Later, he told his friend to “stonewall” if contacted by investigators: “Anything to save the plan.”

Credico replied, “What plan?”

Stone replied, “I’m telling them Stone isn’t talking and neither is Credico.”

Credico responded with a thumbs-up emoji.

"What plan?" Kind of sounds like Credico was already working for investigators, getting Stone to say things on the record.

Public testimony in the Ukraine extortion deal to steal the 2020 election and a public trial about collusion to steal the 2016 election at the same time.  Trump between a rock and a hard place, of his own making.

Andrew Prokop's trial thread for day 1 is here.