roger stone on recording saying they lost, proving he didn't believe his own bullshit message about 'stolen' election'

butters

High on a Hill
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Posts
81,536
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...p&cvid=10eb97abf9f34247bf95d81f3b1f266c&ei=17
Filmmaker Christopher Guldbrandsen appeared on MSNBC again Monday revealing more of the details he captured for his film on far-right activist and political operative Roger Stone.

stone's pissed that he wasn't allowed to be a part of the on-podium Jan 6th speech like giuliani was

"Yeah," Stone replies. "I mean, if we were speaking we'd have secret service protection as [Rudy] Giuliani did. It's fine. Let's go upstairs and watch this on TV."

In a clip from what appears to be the hotel room, Stone is on the phone again.

"It's very clear I was never on their list. Whole thing was a con job. No, it's infuriation," he tells the person. "Just, it's just, childish and it's amateurish. It's why they lost. They don't know what they're doin'."

Not shown during that interview, but mentioned, was an incident in which Stone had a "meltdown" over Donald Trump refusing to pardon him for his activities around the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 attack.

“He betrayed everybody” Stone ranted, saying Trump “deserved what he had coming”
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, the GA case largely hinges on whether the prosecution can prove Trump believes he lost the election. No?
It's more succinct than that. While you're kind of correct, Trump doesn't have to believe he lost the election, the Prostitution just has to show he had been exposed to evidence that shows he didn't win.

After learning that, he then sets in motion plans to change the outcome. Regardless of if he still believes he won, or lost for that matter.

If those plans included illegal actions, that then shows "Criminal Intent", and then the rest of the pieces of the RICO will fall in line.
 
It's more succinct than that. While you're kind of correct, Trump doesn't have to believe he lost the election, the Prostitution just has to show he had been exposed to evidence that shows he didn't win.

After learning that, he then sets in motion plans to change the outcome. Regardless of if he still believes he won, or lost for that matter.

If those plans included illegal actions, that then shows "Criminal Intent", and then the rest of the pieces of the RICO will fall in line.
From what I've seen, they need to prove that he believed he won to be sufficient. Unfortunately, for the defense, that likely means he'd have to testify and I doubt anyone would want that man on the stand in any capacity.
 
did this come from your phone's auto spell thingy? it's funny, though, if not a true reflection of team Smith... it should be applied to team trump's lawyers and advisors :D
lol damn auto spell, and lack of coffee in the am!!
 
Back
Top