You are wasting your time @ArneFufkin trying to educate these chowderheads whose minds are made up and won't allow anyone or anything to change them.
So I'm a chowderhead because I question all these claims about corruption, judicial misconduct and such against the judge, the jury forewoman, another juror, the prosecution and anyone else involved in this case not absolutely loyal to Trump.
I've said this many times. I worked for lawyers for about 35 years. Ok, they were attorneys specializing in civil litigation, not criminal, but the two types of cases are similar in that, in order for a legal action to go forward, there has to be sufficient evidence. I can't sue you for wrecking your car into mine if I have no evidence. Without evidence, I and my suit would be thrown out. The same applies in criminal cases.
Now I didn't closely follow the Stone case. I wasn't in the courtroom during the trial. But Stone was convicted of two charges -- witness tampering and lying to congress -- right? Let's take the witness tampering charge. I would assume that the prosecution presented evidence that Stone or someone on his behalf contacted the witness(es) and attempted to intimidate or otherwise influence testimony. There should be something like a recorded phone conversation, a letter, email, a social media post -- something that demonstrates the attempt to influence the witness(es). I cannot see any jury convicting Stone without something to back up the charge of witness tampering.
Now how about all these allegations of corruption. Let's take the judge, for example. I heard this morning an allegation that she is on Soros' payroll. So is there evidence? Canceled checks? A video of some bagman handing her a wad of cash? If there isn't any hard evidence to support that claim, then I cannot accept it as fact. All I can say is that it's a suspicion.
Nothing wrong with suspicions -- I've had quite a few about Trump and have said they are just that, suspicions. The problem comes in when you accept a suspicion as fact with nothing to support that suspicion. Seems to me the problem here is that not only can we not trust the mainstream media, we also cannot trust various bloggers, social media and conservative websites either. There was a time when I thought I could trust Breitbart or Gateway Pundit. Nowadays everyone, it seems, has a bias and an agenda. "Fair and balanced" was Fox News' motto, but even Fox doesn't hold to it and these days, neither does anyone else. Truth is what someone says it is, not what it really is. We don't consider that maybe someone's truth is a lie.
Ok, getting off my soapbox now. You all can believe what you want to believe. I just wanted to raise the possibility that all these allegations of wrongdoing against everyone but Stone can be bogus without proof and I'm suggesting before you believe every claim out there, you look for and demand proof that these claims are true.