478

New Explosive Roger Stone Video Dooms Donald Trump’s Main Legal Defense (newrepublic.com)

submitted 1 year ago by donuts@kbin.social to c/politics@lemmy.world

71 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The video was filmed before the election results had even been announced.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] btaf45@lemmy.world 182 points 1 year ago

Reminder that Roger Stone is not the only coup plot insider who confessed Trump's Start the Steal conspiracy plans to a group of Trump insiders before the election.

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112138665/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

…audio from Trump advisor, Steve Bannon, surfaced from October 31st, 2020, just a few days before the Presidential election.

Let’s listen. [Begin Videotape]

STEVE BANNON: And what Trump’s going to do is declare victory, right? He’s going to declare victory, but that doesn’t mean he’s a winner. He’s just gonna say he’s a winner. The Democrats — more of our people vote early that count. Theirs vote in mail. And so they’re going to have a natural disadvantage and Trump’s going to take advantage — that’s our strategy.

He’s gonna declare himself a winner. So when you wake up Wednesday morning, it’s going to be a firestorm. Also — also if Trump is — if Trump is losing by 10 or 11:00 at night, it’s going to be even crazier. Because he’s gonna sit right there and say they stole it. If Biden’s wining, Trump is going to do some crazy shit.

[-] JerkyChew@lemmy.one 63 points 1 year ago

A member of team Trump (Peter Navarro maybe?) was describing the plan on Ari Melber's MSNBC show. Ari stopped him and said, "you know that's a coup, right? What you're describing is a coup." - The guy had no idea.

Education is important.

[-] Zron@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

I actually prefer traitors to be dumb as rocks, makes it easier to point and laugh at them.

We just need a good place to all point and laugh at them, perhaps some kind of raised platform, with ropes to hoist them higher for the crowd to see.

[-] ButtDrugs@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

I would love a link to this.

[-] LongbottomLeaf@lemmy.nz 14 points 1 year ago

I think I found it.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.one 125 points 1 year ago

Wasn't he also behind the "Brooks Brothers Riot" that stopped the counting in Florida and threw the 2000 election to Bush?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot

[-] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 39 points 1 year ago

Yes. He has a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back and he’s one of the biggest pieces of shit in a generation. He has no redeeming qualities. There are a few documentaries about him, I think Netflix had a good one a couple years ago.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 23 points 1 year ago

Fun fact: in the past 30 years of presidential elections Republicans have had more riots than they have popular vote victories!

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

So if that didn't happen likely Gore would have won?

[-] buddhabound@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago

Would you believe me if I told you that at least 3 of the current supreme court members were lawyers arguing on behalf of Bush in that case?

[-] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Alito?

Also, while wikipediaing Alito, I learned that Alito worked under Trump's sister as an AUSA and she spoke at Alito's confirmation hearing. Also, Bill Clinton appointed Trump's sister to the appellate court.

[-] buddhabound@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Coney-Barrett is #3 of the current justices.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.one 45 points 1 year ago

Correct. As we found out AFTER Bush was installed, no matter how you counted the votes in Florida, if the vote had been completed, Gore would have won.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa

[-] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Wrong. If you only counted the votes for Bush, Gore would lose.

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] Unaware7013@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago

The republicans have not won the presidency legitimately since HW Bush. I don't count GW's second term because the first one was illegitimate.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.one 10 points 1 year ago

There were major questions about the Ohio election in 2004 and there was a computer professional who claimed he helped rig that election... just before dying in a mysterious plane crash.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Connell

[-] tryitout@infosec.pub 17 points 1 year ago

Gore did win.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Drusas@kbin.social 59 points 1 year ago

This title is clickbait garbage, but at least it doesn't use the word "slam".

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago

If the Trump legal defense is that he believed he won the election and was investigating fraud, and this proves that they were planning to call fraud before the election happened, then that does disprove his legal defense.

Do you mean by "clickbait garbage" that the language is too inflammatory for you regardless of the article content?

load more comments (11 replies)

[-] Psythik@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

Seriously. There weren't even any explosions in the video.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] jackfrost@lemm.ee 50 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The clip was part of Guldbrandsen’s documentary, A Storm Foretold, released in March of this year.

So there's nothing actually new about this video. It's just that Donald forgot that someone filmed the slimy inner workings of his re-election campaign when it came time to mount a defense, and he doesn't have any good lawyers to help him avoid painting himself into a corner again. Hell, he probably lied to his lawyers, too.

[-] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago

My favorite visual detail: There's a sticker on an open laptop that says "What would Nixon do?"

[-] Gatsby@discuss.online 15 points 1 year ago

Hell, he probably lied to his lawyers, too.

I don't think there's any "probably" about it lol. If Trump's talking he's lying. That's just how it works.

[-] pingveno@kbin.social 50 points 1 year ago

Reminder that Roger Stone coordinated timing with WikiLeaks to drop the emails that Russia had hacked and passed off to WikiLeaks. The low point of Trump's campaign - the release of the Access Hollywood tape - had WikiLeaks dripping emails within hours. Julian Assange's outfit had fallen from a champion of press freedom to a facilitator of the Russian dictatorship interfering in elections.

[-] notabird@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Can't wait to watch the movies made 10 years from now.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

The video ... depicts the right-wing lobbyist dictating a fake elector plot in key battleground states. The video was taken on November 5, 2020, two days before the election was called, thus disproving Trump’s main defense that he and his allies genuinely believed they had won the race.

[-] Vlhacs@reddthat.com 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'd like for him to rot in jail, but doesn't this need to prove that Stone plotted with Trump to be of any use?

[-] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 37 points 1 year ago

That’s kind of the point of RICO. If this is a coordinated conspiracy then Trump can’t just say “hey listen my advisors told me this was legal” if those advisors are on tape giving out the details of their criminal conspiracy

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

"You try it like its a business." - Rudy 9/11 Giuliani

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

As pointed out elsehwere, Stone does not have to be collaborating directly with Trump, but there are still a lot of unidentified co-conspirators, and "other persons known and unknown to the grand jury." There's room for Stone to be in one of those groups.

[-] RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

I find it very hard to imagine that there isn't evidence of this traitor directly plotting with Trump et al. We just haven't seen it yet.

It could just be hopium, but I doubt it; we certainly haven't seen the last of Jack Smith on Jan 6th indictments, after all.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago

They all are fucked. That's why the sniveling little turd Colton, is attempting to get the DA impeached.

[-] Spacebar@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Why are Stone and Bannon not charged by someone yet?

[-] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Stone was charged and sentenced to three years in prison for fucking about with the 2016 election, but guess what happened...

[-] ArugulaZ@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

Ban Stone, and stone Bannon.

[-] eran_morad@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

They’re unindicted co-conspirators, I’m willing to bet. They’re shitting bricks and may eventually have to grapple with the possibility of flipping. It’s really fuckin’ fun to watch.

[-] Deconceptualist@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

How is this a new video if the documentary was released in March?

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Nobody paid any attention to it?

Wait until they find out he tried to have sex with Borat's daughter!

[-] Unaware7013@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Pretty sure that was Ghouliani

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023

478 points (95.3% liked)

politics

19144 readers

1368 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News