The current level of gaslighting - trying to convince someone that a truth is false and a falsehood is true, has reached a point where someone needs to document it. I decided there are personally, several ways to handle it.
First, I could ignore it - but I would not sleep at night.
Second, I could write letter to the newspapers and go out in public - maybe someday
Third - I could research and document the truth and let others decide.
For now I will do the third.
Roger Stone is no angel. Past history is not supposed to influence a trial, but when he has a history of doing the very thing he is accused of - well I cannot see how it can't.
Some things to start out with:
1. No one denies the DNC was hacked. The question was who did it. The Mueller Report points to the Russians. You can do your own research on this one.
2. No one denies John Podesta's email was phished, and that he inadvertently was taken advantage of. Again, you can find more information here.
3. This information was leaked to WikiLeaks
Note: I use Wikipedia for reference just the same as people used to use the Encyclopedia Britannica. If you have a question, feel free to look at their source documentation, or search for your own. Many times I have already looked at original documents and found that Wikipedia summarizes it.
4. The information from WikiLeaks was released in apparent coordination with negative releases about then candidate Trump, in what appears is an attempt to offset the negative release.
5. Roger Stone claimed to several people (Like Steve Bannon, Rick Gates (partner of Paul Manafort) and Randy Credico, that he knew when the leaks would be occurring.
6. Roger Stone threated Randy Credico if he cooperated with the government.
7. Stone was found guilty an the prosecutors recommended jail time based on Federal Sentencing Guidelines. These are just a suggestion and the judge is a final arbiter of the actual sentence.
8. There is appeal process to very trial up to the Supreme Court.
9. The Attorney General has the ability to review recommenced sentences.
The problem in this case is that the President seems to have gotten involved AFTER the recommended sentence got out. Then the Attorney General stepped in. This gives the appearance of Presidential influence.
Now there are still a lot of questions:
1. Did Roger Stone REALLY have access to Wikileaks?
2. Was there a direct connection between the Trump campaign and the release of information - or was it just a happy coincidence.
3. Was the recommended sentence discussed and approved or did the prosecutors work on their own.
Finally -There is the question about the truthfulness of the leaked emails. If they were not true, so many people would not have apologized and/or resigned. There is some question about some emails being tampered with. I am not making any statement on this aspect. I am just sticking to the facts in the Roger Stone trial.
2/15/2020
Update - Mixed up John Podesta and Leon Panetta - been corrected - cmz
