Maybe they did.

Some nice model railroading videos might be in order?

Some nice model railroading videos might be in order?

why do you have to bring sir rod into this?

His lawyers objected to the seating of some jurors. The judge said the woman was appointed by Obama but now worked for Trump. Stone has a solid basis for appeal as did Flynn.

If she was appointed by Obama, then that is a strike against her.

Stone's lawyers had better be on top of this too. ;)

Maybe they did.

If the judge refused a change of venue then that clearly is a reason to call for mistrial and even appeal.

The appeals process is even more expensive and clearly they want to cause Roger Stone as much financial harm as they possibly can. ;)

The appeals process is even more expensive and clearly they want to cause Roger Stone as much financial harm as they possibly can. ;)

Well, he might have a particularly wealthy sponsor who might not mind making a personal donation to his defense.

Well, he might have a particularly wealthy sponsor who might not mind making a personal donation to his defense.

Am I allowed more than one guess? LOL

was a lobbying firm based in Washington, D.C. Formed in 1980 by Roger Stone, Paul Manafort and Charles Black, ... As Black, Manafort & Stone, the firm was one of the first political consulting groups to work for Ronald Reagan's presidential candidacy in 1980,[1] and would later also have extensive connections to the presidential administrations of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton.[2] ... In 1984 it was renamed to Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly (BMSK) & associates, after Peter G. Kelly was recruited.[3] ... In 2015, Paul Manafort has worked as Chief of Campaign of Donald Trump with the collaboration of Roger Stone. As of 2019, they are both convicted felons due to their work on the Trump campaign.

Stone and Manafort are political prisoners of the Communist Left. So is Lieutenant General Flynn. Stone was convicted for: being a business associate of Paul Manafort who was convicted for: working in support of Ukraine's legitimate President, Yanukovich, who was overthrown because: he asked the EU for help to refinance an IMF loan at terms Ukraine could afford to pay, which was refused. Russia tried to do the neighborly thing and help Ukraine with that problem, then: the Maidan Color Revolution was launched to regime change Yanukovitch. The Communist Left pretends to be anti-Russia but that's to obscure their subversive activities of Russiagate and now Ukrainegate: which also links to Kazakhstan (a strong ally of Russia) through the Ukrainian company, Burisma, and back to the Uranium One controversy.

The jury included “CIA operatives, Democrat Party operatives, people that work for Clinton, Obama, high-level

The joke is: even the republicans in D.C. are democrats !

The joke is: even the republicans in D.C. are democrats !

It's like they say about all those peoples who live around the Mediterranean Sea. Put them in a sack, shake it up and roll them out and there is not a dime's worth of difference among them. ;)

Post #11 spelling correction: Yanukovych

Post #11 excerpt: The Communist Left pretends to be anti-Russia but that's to obscure their subversive activities of Russiagate and now Ukrainegate: which also links to Kazakhstan (a strong ally of Russia) through the Ukrainian company, Burisma, and back to the Uranium One controversy.

Burisma Holdings [aka Burisma Group] - Wikipedia

a holding company for a group of energy exploration and production companies. ... Burisma Holdings has operated in the Ukrainian natural gas market since 2002. ... In 2014, Burisma signed a cooperation agreement with KazMunayGas, the national oil and gas company of Kazakhstan. ... In 2017, it signed a partnership agreement with the Atlantic Council [Note: see also 4um refs. here and here + Atlantic Treaty Association - Wikipedia] ... In 2015, Burisma was one of the founders of the International Forum on Energy Security for the Future

Burisma supposedly working to put itself out of the fossil fuel business:

International Forum on Energy Security for the Future - Wikipedia

an initiative on energy security focused on popularization of alternative energy sources in Europe and worldwide. ... The founders of the Forum are HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco, [Ukrainian oligarch, businessman and politician ; Burisma Holdings co-founder] Nikolay Zlochevskyi and [a former President of Poland] Aleksander Kwasniewski [nickname "the accountant of the Left"]. ... First held on June 2, 2016, in Monte Carlo, Monaco, the Forum on Energy Security for the Future: New sources, Responsibility, Sustainability[9] promotes non-polluting renewable energy. ... the Forum has already gained recognition as the most ambitious European project on energy security issues and promotion of alternative energy sources. ... To advance its mission, the Forum[14] is closely working with the Aleksander Kwasniewski's foundation "Amicus Europae"[15] on the development of the European Neighborhood Policy, with a special focus on Ukraine and Belarus and fostering the transatlantic dialogue and future of Europe debates.

Like Kazakhstan, Belarus is also a strong ally of Russia:

Collective Security Treaty Organization [CSTO] - Wikipedia

an intergovernmental military alliance that was signed on 15 May 1992. In 1992, six post-Soviet states belonging to the Commonwealth of Independent States—Russia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan—signed the Collective Security Treaty (also referred to as the "Tashkent Pact" or "Tashkent Treaty").[1] Three other post-Soviet states— Azerbaijan, Belarus, and Georgia—signed the next year and the treaty took effect in 1994. Five years later, six of the nine—all but Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Uzbekistan—agreed to renew the treaty for five more years, and in 2002 those six agreed to create the Collective Security Treaty Organization as a military alliance. Uzbekistan rejoined the CSTO in 2006 but withdrew in 2012.

The Communist Left pretends to be anti-Russia but that's to obscure their subversive activities of Russiagate and now Ukrainegate: which also links to Kazakhstan (a strong ally of Russia) through the Ukrainian company, Burisma, and back to the Uranium One controversy.

4um Ref. re: the Communist Left's histrionic "anti-Russia" theatrics, which basically seems to be their way of punishing America and Russia both for not electing Presidents that the Communistas wanted installed here in 2016 and there, too, after Medvedev.

This video below makes a misidentification mistake, similar to the examples in that linked post of confusing Putin with Medvedev's Presidency but not about the 2008 Ossetia War issue. The speaker states @ 13:02: "As early as 2009, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian Nuclear Industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin's atomic energy business inside the United States." But that's a Russia-owned energy business and Medvedev was Russia's President then, from May 7, 2008 to May 7, 2012 - not Putin, who was the Prime Minister during those years. Other than that error, it's a very educational presentation of the Uranium One complexities in context with Kazakhstan:

Uranium One: Shady Money and the Clinton Foundation | America Uncovered - YouTube, 16.5 minutes | Published on Dec 14, 2018 by America Uncovered

The shady Uranium One deal: A possible high level scandal involving Mueller, Comey, the Obama Administration, and the Clintons?

Notes: the FBI's then-Director, Robert Mueller, failed to investigate the allegations of criminal misconduct involving Uranium One ; @ 2:51-5:11 and 7:09-7:58, Kazakhstan issues ; 2007 - Canadian Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Tefler, donated $250,000 through that company to the Clinton Foundation and millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation through his Fernwood Foundation charity ; @ 10:58, 2009 - Uranium One asked for the US embassy's help to keep its mines in Kazakhstan. Fernwood Foundation donated a million dollars + (while Russia waited for CFIUS -- the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States -- to approve its 51% stake in Uranium One): 2012 2010 - $250,000 | 2011 - $600,000 | and 2012 - $500,000. ; Tefler denies those donations were anything other than charitable donations and Hillary Clinton also denies that it affected her decision-making. No proof that it did, like there's no proof that the half-million dollars Bill Clinton was paid to give a speech in Moscow by a government-backed Russian investment bank had any influence over the Rosatom deal getting approved ; @ the 13:02 segment as noted above, ref. thehill.com ; politifact.com ref. @ 13:24, The FBI is well represented as part of the Justice Department's CFIUS team that approved the transference of Uranium One's controllership to Russia. ; @ 14:00 FBI investigation was closed in 2015 by Mueller's replacement, James Comey

From the Comments:

"Clinton foundation is basically an unregistered foreign agent."

"What just came out in the Tom [Fitton] hearings yesterday is that the Clinton Foundation operated as an agency for foreign governments and not a philanthropic organization ... This is huge because the [Clinton] Foundation has raised [approx.] 3 Billion dollars over the years ... What is particularly interesting is that in recent years while Hillary was Secretary of State the Clinton foundation raised hundreds of millions of dollars and just 1/10 of 1% of their donors gave the foundation 80% of their funding. ... still waiting for an explanation about all the hundreds of millions of dollars [reportedly] accepted from Russia. ... If anyone wants to know about Russian collusion they should look into this."

4 minute C-SPAN video | Panel discussion September 29, 2016 before the 2016 Presidential Election | Transcription excerpts:

Peter F. Schweizer, author: [In 2008, The Clintons both] "signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Barack Obama where they committed to do a couple of very, very important things. One was complete transparency. I think everybody on this panel thinks transparency's a great idea. So, they were required as part of this agreement to disclose all of their campaign ... sorry, all of their donations to the Clinton Foundation. Second of all, they agreed that there would be a clear, bright line between the actions of the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. There would be no blurring of the two. Those were committments that were made and the Clintons, as we all now know and everybody acknowledges, they completely violated those committments."
>
"Ultimately, this is about more than the Clintons."
>
"if the Clinton Foundation and the activities related to the private server are not dealt with in a legal manner, it's going to be imitated and there's simply no reason why we could not have a Secretary of Defense ten years from now -- Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter -- a Secretary of Defense who is charting American Defense policy, sets up a private foundation, takes donations from overseas entities, puts their spouse on the lecture circuit taking foreign dollars, and what are we to say? Are we to say: 'The Clintons can do it but you can't'? The point becomes that this creates [an] extrememly dangerous precedent that if not dealt with is going to have, I think, huge implications for the country -- not just now (re: during her tenure as Secretary of State) but going forward."

Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch President: "Thank you Peter. And you know, just to be clear, she was ... these promises she made in terms of her ethics agreement ... wasn't just a pro-forma. Democrats and Republicans were concerned about it and President Obama demanded it and there was a negotiation with the White House. It was a condition of her being hired. So she scammed not only the American people but Democrats and Republicans in the Senate who voted for her and the President of the United States. We highlighted that we thought it was a scam to begin with in 2009 and we were proven right but, you know, President Obama did not listen to our ethics advice there."

Schweizer: "Well, I was just going to add to that ... that's a great point. You know, look at John Kerry (who was Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee during her appointment), he raised these exact concerns about conflicts of interest, the flow of foreign influence. So, you're exactly right. This was not a Republican, you know, witch-hunt. People like John Kerry, Democrat and now the current Secretary of State, had these very exact concerns as well."