witnesses against him and stop shaking their hands. same judge, same courtroom, day. joyce is with with me tonight. i often bring you in here. i m gobsmacked this is somebody s job. this is almost as good as playing in my cousin vinnie. they re fighting about whether or not the jury can see this clip, and stone was referencing it when he was communicating with a witness. it s hilarious that this is all about god father part 2 and this is the way roger stone talks and this is the subject of the multiple court filings, but is the government going to get what they want here? terms of showing this to the jury? i think the government does get what it wants. this is part of the core criminal conduct that stone engaged in. and all good that prosecutors put on is prejudicial. it s all intended to prove to the jury that the defendant did
playing in my cousin vinnie. they re fighting about whether or not the jury can see this clip, and stone was referencing it when he was communicating with a witness. it s hilarious that this is all about god father part 2 and this is the way roger stone talks and this is the subject of the multiple court filings, but is the government going to get what they want here? terms of showing this to the jury? i think the government does get what it wants. this is part of the core criminal conduct that stone engaged in. and all good that prosecutors put on is prejudicial. it s all intended to prove to the jury that the defendant did bad things. so the question is whether it s unduly prejudicial. does the prejudice outweigh the value it has to the jury in determining the truth. and here stone is the one who raised it. and, in fact, it s sort of protecting him in a funny way. his argument is if you talk about the god father, the jury might think that i m a mafia person or violent. by playing
and yes, i should tell you this is the exact same judge who had to tell gregg craig today he needed to stop talking to the witnesses against him and stop shaking their hands. same judge, courtroom, day. joyce is with with me tonight. i often bring you in here. on totally serious stuff. i m gobsmacked this is somebody s job. this is almost as good as playing in my cousin vinnie. for a jury, right. they re fighting about whether or not the jury can see this clip, and stone was referencing it when he was communicating with a witness. it s hilarious that this is all about god father part 2 and this is the way roger stone talks and this is the subject of the multiple court filings, but is the government going to get what they want here? terms of showing this to the jury? i think the government does get what it wants. this is part of the core criminal conduct that stone engaged in.
what are you thinking as you watch all this today? it is strikingly similar. fortunately, so far it hasn t gone to the point that it did in 2000. but the way people were inciting possible violence, the way they re telling lies about fraud, it s scary. it looks like if things don t go right, it could happen again the way it did in 2000 where they did succeed in shutting down the counting. what does it tell you that at that time, the rules of politics, in quotes, were that republican senior officials and certainly candidate bush kept a big distance from that, right? he didn t talk at all the way roger stone talks. today we have a president whipping up false voter fraud fears on twitter before this thing even plays out. well, it s absolutely shocking. i mean, to see the governor of this state standing at the door of the people s house, the governor s mansion, and using it as a prop to tell untruths about