In a column in the Washington Post one of Roger Stone’s DC jurors essentially admits he did not pay attention to defense arguments washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-was…
Stone’s defense was not “so what” - his defense was that his only go-between with Wikileaks was Credico, which is what he had testified to the House
Prosecutors claimed Stone did not tell the House about Jerome Corsi contacting Wikileaks, but Stone’s lawyers pointed out Corsi had no actual contact with Wikileaks and was not credible
Stone’s lawyers also pointed out that he had offered to answer any other questions the House had, but at no point did anyone ask him about Corsi until he was charged
Whether this constitutes a false statement of not is the substance of the charge, but this juror completely mischaracterizes the entire issue and flippantly disregards the facts at issue here - just as the prosecution wanted them to
