How could you possibly know that since those were closed depositions?
Also, even if true, do two wrongs make a right? I remember telling my mother as a child when my friend John and I got into trouble "Well, Johnny did it too!", only to be told "I'm not Johnny's mother!".
So, seven convictions that includes felonies by a jury of one's peers is "nothing"?
Does Roger Stone have a history of violence or other actions which make it seem like he'd carry out any act he mentioned? People say stupid **** like that all the time when they're mad, and if that was the criteria we'd all be in jail.
People get convicted of things they don't do all the time -- it's not whether or not you did it, but whether or not people think you did it. Anyway, I'm not defending Stone's actions at all -- he certainly was threatening people directly and that's not legal. The other stuff is just conspiracy nonsense on the level of the nutters debating the moon landing. Knowing about Wikileaks releases isn't a crime nor is Wikileaks releasing information that was released to them in confidence a crime. It doesn't matter if Stone knew if something was coming out ahead of time -- this is protected free speech in this country and he's under no obligation to report it to anyone as no crime is occurring.
There is a lot of silliness in regard to the impetus of the investigation as well. For one thing, while intelligence officials (that were beholden to Obama at the time) state that there was Russian involvement in the hacks of the email and other releases it's absurd to me that they'd even share this information if it were true. If you know exactly how someone is hacking you then you start adding sugar to the honeypot you don't disclose you know it was compromised. You can do a lot more damage to foreign actors by poisoning the information and using it to misplay. That's why I largely think it's complete bull in a nutshell. If this were what really what is going on then I'd have to accept that US intelligence is completely incompetent. Fortunately, I'm not stupid enough to believe that -- so, Occam's razor would say that it just didn't happen.
So, Stone lied about on-goings in his personal life on the stand. (He's not a government official, appointee, and doesn't have a duty to the public otherwise.) Did his lies cost anyone anything? Was anyone actually harmed? No...The e-mails would have been released with or without Stone's knowledge of them -- he wasn't the mechanism of their manifestation nor delivery. If the idea was to somehow "reflect" these wrong-doings on Trump, well you'd just have to be a complete moron to think it matters. Stone's personal troubles had nothing much to do with Trump, and still don't. He also didn't have any information to expose that would improve the Democratic position against Trump.
Anyway, it's all a big **** show and prime example of the classic standalone complex. If you spend your day reading liberal media Trump is the devil and Stone was some high ranking demon in the hierarchy, but if you look outside of that box you realize the connection between Stone and Trump is pretty damn tenuous and relatively insignificant.