Slashdot Mirror
FBI Arrests Trump Associate Roger Stone Over His Communications With WikiLeaks (nytimes.com)
Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime informal adviser to President Trump, was charged as part of the special counsel investigation over his communications with WikiLeaks, the organization behind the release of thousands of stolen Democratic emails during the 2016 campaign, in an indictment unsealed Friday.
From a report: Mr. Stone was charged with seven counts, including obstruction of an official proceeding, making false statements and witness tampering, according to the special counsel's office. F.B.I. agents arrested Mr. Stone before dawn on Friday at his home in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and he was expected to appear in a federal courthouse there later in the morning. F.B.I. agents were also seen carting hard drives and other evidence from Mr. Stone's apartment in Harlem.
The indictment is the first in months by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who is investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election and possible coordination with Trump campaign associates. Citing details in emails and other forms of communications, the indictment suggests Mr. Trump's campaign knew about additional stolen emails before they were released and asked Mr. Stone to find out about them. Moments ago, Stone was released on a $250,000 bond.
The indictment is the first in months by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who is investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election and possible coordination with Trump campaign associates. Citing details in emails and other forms of communications, the indictment suggests Mr. Trump's campaign knew about additional stolen emails before they were released and asked Mr. Stone to find out about them. Moments ago, Stone was released on a $250,000 bond.
Looks like they're finding a lot of witches.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
They really have Trump where they want him now...
The freaky detail on this is that Stone has a richard nixon tattoo (not kidding). And he's being indicted for orchestrating a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Fate?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
"Stuff that matters". I'd say that big politics is stuff that matters.
Trump is a lucky guy, he's had all these criminals around him and didn't even know it! It's fortunate that the authorities have found them out before any of these scoundrels had a chance to take advantage of him.
Fuck that guy. He's a real piece of work.
- In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
Why so many lies to the FBI if there was nothing to hide?
Government breakdown: In 730 days, President Trump has made 8,158 false or misleading claims
Evidence, properly collected and protected, is not released until an indictment is made. It might amount to nothing, but just declaring there’s nothing before the evidence is released doesn’t make it true.
But he has managed to do what Obama never could.
One by one all these unsavory assholes are being brought to justice for the decades of sleazy shit they did.
Except there is evidence right there in the indictment to support the charges. If you bothered to read it that is.
Tangential to wikileaks, I imagine. Also because events taking place at the highest level of US politics have such wide-ranging impacts that they are of importance to every field. Even when everyone is sick of hearing about them, they still matter.
To wit - he's being charged for a process crime
Process crimes are crimes. Should people not be charged for certain kinds of crimes?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
the indictment suggested that Mr. Trumpâ(TM)s campaign knew about additional stolen emails before they were released and asked Mr. Stone to find out about them.
Ken
The indictment is 24 pages long. I'm going through it, but this is part of the introduction (which goes on for 20 pages until the first count). In the indictment, they use the term "Organization 1", which I have replaced with "WikiLeaks".
1. By in or around May 2016, the Democratic National Committee ("DNC") and the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC") became aware that their computer
systems had been compromised by unauthorized intrusions and hired a security company
("Company 1") to identify the extent of the intrusions.
2. On or about June 14, 2016, the DNC—through Company 1—publicly announced that it
had been hacked by Russian government actors.
3. From in or around July 2016 through in or around November 2016, an organization
("WikiLeaks"), which had previously posted documents stolen by others from U.S. persons,
entities, and the U.S. government, released tens of thousands of documents stolen from the DNC
and the personal email account of the chairman of the U.S. presidential campaign of Hillary
Clinton ("Clinton Campaign").
a. On or about July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released documents stolen from the
DNC.
b. Between on or about October 7, 2016 and on or about November 7, 2016,
WikiLeaks released approximately 33 tranches of documents that had been
stolen from the personal email account of the Clinton Campaign chairman, totaling
over 50,000 stolen documents.
4. ROGER JASON STONE, JR. was a political consultant who worked for decades in U.S.
politics and on U.S. political campaigns. STONE was an official on the U.S. presidential campaign
of Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") until in or around August 2015, and maintained regular
contact with and publicly supported the Trump Campaign through the 2016 election.
5. During the summer of 2016, STONE spoke to senior Trump Campaign officials about
WikiLeaks and information it might have had that would be damaging to the Clinton
Campaign. STONE was contacted by senior Trump Campaign officials to inquire about future
releases by WikiLeaks.
6. By in or around early August 2016, STONE was claiming both publicly and privately to
have communicated with WikiLeaks. By in or around mid-August 2016, WikiLeaks made
a public statement denying direct communication with STONE. Thereafter, STONE said that his
communication with WikiLeaks had occurred through a person STONE described as a "mutual
friend," "go-between," and "intermediary." STONE also continued to communicate with members
of the Trump Campaign about WikiLeaks and its intended future releases.
I'll stop there. So, Russians attack the DNC. WikiLeaks releases stolen DNC documents, presumably obtained from the attackers, Russians. During the time period when WikiLeaks was releasing the DNC documents obtained from the Russians, Stone was talking to Trump's campaign about the leaks, and the Trump campaign contacted Stone and directed him to ask WikiLeaks about future releases. Stone then claimed publicly that he had been communicating with WikiLeaks, before then denying that he had done so. And he continued to communicate with the Trump campaign about what WikiLeaks intended to release in the future.
So, Russians steal DNC documents, give them to WikiLeaks, and Stone acts as an intermediary between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks, holder of the documents stolen by Russia, about when those documents are going to be released. Stone was specifically asked by the campaign to communicate with WikiLeaks about the release of documents stolen by Russians. This is where the claims of collusion are starting to coagulate.
Then, since everyone did everything just fine, and there was No Collusion(tm), this happened:
7. After the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent
Select Committee on Intellig
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Not that I ever feel sorry for criminals, but him getting elected was the worst thing that could have happened to them.
On some level, I find this completely hilarious. He likely thought that he was invincible now. Looking forward to him trying to pardon himself when he is up personally. He will probably make history as the worst scum to ever be a US president.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Can't it be both? Sure, it takes somebody utterly blinded by his own light for that, but Trump seems to qualify.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
And why he would be indicted with stuff instead of other things is because it's a simple charge to make stick - did he lie under oath? Bigly. Did he intimidate a witness / suborn perjury? Yup.
He's going to go jail and the only question is for how long. That depends on his cooperation with the investigation or not.
Well, the DOJ did find Clinton and Kavanaugh innocent of wrong doing.
Clinton: 20+ years of nonstop partisan driven investigations originating from congress and an FBI field office that is widely known for hating Hillary. From the present House minority leader: "We are doing a great job driving her poll numbers down."
Kavanaugh: 4 days including the weekend to make a determination and here is a long list of things you cannot look into.
Yep. The investigations into these two individuals was exactly the same.
There's 20 pages of evidence in the indictment. Feel free to actually read what you're trying to sound intelligent about.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Go and read the indictment and stop pretending this was some minor slip-up.
Obstruction of Proceeding, 5 counts of false statements, and Witness Tampering. And, what were his false statements about? Being the go-between for the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks regarding documents that were stolen from the DNC by Russians. Those 7 counts against Stone are enough to put the old man away for the rest of his life, so with that mind we'll see what he has to say about Trump. Maybe he'll admit which senior campaign officials directed him to contact WikiLeaks about the documents stolen by the Russians.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
That depends on his cooperation with the investigation or not.
From what I heard, the prosecution is saying there should be no credit for cooperation.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Reminds me of this famous SNL sketch
Ken
Anonymous cowards have UIDs?
Ken
https://www.vox.com/policy-and...
Another reason to NEVER talk to the FBI without a lawyer.
George Papadopoulos Pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI
Paul Manafort - indicted on a total of 25 different counts related mainly to his past work for Ukrainian politicians and his finances.
Rick Gates - pled guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge.
Michael Flynn - pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI.
Richard Pinedo: pled guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments
Alex van der Zwaan: pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI
Michael Cohen: pled guilty to 8 counts — tax and bank charges, related to his finances and taxi business, and campaign finance violations
Roger Stone: accused Stone of lying to the House Intelligence Committee
The point is, without the investigation there would be no crime. The only reason the crime occurred was because of the investigation. At least some have been historical charges unrelated to the trump campaign, russia, etc... Like manaforts 10 year old money laundering charge.
Ken
The evidence of the text and emails he made are right there in the indictment. The evidence will be easy for any jury or judge to understand. He's toast. It's kind of pathetic to rationalise this away and yet...
Hold on. How the fuck does that dumb analogy have anything to do with the 24-page indictment against Stone. Have you read it?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
A) Inconclusive, the person asking the question is clearly incompetent (is it "the store" or "a store," which store, what counts as a store, when last night, etc.). Now, if the question were "Did you leave your house last night between 10pm and midnight?" and you said no despite going to the gas station at 11pm, then yes, you did lie. If you said you only went to a store on the other side of town, again, you lied. That's how lies work.
B) If there was a shooting at the gas station at 11pm last night, then it matters. If someone claims that a person matching your description brandished a weapon, it matters. If there is evidence that a crime was committed and there is reason to believe that you were involved, it matters, even if you didn't actually commit a crime. If lying during your questioning is a crime, then your lies constitute a crime even if the thing you're lying about doesn't. That's how crimes work.
There's 20 pages of evidence in the indictment. Feel free to actually read what you're trying to sound intelligent about.
Did you actually read my post? Or just the top tier sarcasm of the title?
There are mountains of evidence that have been released already. I'm pretty certain there is a Tsunami of evidence we don't know about yet.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Give it time, innocent people usually don't lie to investigators ;-)
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
He's arrested for allegedly lying about how he communicated with wikileaks to "leak" information about Hillary's email server AFTER the election
That's not what the indictment says, he was lying about things which happened both during the campaign and after the election. Specifically, Stone was lying about the nature of his contacts with both WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Not that I ever feel sorry for criminals, but him getting elected was the worst thing that could have happened to them.
On some level, I find this completely hilarious. He likely thought that he was invincible now. Looking forward to him trying to pardon himself when he is up personally. He will probably make history as the worst scum to ever be a US president.
I guess it's greed and avarice when taken to an extreme. I know if I were acting as a criminal, I'd fly as far below the radar as possible, and plan everything out to stay that way. But criminal greed and avarice knows no bounds I suppose, and always trips itself up.
Something tells me there will be a broad relaxation to the statutes of limitation, in which he might be offered to resign, or else be handcuffed as soon as he walks out of the White House in 2021.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The same James Comey, former registered Republican, who chose to gratuitously kneecap Hillary's campaign at the last minute, is the one who could not justify bringing charges against Hillary. And you think she benefitted from some kind of privilege in that matter?
Also CNN had staked out Stone's house for days beforehand because they strongly suspected Roger Stone would be arrested. That's good ol' fashioned American hard work, don't Republicans normally pretend to admire that sort of thing?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
They are stupid lies
You mean that lying to Congress is stupid? Yes, we agree.
If you're suggesting that the things that they're lying about are inconsequential, keep in mind that these people thought the lesser of evils was a federal crime of lying to Congress.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Except there is evidence right there in the indictment to support the charges. If you bothered to read it that is.
Read the whole post, not just the title, which was sarcasm.
"There appears to be incredible amounts of no evidence" should have been the real clue.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
"There appears to be incredible amounts of no evidence." - Except for his own text messages black-letter outlining his obstruction effort? Except that, no evidence. Right. Excellent job Mr. Giuliani, you've done it again lol!
Hehe! Is crime actually a crime?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Again, have you read the actual indictment? They list the text messages. They show the actual lies. They show him threatening potential witnesses. Hell, they show him threatening the pets of potential witnesses.
He doesn't have to admit anything, it's already there. And if you've got a liar, are you really going to put a lot of stock into whether or not they admit to it? You've got evidence that he did specific things, in writing. Then you ask him, and he says no, I never did those specific things. That's a lie. So, start applauding.
The thing to not lose sight of is that Stone is not the target, Trump is. This isn't victory, it's just the next domino.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
There are other things besides collusion.
There's the basic mistake of attacking every critic including the FBI, the failing NYT, Wapo, every goddam Trump aid, and so on.
Remember that Trump never bothered to replace Obama's staff at the mid-lower levels of government, especially the FBI.
Those people are pranking Trump all over hell's half an acre with leaks and the intent to bolster the indictment count.
Trump has fired all the competent advisers in his hive and is left with celebrities like himself who know nothing about politics.
Pelosi knows where all the dead bodies are. She's got those left-over Obama loyalists aiding her.
It don't get any better than that. Hell, Trunp's core is crumbling and imploding down to a few batshit crazy, rabid certified nut wings.
You know: Like Giuliani.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
I forgot.
Have gnu, will travel.
They are stupid lies - notice how there's rarely a crime alleged when Mueller charges someone with lying?
For example, manafort lied about a perfectly legal and appropriate meeting with the Russian ambassador, the issue was CHI had a transcript of call, and manafort lied about conversation. Woo-hoo, that's good for ten years hard time!
That's what got Bill Clinton in trouble... lying about something that (whereas immoral), was illegal. It's also what got Nixon in trouble, lying about knowledge of what happened in Watergate. (he wasn't actually involved in planning that- he just found out about it later and denied knowing).
Lying to congress always has got people in trouble.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Obviously I meant "was legal" not "was illegal" unless my subconscious knows something my conscious doesn't! :)
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
The evidence of the text and emails he made are right there in the indictment. The evidence will be easy for any jury or judge to understand. He's toast. It's kind of pathetic to rationalise this away and yet...
There will be some people who will never admit the world is not flat, that we landed on the moon, that O'Blama is an American Citizen, or that there is any evidence of Russian interference, collusion, or criminal acts. They still think PizzaGate is real.
I read the document. Stone isn't in a real good place, no matter what the kooks think.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Where did Comey say this? The only explanation I've seen for why he released info about the investigation late in the game was that he felt it was important to be transparent about the state of the investigation. But he didn't feel the same way about the investigation into the Trump campaign, oddly enough.
But if he was biased in favor of Hillary and he thought that releasing that info on her campaign would actually be beneficial, why didn't he also disclose that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign at the same time? That would put some dirt on Trump and appear less biased, seems like a win-win. Odd that he didn't do that...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Evidence, properly collected and protected, is not released until an indictment is made. It might amount to nothing, but just declaring there’s nothing before the evidence is released doesn’t make it true.
Come on folks - read my whole post, not just the headline.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
But you're on the side of the Angels, eh? Like Robespierre.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
There appears to be incredible amounts of no evidence.
Have you read the indictment? You understand he was indicted by a grand jury right? Do you know how that works? Where exactly did you get your law degree?
Sigh.... yes, I've read it. Stone is in a big pile of self inflicted shit. But doesn't anyone get that when a person writes "incredible amounts of no evidence" that he's meaning there is actually a lot of evidence?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Former President Park of South Korea tried that defense a few years ago, and she didn't get the funny mod points. She got a long prison sentence.
Right now I think there are two big differences here: (1) She's young enough that she may get out of prison someday. (2) The South Korean government is much more honest than America under #PresidentTweety.
I'm not sure how similar Roger Stone is to Choi Tae-min, but it was the close advisor's arrest that soon led to the arrest of Park. I want to refer to her as Inmate #x, but I can't find the number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Witness intimidation.
Yeah, innocent people always quote The Godfather to imply threats against your family, and explicitly threaten your dog. To try to get you to not testify. Because, Tuesday?
LOL
Anonymous cowards have UIDs?
Says the 4-digit UID.
However, given the current state of Slashdot, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there's a bug that exposes the AC's user ID.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Not to slashdot MAGA neckbeards. They're not sure what is on the surface these days, but they really hope somebody makes it Great before they get there. And builds a wall to keep out the aliens. Because they never learned to speak Romulan.
Actually I think there is a strong relationship between journalism and technology in general. Also some sort of relationship between Wikileaks and Slashdot in particular.
It is clear that journalism is in trouble these years. I think most of the problems are related to bad economic models. For example, Slashdot can't be improved because the economic model is so broken. Also, much of Wikileaks destructive behavior was driven by the need to generate the kind of publicity that would produce funding.
Don't want to spend too much time on this, but I'll just summarize some of my ontology of economic models:
(1) Public service. Broken
(2) Advertising. Broken.
(3) Propaganda. Not only broken, but trying to break society.
(4) Winner take all. Most broken after the winner is decided.
(5) Big-donor charity. Broken by bad decisions.
(6) Small-donor charity. Can't find a good one.
(7) Solution driven. Amusing theory, that.
Time's up, so I bid you ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I suppose that depends on whether Stone suddenly proffers up something of genuine value to the investigation. Or maybe Mueller is all done with flipping people. I can't say I have any sympathy with Stone if he spends the rest of his life behind bars.
I don't read reddit at all. Why the simple fuck would I?
They aren't a more valid source than say, Facebook, right?
Those people don't know bullshit from wild honey.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
"There appears to be incredible amounts of no evidence" should have been the real clue.
These are weird times we're living in, man. I forget which law or theory it is that says it's increasingly difficult to differentiate real opinion from sarcasm online, because enough people who actually have those opinions post online. You can see people claiming that there is no evidence in this very thread.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
It isn't at all clear to me that Stone will go to jail unless they can stick him on some state charges, too. If it's only a federal rap, then #PresidentTweety is certain to pardon him for his "brave" silence.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
You mean all the NWO operative Generals appointed by the closet faggot Obama after he fired the real Men that were running the military? Yeah, they quit rather than end up at the end of a rope.
I don't know what all the capitalization is about.
The indictment clearly and obviously spells out Stone's lies about his activities during and after the campaign, including the period in the summer of 2016 when WikiLeaks was releasing the documents that Russians had stolen from the DNC. Stone was one of people between the campaign and WikiLeaks trying to... what's the word... coordinate? cooperate? something, about which documents that were stolen by the Russians they were going to release and when.
If you want to question the activities that Stone lied about, consider the fact that Stone decided that the lesser evil was lying to Congress and the FBI about what he had been up to.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
They also think if you don't talk to investigators you will get away with whatever.
Is there anything else shocking or illegal in these events? There doesn't seem to be.
You forgot about the counts of Obstructing a Proceeding and Witness Tampering.
Anyway, when you're trying to defend Stone, just keep in mind that he decided that the lesser evil was lying to Congress and the FBI about what he had been up to.
He's such a great guy that he threatened someone's dog.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Thought you were making that up, but several journalists are reporting Stone threatened to steal a witnesses therapy dog, and told a witness "Prepare to die"... Trump is surrounded by Don Corleone wanna-bes!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
No, I did not get that "incredible amounts of no evidence" meant that there is a lot of evidence. I honestly didn't get that you were being sarcastic until I got to "popcorn and tequila".
Given the number of times I've seen you defend yourself in this thread, it's probably a good time to reconsider whether your sarcasm wasn't properly telegraphed (not a criticism, it's incredibly difficult to do in written communications).
He was arrested for "making false statements." That is exactly the reason you shouldn't talk to cops, because even if you are completely innocent they can convict you based on a slip-up in the interview
Not really.
You can of course, decline to talk to law enforcement. But once you agree to talk to them, you are required to tell the truth, because lying to them can be considered obstruction of justice.
Let's say I know you robbed a bank, but I agree to talk to the police and in my interview I instead tell them you were with me on a beach at the time. If I do that, then my lie about you being on the beach with me has obstructed justice - That's a crime. That isn't a "slip-up in the interview" - This is an outright lie. Same deal here.
"Tick, tick. tick..."
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Trump isn't going to pardon him just like he's not going to Pardon Manafort. He'll use the excuse the crimes were unrelated to him just like he did with Cohen. Trump isn't loyal, he never has been, it's why it's so Ironic that he demands it. He'll gladly throw anyone to the wolves to save himself.
but when are they going to arrest any Democrat for blatantly lying before Congress about running arms to al-Qaeda and Mexican drug lords
When they actually do that. Turns out Inforwars isn't the best source of reality.
(Fast and Furious, btw, was a program started under W's administration. It had strict rules about the guns and following them....until one DEA agent broke all the rules about distributing guns, got caught, and started screaming to certain media outlets to cover his own ass. Difficult to indict a "whistle-blower" and Holder didn't want to try.)
giving $billions to Iran
That would be the Reagan administration.
having the GCHQ spy on the opposing party's candidates
[Citation Required]. No need have GCHQ do it when there's already a FISA warrant.
or any of a half dozen other scandals that would have gotten anyone other than America's First Black President impeached
Yeah, like Pizzagate, right? How'd you guys figure out to cover over the fact that the building doesn't have a basement?
It turns out, you don't have to actually tell the truth to put a story into the media. Lots of people will believe you are telling the truth when you're lying about, say, birth certificates. And many of a certain set of people will gladly eat up the tabloid reporting, so the tabloids keep doing it.
Mister Trump, you must be choking a little right now from the smell of all the smoking guns that surround you. I'd be panicking more than a little if I were you, too.
because I really think he's just a patsy and so are his kids. OTOH they're all pretty arogant and they seem to think they're all real deal makers (there's a interview with I think Ed McMahon where he talks about negotiating with Trump and how he just kept letting him talk until Trump had given up everything).
Trump or his kids might have stuck their nose in where it don't belong instead when they got butthurt over being irrelevant figure heads. If that happened they're sunk. Otherwise I'm not so sure.
Also, WTF is it that we're not freaking out more over Trump doing defacto witness tampering with Cohen? The president of the United States publicly threatened someone's father in law and it barely made the news.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
So the Watergate scandal was when the individuals hired by the Nixon campaign broke into the DNC HQ and stole documents and bugged communications.
This current scandal is when a foreign state (Russia) offered to hack the DNC to steal documents and communications in order to assist the Trump campaign. (make no mistake, this is fucking illegal. Treasonous when a foreign state gets involved.)
Present arrests are mostly related to people lying about what they knew when, and effectively stonewalling the investigation of the above.
Muller already has enough evidence to go to the top, but he is building a tidal wave of flipped cronies on his way in order to prevent any weaseling.
I'll just stick to the facts, thanks. Facts like the DNC announced that Russians were responsible for attacking them (unless you're trying to assert that the DNC was never hacked in the first place, in which case good luck explaining away all of that evidence), facts like the numerous Russians who have been indicted or sanctioned by the US, facts like Ms. Butina being charged here after attempting to infiltrate various conservative groups (with mountains of evidence), etc.
Keep your conspiracy theories to yourself, you don't speak for me.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Sure, he could realize that dying in prison might not be great and start singing. They were just suggesting that, up until now, he gets no credit for cooperating.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Not really.
Yes, really. And your next paragraph says exactly what you deny.
You can of course, decline to talk to law enforcement. But once you agree to talk to them, you are required to tell the truth, because lying to them can be considered obstruction of justice.
Which is another way of saying "That is exactly the reason you shouldn't talk to cops, because even if you are completely innocent they can convict you based on a slip-up in the interview."
If I do that, then my lie about you being on the beach with me has obstructed justice - That's a crime. That isn't a "slip-up in the interview"
So to prove that they won't charge you with lying based on a slip-up you use an example of where you deliberately lied to them? Sorry. They will charge you with lying if you slip-up in an interview. That's because they won't ask you just once if you tell them he was with you "on the beach at the time". They'll ask you fifteen times, in thirteen different ways. "On a beach." Which beach? Where on the beach? What did you take to the beach? How did you get to the beach? "at the time." What time did you get there? What time did you leave? What time did you meet with him? What time did you separate? Were you with him the entire time? Yes? Did he ever go out of your sight? No? Oh, wait, he went to the bathroom once, I forgot. So he was out of your sight? You lied!
If you really were "on the beach at the time" with him, UNLESS you were planning on creating an alibi, you'll not remember every detail they ask you about. You'll forget stuff. You'll not bother remembering stuff that was completely unimportant until you need to tell the cops exactly what happened. For example, I just met with a couple of people in another part of the building. I couldn't tell you exactly what time I met with them, or when I left, or even a complete recreation of what we talked about. As I tell the story I will remember things, and if anything I remember differs from what I've already said, I've lied to the cops.
If you think you'd be exempt from that "standard of evidence" you're hopelessly naive.
Frankly, until the same standards of justice are applied equally, nobody gives a fuck about these indictments.
You don't speak for anyone else.
Why should we care if Roger Stone lies?
Because doing it was a crime. Try to keep up. The indictment is only 24 pages.
Oh, that's right, that will never happen, because they are not under investigation
2 years of Republican controlled White House and Congress, and no Democrats under investigation. It must be because Mitch McConnell and Trump and his buds are willing to let the Democrats break the law and get away with it. Yeah, that's the most obvious answer. Because they're such great friends.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
"There appears to be incredible amounts of no evidence" should have been the real clue.
These are weird times we're living in, man. I forget which law or theory it is that says it's increasingly difficult to differentiate real opinion from sarcasm online, because enough people who actually have those opinions post online. You can see people claiming that there is no evidence in this very thread.
Poe's law, and yeah, I keep violating it. It's where a person can be as over the top sarcastic that it reads like something a fringy believer would write.
I should hang a sign over my computer reminding me not to be so sarcastic. but... its... so....hard sometimes!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
the key is does he think Trump will or not. No telling. I think it's also entirely up to whether Trump's base would get behind a pardon (or at least not notice one).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
And the guys in the story always do talk to the FBI, and without even having a lawyer present. They confuse "not talking" with "not telling the truth" because of all their stupid Godfather quotes, and because only nerds use language literally. If they were going to tell the truth they'd bring a lawyer, but since they're planning to lie they just wing it.
Roger Stone is stupid enough to make "Shouting MAGA Guy" at the rally look reasoned and wise.
A lot of stupid things are done purely, IMO, because the person doing it already spent years using loose language, and the brain doesn't work the way they want it to, so all the garbage turns out to come back as their new ideas.
Not to slashdot MAGA neckbeards. They're not sure what is on the surface these days, but they really hope somebody makes it Great before they get there. And builds a wall to keep out the aliens. Because they never learned to speak Romulan.
I wonder if the MAGA Neckbeards are going to take the jerbs that the Mexicans once had once we kick them out? Obviously not for the same pay though.
One of the major paradoxes of modern life is that if we were to put those who hire illegals in jail, we could cure the problem pronto.
No 5 or 7 billion dollar wall needed.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
My point RE the "not really" is you're not charged with lying to the FBI if you just "slip up." You're charged if you make a material lie that tries to obstruct justice - Which is what Trump's buddies are doing.
In legal terms - "knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements." Saying your bank-robbing friend went to the beach with you (when he didn't) falls into this category.
They also think if you don't talk to investigators you will get away with whatever.
One of thie maxims of talking to the FBI is that the questions they ask you, they probably already know the answer. Lying to them isn't all that smart. As well, if all you get charged with is lying, they probably have some other plans for ya.
In this case, there's a lot more than that. Certainly Witness Tampering is a biggie. It's one case there the defendant has more burden of proof than the Prosecution. Just the attempt carries punishment as if it was a successful tampering. Otherwise, intimate interaction with Assange and his folks also might carry some stiff penalties. So if Stone decides to not cooperate, he very well might spend the rest of his life in prison.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Is there anything else shocking or illegal in these events? There doesn't seem to be.
You forgot about the counts of Obstructing a Proceeding and Witness Tampering.
Not really, they seemed redundant (obstructing, what his lie amounted to) and derivative (tampering, he asked someone else to lie)
Anyway, when you're trying to defend Stone, ...
Really? I'm defending Stone by saying he lied to federal authorities, a recognized federal crime?
What I am doing is point out the silliness of equating this to Russian collusion.
I personally love the bipartisan approach of locking up both the Clintons and the Trumps.
No tears would be shed on my end!
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Thought you were making that up, but several journalists are reporting Stone threatened to steal a witnesses therapy dog, and told a witness "Prepare to die"... Trump is surrounded by Don Corleone wanna-bes!
So a member (associate ?) of that political campaign turns out to be an a-hole who sends hyperbolic and figurative text messages to people. He asked a guy to lie and said mean things when he didn't lie. Yeah, tampering, a derivative of the lying I referred to in my first post. Beyond lying/tampering, actions or attempted actions need to occur to move things beyond figurative language and to actual additional crimes. Given the noticeable lack of charges related to dog threats, all we have is an a-hole howling at the moon.
The NY Times article isn't, this Slashdot one indeed is fake news.
"FBI Arrests Trump Associate Roger Stone Over His Communications With WikiLeaks"
Actual counts :
COUNT ONE (Obstruction of Proceeding)
COUNTS TWO THROUGH SIX (False Statements)
COUNT SEVEN (Witness Tampering)
He was arrested because he was too stupid to simply keep his mouth shut, not over his communications with Wikileaks.
Stone was lying about the collusion, or whatever you want to call it. Russians steal docs, give to WikiLeaks, Stone and others act as intermediaries to communicate with WikiLeaks about what they have and when they'll release it. There are enough people in the middle to be able to say "Trump did not communicate directly with the Russians", but that's what it's about. There are just a lot of middle men.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Were these actions prior to the Mueller investigation or due to the investigation? If these occurred because of the investigation my observation stands. I don't know anything about Stone and I doubt you know much more than me unless you know him personally. I don't take anything the media, be it CNN or Fox, says at face value anymore. So I'll take anything they claim with a healthy dose of skepticism. I'm not saying they didn't do anything wrong.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
My point RE the "not really" is you're not charged with lying to the FBI if you just "slip up."
"Slip up" means "you tell two different stories" or "the story changes" or "the story is factually incorrect" starting with an INTENT to tell the truth but a faulty or incomplete memory. "Lying to the FBI" means "you tell two different stories" or "the story changes" or "the story is factually incorrect" starting with an INTENT to tell a lie.
The only difference between the two is INTENT, which the FBI cannot determine, so they will ASSUME the intent was to lie.
You're charged if you make a material lie that tries to obstruct justice
So exactly how material is it if you lie about doing something that isn't illegal when they ask you what you did? It's not illegal, so they aren't going to charge you with it anyway, and it's not a crime involving anyone else, so what difference does it make? "Did you have a strawberry ice cream cone at 2PM today?" "No." "Did Frank Smith ask you to have a strawberry ice cream cone at 2PM today?" "No." "We can prove you had one!" "Ok, I did have one, I remember now." "Ok, well then, you lied, and we'll charge you with lying even though we can't charge you for eating an ice cream cone."
The only way that the lie is material is because it gives the cops/FBI something to charge you with. It is arguably entrapment at that point, because if they hadn't asked you, you wouldn't have "lied", and the only reason you "lied" is because they asked you.
In legal terms - "knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements."
And "know" and "will" are two things that cannot be proven, they can only be inferred. Hell, even if I told you last week that yes, I did have a strawberry ice cream cone, if you ask me today I might say "no" simply because I forgot I did. There is no "know" and "will" in that lie.
Saying your bank-robbing friend went to the beach with you (when he didn't) falls into this category.
Like I said, trying to prove that the cops won't charge you with lying to them when you slip-up in an interview by giving an example of them charging you with lying when you deliberately lie is pretty stupid. Hey, I can prove they won't charge you with lying to them ever because they will charge you with armed robbery when they catch you with a gun in a bank during an armed robbery, using that kind of logic.
And both statements could be true - you can contact me directly, or via a 3rd party. The presence of both options does not negate the veracity of both options.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Stone was involved with wikileaks, not the Russians. The Russian's alleged hacking of the DNC and providing info to wikileaks **pre-date's** Stone's outreach to wikileaks. Wikileaks had **already** published by the time Stone reached out. This reaching out is not collusion. The hacking and publication all occurred without Stone involvement.
We damned near IMPEACHED President Clinton over it.
Of course. He was the one lying under oath before a judge, like Stone.
Re-read 39b. This wasn't "howling at the moon". This was an email, one of several, where he directs a person what to say (or not say) ...
Hence the appropriate tampering charges.
... and then threats his dog and then later (in another email) threatens a bar complaint. What sort of apologist are you?
A bar compliant is perfectly legal. As for the dog, again, no charges filed. This suggests figurative language not a serious threat.
If the mob threatens to break your legs to not testify but doesn't actually go through with it, you think that should just be legal? There's a reason that the threat if credible is enough. The only argument you have that it's not credible is if you believe this person, who now faces many years in jail if convicted, was totally incapable or unwilling to carry out his threats.
Given the lack of charges regarding the dog that seems to be law enforcement's determination.
Let's get back to the real point, though.
What's that? That lying to feds is bad and illegal. I noted that in my first post. And regardless of how many straw men you construct I have never said otherwise.
Hint: My actual point is that all we have here is a guy lying about opposition research, that we do not have collusion with the Russians.
Well, you're making certain assumptions based on only what Mueller has revealed so far. There's a lot which he knows that we don't know yet. Anything that he's released is something that he no longer needs to keep secret in his investigation. Keep in mind that his original mandate was to determine the nature and extent of cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia, plus investigate any crimes he found along the way.
It's entirely possible that the whole reason that Russia dumped everything onto WikiLeaks is because they were asked to do it that way. I'm not suggesting that's true, just keep in mind that there's a whole iceberg that we haven't seen yet. It sounds like you're wondering how many men need to be in the middle before it's no longer considered collusion or cooperation, and that's probably still up for debate. That's why it's so difficult to prosecute heads of organized crime. Which, incidentally, Mueller has done. That's why he's indicting one after the other up the ladder.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Interesting how when it's Liberals who send classified information to WikiLeaks, it's OK and even a brave and noble thing for them to do. Fine for them to use said information against the other side. But when it's Conservatives who use this information to determine how hacked emails were used, it's suddenly a crime.
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
No - you can't legally make up a charge to give yourself an excuse to investigate someone to find wrong doing.
Fruit of the poisonous tree
Cool. If you've got evidence that Clinton committed a federal crime, make sure you forward it to the appropriate people. Otherwise, don't expect me to stop you from beating the dead horse if that's what you want to do. Personally, I think that Clinton has already been destroyed, her legacy is shit and her ego is deflated. Hopefully the last chapter of her story is losing to the single most-disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling. She's not actively damaging the country at this point so I don't really care what happens to her, she can rot for all I care. If you want to spend your time worrying about her and thinking about her, you go right ahead. Good luck with your investigation.
Just keep in mind that for 2 years Republicans controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress and they didn't do shit. Maybe you think that's because they're all her friends. Maybe there's another reason why she is currently un-indicted. All of those Benghazi hearings, and not a single indictment. Maybe they just need one more chance. Anyway, if that's what you want to spend your time thinking about, go ahead. Others are going to spend their time on issues which actually affect the country.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
So.. what did we learn about just trying to tell a damn joke? No, Ol Olsoc, it's not that you can't do it. It's that you have to structure and give bigger hints up front. If someone is skimming instead of reading, they still need to see something a little ragged that makes them think, "wait... what?" and re-read it.
Have you ever tried simply using a simple mlipsppelling?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Oh, we're under no illusion that you intend to stop shoehorning Hillary into every argument, relevant or not.
Burn in hell? How very calm and mature
The president of the United States publicly threatened someone's father in law and it barely made the news.
And the threat was... what was the threat? President Trump simply directed attention to Cohen's father-in-law with a spotty history that includes loaning millions of dollars to a taxi cab medallion holder in Chicago, the same individual was also named in the warrant used to toss Cohen's home, office, and apartment.
Ken
As I understand it, all Stone did was reach out to Wikileaks to see what else they had from the DNC, just like every journalist covering the story did at the time.
There is not, as I understand it, evidence Stone knew anything more than what Wikileaks made private and he only knew it after WikiLeaks made it public.
He's accused of trying to find out what Wikileaks had - just like everyone else did at the time - is that really a crime?
Ken
Yeah, lying to the feds is bad. Is there anything else shocking or illegal in these events? There doesn't seem to be.
Yes. Getting dirt on your opponent is receiving a campaign contribution, and there are laws restricting who can give you contributions. Getting them from foreigners is illegal.
Of course, this doesn't apply to dirt that is published to the whole world. But reaching out to Wikileaks to get Russian-sourced dirt on Hillary would be soliciting an illegal foreign contribution to Trump's campaign. Anyone involved in soliciting or receiving such contributions committed a crime. Anyone who directed someone to solicit or receive such contributions committed a different crime: conspiracy. And the conspiracy charge doesn't depend on the underlying crime actually being carried out. And anyone who tried to cover up either crime by interfering with the investigation committed yet another crime: obstruction.
The right thing for a person involved in a US political campaign to do when someone offers them foreign-sourced dirt on their opponent is to call the FBI immediately. If they're offered domestically-sourced dirt, they should probably consult with the campaign's legal staff before accepting it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
He was arrested for lying to investigators about his communications to members of Trumps campaign. The topic of the communications that he lied about, was wikileaks.
So if you absolutely want to split hairs:
"FBI Arrests Trump Associate Roger Stone Over His Communications With WikiLeaks" is not quite accurate
"FBI Arrests Trump Associate Roger Stone Over His Communications ABOUT WikiLeaks" would fix the semantics.
You've got a dead body, an ass-ton of blood, and a guy telling another guy to shut his fucking mouth or he'll wreck his ass.
In general, those who tamper with witnesses, probably have involvement in the suspected crime, even if it isn't nailed down yet.
To claim otherwise is some pathetic gaslighting bullshit.
You're right. All they caught him doing was dousing blood stained walls with ammonia.
He was clearly just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The more accurate point is, without the investigation, they'd never have caught the guy trying to cover up the not-a-crime.
This current scandal is when a foreign state (Russia) offered to hack the DNC to steal documents and communications in order to assist the Trump campaign. (make no mistake, this is fucking illegal. Treasonous when a foreign state gets involved.)
Why would the Russians "offer" to hack the DNC? Why would they seek approval from anyone, let alone the Trump Campaign?
I've seen no evidence to date that there was actual communication/coordination between Trump Campaign and "Russians/WikiLeaks", instead, I see a lot of after-the-fact requests from the campaign to WikiLeaks to find out what the Russians/WikiLeaks have on the Democrats... You know, kinda like every journalist covering this story at the time did.
Muller already has enough evidence to go to the top
You convinced yourself that Mueller has something he's never said he has, and your proof is that no one on Mueller's staff has leaked that they have evidence of a crime committed by a sitting President while a candidate.
Serious question - if a prosecutor, for example Mueller, has solid evidence the President had committed a serious crime, a crime where a conviction could result in jail time, how long can the prosecutor stand by and do nothing with that information? IANAL but I contend that if Mueller had solid, actual evidence of real crimes committed by the sitting President, he would not sit on it for (up to) two years or more before referring it to a prosecutor.
Ken
no Democrats under investigation.
Which is it, is Hillary not a Democrat, or was she not investigated?
Ken
Charging somebody with lying to authorities is lowliest pettiest government tool when they do not have enough evidence on the crux of the matter: were or not Reps and Trump illegally colluding with Russians?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Says the 4-digit UID.
What exactly does that have to do with my question?
Ken
Yeah, lying to the feds is bad. Is there anything else shocking or illegal in these events? There doesn't seem to be.
Yes. Getting dirt on your opponent is receiving a campaign contribution, and there are laws restricting who can give you contributions. Getting them from foreigners is illegal.
So if you are buying the dirt from foreigners you are fee and clear, as opposed to receiving it for fee?
Of course, this doesn't apply to dirt that is published to the whole world. But reaching out to Wikileaks to get Russian-sourced dirt on Hillary would be soliciting an illegal foreign contribution to Trump's campaign.
But the reaching out we know of occurred after publication to the whole world.
NONE of the witnesses provided ANY corroboration of the event whatsoever.
You really aren't very hard to refute. You should probably pick up the practice of reading yourself before you admonish others to do so.
Here is a list that includes a list of witness the FBI did NOT contact either because they did not have the time or they were instructed not to. Lawyers for both Ramirez and Ford provided lists of corroborating witnesses which were never contacted.
It was clear from the very start that the only purpose of the FBI "investigation" was not to vet the SCOTUS candidate, but instead to provide a fig leaf that would be eagerly accepted by persons such as yourself.
Well, you're making certain assumptions based on only what Mueller has revealed so far.
I'm making assumption by only going with the evidence to date. That's an interesting interpretation of "assumptions". :-)
It sounds like you're wondering how many men need to be in the middle before it's no longer considered collusion or cooperation
Nope, zero to many in the middle is irrelevant. All that matters is active cooperation between the campaign and the Russian government, a Russian oligarch, etc. Absent such cooperation the fact that the wikileaks info originally game from Russian hackers is effectively trivia. Russia, China, North Korea, or US teenager in Mom's basement (Sarah Palin's gmail publication?) makes no difference when the cooperation ends with wikileaks.
No, it is not. Mueller has, very obviously, and very deliberately, not released any information that he has but that he does not need to release yet. And, exactly like during every other release, when everyone is quick to jump on the fact that this is not proof of Trump colluding with Russia, I will, once again remind people that we have not seen the iceberg yet.
Patience, my young padawan. Mueller has prosecuted organized crime before. This is not his first rodeo. You start at the bottom rung of the ladder and work your way up.
No, he has not yet charged Individual 1 with any crime. That does not mean that he does not have evidence of crimes done by Individual 1, and it does not mean that he will never charge Individual 1.
This is stuff that will get Roger Stone convicted. Poor guy, what a shame.
I really hope that's sarcasm.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I don't believe the content of the actual discussions with WikiLeaks has been made public, so there's a good reason you don't understand what it's about. Patience.
He is charged with lying about the contact at all, there is nothing in the documents about what they actually spoke about. Mueller knows though, don't worry.
He's accused of trying to find out what Wikileaks had - just like everyone else did at the time - is that really a crime?
First, that's not what he's accused of, he's accused of obstructing a proceeding, 5 counts of lying to Congress/FBI, and witness tampering. And secondly, yes, those are crimes. That's why they charged him with crimes.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
If you're wondering why this is all they are charging Stone with, it's because Stone is not Mueller's target. Individual 1 is Mueller's target. Stone is the next rung on the ladder that Mueller has been climbing to get to Individual 1. And, again, we haven't seen the iceberg, only what Mueller needs to release to charge the other people on the ladder.
Too many analogies.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Kavanaugh was investigated before every promotion/new position he ever took, including his seat on the DC District Court, once he was nominated the DOJ and Senate dug in again. After they concluded their investigation, a woman came forward from California with some fantastical claims, and then everyone had only a few days (you say 4 days, that sounds right) to investigate the very specific claims against Kavanaugh.
You don't get to be a District Court Judge without your background being fully investigated by the FBI.
As for Hillary, she and her husband repeatedly danced around the edge of seemingly illegal activities - Republicans didn't just "make stuff up" to harass her. She DID use a private email server, she did delete emails that were subpoenaed, she did miraculously invest $1,000 in commodities and made $100,000, in her first and only investment, her subpoenaed Rose Law Firm records disappeared/couldn't be found, then months later, the box of billing records suddenly "appeared" (as if by magic), on a table in the White House Residence, etc.
By comparison, Kavanaugh drank beer in college.
Ken
Hillary was under investigation over the last two years? Did they just have no evidence and dropped the charges against her? What happened with the investigation into Hillary that was conducted over the first two years of Trump's administration? I missed that story, please fill me in. Because when they controlled the WH and Congress, it really seems like they would have followed through on all of those "lock her up" chants if they could. I must have missed the story though, I thought she just faded into oblivion and released a shitty book.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I'm making assumption by only going with the evidence to date. That's an interesting interpretation of "assumptions". :-)
Saying that Stone was not involved with the Russians is an assumption based on incomplete evidence. You're trying to assert a conclusion that you can't know yet. He very well might have been involved with the Russians, maybe he even directed them to dump to WikiLeaks. I'm not assuming that's true, just pointing out that we don't know and we can't say what he did or did not do at this point.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
If you're wondering why Stone wasn't charged with anything else, the answer is because they will only charge him with things that are easily proven, and they will not release information that they still may need to use in their investigation. No reason to show their hand when they're not even playing for the big pot. Yet.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Patience, my young padawan
I await.
I really hope that's sarcasm.
LOL
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
They're afraid of the mexican drug-addicted, drug-trafficking, lazy, welfare using, food-stamp selling, murderers are going to steal their jobs. Gotta wonder exactly what they do for a living.
Many are on SS Disability. Some indeterminate boo-boos.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
So.. what did we learn about just trying to tell a damn joke? No, Ol Olsoc, it's not that you can't do it. It's that you have to structure and give bigger hints up front. If someone is skimming instead of reading, they still need to see something a little ragged that makes them think, "wait... what?" and re-read it.
Have you ever tried simply using a simple mlipsppelling?
There's absolutely no evidence that that would work.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
you're asked by the FBI if you were carrying cash from point A to point B on Thursday and you panic and say no.
In other words you deliberately lie. How is this "another way" from using a different deliberate lie trying to prove you won't be charged for lying when you slip up in an interview?
Let's try this another way. You CANNOT use the fact that the cops WILL charge you for lying to the cops when you do so deliberately as proof of any kind that they will NOT charge you when the "factually incorrect" statement you make isn't a deliberate lie. The fact is the cops cannot tell a-priori the difference between an intent to lie and a "slip up" that results in incorrect information, so they will assume the worst and let the legal system sort it out.
The point is are you really suggesting that Stone handing over stolen documents to Wikileaks is the same as "eating a strawberry icecream"
I am suggesting no such thing. I am replying to a claim that the cops won't charge you with lying to the cops if you slip up in an interview. That incorrect claim was made in response to a generic statement about not talking to the cops. I said nothing about Stone.
I'm making assumption by only going with the evidence to date. That's an interesting interpretation of "assumptions". :-)
Saying that Stone was not involved with the Russians is an assumption based on incomplete evidence. You're trying to assert a conclusion that you can't know yet.
I am asserting this is our best understanding of reality until more evidence appears. Sort of like science asserted that Newtonian physics was our best understanding of nature until Einstein produced new evidence. That there are hypothesis, potential new discoveries, unexplained mysteries, etc does not change the current understanding of reality. Hypothesis such as "There are enough people in the middle to be able to say "Trump did not communicate directly with the Russians", but that's what it's about. There are just a lot of middle men." are merely wishful thinking.
They invested too much time and face into this. Even if they had no evidence about the communications at all, any lie to investigators they thought they could prove would have led to his arrest at this point. The reason for his arrest was because they thought they could prove those counts.
Of course they started the investigation because they were hoping they could prove something like commissioning a crime or conspiring to commit a crime. If that were one of the counts it would actually be over the communications, they still apparently can't make any of that stick. Maybe some plea deal testimony can save this clusterfuck for them.
<Nelson voice> HA HA </Nelson voice>
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Yeah, lying to the feds is bad. Is there anything else shocking or illegal in these events? There doesn't seem to be.
Yes. Getting dirt on your opponent is receiving a campaign contribution, and there are laws restricting who can give you contributions. Getting them from foreigners is illegal.
So if you are buying the dirt from foreigners you are fee and clear, as opposed to receiving it for fee?
I'm not sure, but I would think that would still constitute foreign assistance.
Of course, this doesn't apply to dirt that is published to the whole world. But reaching out to Wikileaks to get Russian-sourced dirt on Hillary would be soliciting an illegal foreign contribution to Trump's campaign.
But the reaching out we know of occurred after publication to the whole world.
You're being deliberately disingenuous. Obviously the information they were seeking hadn't been published, otherwise they wouldn't have had to try to get it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Context is everything, especially for humor--but you may note I that I rarely earn any "funny" points.
You, as the 4-digit UID, suggested that the AC's UID was visible, and I attempted to make a joke on that theme. I don't think I even looked at the AC comment you were commenting on (since I ignore ACs), but now I see that there was an earlier reference to a 5-digit UID.
However these days I'm actually kind of suspicious of small UIDs... Overly juicy targets, and possibly orphaned years ago.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Does anyone here do a little research before making ignorant claims? Kavanaugh has been under investigation for every government position his has held. In all of his previous work, the whole "rape" claim never came up until he was nominated for the SC. He has turned over more documentation then "ALL" previous SC candidates combined.
But the reaching out we know of occurred after publication to the whole world.
You're being deliberately disingenuous. Obviously the information they were seeking hadn't been published, otherwise they wouldn't have had to try to get it.
No disingenuousness, the only information they ever received was the already published info. Plus the shady lawyers involved may quite well understand the legal hazards and simply ask if there were more info and when it will be publicly published, the text of the indictment merely says "to inquire about future releases by WikiLeaks" after all.
If you're wondering why Stone wasn't charged with anything else, the answer is because they will only charge him with things that are easily proven, and they will not release information that they still may need to use in their investigation. No reason to show their hand when they're not even playing for the big pot. Yet.
Also plausible is they charged him with all they have as part of a fishing expedition in search of something else. The notion that they necessarily have more is an assumption.
Meanwhile in Russia, Vladimir Putin is laughing with delight. Goaded on by Putin's fifty cent army of shills, the worst elements of the American mandarinate are plotting a judicial coup against a sitting President.
Having lost the Mandate of Heaven through disastrous economic mismanagement, promulgation of wicked social policies, and delegitimization of the courts - the mandarins have turned increasingly to authoritarian methods to retain their undeserved privilege. They were taken aback, then utterly enraged, when widespread election fraud failed to secure victory for cartoonishly villainous candidate Hillary Clinton.
The common people rightly despise the mandarinate as the authors of their dispossession. With no hope of winning over the masses, the mandarins began plotting a coup. They would use their control of the justice system - that infernal machine for grinding up human lives - to unseat a popular and virtuous President.
So began the struggle of the oligarchy against the people. Russia, China, and nefarious international financiers rushed in to fan the flames. The financiers of course side with the mandarins. They know in their heart that President Trump is a man of the people who loves his country, so they fear and loathe him. Putin and Xi, on the other hand, just want to stir up trouble.
What could be better than seeing their biggest rival destabilized by factional strife? And if that strife leads to a successful judicial coup or even to civil conflict - then Putin will break out his finest vodka to celebrate, while Emperor Xi dances for joy.
Trump isn't the target. The target is the safety and security of the U.S.
For all we know Trump may never be charged as Meuller finds nothing that he can be charged with or (I am unsure whether this works in American law) it is not in the public interest to charge him. Either way, Meuller needs to conclude his job within the confines of the law and then give a result.
I reserve the write to mangle english.
Z^-1
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Yes, and Guido and Luigi were not threatening, they were just talking about how fire-prone your business is, shame if something were to happen to it.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
completely corrupt DOJ and FBI which never prosecuted any process crimes related to Hillary (which would have required them to prosecute Obama who lied about not knowing about her private email server WHILE USING IT USING AN ALIAS). The Democrats and the establishment Republicans in Washington who all despise Trump have repeatedly told him they will impeach him if he "interferes" in the Obama team investigation of him, therefore Trump has been unable to do what all presidents before him have done: take control of the DOJ. We are still living under the Obama DOJ, with the "Trump appointees" being selected from a pool of Obama holdovers.
We're on very dangerous ground here:
[a] Our system was not designed to have "special prosecutors" who are under the executive branch and yet not under control of the chief executive - Meuller is the most powerful and most unaccountable man on the planet right now, and he clearly likes it. Any future person named to such a post could be worse than Stalin.
Apart from the fact that Obama did send emails to Hillary's private server under an alias, this is all howling revisionist madness. First of all, the DOJ is NOT supposed to be under the "control" of the president. It's supposed to be almost entirely independent with the president having a very limited power to hire and fire a few key roles, which if done under the wrong circumstances could constitute obstruction of justice. You seem to think the USA was designed like a banana republic where law enforcement is under the direct command of the head of state - you're dead wrong.
Also the idea that Mueller is the most powerful and unaccountable man on the planet is shitgibbon lunacy. He's hardly any more unaccountable or powerful than any high-level US prosecutor. He has to work within the law and because a sitting president can't be indicted, his report will have no more power over the president than a strongly-worded letter as long as he's in office. He's not a rogue warlord throwing people in cages on a whim.
[b] If the public gets the idea that the establishment folks in DC can nullify any election and destroy any non-beltway non-insider who gets elected, the public may lose all faith in the federal government. There lies the path to something nobody should want to see: armed rebellion in a nation where over 300 million guns are in private hands and many of those gun owners are not only gun owners but also ex-military and capable of making ammunition and more guns.
Obama may have truly carried out his biggest campaign promise to "fundamentally transform" the United States of America.
Trump's election actually greatly reaffirmed my faith in the integrity of the US elections process. If there were any shadowy figures pulling strings in the background, they wouldn't have let such a dangerous idiot get anywhere close to the Presidency. And what did Obama do to create this situation? The DOJ functions the same now as it did before. He put a registered Republican in charge of it. Agent Orange is a career white-collar criminal who surrounded himself with other career white-collar criminals and they all continued to commit crimes, then they stepped right into the crosshairs of the targeting system for white-collar criminal investigations, the media outrage machine. And now they're going to get what's coming to them. Hillary is only a slick supercrook in right-wing imaginations, but Trump is a slick supercrook in real life.
Good luck with that armed rebellion. The US has too many guns in too many hands, yes, but it's still not a lot of hands for so many guns. Point 'em at the world's most advanced and oversized military, I'll get the popcorn.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Well, you're making certain assumptions based on only what Mueller has revealed so far. There's a lot which he knows that we don't know yet.
Sadly, the corporate media has been telling us the same thing for two years. "Just you wait, next week, a smoking gun!" We're still waiting... Clearly, there hasn't been much revealed. The most scandalous outcome of this investigation is probably going to be the knowledge that FBI, driven by Obama appointees, has been spying on Trump campaign for political reasons, illegally leaking dirt on him and his team solely for the purpose of "political assassination" (witness Flynn) or keeping the investigation going. FBI's crimes by now have been far more onerous than whatever Mueller uncovered in his investigation.
When you can't find real crime, interview all of the parties, then decide one of them is lying. Deciding who to charge with lying to Congress is a political game, not a criminal act. Mueller's plan is straight out of the book, Licensed to Lie. Including some of the same villians from the book. Never trust a federal prosecutor!
The evidence of the text and emails he made are right there in the indictment. The evidence will be easy for any jury or judge to understand. He's toast. It's kind of pathetic to rationalise this away and yet...
Nope, that's not what the docket says. The docket states that his previous testimony didn't match a previous statement based on a text message. Said message was over 2 years old, and they went back fishing because he used the wrong wording.
It's rather sad that you don't realize that this is the same stunt the Muller has pulled in the past, and has had dozens of cases overturned because of it. Those were all 'process crimes' aka testimony not matching the exact phrasing.
Om, nomnomnom...
I read the document. Stone isn't in a real good place, no matter what the kooks think.
Why not go compare the exec trials from enron? Give you a hint though, it's similar. And they were thrown out as well.
Om, nomnomnom...
Right. No assault claims had been filed. Therefore they did not happen.
If you are a big fan of doing a "little research" why don't you look up the reasons and the statistics of how assault victims delay, often indefinitely, the reporting of their respective incidents?
But don't worry. Your beer-drinking paladin of virtue will have his shady financial dealings and his possible perjury looked into anyway thanks to the last election, and all that has nothing to do with his appealing seduction technique. Personally I doubt he will get unseated but it would be nice to have the record documented. You know, since filing things is all important.
I read the document. Stone isn't in a real good place, no matter what the kooks think.
Why not go compare the exec trials from enron? Give you a hint though, it's similar. And they were thrown out as well.
So Stone is an innocent patriots because of Enron. I am beginning to understand you y'all think.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
But the reaching out we know of occurred after publication to the whole world.
You're being deliberately disingenuous. Obviously the information they were seeking hadn't been published, otherwise they wouldn't have had to try to get it.
No disingenuousness, the only information they ever received was the already published info.
That's irrelevant. They were clearly seeking additional, unpublished information. Else why bother?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Z^-2
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I think the Bushes are despicable, but "Operation Fast and Furious" was not a Bush admin activity.
Fast and Furious was one of the operations under Project Gunrunner. Fast and Furious was another "gunwalking" operation under that program. The first one was Operation Wide Receiver, which was in 2006.
While Fast and Furious started in 2009, it was a continuation of an existing program. The new name was applied because of the new targets.
bringing up an earlier Bush admin program (called "Operation Wide Reciever") that was NEARLY as stupid but not as illegal and deadly.
Remember the bit I said about the DEA agent who broke the rules of the program? That is what you are describing here.
Under the Bush program, the guns were tagged and tracked and the Mexican government was "in the loop" rather than being victimized by it.
Remember the bit I said about the DEA agent who broke the rules of the program? That is what you are describing here.
Under the Obama program, the guns were not tagged and not tracked and the Mexican government was not aware of the program
Remember the bit I said about the DEA agent who broke the rules of the program? That is what you are describing here.
(a criminal offense normally leading to jail time, but Holder was not about to prosecute himself of course so he got away with the crime)
Contempt of Congress can be prosecuted by Congress. Golly, wonder why they didn't if it was actually as clear as you describe......
Incidentally, this is where Trump got the idea that his Attorney general should be his "wingman".
So there was this President named Kennedy.......
There was a program called Wide Receiver under the W Bush administration, which attempted to sell disabled guns with embedded tracking devices to suspected criminals, who were then followed by US law enforcement and Mexican law enforcement.
Both Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver were part of Project Gunrunner. The new name for Fast and Furious was because there were new targets that were different than Wide Receiver. It was the same program with a new target.
As for disabled guns, tracking devices and Mexican cooperation, remember the bit about the DEA agent not following the rules? You just described what he did. And why he suddenly became a whistle-blower after he massively fucked up.
But imagine the shitshow if Holder had prosecuted him. So Holder, stupidly, let him go.
They were clearly seeking additional, unpublished information...
The text of the indictment proves you quite mistaken regarding "clearly", this text actually suggests the contrary: "to inquire about future releases by WikiLeaks".
... Else why bother?
Knowing when the next public dump of wikileaks will occur would allow the campaign PR machinery to be ready to spread their message as fast as possible. To set the narrative for the spin on the wikileaks info. The other side, with no forewarning of the date and time, will be slower to react and be at a messaging disadvantage.
Read the other charges... You're embarrassing yourself somewhat.
So Stone is an innocent patriots because of Enron. I am beginning to understand you y'all think.
Nope. There's no claim of innocence, only a long history of a prosecutor abusing power and using parallel construction to create a crime. Perhaps you should be asking how he managed to keep his law license.
Om, nomnomnom...
Read the other charges... You're embarrassing yourself somewhat.
Might want to try that on your own. Maybe you can match up CNN and their inability to read a date properly. If you're looking for embarrassment, try the mirror. Otherwise you wouldn't have made that post when the known evidence shows parallel construction has been going on. That's called the "invention of a crime."
Om, nomnomnom...
So Stone is an innocent patriots because of Enron. I am beginning to understand you y'all think.
Nope. There's no claim of innocence, only a long history of a prosecutor abusing power and using parallel construction to create a crime. Perhaps you should be asking how he managed to keep his law license.
My suspicion is by money passing hands enabled Stone to keep his license, or engaging with others who are Russian sympathisers or affected by kompromat. That is all.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.