Ignoring trolls is how Trump got elected. If people fail to grasp obvious concepts then they need to be educated. I don't think the person I responded to is just out to troll to get a response, I think they actually believe the president's line that there is nothing to see here. There is a lot to see here.
Now, if you're just trolling me, and I responded, sorry for feeding you.
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.
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.
Spoiler: for the worst lies, Obama raked in 2 per year, Trump was on course for 124 per year (but that only counted his first 10 months in office - it's higher now).
"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.
Kind of makes you wonder why this list of the best people thought that the lesser evil was lying to either Congress or the FBI. That's the thing to keep in mind, people keep suggesting that the only crime was lying, you have to keep in mind that they chose to lie versus just telling the truth. The question is why.
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.
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.
2) Don't talk and Trump will pardon him in a couple of years right before he walks out of the white house.
That's very optimistic. Stone would be betting his freedom and life on that happening. Getting a pardon and Trump serving out his term are not guaranteed at this point. And, guess what happens if anyone finds out that Stone or his lawyers were communicating with Trump or his team to discuss a potential pardon. That's another charge against Trump.
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.
I won't be convinced they're any nearer to putting him behind bars until he's walked out the white house in handcuffs.
Stone is going to have to think about whether he wants to tell Mueller what Trump directed him to do and when, or if he dies in prison, or if he ends his life on his own terms. Those are probably his options.
You look for reasons to declare people to be witches.
Pretty easy when they walk up and tell you they're a witch, or they have text messages saying they're a witch, or their associates tell you straight up that they're a witch, just look at this email they sent. Seriously, read the indictment.
Which you should know, as a lawyer.
I'm not one, I just have the ability to read and understand an indictment. Weird, I know.
now the FBI and Mueller have to invent ways of charging people of crimes to justify their waste of time and money.
No reason to invent anything when they make it so obvious that they're breaking the law. Again, maybe take a little glance at the indictment.
Here, let me help you out. The words of someone who is definitely not a witch (probably can't even build a bridge out of him):
e. On multiple occasions, including on or about December 1, 2017, STONE told
Person 2 that Person 2 should do a "Frank Pentangeli" before HPSCI in order to
avoid contradicting STONE's testimony. Frank Pentangeli is a character in the film
The Godfather: Part II, which both STONE and Person 2 had discussed, who
testifies before a congressional committee and in that testimony claims not to know
critical information that he does in fact know.
f. On or about December 1, 2017, STONE texted Person 2, "And if you turned over
anything to the FBI you're a fool." Later that day, Person 2 texted STONE, "You
need to amend your testimony before I testify on the 15th." STONE responded, "If
you testify you're a fool. Because of tromp I could never get away with a certain
[sic] my Fifth Amendment rights but you can. I guarantee you you are the one who
gets indicted for perjury if you're stupid enough to testify."
Here you go:
39. Following Person 2's invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify before HPSCI, STONE and Person 2 continued to have discussions about the various investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election and what information Person 2 would provide to investigators. During these conversations, STONE repeatedly made statements intended to prevent Person 2 from cooperating with the investigations. For example:
a. On or about December 24, 2017, Person 2 texted STONE, "I met [the head of
WikiLeaks] for f[i]rst time this yea[r] sept 7 . . . docs prove that. . . . You should
be honest w fbi . . . there was no back channel . . . be honest." STONE replied
approximately two minutes later, "I'm not talking to the FBI and if your smart you
won't either."
b. On or about April 9, 2018, STONE wrote in an email to Person 2, "You are a rat.
A stoolie. You backstab your friends-run your mouth my lawyers are dying Rip
you to shreds." STONE also said he would "take that dog away from you,"
referring to Person 2's dog. On or about the same day, STONE wrote to Person 2,
"I am so ready. Let's get it on. Prepare to die [expletive]."
c. On or about May 21, 2018, Person 2 wrote in an email to STONE, "You should
have just been honest with the house Intel committee . . . you've opened yourself
up to perjury charges like an idiot." STONE responded, "You are so full of
[expletive]. You got nothing. Keep running your mouth and I'll file a bar
complaint against your friend [the attorney who had the ability to contact the head
of WikiLeaks]."
So, what do you do when you've done nothing illegal and you don't care what anyone is claiming about you? You call them a rat and tell them you're going to take their dog. Makes perfect sense. "Rat" is just a term for someone who lies, right? It's not a term for someone telling the truth about the shady shit you did, right?
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.
There's a weird Nixon reference that I didn't understand. I don't know if he's quoting or just name-dropping him:
a. On or about November 19, 2017, in a text message to STONE, Person 2 said that
his lawyer wanted to see him (Person 2). STONE responded, "‘Stonewall it. Plead
the fifth. Anything to save the plan' . . . Richard Nixon." On or about November
20, 2017, Person 2 informed HPSCI that he declined HPSCI's request for a
voluntary interview.
It looks like a quote. Nixon probably isn't the greatest person to quote when you're being investigated.
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
OK, now revise your dates to consider that this request was asked 2 years ago, in 2017.
I'm not sure what the purpose of this exercise is. I mean, I agree it's not feasible, but beyond that I'm not sure what the point of discussion is. He was just asking, he doesn't know.
Well, tough guy, don't let me stop you from showing pictures of this "screaming horde of violent criminals, waving flags of another country, throwing rocks, and trying to break into our country." Make sure they're actually violent criminals and that they actually have flags and are throwing rocks. I wouldn't want you to change the goalposts if you're going to throw out a bunch of hyperbolic bullshit.
Next, explain the logic behind a violent criminal who decides to sneak into another country, and decides to bring his giant flag to wave along the way. Because there's no better way to be stealthy than screaming while waving your foreign flag, right?
So, go ahead, show your evidence that the situation that you have been frightened into believing and that you shit your pants over daily is actually happening. Or, you know, shut the fuck up.
Slashdot Mirror
Ignoring trolls is how Trump got elected. If people fail to grasp obvious concepts then they need to be educated. I don't think the person I responded to is just out to troll to get a response, I think they actually believe the president's line that there is nothing to see here. There is a lot to see here.
Now, if you're just trolling me, and I responded, sorry for feeding you.
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.
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.
https://www.nytimes.com/intera...
https://www.cheatsheet.com/cul...
Spoiler: for the worst lies, Obama raked in 2 per year, Trump was on course for 124 per year (but that only counted his first 10 months in office - it's higher now).
"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.
No, he didn't. Feel free to post all of the numerous public statements made by Mueller if you disagree.
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.
Kind of makes you wonder why this list of the best people thought that the lesser evil was lying to either Congress or the FBI. That's the thing to keep in mind, people keep suggesting that the only crime was lying, you have to keep in mind that they chose to lie versus just telling the truth. The question is why.
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.
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.
2) Don't talk and Trump will pardon him in a couple of years right before he walks out of the white house.
That's very optimistic. Stone would be betting his freedom and life on that happening. Getting a pardon and Trump serving out his term are not guaranteed at this point. And, guess what happens if anyone finds out that Stone or his lawyers were communicating with Trump or his team to discuss a potential pardon. That's another charge against Trump.
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.
Hold on. How the fuck does that dumb analogy have anything to do with the 24-page indictment against Stone. Have you read it?
I won't be convinced they're any nearer to putting him behind bars until he's walked out the white house in handcuffs.
Stone is going to have to think about whether he wants to tell Mueller what Trump directed him to do and when, or if he dies in prison, or if he ends his life on his own terms. Those are probably his options.
If you have communications with WikiLeaks, you're a witch.
Nice try, but wrong. Communicating with WikiLeaks is not a crime. No one is being charged with that. Nice attempt to derail though.
Go read the indictment if you want to talk about it.
You look for reasons to declare people to be witches.
Pretty easy when they walk up and tell you they're a witch, or they have text messages saying they're a witch, or their associates tell you straight up that they're a witch, just look at this email they sent. Seriously, read the indictment.
Which you should know, as a lawyer.
I'm not one, I just have the ability to read and understand an indictment. Weird, I know.
now the FBI and Mueller have to invent ways of charging people of crimes to justify their waste of time and money.
No reason to invent anything when they make it so obvious that they're breaking the law. Again, maybe take a little glance at the indictment.
Here, let me help you out. The words of someone who is definitely not a witch (probably can't even build a bridge out of him):
e. On multiple occasions, including on or about December 1, 2017, STONE told
Person 2 that Person 2 should do a "Frank Pentangeli" before HPSCI in order to
avoid contradicting STONE's testimony. Frank Pentangeli is a character in the film
The Godfather: Part II, which both STONE and Person 2 had discussed, who
testifies before a congressional committee and in that testimony claims not to know
critical information that he does in fact know.
f. On or about December 1, 2017, STONE texted Person 2, "And if you turned over
anything to the FBI you're a fool." Later that day, Person 2 texted STONE, "You
need to amend your testimony before I testify on the 15th." STONE responded, "If
you testify you're a fool. Because of tromp I could never get away with a certain
[sic] my Fifth Amendment rights but you can. I guarantee you you are the one who
gets indicted for perjury if you're stupid enough to testify."
Here you go:
39. Following Person 2's invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify before
HPSCI, STONE and Person 2 continued to have discussions about the various investigations into
Russian interference in the 2016 election and what information Person 2 would provide to
investigators. During these conversations, STONE repeatedly made statements intended to
prevent Person 2 from cooperating with the investigations. For example:
a. On or about December 24, 2017, Person 2 texted STONE, "I met [the head of
WikiLeaks] for f[i]rst time this yea[r] sept 7 . . . docs prove that. . . . You should
be honest w fbi . . . there was no back channel . . . be honest." STONE replied
approximately two minutes later, "I'm not talking to the FBI and if your smart you
won't either."
b. On or about April 9, 2018, STONE wrote in an email to Person 2, "You are a rat.
A stoolie. You backstab your friends-run your mouth my lawyers are dying Rip
you to shreds." STONE also said he would "take that dog away from you,"
referring to Person 2's dog. On or about the same day, STONE wrote to Person 2,
"I am so ready. Let's get it on. Prepare to die [expletive]."
c. On or about May 21, 2018, Person 2 wrote in an email to STONE, "You should
have just been honest with the house Intel committee . . . you've opened yourself
up to perjury charges like an idiot." STONE responded, "You are so full of
[expletive]. You got nothing. Keep running your mouth and I'll file a bar
complaint against your friend [the attorney who had the ability to contact the head
of WikiLeaks]."
So, what do you do when you've done nothing illegal and you don't care what anyone is claiming about you? You call them a rat and tell them you're going to take their dog. Makes perfect sense. "Rat" is just a term for someone who lies, right? It's not a term for someone telling the truth about the shady shit you did, right?
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.
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.
There's 20 pages of evidence in the indictment. Feel free to actually read what you're trying to sound intelligent about.
There's a weird Nixon reference that I didn't understand. I don't know if he's quoting or just name-dropping him:
a. On or about November 19, 2017, in a text message to STONE, Person 2 said that
his lawyer wanted to see him (Person 2). STONE responded, "‘Stonewall it. Plead
the fifth. Anything to save the plan' . . . Richard Nixon." On or about November
20, 2017, Person 2 informed HPSCI that he declined HPSCI's request for a
voluntary interview.
It looks like a quote. Nixon probably isn't the greatest person to quote when you're being investigated.
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
Looks like they're finding a lot of witches.
OK, now revise your dates to consider that this request was asked 2 years ago, in 2017.
I'm not sure what the purpose of this exercise is. I mean, I agree it's not feasible, but beyond that I'm not sure what the point of discussion is. He was just asking, he doesn't know.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Well, tough guy, don't let me stop you from showing pictures of this "screaming horde of violent criminals, waving flags of another country, throwing rocks, and trying to break into our country." Make sure they're actually violent criminals and that they actually have flags and are throwing rocks. I wouldn't want you to change the goalposts if you're going to throw out a bunch of hyperbolic bullshit.
Next, explain the logic behind a violent criminal who decides to sneak into another country, and decides to bring his giant flag to wave along the way. Because there's no better way to be stealthy than screaming while waving your foreign flag, right?
So, go ahead, show your evidence that the situation that you have been frightened into believing and that you shit your pants over daily is actually happening. Or, you know, shut the fuck up.