Commutation of Stone Sentence Correct Move

[Billiejeens]

I'm guessing that Roger Stone had something to do with either Trump's campaign and/or the Russian crap. Concerning many things in this and past administrations I've consider my ignorance as bliss.

There was no Russian Crap.

Russians stole emails from the DNC and leaked them through Wikileaks. That’s Russian crap.

Except that didn't happen

Yes it did... it was uncovered and verified by the FBI. Do some research

You’re talking to a “Seth Rich did it” conspiracy theorist. Anything that doesn’t confirm their nonsense is automatically deep state lies.

It’s almost impossible to penetrate their bubble.

Apparently so... these people fascinate me

These People Versus You people.

These People said No - When you people said Candidate Trump will lose.
These People said No - When you people said the Convention would stop him.
These People said No - When you people said that Faithless Electors would stop Trump.
These People said No - When you people said that he wouldn't be sworn in (Even Biden said that was crazy)
These People said N0 - When you people said that Russian Collusion would stop President Trump
These People said N0 - When you people said that Mueller would stop Trump
These People said No - When you People said that the Ukraine Hoax would stop President Trump
These People said No - When you people said that Flynn, Cohen, Stormy & Avenatti, and Access Hollywood would stop Trump
These People said No - When you people said that North Korea would bring President Trump down.
These People said No - When you people said that his handling of Iran would bring President Trump down.
These People said N0 - When you people said that his handling of the death of Khashoggi would bring President Trump down.

The list is longer, but you get the idea (maybe)

These People have yet to be wrong
You people have yet to be right.

"The People" don't elect the president.

false of course

 

[Markle]

Friends of Trump get a "Free Pass!"

Just wait until he is a "Lame Duck."

Trump will OPEN the floodgates to pardons for those who can pay $$$$!

Do you mean like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama?

 

[Slade3200]

Well, when you take everything out of context

You're making a comparison between any commutation by Obama (or any prez) and Trump's commutation of Stone and then have the audacity to say I'm taking something out of context. Wow.

"On August 2, Stone again called then-candidate Trump, and the two spoke for approximately ten minutes. Again, we don’t know what was said, but less than an hour after speaking with Trump, Stone emailed an associate of his Jerome Corsi, to have someone else who was living in London“ see Assange.” Less than two days later, on August 2, 2016, Corsi emailed Stone. Corsi told Stone that, “Word is friend in embassy [Assange] plans 2 more dumps. One “in October” and that “impact planned to be very damaging,” “time to let more than Podesta to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC. That appears to be the game hackers are now about."
Around this time, Deputy Campaign Chairman Gates continued to have conversations with Stone about more information that would be coming out from WikiLeaks. Gates was also present for a phone call between Stone and Trump. While Gates couldn’t hear the content of the call, he could hear Stone’s voice on the phone and see his name on the caller ID. Thirty seconds after hanging up the phone with Stone, then-candidate Trump told Gates that there would be more information coming. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, also stated that he was present for a phone call between Trump and Stone, where Stone told Trump 4 that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and in a couple of days WikiLeaks would release information, and Trump responded, “oh good, alright.” Paul Manafort also stated that he spoke with Trump about Stone’s predictions and his claimed access to WikiLeaks, and that Trump instructed Manafort to stay in touch with Stone. In his written answers to the Special Counsel’s Office, President Trump denied remembering anything about his conversations with Stone during the summer of 2016, and he denied being aware that Stone had discussed WikiLeaks with anyone associated with the campaign. One week after submitting his written answers, President Trump criticized “flipping” witnesses and stated that Stone was “very brave” in indicating he would not cooperate with prosecutors. The Special Counsel’s Report stated that the President’s statements complimenting Stone “support the inference that the President intended to communicate a message that witnesses could be rewarded for refusing to provide testimony adverse to the President[.]”

Oh no!! Wikileaks published info........
Doesn't the Washington Post do the same thing?

I thought you already acknowledged the laws that were broken by Russians hacking and leaking DNC server info. Do you take that back? Do you think laws were not broken or that it’s not a big deal to break them?

I thought you already acknowledged the laws that were broken by Russians hacking and leaking DNC server info.

Yup, hacking is a crime. Stealing classified info is a crime.

Hasn't the Washington Post ever published stolen or hacked info?

Wasn’t this particular issue settled by NY Times vs United States?

Don't tell me, tell Slade.

Slade doesn't seem to have any problem with this point. In reality, it seems like a distraction from the actual topic.

A distraction is exactly what it was which is why I was trying to put a stamp on the previous conversation we were having before taking it down the rabbit hole. Whatdoyaknow... he never responded... shocking

 

[Slade3200]

Well, when you take everything out of context

You're making a comparison between any commutation by Obama (or any prez) and Trump's commutation of Stone and then have the audacity to say I'm taking something out of context. Wow.

"On August 2, Stone again called then-candidate Trump, and the two spoke for approximately ten minutes. Again, we don’t know what was said, but less than an hour after speaking with Trump, Stone emailed an associate of his Jerome Corsi, to have someone else who was living in London“ see Assange.” Less than two days later, on August 2, 2016, Corsi emailed Stone. Corsi told Stone that, “Word is friend in embassy [Assange] plans 2 more dumps. One “in October” and that “impact planned to be very damaging,” “time to let more than Podesta to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC. That appears to be the game hackers are now about."
Around this time, Deputy Campaign Chairman Gates continued to have conversations with Stone about more information that would be coming out from WikiLeaks. Gates was also present for a phone call between Stone and Trump. While Gates couldn’t hear the content of the call, he could hear Stone’s voice on the phone and see his name on the caller ID. Thirty seconds after hanging up the phone with Stone, then-candidate Trump told Gates that there would be more information coming. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, also stated that he was present for a phone call between Trump and Stone, where Stone told Trump 4 that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and in a couple of days WikiLeaks would release information, and Trump responded, “oh good, alright.” Paul Manafort also stated that he spoke with Trump about Stone’s predictions and his claimed access to WikiLeaks, and that Trump instructed Manafort to stay in touch with Stone. In his written answers to the Special Counsel’s Office, President Trump denied remembering anything about his conversations with Stone during the summer of 2016, and he denied being aware that Stone had discussed WikiLeaks with anyone associated with the campaign. One week after submitting his written answers, President Trump criticized “flipping” witnesses and stated that Stone was “very brave” in indicating he would not cooperate with prosecutors. The Special Counsel’s Report stated that the President’s statements complimenting Stone “support the inference that the President intended to communicate a message that witnesses could be rewarded for refusing to provide testimony adverse to the President[.]”

Oh no!! Wikileaks published info........
Doesn't the Washington Post do the same thing?

I thought you already acknowledged the laws that were broken by Russians hacking and leaking DNC server info. Do you take that back? Do you think laws were not broken or that it’s not a big deal to break them?

I thought you already acknowledged the laws that were broken by Russians hacking and leaking DNC server info.

Yup, hacking is a crime. Stealing classified info is a crime.

Hasn't the Washington Post ever published stolen or hacked info?

Wasn’t this particular issue settled by NY Times vs United States?

Don't tell me, tell Slade.

Slade doesn't seem to have any problem with this point. In reality, it seems like a distraction from the actual topic.

Slade doesn't seem to have any problem with this point.

I haven't seen him say that yet.

it seems like a distraction from the actual topic.

The topic seems to be communicating with Wikileaks.
Is there a law against communicating with Wikileaks? Should there be?

I have commented... I’m happy to talk about waPo after we finish this convo. Do you acknowledge that the Russians hack and leak campaign was a legit and punishable breach of law? Answer please... without sarcasm

 

[colfax_m]

The topic seems to be communicating with Wikileaks.
Is there a law against communicating with Wikileaks? Should there be?

There is no law against communicating with Wikileaks, but you may find yourself being asked about those communications if you do.

The real point here is to not lie to investigators. That's the law.

 

[colfax_m]

I'm guessing that Roger Stone had something to do with either Trump's campaign and/or the Russian crap. Concerning many things in this and past administrations I've consider my ignorance as bliss.

There was no Russian Crap.

Russians stole emails from the DNC and leaked them through Wikileaks. That’s Russian crap.

Except that didn't happen

Yes it did... it was uncovered and verified by the FBI. Do some research

You’re talking to a “Seth Rich did it” conspiracy theorist. Anything that doesn’t confirm their nonsense is automatically deep state lies.

It’s almost impossible to penetrate their bubble.

Apparently so... these people fascinate me

These People Versus You people.

These People said No - When you people said Candidate Trump will lose.
These People said No - When you people said the Convention would stop him.
These People said No - When you people said that Faithless Electors would stop Trump.
These People said No - When you people said that he wouldn't be sworn in (Even Biden said that was crazy)
These People said N0 - When you people said that Russian Collusion would stop President Trump
These People said N0 - When you people said that Mueller would stop Trump
These People said No - When you People said that the Ukraine Hoax would stop President Trump
These People said No - When you people said that Flynn, Cohen, Stormy & Avenatti, and Access Hollywood would stop Trump
These People said No - When you people said that North Korea would bring President Trump down.
These People said No - When you people said that his handling of Iran would bring President Trump down.
These People said N0 - When you people said that his handling of the death of Khashoggi would bring President Trump down.

The list is longer, but you get the idea (maybe)

These People have yet to be wrong
You people have yet to be right.

"The People" don't elect the president.

false of course

I guess you've not heard of the electoral college because that's who elects the president.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you acknowledge that the Russians hack and leak campaign was a legit and punishable breach of law?

Asked and answered. More than once.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The topic seems to be communicating with Wikileaks.
Is there a law against communicating with Wikileaks? Should there be?

There is no law against communicating with Wikileaks, but you may find yourself being asked about those communications if you do.

The real point here is to not lie to investigators. That's the law.

There is no law against communicating with Wikileaks, but you may find yourself being asked about those communications if you do.

Why? If it's not illegal, why would law enforcement, or anyone, give a shit?

 

[Billiejeens]

Well, when you take everything out of context

You're making a comparison between any commutation by Obama (or any prez) and Trump's commutation of Stone and then have the audacity to say I'm taking something out of context. Wow.

"On August 2, Stone again called then-candidate Trump, and the two spoke for approximately ten minutes. Again, we don’t know what was said, but less than an hour after speaking with Trump, Stone emailed an associate of his Jerome Corsi, to have someone else who was living in London“ see Assange.” Less than two days later, on August 2, 2016, Corsi emailed Stone. Corsi told Stone that, “Word is friend in embassy [Assange] plans 2 more dumps. One “in October” and that “impact planned to be very damaging,” “time to let more than Podesta to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC. That appears to be the game hackers are now about."
Around this time, Deputy Campaign Chairman Gates continued to have conversations with Stone about more information that would be coming out from WikiLeaks. Gates was also present for a phone call between Stone and Trump. While Gates couldn’t hear the content of the call, he could hear Stone’s voice on the phone and see his name on the caller ID. Thirty seconds after hanging up the phone with Stone, then-candidate Trump told Gates that there would be more information coming. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, also stated that he was present for a phone call between Trump and Stone, where Stone told Trump 4 that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and in a couple of days WikiLeaks would release information, and Trump responded, “oh good, alright.” Paul Manafort also stated that he spoke with Trump about Stone’s predictions and his claimed access to WikiLeaks, and that Trump instructed Manafort to stay in touch with Stone. In his written answers to the Special Counsel’s Office, President Trump denied remembering anything about his conversations with Stone during the summer of 2016, and he denied being aware that Stone had discussed WikiLeaks with anyone associated with the campaign. One week after submitting his written answers, President Trump criticized “flipping” witnesses and stated that Stone was “very brave” in indicating he would not cooperate with prosecutors. The Special Counsel’s Report stated that the President’s statements complimenting Stone “support the inference that the President intended to communicate a message that witnesses could be rewarded for refusing to provide testimony adverse to the President[.]”

Oh no!! Wikileaks published info........
Doesn't the Washington Post do the same thing?

I thought you already acknowledged the laws that were broken by Russians hacking and leaking DNC server info. Do you take that back? Do you think laws were not broken or that it’s not a big deal to break them?

I thought you already acknowledged the laws that were broken by Russians hacking and leaking DNC server info.

Yup, hacking is a crime. Stealing classified info is a crime.

Hasn't the Washington Post ever published stolen or hacked info?

Wasn’t this particular issue settled by NY Times vs United States?

Don't tell me, tell Slade.

Slade doesn't seem to have any problem with this point. In reality, it seems like a distraction from the actual topic.

Slade doesn't seem to have any problem with this point.

I haven't seen him say that yet.

it seems like a distraction from the actual topic.

The topic seems to be communicating with Wikileaks.
Is there a law against communicating with Wikileaks? Should there be?

I have commented... I’m happy to talk about waPo after we finish this convo. Do you acknowledge that the Russians hack and leak campaign was a legit and punishable breach of law? Answer please... without sarcasm

There was no Russian Hack -

 

[Billiejeens]

I'm guessing that Roger Stone had something to do with either Trump's campaign and/or the Russian crap. Concerning many things in this and past administrations I've consider my ignorance as bliss.

There was no Russian Crap.

Russians stole emails from the DNC and leaked them through Wikileaks. That’s Russian crap.

Except that didn't happen

Yes it did... it was uncovered and verified by the FBI. Do some research

You’re talking to a “Seth Rich did it” conspiracy theorist. Anything that doesn’t confirm their nonsense is automatically deep state lies.

It’s almost impossible to penetrate their bubble.

Apparently so... these people fascinate me

These People Versus You people.

These People said No - When you people said Candidate Trump will lose.
These People said No - When you people said the Convention would stop him.
These People said No - When you people said that Faithless Electors would stop Trump.
These People said No - When you people said that he wouldn't be sworn in (Even Biden said that was crazy)
These People said N0 - When you people said that Russian Collusion would stop President Trump
These People said N0 - When you people said that Mueller would stop Trump
These People said No - When you People said that the Ukraine Hoax would stop President Trump
These People said No - When you people said that Flynn, Cohen, Stormy & Avenatti, and Access Hollywood would stop Trump
These People said No - When you people said that North Korea would bring President Trump down.
These People said No - When you people said that his handling of Iran would bring President Trump down.
These People said N0 - When you people said that his handling of the death of Khashoggi would bring President Trump down.

The list is longer, but you get the idea (maybe)

These People have yet to be wrong
You people have yet to be right.

"The People" don't elect the president.

false of course

I guess you've not heard of the electoral college because that's who elects the president.

You are so fucking stupid - pretending to have a fucking clue.
The Electoral College tabulates and forwards the votes from the people who voted for President.

Do you think that the accounting firm that tabulates the votes for the Miss America Pageant elects the winner?

Same thing.

I was shocked and have been continually shocked, by the sheer number of you ignoramuses' that don't know how we elect our Presidents.

 

[Slade3200]

Do you acknowledge that the Russians hack and leak campaign was a legit and punishable breach of law?

Asked and answered. More than once.

Oh ok, you think they should be killed. That was a serious answer? Ok. How about people who conspired with them?

 

[Slade3200]

Well, when you take everything out of context

You're making a comparison between any commutation by Obama (or any prez) and Trump's commutation of Stone and then have the audacity to say I'm taking something out of context. Wow.

"On August 2, Stone again called then-candidate Trump, and the two spoke for approximately ten minutes. Again, we don’t know what was said, but less than an hour after speaking with Trump, Stone emailed an associate of his Jerome Corsi, to have someone else who was living in London“ see Assange.” Less than two days later, on August 2, 2016, Corsi emailed Stone. Corsi told Stone that, “Word is friend in embassy [Assange] plans 2 more dumps. One “in October” and that “impact planned to be very damaging,” “time to let more than Podesta to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC. That appears to be the game hackers are now about."
Around this time, Deputy Campaign Chairman Gates continued to have conversations with Stone about more information that would be coming out from WikiLeaks. Gates was also present for a phone call between Stone and Trump. While Gates couldn’t hear the content of the call, he could hear Stone’s voice on the phone and see his name on the caller ID. Thirty seconds after hanging up the phone with Stone, then-candidate Trump told Gates that there would be more information coming. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, also stated that he was present for a phone call between Trump and Stone, where Stone told Trump 4 that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and in a couple of days WikiLeaks would release information, and Trump responded, “oh good, alright.” Paul Manafort also stated that he spoke with Trump about Stone’s predictions and his claimed access to WikiLeaks, and that Trump instructed Manafort to stay in touch with Stone. In his written answers to the Special Counsel’s Office, President Trump denied remembering anything about his conversations with Stone during the summer of 2016, and he denied being aware that Stone had discussed WikiLeaks with anyone associated with the campaign. One week after submitting his written answers, President Trump criticized “flipping” witnesses and stated that Stone was “very brave” in indicating he would not cooperate with prosecutors. The Special Counsel’s Report stated that the President’s statements complimenting Stone “support the inference that the President intended to communicate a message that witnesses could be rewarded for refusing to provide testimony adverse to the President[.]”

Oh no!! Wikileaks published info........
Doesn't the Washington Post do the same thing?

I thought you already acknowledged the laws that were broken by Russians hacking and leaking DNC server info. Do you take that back? Do you think laws were not broken or that it’s not a big deal to break them?

I thought you already acknowledged the laws that were broken by Russians hacking and leaking DNC server info.

Yup, hacking is a crime. Stealing classified info is a crime.

Hasn't the Washington Post ever published stolen or hacked info?

Wasn’t this particular issue settled by NY Times vs United States?

Don't tell me, tell Slade.

Slade doesn't seem to have any problem with this point. In reality, it seems like a distraction from the actual topic.

Slade doesn't seem to have any problem with this point.

I haven't seen him say that yet.

it seems like a distraction from the actual topic.

The topic seems to be communicating with Wikileaks.
Is there a law against communicating with Wikileaks? Should there be?

I have commented... I’m happy to talk about waPo after we finish this convo. Do you acknowledge that the Russians hack and leak campaign was a legit and punishable breach of law? Answer please... without sarcasm

There was no Russian Hack -

Yes there was. Stop trolling.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you acknowledge that the Russians hack and leak campaign was a legit and punishable breach of law?

Asked and answered. More than once.

Oh ok, you think they should be killed. That’s was a serious answer? Ok. How about people who conspired with them?

Interfering with our national elections isn't a serious crime?

 

[Billiejeens]

Well, when you take everything out of context

You're making a comparison between any commutation by Obama (or any prez) and Trump's commutation of Stone and then have the audacity to say I'm taking something out of context. Wow.

"On August 2, Stone again called then-candidate Trump, and the two spoke for approximately ten minutes. Again, we don’t know what was said, but less than an hour after speaking with Trump, Stone emailed an associate of his Jerome Corsi, to have someone else who was living in London“ see Assange.” Less than two days later, on August 2, 2016, Corsi emailed Stone. Corsi told Stone that, “Word is friend in embassy [Assange] plans 2 more dumps. One “in October” and that “impact planned to be very damaging,” “time to let more than Podesta to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC. That appears to be the game hackers are now about."
Around this time, Deputy Campaign Chairman Gates continued to have conversations with Stone about more information that would be coming out from WikiLeaks. Gates was also present for a phone call between Stone and Trump. While Gates couldn’t hear the content of the call, he could hear Stone’s voice on the phone and see his name on the caller ID. Thirty seconds after hanging up the phone with Stone, then-candidate Trump told Gates that there would be more information coming. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, also stated that he was present for a phone call between Trump and Stone, where Stone told Trump 4 that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and in a couple of days WikiLeaks would release information, and Trump responded, “oh good, alright.” Paul Manafort also stated that he spoke with Trump about Stone’s predictions and his claimed access to WikiLeaks, and that Trump instructed Manafort to stay in touch with Stone. In his written answers to the Special Counsel’s Office, President Trump denied remembering anything about his conversations with Stone during the summer of 2016, and he denied being aware that Stone had discussed WikiLeaks with anyone associated with the campaign. One week after submitting his written answers, President Trump criticized “flipping” witnesses and stated that Stone was “very brave” in indicating he would not cooperate with prosecutors. The Special Counsel’s Report stated that the President’s statements complimenting Stone “support the inference that the President intended to communicate a message that witnesses could be rewarded for refusing to provide testimony adverse to the President[.]”

Oh no!! Wikileaks published info........
Doesn't the Washington Post do the same thing?

I thought you already acknowledged the laws that were broken by Russians hacking and leaking DNC server info. Do you take that back? Do you think laws were not broken or that it’s not a big deal to break them?

I thought you already acknowledged the laws that were broken by Russians hacking and leaking DNC server info.

Yup, hacking is a crime. Stealing classified info is a crime.

Hasn't the Washington Post ever published stolen or hacked info?

Wasn’t this particular issue settled by NY Times vs United States?

Don't tell me, tell Slade.

Slade doesn't seem to have any problem with this point. In reality, it seems like a distraction from the actual topic.

Slade doesn't seem to have any problem with this point.

I haven't seen him say that yet.

it seems like a distraction from the actual topic.

The topic seems to be communicating with Wikileaks.
Is there a law against communicating with Wikileaks? Should there be?

I have commented... I’m happy to talk about waPo after we finish this convo. Do you acknowledge that the Russians hack and leak campaign was a legit and punishable breach of law? Answer please... without sarcasm

There was no Russian Hack -

Yes there was. Stop trolling.

There wasn't
Get out of your bubble.

 

[Slade3200]

Do you acknowledge that the Russians hack and leak campaign was a legit and punishable breach of law?

Asked and answered. More than once.

Oh ok, you think they should be killed. That’s was a serious answer? Ok. How about people who conspired with them?

Interfering with our national elections isn't a serious crime?

You tell me. You wanted people shot for committing it

 

[Slade3200]

Well, when you take everything out of context

You're making a comparison between any commutation by Obama (or any prez) and Trump's commutation of Stone and then have the audacity to say I'm taking something out of context. Wow.

"On August 2, Stone again called then-candidate Trump, and the two spoke for approximately ten minutes. Again, we don’t know what was said, but less than an hour after speaking with Trump, Stone emailed an associate of his Jerome Corsi, to have someone else who was living in London“ see Assange.” Less than two days later, on August 2, 2016, Corsi emailed Stone. Corsi told Stone that, “Word is friend in embassy [Assange] plans 2 more dumps. One “in October” and that “impact planned to be very damaging,” “time to let more than Podesta to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC. That appears to be the game hackers are now about."
Around this time, Deputy Campaign Chairman Gates continued to have conversations with Stone about more information that would be coming out from WikiLeaks. Gates was also present for a phone call between Stone and Trump. While Gates couldn’t hear the content of the call, he could hear Stone’s voice on the phone and see his name on the caller ID. Thirty seconds after hanging up the phone with Stone, then-candidate Trump told Gates that there would be more information coming. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, also stated that he was present for a phone call between Trump and Stone, where Stone told Trump 4 that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and in a couple of days WikiLeaks would release information, and Trump responded, “oh good, alright.” Paul Manafort also stated that he spoke with Trump about Stone’s predictions and his claimed access to WikiLeaks, and that Trump instructed Manafort to stay in touch with Stone. In his written answers to the Special Counsel’s Office, President Trump denied remembering anything about his conversations with Stone during the summer of 2016, and he denied being aware that Stone had discussed WikiLeaks with anyone associated with the campaign. One week after submitting his written answers, President Trump criticized “flipping” witnesses and stated that Stone was “very brave” in indicating he would not cooperate with prosecutors. The Special Counsel’s Report stated that the President’s statements complimenting Stone “support the inference that the President intended to communicate a message that witnesses could be rewarded for refusing to provide testimony adverse to the President[.]”

Oh no!! Wikileaks published info........
Doesn't the Washington Post do the same thing?

I thought you already acknowledged the laws that were broken by Russians hacking and leaking DNC server info. Do you take that back? Do you think laws were not broken or that it’s not a big deal to break them?

I thought you already acknowledged the laws that were broken by Russians hacking and leaking DNC server info.

Yup, hacking is a crime. Stealing classified info is a crime.

Hasn't the Washington Post ever published stolen or hacked info?

Wasn’t this particular issue settled by NY Times vs United States?

Don't tell me, tell Slade.

Slade doesn't seem to have any problem with this point. In reality, it seems like a distraction from the actual topic.

Slade doesn't seem to have any problem with this point.

I haven't seen him say that yet.

it seems like a distraction from the actual topic.

The topic seems to be communicating with Wikileaks.
Is there a law against communicating with Wikileaks? Should there be?

I have commented... I’m happy to talk about waPo after we finish this convo. Do you acknowledge that the Russians hack and leak campaign was a legit and punishable breach of law? Answer please... without sarcasm

There was no Russian Hack -

Yes there was. Stop trolling.

There wasn't
Get out of your bubble.

Show any Evidence to back up your claims. I showed my proof. Where’s yours?

 

[Billiejeens]

Well, when you take everything out of context

You're making a comparison between any commutation by Obama (or any prez) and Trump's commutation of Stone and then have the audacity to say I'm taking something out of context. Wow.

"On August 2, Stone again called then-candidate Trump, and the two spoke for approximately ten minutes. Again, we don’t know what was said, but less than an hour after speaking with Trump, Stone emailed an associate of his Jerome Corsi, to have someone else who was living in London“ see Assange.” Less than two days later, on August 2, 2016, Corsi emailed Stone. Corsi told Stone that, “Word is friend in embassy [Assange] plans 2 more dumps. One “in October” and that “impact planned to be very damaging,” “time to let more than Podesta to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC. That appears to be the game hackers are now about."
Around this time, Deputy Campaign Chairman Gates continued to have conversations with Stone about more information that would be coming out from WikiLeaks. Gates was also present for a phone call between Stone and Trump. While Gates couldn’t hear the content of the call, he could hear Stone’s voice on the phone and see his name on the caller ID. Thirty seconds after hanging up the phone with Stone, then-candidate Trump told Gates that there would be more information coming. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, also stated that he was present for a phone call between Trump and Stone, where Stone told Trump 4 that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and in a couple of days WikiLeaks would release information, and Trump responded, “oh good, alright.” Paul Manafort also stated that he spoke with Trump about Stone’s predictions and his claimed access to WikiLeaks, and that Trump instructed Manafort to stay in touch with Stone. In his written answers to the Special Counsel’s Office, President Trump denied remembering anything about his conversations with Stone during the summer of 2016, and he denied being aware that Stone had discussed WikiLeaks with anyone associated with the campaign. One week after submitting his written answers, President Trump criticized “flipping” witnesses and stated that Stone was “very brave” in indicating he would not cooperate with prosecutors. The Special Counsel’s Report stated that the President’s statements complimenting Stone “support the inference that the President intended to communicate a message that witnesses could be rewarded for refusing to provide testimony adverse to the President[.]”

Oh no!! Wikileaks published info........
Doesn't the Washington Post do the same thing?

I thought you already acknowledged the laws that were broken by Russians hacking and leaking DNC server info. Do you take that back? Do you think laws were not broken or that it’s not a big deal to break them?

I thought you already acknowledged the laws that were broken by Russians hacking and leaking DNC server info.

Yup, hacking is a crime. Stealing classified info is a crime.

Hasn't the Washington Post ever published stolen or hacked info?

Wasn’t this particular issue settled by NY Times vs United States?

Don't tell me, tell Slade.

Slade doesn't seem to have any problem with this point. In reality, it seems like a distraction from the actual topic.

Slade doesn't seem to have any problem with this point.

I haven't seen him say that yet.

it seems like a distraction from the actual topic.

The topic seems to be communicating with Wikileaks.
Is there a law against communicating with Wikileaks? Should there be?

I have commented... I’m happy to talk about waPo after we finish this convo. Do you acknowledge that the Russians hack and leak campaign was a legit and punishable breach of law? Answer please... without sarcasm

There was no Russian Hack -

Yes there was. Stop trolling.

There wasn't
Get out of your bubble.

Show any Evidence to back up your claims. I showed my proof. Where’s yours?

I laugh at your proof

 

[Slade3200]

Well, when you take everything out of context

You're making a comparison between any commutation by Obama (or any prez) and Trump's commutation of Stone and then have the audacity to say I'm taking something out of context. Wow.

"On August 2, Stone again called then-candidate Trump, and the two spoke for approximately ten minutes. Again, we don’t know what was said, but less than an hour after speaking with Trump, Stone emailed an associate of his Jerome Corsi, to have someone else who was living in London“ see Assange.” Less than two days later, on August 2, 2016, Corsi emailed Stone. Corsi told Stone that, “Word is friend in embassy [Assange] plans 2 more dumps. One “in October” and that “impact planned to be very damaging,” “time to let more than Podesta to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC. That appears to be the game hackers are now about."
Around this time, Deputy Campaign Chairman Gates continued to have conversations with Stone about more information that would be coming out from WikiLeaks. Gates was also present for a phone call between Stone and Trump. While Gates couldn’t hear the content of the call, he could hear Stone’s voice on the phone and see his name on the caller ID. Thirty seconds after hanging up the phone with Stone, then-candidate Trump told Gates that there would be more information coming. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, also stated that he was present for a phone call between Trump and Stone, where Stone told Trump 4 that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and in a couple of days WikiLeaks would release information, and Trump responded, “oh good, alright.” Paul Manafort also stated that he spoke with Trump about Stone’s predictions and his claimed access to WikiLeaks, and that Trump instructed Manafort to stay in touch with Stone. In his written answers to the Special Counsel’s Office, President Trump denied remembering anything about his conversations with Stone during the summer of 2016, and he denied being aware that Stone had discussed WikiLeaks with anyone associated with the campaign. One week after submitting his written answers, President Trump criticized “flipping” witnesses and stated that Stone was “very brave” in indicating he would not cooperate with prosecutors. The Special Counsel’s Report stated that the President’s statements complimenting Stone “support the inference that the President intended to communicate a message that witnesses could be rewarded for refusing to provide testimony adverse to the President[.]”

Oh no!! Wikileaks published info........
Doesn't the Washington Post do the same thing?

I thought you already acknowledged the laws that were broken by Russians hacking and leaking DNC server info. Do you take that back? Do you think laws were not broken or that it’s not a big deal to break them?

I thought you already acknowledged the laws that were broken by Russians hacking and leaking DNC server info.

Yup, hacking is a crime. Stealing classified info is a crime.

Hasn't the Washington Post ever published stolen or hacked info?

Wasn’t this particular issue settled by NY Times vs United States?

Don't tell me, tell Slade.

Slade doesn't seem to have any problem with this point. In reality, it seems like a distraction from the actual topic.

Slade doesn't seem to have any problem with this point.

I haven't seen him say that yet.

it seems like a distraction from the actual topic.

The topic seems to be communicating with Wikileaks.
Is there a law against communicating with Wikileaks? Should there be?

I have commented... I’m happy to talk about waPo after we finish this convo. Do you acknowledge that the Russians hack and leak campaign was a legit and punishable breach of law? Answer please... without sarcasm

There was no Russian Hack -

Yes there was. Stop trolling.

There wasn't
Get out of your bubble.

Show any Evidence to back up your claims. I showed my proof. Where’s yours?

I laugh at your proof

Says the guy with NO PROOF. What a joke

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you acknowledge that the Russians hack and leak campaign was a legit and punishable breach of law?

Asked and answered. More than once.

Oh ok, you think they should be killed. That’s was a serious answer? Ok. How about people who conspired with them?

Interfering with our national elections isn't a serious crime?

You tell me. You wanted people shot for committing it

Yup. Very serious.

 

[colfax_m]

The topic seems to be communicating with Wikileaks.
Is there a law against communicating with Wikileaks? Should there be?

There is no law against communicating with Wikileaks, but you may find yourself being asked about those communications if you do.

The real point here is to not lie to investigators. That's the law.

There is no law against communicating with Wikileaks, but you may find yourself being asked about those communications if you do.

Why? If it's not illegal, why would law enforcement, or anyone, give a shit?

The topic seems to be communicating with Wikileaks.
Is there a law against communicating with Wikileaks? Should there be?

There is no law against communicating with Wikileaks, but you may find yourself being asked about those communications if you do.

The real point here is to not lie to investigators. That's the law.

There is no law against communicating with Wikileaks, but you may find yourself being asked about those communications if you do.

Why? If it's not illegal, why would law enforcement, or anyone, give a shit?

Because law enforcement is tracking down people who are releasing material stolen by a foreign government to figure out who was part of the illegal activity.