Commutation of Stone Sentence Correct Move

[colfax_m]

The Electoral College tabulates and forwards the votes from the people who voted for President

No they don't. The electors actually vote for the president. Trump won the presidency because he got 304 electoral votes, not because he got 62 million people's votes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

As you're already aware, publishing those materials isn't illegal.
Stone didn't steal them, or publish them, why was he questioned again?

 

[Billiejeens]

The Electoral College tabulates and forwards the votes from the people who voted for President

No they don't. The electors actually vote for the president. Trump won the presidency because he got 304 electoral votes, not because he got 62 million people's votes.

You are an idiot.
Dismissed.

 

[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

Says the guy with NO PROOF. What a joke

Poor baby

 

[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

Yup. Very serious.

Ok, then what should be done with people who conspire with these very serious crimes?

 

[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

Poor baby

I reported your trolling... you’re welcome

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Here is the Truth about what Stone said, from Stone himself:

"Those like Speaker Pelosi who make the baseless claim that my refusal to testify against the President means I covered up some act of wrong-doing by the President in return for commutation are purposely twisting what I have said repeatedly on the record. I refused to bear false witness against the President. I refused to let prosecutors compose false testimony regarding the content of multiple phone conversations with candidate Trump in 2016. I refused to lie despite intense legal and financial pressure to do so."
____

The O.P. is an Adam Schiff level damn liar.

Amen to that

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ok, then what should be done with people who conspire with these very serious crimes?

You'll have to define conspire in the context of this issue.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

He did the right thing. Everybody knows Stone was railroaded

Who is everybody? I knew Stone was guilty before he was even charged. He posted to Twitter about John Podesta's emails on WikiLeaks, HOURS before they published them.

The only people who believe Stone is innocent are fools like YOU.

Coming from someone who tells lies we had a great economy under Obama and ignores how he was a mass murderer starting a new war you need to look in the mirror when calling someone a fool.lol

 

[LA RAM FAN]

He did the right thing. Everybody knows Stone was railroaded

Who is everybody? I knew Stone was guilty before he was even charged. He posted to Twitter about John Podesta's emails on WikiLeaks, HOURS before they published them.

The only people who believe Stone is innocent are fools like YOU.

You know Jack Shit about anything.

The UNDERSTATEMENT of the century as I just proved.lol

 

[LA RAM FAN]

*Stone, in fact, said the corrupt part out loud, in a conversation with NBC’s Howard Fineman shortly before Trump’s announcement. “He knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him,” Stone told Fineman. “It would have eased my situation considerably. But I didn’t.”*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/11/trumps-self-serving-help-roger-stone/

The takeaway here isn't hard to figure out. “He knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him,”...............meaning..............Stone didn't tell the damaging info he knew about.

What information was that?

"A former top Trump campaign official on Tuesday testified that President Donald Trump talked to political trickster Roger Stone about WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign.
That testimony by Rick Gates at Stone’s trial contrasts with Trump’s claim last November that he did not recall speaking to Stone about WikiLeaks, the document disclosure group that during the 2016 campaign released emails stolen from the Democratic Party and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s own campaign chief.

Gates testified in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., that less than a minute after finishing a July 2016 call from Stone, Trump indicated that “more information would be coming” from Wikileaks."

Trump talked to Roger Stone about WikiLeaks, Rick Gates says in testimony contradicting the president

Trump had told special counsel Robert Mueller last November in a written response, "I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with" Roger Stone.

www.cnbc.com

I'd say Stone earned more than a commutation for obstructing the investigation. He should get a penthouse suite in Trump Tower or a permanent room at Mar-A-Lago. Because if Stone hadn't betrayed the country, justice, and basic decency Individual 1 may very well have been impeachment for conspiracy (with Wikileaks) to defraud the voting public. This, on top of the 4 counts of obstruction Mueller provided evidence of in his report.

Wow, y’all really only hear what you want to hear. You realize this is more easily read as “they wanted me to say the shit they wanted me to say in order to get off Scott free”, er nah...do y’all not even hear that part?

Exactly,could not have said it better myself.

 

[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

Poor baby

I reported your trolling... you’re welcome

Fuck you

Another report... keep it up, let’s get you banned

 

[Toro]

Trump commutes Roger Stone's sentence, days before prison term set to begin

The White House announced Friday that President Trump signed an Executive Grant of Clemency commuting the "unjust sentence" of Roger Stone, just days before the longtime political operative is slated to report to prison to serve more than three years for charges stemming from former Special...

www.foxnews.com

Man was a casualty of Mueller witch hunt that never should have happened.

Why do you hate the COTUS so much?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Wow, y’all really only hear what you want to hear. You realize this is more easily read as “they wanted me to say the shit they wanted me to say in order to get off Scott free”, er nah...do y’all not even hear that part?

He lied (to Congress and Mueller) about conversations and communications Mueller knew Stone had because Mueller had the evidence. Then he refused to reveal the content of the communications.
That is what he was referring to when he said, “He (Trump) knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him,” Stone told Fineman. “It would have eased my situation considerably. But I didn’t.”*

Mueller obviously didn't have the context of any conversations he had with Trump. Mueller's claims are pure speculation.

What Stone said is that Mueller wanted him to lie and he refused.

Mueller is the American version of a Gestapo agent.

Thank you.gives standing ovation.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The whole Stone case is based on Russia hacking the DNC and giving the info to Wikileaks, which has never been proven

You folks believe in so many right wing media inspired lies I can hardly keep up.

CIA Identifies Russians Who Gave DNC Emails to WikiLeaks

Officials say the report concludes Russia tried to help Donald Trump's campaign.

time.com

According to Clapper, a man who admitted he lied to Congress. If they have the proof, then where is it? How do they have such proof when they never examined the server?

Once again, you're regurgitating lies that your party masters told you to regurgitate.

Man you ain’t kidding.lol

 

[berg80]

Stone didn't steal them, or publish them, why was he questioned again?

Are you willfully ignorant or does it come naturally?

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/7042-aaron-zelinsky-testimony/ad5f15a1e37896bd07bb/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

 

[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

Says the guy with NO PROOF. What a joke

Poor baby

I reported your trolling... you’re welcome

Fuck you

Another report... keep it up, let’s get you banned

Poor baby
Me not excepting your idiotic words as "proof" and telling you that
is not tolling
It's just not excepting your bullshit

 

[berg80]

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

Because the communications had to do with the release, by Wikileaks, of material stolen from the DNC by the GRU in order to influence our election. The GRU being an intel arm of a foreign adversary. Got it?

 

[Slade3200]

Ok, then what should be done with people who conspire with these very serious crimes?

You'll have to define conspire in the context of this issue.

Well in stones case I’ll let the legal findings speak for themselves....

A jury determined Stone lied repeatedly to members of Congress. He lied about the identity of his intermediary to WikiLeaks. He lied about the existence of written communications with his intermediary. He lied by denying he had communicated with the Trump campaign about the timing of WikiLeaks’ releases. He in fact updated senior campaign officials repeatedly about WikiLeaks. And he tampered with a witness, imploring him to stonewall Congress.

 

[bottlecap]

*Stone, in fact, said the corrupt part out loud, in a conversation with NBC’s Howard Fineman shortly before Trump’s announcement. “He knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him,” Stone told Fineman. “It would have eased my situation considerably. But I didn’t.”*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/11/trumps-self-serving-help-roger-stone/

The takeaway here isn't hard to figure out. “He knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him,”...............meaning..............Stone didn't tell the damaging info he knew about.

What information was that?

"A former top Trump campaign official on Tuesday testified that President Donald Trump talked to political trickster Roger Stone about WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign.
That testimony by Rick Gates at Stone’s trial contrasts with Trump’s claim last November that he did not recall speaking to Stone about WikiLeaks, the document disclosure group that during the 2016 campaign released emails stolen from the Democratic Party and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s own campaign chief.

Gates testified in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., that less than a minute after finishing a July 2016 call from Stone, Trump indicated that “more information would be coming” from Wikileaks."

Trump talked to Roger Stone about WikiLeaks, Rick Gates says in testimony contradicting the president

Trump had told special counsel Robert Mueller last November in a written response, "I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with" Roger Stone.

www.cnbc.com

I'd say Stone earned more than a commutation for obstructing the investigation. He should get a penthouse suite in Trump Tower or a permanent room at Mar-A-Lago. Because if Stone hadn't betrayed the country, justice, and basic decency Individual 1 may very well have been impeachment for conspiracy (with Wikileaks) to defraud the voting public. This, on top of the 4 counts of obstruction Mueller provided evidence of in his report.

Wow, y’all really only hear what you want to hear. You realize this is more easily read as “they wanted me to say the shit they wanted me to say in order to get off Scott free”, er nah...do y’all not even hear that part?

Exactly,could not have said it better myself.