Commutation of Stone Sentence Correct Move

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

Its ridiculous that the elites should have to serve time.

What truly was ridiculous was how Stone was arrested. CNN called in for playing up the optics
was the epitome of politics going awry. Thomas you really need to focus on are the real stories
and not what you're being fed.

Obviously this case will provoke partisan feelings but the concept of a "pardon" seems to be unAmerican. Its something that a medieval king or a sultan would hand out not an elected President in a supposed meritocracy.
It creates elites because it relies on who you know. That cant be right.

You act like Trump has been the only president to do such a thing. Where was the outrage when Obama did such things.
You were as quiet as a church mouse. interesting.....

Obama did not issue pardons or commutations to his cronies. He also issued a pardon issued to Arpaio. The fact that Barr is not defending it shows wrong it was.

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

Mueller report sheds new light on how the Russians hacked the DNC and the Clinton campaign | TechCrunch

The Mueller report contains new information about how the Russian government hacked documents and emails from Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and

techcrunch.com

Now show me where the FBI did an independent review of the DNC servers?

PolitiFact - Trump mentioned the ‘Crowdstrike’ conspiracy during his call with Ukraine. Here’s what that means

Right after President Donald Trump asked the president of Ukraine "do us a favor," Trump made an unexplained r

www.politifact.com

Glad to see you acknowledge the FBI never did an independent investigation of the DNC servers and relied solely on Crowstrike who was hire by the DNC and even then the FBI only accessed a review as opposed to a full report...like I said the entire case against Stone is dependent on Russia having hacked the DNC server which the FBI has no way to prove happened since they never did an independent review.

What the FBI got was as good as examining the server. There is no doubt the Russians hacked the DNC servers. Only brainwashed fools like you believe this.

Okay first you lie that Nixon was worst than trump now in your desperation you lie that Obama did not issue pardons To his cronies then you make up the most comical ludicrous lie of them all that Obama pardoned that sherif when everyone in the whole world knows trump did after Obama put him behind bars.what crack do you some dude.lol

 

[Billiejeens]

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?

Nope
Factually false.

 

[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

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

I wasn’t counting on you to accept anything I say. I’ve been waiting for you to challenge it and make counter arguments but all you got are empty statements and petty insults. That’s called trolling.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

If you have a point somewhere in that 13 pages, post it.

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

It wasn't Mueller, more likely that he and Biden were playing jacks in the corner.
Weisman is most likely the one to exhibit criminal behavior.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Because the communications had to do with the release, by Wikileaks, of material stolen from the DNC

Is it illegal for Wikileaks to publish that material? Why?

 

[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

I wasn’t counting on you to accept anything I say. I’ve been waiting for you to challenge it and make counter arguments but all you got are empty statements and petty insults. That’s called trolling.

You are aware that one can't prove a negative?
I doubt that you are at that level

 

[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.

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.

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

So now you're saying he didn't "conspire"?

 

[berg80]

This whole article is an essential read from beginning to end.

"In the Feb. 10 sentencing memo, under the heading of “The Seriousness of the Offense,” the prosecutors quote the Federalist Papers on the danger of foreign interference in U.S. elections.

“Foreign election interference is the ‘most deadly adversar[y] of republican government.’ Federalist Papers No. 68 (Hamilton),” the memo says. “Investigations into election interference concern our national security, the integrity of our democratic processes, and the enforcement of our nation’s criminal laws. These are issues of paramount concern to every citizen of the United States. Obstructing such critical investigations thus strikes at the very heart of our American democracy.”

Roger Stone's Crimes - FactCheck.org

President Donald Trump has criticized the Justice Department for prosecuting the president's longtime associate Roger Stone and recommending that Stone serve up to nine years in prison. That's his opinion, but he falsely supports it by claiming Stone did "nothing" and "nobody even can define...

www.factcheck.org

 

[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

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

I wasn’t counting on you to accept anything I say. I’ve been waiting for you to challenge it and make counter arguments but all you got are empty statements and petty insults. That’s called trolling.

You are aware that one can't prove a negative?
I doubt that you are at that level

You don’t need to prove a negative. If you are accusing our intelligence agencies and congressmen Of lying about the intel then you show proof that they are lying. That’s not a negative.

 

[berg80]

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

Indeed.

"Contrary to Trump’s remarks, Stone’s crimes are defined under “18 U.S.C. § 1505 (count 1); making numerous false statements to Congress in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) (counts 2-6); and witness tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1) (count 7),” according to the sentencing memo.

Title 18, Section 1505 makes it illegal if anyone “willfully withholds” any documents or “misrepresents” any answers in testimony before any investigation “by either House, or any committee of either House.” This carries a penalty of not more than five years.

Title 18, Section 1001 (a)(2) makes it a crime to make “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” to Congress or any other branch of the federal government. This also carries a penalty of up to five years.

Title 18, Section 1512(b)(1) makes it illegal to “influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding.” Witness tampering is the most serious of the charges, carrying a penalty of no more than 20 years."

Roger Stone's Crimes - FactCheck.org

President Donald Trump has criticized the Justice Department for prosecuting the president's longtime associate Roger Stone and recommending that Stone serve up to nine years in prison. That's his opinion, but he falsely supports it by claiming Stone did "nothing" and "nobody even can define...

www.factcheck.org

 

[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.

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

So now you're saying he didn't "conspire"?

He did in exactly the way I laid out. Why aren’t you answering my question?

 

[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

I wasn’t counting on you to accept anything I say. I’ve been waiting for you to challenge it and make counter arguments but all you got are empty statements and petty insults. That’s called trolling.

You are aware that one can't prove a negative?
I doubt that you are at that level

You don’t need to prove a negative. If you are accusing our intelligence agencies and congressmen Of lying about the intel then you show proof that they are lying. That’s not a negative.

Do you even remember what we were talking about?

 

[berg80]

Basically, Stone kept the campaign apprised of what these guys had illegally stolen by way of his communications with Wikileaks.

U.S. Charges Russian GRU Officers with International Hacking and Related Influence and Disinformation Operations

A grand jury in the Western District of Pennsylvania has indicted seven defendants, all officers in the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), a military intelligence agency of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, for computer hacking, wire fraud, aggravated...

www.justice.gov

He kept Trump personally apprised. Had Stone told the truth about that, Don would have been charged with perjury in the Mueller investigation since he lied in his written answers about communications with Stone.

 

[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

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

I wasn’t counting on you to accept anything I say. I’ve been waiting for you to challenge it and make counter arguments but all you got are empty statements and petty insults. That’s called trolling.

You are aware that one can't prove a negative?
I doubt that you are at that level

You don’t need to prove a negative. If you are accusing our intelligence agencies and congressmen Of lying about the intel then you show proof that they are lying. That’s not a negative.

Do you even remember what we were talking about?

Yes

 

[bottlecap]

Julian Assange obtained DNC e-mails about how the DNC was being unfair to Bernie Sanders. How he got them he is not telling, but stated categorically it was NOT from Russia.

It is NOT criminal, or even wrong, for a political allay to seek that information beneficial for his candidate and detrimental to the opponent, That is how US POLITICS work. Stone had nothing to do with obtaining the e-mails from the DNC, which is where Illegality might have occurred, so the whole case against him was a Deep State Scam.

 

[berg80]

you lie that Obama did not issue pardons To his cronies

Name them.

 

[berg80]

Julian Assange obtained DNC e-mails about how the DNC was being unfair to Bernie Sanders. How he got them he is not telling, but stated categorically it was NOT from Russia.

OK, but we know Assange was lying about that. That has clearly been established unequivocally.

 

[berg80]

It is NOT criminal, or even wrong, for a political allay to seek that information beneficial for his candidate

Wait. You're saying it wasn't wrong for the campaign to solicit the release of material stolen from the DNC by Russia? Geeeesh. I know you guys have had your minds twisted by being cult members in Don's cult but.........................................really!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bottlecap]

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.

A "Jury" determined! That is a laugh, as the JURY you mentioned was based in Washington DC. The Jury pool consists of Washing DC residents and a look at the results of the 2016 election reveal the following:
Results

2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia

Party Popular vote

Democratic 282,830

Republican 12,723

Independent 6,551

YES, 22 Democrats for every 1 Republican. Any serious investigation into political wrongdoing should be conducted in a politically neutral arena.