Billiejeens
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2019
- 32,195
- 20,930
- 1,845
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Commutation of Stone Sentence Correct Move
- Thread starter Bush92
- Start date
colfax_m
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2019
- 38,988
- 14,843
- 1,465
Who’s trolling? I’m providing accurate factual information. You’ve provided nothing.I’m the one that actually understands how the constitution works.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.The Electoral College tabulates and forwards the votes from the people who voted for President
You are an idiot.
Dismissed.
“the people” don’t elect the president. Never have. That’s how the constitution works.
Troll
Between the two of us, you’re trolling.
The people didn’t elect Trump. He was elected because a minority of voters was able to collect enough electoral votes to put him in office. It wasn’t the will of the people. The people mostly voted for someone else.
lantern2814
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2018
- 14,135
- 11,547
- 2,140
Stone was subjected to predawn raid on his home because he told Mule-er to fuck off, he would NOT lie for him. Obozo commuted the sentences of and released rapists, murderers, drug dealers and other scum. Stone’s crime? Refusing to lie for the senile Mule-er. See the difference there? No, of course not. Stage 4 TDS.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.Well, when you take everything out of context
"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[.]”
- Oct 12, 2009
- 7,701
- 7,211
- 1,985
Throw doubt and questions all you want but don’t pretend to know more than the people who actually have the intel. You have no clue about the details involved in investigating the DNC server. You got a talking point that sounds good but do you really know what’s technically involved?Do you really think you know more about the details of these cases than the FBI?You folks believe in so many right wing media inspired lies I can hardly keep up.The whole Stone case is based on Russia hacking the DNC and giving the info to Wikileaks, which has never been proven
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 andtechcrunch.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 rwww.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.
No, I'm just going by what the FBI has admitted, being that they never conducted an independent investigation of the DNC server/cloud based imaging, nor did they review a final report from Crowdstrike.
It's amusing how liberals who support abolishing ICE and now Police are so trusting of the FBI.
Apparently the FBI doesn't have a clue either, since they relied on
colfax_m
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2019
- 38,988
- 14,843
- 1,465
You're purposely distorting the truth.No, I'm just going by what the FBI has admitted, being that they never conducted an independent investigation of the DNC server/cloud based imaging, nor did they review a final report from Crowdstrike.
It's amusing how liberals who support abolishing ICE and now Police are so trusting of the FBI.
"Source close to the investigation says FBI didn't need the DNC servers because it already had the forensic data from upstream collection."
The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.
Comey: DNC denied FBI’s requests for access to hacked servers
The DNC and the bureau have been quibbling in public reports over whether the request was made.thehill.com
Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails
"Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry’s testimony. Henry is asked when “the Russians” exfiltrated the data from DNC. Henry: “We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.”
More from Crowdstrike’s Shaun Henry: “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”
This takes me back to the qualified, ambiguous Mueller language I highlighted in my @RCInvestigates report “Crowdstrikeout.” The attribution of DNC hacking to Russia is tentative & appears at least partly based on inference, not hard evidence.
Recall that the Mueller report, in recounting the alleged Russian theft of emails, added the qualifier that the GRU “officers *appear* to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments.” Perhaps they weren’t sure, because Crowdstrike wasn’t either.
Henry: “Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn’t see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw.”
There’s a quote from Assange — maybe someone can find it, I can’t rn — saying that it’s possible that many different actors, including state actors, got inside the DNC system, but that doesn’t mean they actually stole (aka exfiltrated) the emails Wikileaks later released.
To be clear, Crowdstrike says it believes Russians hacked into DNC. But it admits to not having direct evidence that Russians actually exfiltrated the emails from DNC. This would track w/ what Assange has said: Russia may have hacked DNC, but they didn’t provide stolen emails."
I want to stress what a pretty big revelation this is. Crowdstrike, the firm behind the accusation that Russia hacked & stole DNC emails, admitted to Congress that it has no direct evidence Russia actually stole/exfiltrated the emails. More from Crowdstrike president Shaun Henry:
Overstated and out of context. There was ample information and evidence that demonstrated it was Russia beyond any reasonable doubt. Far more information and evidence was provided by law enforcement that went way beyond the capabilities that CrowdStrike had available to them.
Although CrowdStrike didn’t watch the files be exfiltrated, the DoJ was able to review traffic logs which demonstrated such.
Billiejeens
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2019
- 32,195
- 20,930
- 1,845
You're purposely distorting the truth.No, I'm just going by what the FBI has admitted, being that they never conducted an independent investigation of the DNC server/cloud based imaging, nor did they review a final report from Crowdstrike.
It's amusing how liberals who support abolishing ICE and now Police are so trusting of the FBI.
"Source close to the investigation says FBI didn't need the DNC servers because it already had the forensic data from upstream collection."
The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.
Comey: DNC denied FBI’s requests for access to hacked servers
The DNC and the bureau have been quibbling in public reports over whether the request was made.
Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails
"Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry’s testimony. Henry is asked when “the Russians” exfiltrated the data from DNC. Henry: “We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.”
More from Crowdstrike’s Shaun Henry: “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”
This takes me back to the qualified, ambiguous Mueller language I highlighted in my @RCInvestigates report “Crowdstrikeout.” The attribution of DNC hacking to Russia is tentative & appears at least partly based on inference, not hard evidence.
Recall that the Mueller report, in recounting the alleged Russian theft of emails, added the qualifier that the GRU “officers *appear* to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments.” Perhaps they weren’t sure, because Crowdstrike wasn’t either.
Henry: “Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn’t see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw.”
There’s a quote from Assange — maybe someone can find it, I can’t rn — saying that it’s possible that many different actors, including state actors, got inside the DNC system, but that doesn’t mean they actually stole (aka exfiltrated) the emails Wikileaks later released.
To be clear, Crowdstrike says it believes Russians hacked into DNC. But it admits to not having direct evidence that Russians actually exfiltrated the emails from DNC. This would track w/ what Assange has said: Russia may have hacked DNC, but they didn’t provide stolen emails."
I want to stress what a pretty big revelation this is. Crowdstrike, the firm behind the accusation that Russia hacked & stole DNC emails, admitted to Congress that it has no direct evidence Russia actually stole/exfiltrated the emails. More from Crowdstrike president Shaun Henry:
Thanks
But
Won't matter
Everything that Crowdstrike said in public - truth@
What they said under oath - no!
That's how evil these bastards are
Billiejeens
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2019
- 32,195
- 20,930
- 1,845
You're purposely distorting the truth.No, I'm just going by what the FBI has admitted, being that they never conducted an independent investigation of the DNC server/cloud based imaging, nor did they review a final report from Crowdstrike.
It's amusing how liberals who support abolishing ICE and now Police are so trusting of the FBI.
"Source close to the investigation says FBI didn't need the DNC servers because it already had the forensic data from upstream collection."
The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.
Comey: DNC denied FBI’s requests for access to hacked servers
The DNC and the bureau have been quibbling in public reports over whether the request was made.
Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails
"Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry’s testimony. Henry is asked when “the Russians” exfiltrated the data from DNC. Henry: “We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.”
More from Crowdstrike’s Shaun Henry: “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”
This takes me back to the qualified, ambiguous Mueller language I highlighted in my @RCInvestigates report “Crowdstrikeout.” The attribution of DNC hacking to Russia is tentative & appears at least partly based on inference, not hard evidence.
Recall that the Mueller report, in recounting the alleged Russian theft of emails, added the qualifier that the GRU “officers *appear* to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments.” Perhaps they weren’t sure, because Crowdstrike wasn’t either.
Henry: “Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn’t see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw.”
There’s a quote from Assange — maybe someone can find it, I can’t rn — saying that it’s possible that many different actors, including state actors, got inside the DNC system, but that doesn’t mean they actually stole (aka exfiltrated) the emails Wikileaks later released.
To be clear, Crowdstrike says it believes Russians hacked into DNC. But it admits to not having direct evidence that Russians actually exfiltrated the emails from DNC. This would track w/ what Assange has said: Russia may have hacked DNC, but they didn’t provide stolen emails."
I want to stress what a pretty big revelation this is. Crowdstrike, the firm behind the accusation that Russia hacked & stole DNC emails, admitted to Congress that it has no direct evidence Russia actually stole/exfiltrated the emails. More from Crowdstrike president Shaun Henry:
Overstated and out of context. There was ample information and evidence that demonstrated it was Russia beyond any reasonable doubt. Far more information and evidence was provided by law enforcement that went way beyond the capabilities that CrowdStrike had available to them.
Although CrowdStrike didn’t watch the files be exfiltrated, the DoJ was able to review traffic logs which demonstrated such.
Factually false
Also AG Barr called the conviction righteous and the sentencing fair.
Can you post the conspiracy charge?
colfax_m
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2019
- 38,988
- 14,843
- 1,465
Stone lied to Congress then he threatened witnesses who would reveal his lie.Stone was subjected to predawn raid on his home because he told Mule-er to fuck off, he would NOT lie for him. Obozo commuted the sentences of and released rapists, murderers, drug dealers and other scum. Stone’s crime? Refusing to lie for the senile Mule-er. See the difference there? No, of course not. Stage 4 TDS.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.Well, when you take everything out of context
"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[.]”
Who said it was because he “refused to lie for Mueller”? Was it Stone?
colfax_m
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2019
- 38,988
- 14,843
- 1,465
You're purposely distorting the truth.No, I'm just going by what the FBI has admitted, being that they never conducted an independent investigation of the DNC server/cloud based imaging, nor did they review a final report from Crowdstrike.
It's amusing how liberals who support abolishing ICE and now Police are so trusting of the FBI.
"Source close to the investigation says FBI didn't need the DNC servers because it already had the forensic data from upstream collection."
The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.
Comey: DNC denied FBI’s requests for access to hacked servers
The DNC and the bureau have been quibbling in public reports over whether the request was made.
Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails
"Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry’s testimony. Henry is asked when “the Russians” exfiltrated the data from DNC. Henry: “We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.”
More from Crowdstrike’s Shaun Henry: “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”
This takes me back to the qualified, ambiguous Mueller language I highlighted in my @RCInvestigates report “Crowdstrikeout.” The attribution of DNC hacking to Russia is tentative & appears at least partly based on inference, not hard evidence.
Recall that the Mueller report, in recounting the alleged Russian theft of emails, added the qualifier that the GRU “officers *appear* to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments.” Perhaps they weren’t sure, because Crowdstrike wasn’t either.
Henry: “Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn’t see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw.”
There’s a quote from Assange — maybe someone can find it, I can’t rn — saying that it’s possible that many different actors, including state actors, got inside the DNC system, but that doesn’t mean they actually stole (aka exfiltrated) the emails Wikileaks later released.
To be clear, Crowdstrike says it believes Russians hacked into DNC. But it admits to not having direct evidence that Russians actually exfiltrated the emails from DNC. This would track w/ what Assange has said: Russia may have hacked DNC, but they didn’t provide stolen emails."
I want to stress what a pretty big revelation this is. Crowdstrike, the firm behind the accusation that Russia hacked & stole DNC emails, admitted to Congress that it has no direct evidence Russia actually stole/exfiltrated the emails. More from Crowdstrike president Shaun Henry:
Overstated and out of context. There was ample information and evidence that demonstrated it was Russia beyond any reasonable doubt. Far more information and evidence was provided by law enforcement that went way beyond the capabilities that CrowdStrike had available to them.
Although CrowdStrike didn’t watch the files be exfiltrated, the DoJ was able to review traffic logs which demonstrated such.
Factually false
It’s in the Mueller report, troll. They tracked the data movement from the DNC servers to the Russian’s AWS server in Arizona.
You have no facts.
But Wikileaks knowingly accepted and published illegally stolen material for which Mueller charged these guys with crimes.Neither did Wikileaks.
U.S. Charges Russian GRU Officers with International Hacking and Related Influence and Disinformation Operations
Whether Stone broke the law in communicating with them in order to keep the campaign informed is, I'm sure, something you will admit Trump should never have agreed to be engaged with, right? I mean, it's unethical at the very least. (the Steele dossier is not analogous to this as I'm sure you understand)
But Wikileaks knowingly accepted and published illegally stolen material
Like the Washington Post and the New York Times?
stolen material for which Mueller charged these guys with crimes.
I hope those bastards go away for a good long time.
How are those cases proceeding?
Whether Stone broke the law in communicating with them
Did he? Which law?
He conspired with the Russians and Trump campaign with the intel dump. Why do I need to explain this stuff it’s not a mystery. Are you playing dumb?He did in exactly the way I laid out. Why aren’t you answering my question?Well in stones case I’ll let the legal findings speak for themselves....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.
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.
Where did he conspire? With whom?
He conspired with the Russians
Which Russians did Stone communicate with? Conspired to do what?
Which charges mentioned those Russians? Which charges mentioned conspiracy?
Why do I need to explain this stuff
Because you're making claims without posting any evidence.
What not a single one of you can figure out is it doesn't matter who wins. But you are too far gone into thinking politics is soooo very important. The rich will get richer the poor will stay poor and the rich will blame the poor with lies such as social security and Medicare bad but tax cuts for the rich good. Same old garbage I can refute.
On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence Russia stole the e-mails as well as evidence they gave them to Wikileaks.
Which laws did Wikileaks break by accepting the e-mails?
Because he was talking to the people who did which means he might have useful information for the investigation.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?
Because he was talking to the people who did
I thought he talked to Wikileaks, not the people who stole them?
lantern2814
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2018
- 14,135
- 11,547
- 2,140
Another liar heard from. The person “threatened” stayed he did NOT see Stone’s word as a threat. So the CLAIM that he lied to Congress is worse than murder, rape, and drug dealing to a moron like you. And it has been proven multiple times that Mule-er the Senile wanted Stone to lie because he had ZERO on Trump. Go away. I don’t tolerate lying trolls like you.Stone lied to Congress then he threatened witnesses who would reveal his lie.Stone was subjected to predawn raid on his home because he told Mule-er to fuck off, he would NOT lie for him. Obozo commuted the sentences of and released rapists, murderers, drug dealers and other scum. Stone’s crime? Refusing to lie for the senile Mule-er. See the difference there? No, of course not. Stage 4 TDS.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.Well, when you take everything out of context
"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[.]”
Who said it was because he “refused to lie for Mueller”? Was it Stone?
colfax_m
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2019
- 38,988
- 14,843
- 1,465
Stone and Wikileaks aren’t journalists. Stone was working for the campaign that directly benefited from those felony hacks.Like the Washington Post and the New York Times?
Stone and Wikileaks aren’t journalists. Stone was working for the campaign that directly benefited from those felony hacks.Like the Washington Post and the New York Times?
Wikileaks aren’t journalists.
Because you say so?
Stone was working for the campaign that directly benefited from those felony hacks.
So what? The campaign didn't commit a felony hack. Stone either.
Neither does the New York Times or Washington Post when they publish stolen classified material.
- Apr 1, 2011
- 169,997
- 47,201
- 2,180
Nobody gives a flying fuck what Aaron Zelinsky has to say about it. He's a sleazy lying mueller douchebag.Are you willfully ignorant or does it come naturally?Stone didn't steal them, or publish them, why was he questioned again?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 281
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 304
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 142
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 230
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8040
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-