Commutation of Stone Sentence Correct Move

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

Stone also wasn't working for them. He didn't receive a dime from the Trump campaign.

These idiots keep repeating the same old already debunked talking points.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

Stone also wasn't working for them. He didn't receive a dime from the Trump campaign.

These idiots keep repeating the same old already debunked talking points.

That will end when his appeal is final.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

When are you going to get it through your head that nothing Wikileaks did is illegal? Also, the GRU had nothing to do with this. There is zero evidence that it did.

On the other hand, Hillary paid foreigners, and indirectly Russians, for smearing mud on Trump. You lack of concern about that proves that your a douchebag.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

None of those claims are proven or relevant to his guilt.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

There is no evidence that the GRU had anything to do with it. Even if it did, it still wasn't illegal for Wikileaks to publish the material.

You're barking at the moon.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Non sequitur, moron.

You don't seem at all concerned about Hillary paying foreigners to interfere in our elections.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

How would you know that?

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

Its ridiculous that the elites should have to serve time.

Stone is no "elite".

No, he's Trump's *****.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Stone did nothing illegal, moron. What proof do you have that he didn't tell the truth?

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

Sure are a lot of Trump cocksuckers here who seem to know how Trump's campaign funds were used......Like I said, you guys not only suck, but you swallow, too.

 

[bripat9643]

If there is one thing that has come to light in the discussion about Stone it is the value to Trump of having so many of his followers still believe so many of the lies he and right wing media promoted about Mueller........his investigation.........his report...........the nature and importance of Stone's lies.........the FBI.........Trump's written answers to Mueller..........etc.

You haven't posted anything Trump said that is a lie, moron.

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

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.

Stone did nothing illegal, moron. What proof do you have that he didn't tell the truth?

So who paid off the jury to find him guilty on seven counts of felony? Hillary?
LOL
What a ******* idiot.

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

I wonder what Donald has on Stone that he would lie to the FBI, lie to Congress and tamper with witnesses?
Are they secret gay lovers?
Or does Donald pay him hugely amounts of money for his services, like he did Michael Cohen, who was also convicted of felonies?
And also Rick Gates and Paul Manafort serving time for Donald.
Has any POTUS ever had so many close allies who were convicted of felony crimes?
But Donald's clean, stand up guy.....all these felons.... just a coincidental thing that he knows them.

 

[bripat9643]

NO evidence that the e-mails were taken by Russia.

On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence Russia stole the e-mails as well as evidence they gave them to Wikileaks. Only conspiratorial nutbags believe otherwise.

There's only Clapper and Brenan's word, and they are both proven liars.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Stone did nothing illegal, moron. What proof do you have that he didn't tell the truth?

So who paid off the jury to find him guilty on seven counts of felony? Hillary?
LOL
What a ******* idiot.

They're Democrats.

Enough said.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Also AG Barr called the conviction righteous and the sentencing fair. How are you going to try and explain that?

Where? Please quote him saying that.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You're purposely distorting the truth.

"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:

Huge: Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails

DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., speaks during a Florida delegation breakfast, Mond

www.redstate.com

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.

Really? Then post it.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You're purposely distorting the truth.

"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:

Huge: Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails

DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., speaks during a Florida delegation breakfast, Mond

www.redstate.com

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.

Post the evidence. Who is "they?"

 

[bripat9643]

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[.]”

Stone was subjected to predawn raid on his home because he told Mule-er to **** 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.

Stone lied to Congress then he threatened witnesses who would reveal his lie.

Who said it was because he “refused to lie for Mueller”? Was it Stone?

You are so brainwashed and ignorant.

 

[Slade3200]

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?

Trump’s mention of ‘Crowdstrike’ and Ukraine, explained

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

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.

Do you really think you know more about the details of these cases than the FBI?

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.

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?

Apparently the FBI doesn't have a clue either, since they relied on information talking points from Crowdstrike the DNC...

Apparently doesn’t instill confidence... just empty claims