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.
Anyone with half a brain sees that Roger was threatening Credico. The words speak for themselves.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?
No I didn’t. You either have me confused with somebody else or you are straight up lying. That’s pretty weak.Oh really? You just lied again. Never said Cuomo didn’t lie? Fuck you asshole. I pointed out Cuomo’s lies in a previous thread and you threw a hissy fit claiming he never lied. Run away now liar.I’m sorry but I’m not going to talk with you if you’re going to lie about things I’ve said. I’ve never in my life said that Cuomo has never lied. Get honest or take a hike, I’m not wasting time with people like you.You bring a steaming pile of bullshit. Tell us again how Cuomo has never lied. Give us some more TDS conspiracies that have been debunked countless times. That’s a all you have ever brought.Yes, that’s what I bring. Can you show otherwise?Honesty and accuracy? From you? Hahahahaha!I’m sorry if pointing out your own contradictions and fake statements is annoying to you. Try being honest and accurate with what you say and that won’t happen.Go annoy someone else.Hold up... didn’t Barr just step in and drop the Flynn case? That directly goes against what you just said does it not?Barr doesn't have dictatorial control over the DOJ. Barr isn't willing to toss esablished procedures into the waste bin like Democrat AGs.Why would Barr’s DOJ prosecute him if there were no crimes? Is Barr in on the fixx?The first item is not a crime. The next two are nothing more than gossip.Nothing, in other words.
- Multiple top Trump campaign aides told investigators that Trump himself, then the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, knew WikiLeaks had damaging information on the Clinton campaign.
- Then chairman Paul Manafort, deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates, and personal attorney Michael Cohen told investigators that Stone told Trump and several advisers in July 2016 that he had spoken with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and that the website would begin dumping documents in just a few days.
- Mueller's team "established that the Trump Campaign displayed interest in the WikiLeaks releases, and that former Campaign member Roger Stone was in contact with the Campaign about those releases, claiming advance knowledge of more to come," the report said.
- Mueller concluded that Trump may have lied to investigators in his written answers to questions in the investigation.
- "Cohen recalled a conversation in which Roger Stone told Trump that WikiLeaks planned to release information soon, and Manafort recalled that Trump had asked him to stay in touch with Stone about WikiLeaks," the report said.
- "It is possible that, by the time the President submitted his written answers two years after the relevant events had occurred, he no longer had clear recollections of his discussions with Stone or his knowledge of Stone's asserted communications with WikiLeaks," the report said. "But the President's conduct could also be viewed as reflecting his awareness that Stone could provide evidence that would run counter to the President's denials and would link the President to Stone's efforts to reach out to WikiLeaks."
- Stone "indicated he had knowledge" of Trump's written answers to Mueller.
- Mueller's report noted that Stone went on Fox News on the evening of January 25, 2019, the day he made his first court appearance after being indicted.
- "That evening, Stone appeared on Fox News and indicated he had knowledge of the President's answers to this Office's written questions," the report said. "When asked if he had spoken to the President about the allegation that he had lied to Congress, Stone said, 'I have not' and added, 'When the President answered the written interrogatories, he correctly and honestly said, 'Roger Stone and I never discussed this and we never did.'"
Lol. If you say so comrade.You are so brainwashed and ignorant.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?
Yes. Wikileaks published them. Who got them from people that stole them. It’s called a lead.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?
I posted all the charges... all the things he lied about involved his conspiring. What’s wrong with you today? These questions are idiotic and I’ve posted answers to them alreadyAlso AG Barr called the conviction righteous and the sentencing fair.
Can you post the conspiracy charge?
Wikileaks published them. Who got them from people that stole them.
I posted all the charges... all the things he lied about involved his conspiring. What’s wrong with you today? These questions are idiotic and I’ve posted answers to them alreadyAlso AG Barr called the conviction righteous and the sentencing fair.
Can you post the conspiracy charge?
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.
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.
They are all proven and are direct references to what he was charged with and found guilty of. What’s wrong with you?None of those claims are proven or relevant to his guilt.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.
If I do will concede the point?Where? Please quote him saying that.Also AG Barr called the conviction righteous and the sentencing fair. How are you going to try and explain that?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.
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.
They are all proven and are direct references to what he was charged with and found guilty of. What’s wrong with you?None of those claims are proven or relevant to his guilt.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.
Oh you need the actual word conspiracy as a charge?! I get it, we are playing that game are we?! Ok... you win. He wasn’t charged with conspiracy. He had shady communications with both the Russians responsible for stealing information and leaking through Wikileaks and the Trump campaign which he lied about and was this charged for obstruction and making false statements. How’s that work for you?I posted all the charges... all the things he lied about involved his conspiring. What’s wrong with you today? These questions are idiotic and I’ve posted answers to them alreadyAlso AG Barr called the conviction righteous and the sentencing fair.
Can you post the conspiracy charge?
I posted all the charges...
And none were conspiracy.
To reiterate, the case was tried in the District of Columbia. A Republican, especially a Conservative, is AUTOMATICALLY denied his/her right to a fair trial by the make-up of the jury pool.Stone did nothing illegal, moron. What proof do you have that he didn't tell the truth?Basically, Stone kept the campaign apprised of what these guys had illegally stolen by way of his communications with Wikileaks.
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.
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
So who paid off the jury to find him guilty on seven counts of felony? Hillary?
LOL
What a fucking idiot.
| CANDIDATE | PARTY | VOTES | PCT. | E.V. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hillary Clinton | Democrat | 282,830 | 90.9% | 3 | |
| Donald J. Trump | Republican | 12,723 | 4.1 | — | |
| Others | Independent | 6,551 | 2.1 | — | |
| Gary Johnson | Libertarian | 4,906 | 1.6 | — | |
| Jill Stein | D.C. Statehood Green | 4,258 | 1.4 | — |
Oh you need the actual word conspiracy as a charge?! I get it, we are playing that game are we?! Ok... you win. He wasn’t charged with conspiracy. He had shady communications with both the Russians responsible for stealing information and leaking through Wikileaks and the Trump campaign which he lied about and was this charged for obstruction and making false statements. How’s that work for you?I posted all the charges... all the things he lied about involved his conspiring. What’s wrong with you today? These questions are idiotic and I’ve posted answers to them alreadyAlso AG Barr called the conviction righteous and the sentencing fair.
Can you post the conspiracy charge?
I posted all the charges...
And none were conspiracy.
I hate to break it to you but shady communications is conspiring and it can rise to the level of a crime or not. Stone didn’t coordinate with the hacking and wasn’t charged with conspiracy for that crime. He did have communications with both the Russians and the Trump campaign that he lied about. Using the word conspiring is accurate. You were playing word word games.Oh you need the actual word conspiracy as a charge?! I get it, we are playing that game are we?! Ok... you win. He wasn’t charged with conspiracy. He had shady communications with both the Russians responsible for stealing information and leaking through Wikileaks and the Trump campaign which he lied about and was this charged for obstruction and making false statements. How’s that work for you?I posted all the charges... all the things he lied about involved his conspiring. What’s wrong with you today? These questions are idiotic and I’ve posted answers to them alreadyAlso AG Barr called the conviction righteous and the sentencing fair.
Can you post the conspiracy charge?
I posted all the charges...
And none were conspiracy.
Oh you need the actual word conspiracy as a charge?!
You said, "Ok, then what should be done with people who conspire with these very serious crimes?"
Ok... you win. He wasn’t charged with conspiracy.
We agree.
He had shady communications with both the Russians responsible for stealing information and leaking through Wikileaks and the Trump campaign
AFAIK, "shady communications" isn't a crime.
which he lied about and was this charged for obstruction and making false statements.
Finally, accuracy. Thank you.
You are a casualty of lost honor. I expected more of you.Man was a casualty of Mueller witch hunt that never should have happened.
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
I hate to break it to you but shady communications is conspiring and it can rise to the level of a crime or not. Stone didn’t coordinate with the hacking and wasn’t charged with conspiracy for that crime. He did have communications with both the Russians and the Trump campaign that he lied about. Using the word conspiring is accurate. You were playing word word games.Oh you need the actual word conspiracy as a charge?! I get it, we are playing that game are we?! Ok... you win. He wasn’t charged with conspiracy. He had shady communications with both the Russians responsible for stealing information and leaking through Wikileaks and the Trump campaign which he lied about and was this charged for obstruction and making false statements. How’s that work for you?I posted all the charges... all the things he lied about involved his conspiring. What’s wrong with you today? These questions are idiotic and I’ve posted answers to them alreadyAlso AG Barr called the conviction righteous and the sentencing fair.
Can you post the conspiracy charge?
I posted all the charges...
And none were conspiracy.
Oh you need the actual word conspiracy as a charge?!
You said, "Ok, then what should be done with people who conspire with these very serious crimes?"
Ok... you win. He wasn’t charged with conspiracy.
We agree.
He had shady communications with both the Russians responsible for stealing information and leaking through Wikileaks and the Trump campaign
AFAIK, "shady communications" isn't a crime.
which he lied about and was this charged for obstruction and making false statements.
Finally, accuracy. Thank you.
But now that we got it all straightened out do you care to answer my question?
You think people who committed the crimes that the Russians did should be shot. Stone communicated with them about the stolen material and then with the Trump campaign. He then lied about that communication, obstructing an investigation and also intimidated a witness. So is his indictment justifiable? Should he go to jail? Why or why not?
Even Credico says it was a joke. Anyone with half a brain can see that Mueller railroaded him, and that you're a moron.Anyone with half a brain sees that Roger was threatening Credico. The words speak for themselves.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?
I never said lying to Congress was worse than anything you mentioned and it’s never been proven that Mueller wanted Stone to lie.
I see you have fun with the commentary but are shy to answer straight questions... why is that?I hate to break it to you but shady communications is conspiring and it can rise to the level of a crime or not. Stone didn’t coordinate with the hacking and wasn’t charged with conspiracy for that crime. He did have communications with both the Russians and the Trump campaign that he lied about. Using the word conspiring is accurate. You were playing word word games.Oh you need the actual word conspiracy as a charge?! I get it, we are playing that game are we?! Ok... you win. He wasn’t charged with conspiracy. He had shady communications with both the Russians responsible for stealing information and leaking through Wikileaks and the Trump campaign which he lied about and was this charged for obstruction and making false statements. How’s that work for you?I posted all the charges... all the things he lied about involved his conspiring. What’s wrong with you today? These questions are idiotic and I’ve posted answers to them alreadyAlso AG Barr called the conviction righteous and the sentencing fair.
Can you post the conspiracy charge?
I posted all the charges...
And none were conspiracy.
Oh you need the actual word conspiracy as a charge?!
You said, "Ok, then what should be done with people who conspire with these very serious crimes?"
Ok... you win. He wasn’t charged with conspiracy.
We agree.
He had shady communications with both the Russians responsible for stealing information and leaking through Wikileaks and the Trump campaign
AFAIK, "shady communications" isn't a crime.
which he lied about and was this charged for obstruction and making false statements.
Finally, accuracy. Thank you.
But now that we got it all straightened out do you care to answer my question?
You think people who committed the crimes that the Russians did should be shot. Stone communicated with them about the stolen material and then with the Trump campaign. He then lied about that communication, obstructing an investigation and also intimidated a witness. So is his indictment justifiable? Should he go to jail? Why or why not?
I hate to break it to you but shady communications is conspiring
I don't believe you.
He did have communications with both the Russians and the Trump campaign that he lied about.
Lying about a non-crime. Ok.
Using the word conspiring is accurate.
Conspiracy has a real, legal meaning. Which hasn't been shown in Stone's case.
You think people who committed the crimes that the Russians did should be shot.
Am I wrong to think that? How about 20 years in jail? Better?
Stone communicated with them about the stolen material and then with the Trump campaign.
So? Communicating isn't a crime.
He then lied about that communication, obstructing an investigation and also intimidated a witness.
Yup. Lying under oath, even about a non-crime, is a bad idea.
So is threatening a witness, even jokingly.
Still doesn't fit the legal meaning of conspiracy.
Maybe it's a lesson, you shouldn't joke about death threats.Even Credico says it was a joke. Anyone with half a brain can see that Mueller railroaded him, and that you're a moron.
