Commutation of Stone Sentence Correct Move

[Slade3200]

I speak words as I understand them or as their definitions define them.

That explains your error.

I didn’t make an error. You are avoiding the topic by playing these games

You said he conspired.
Because he communicated.

Yes, why are you playing dumb and making me continue to spell this out. Are you a child? Do you really not understand or are you just trying to be a pain in the ass?

You're spelling out in error.

No I’m not. I laid out the exact charges. You either don’t understand them or your playing dumb trying to troll. Which is it?

 

[meaner gene]

There can be no conspiracy without an underlying crime.
Communicating with Wikileaks....not a crime.

Wikileaks was the receiver of stolen property, which is a crime. Conspiring with criminals to further foster that crime, is a crime.

 

[Slade3200]

You said he conspired.
Because he communicated.

That's correct. There can be no conspiracy without communication. People cant conspire by ESP, they have to communicate.

There can be no conspiracy without an underlying crime.
Communicating with Wikileaks....not a crime.

He lied about communications with the Russians not Wikileaks, yes the ones who committed the crime that you want to punish by death... and then talking to Trump about it in which both Trump and Stone lied about. How many times do you need me to repeat it? What don’t you understand?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I speak words as I understand them or as their definitions define them.

That explains your error.

I didn’t make an error. You are avoiding the topic by playing these games

You said he conspired.
Because he communicated.

Yes, why are you playing dumb and making me continue to spell this out. Are you a child? Do you really not understand or are you just trying to be a pain in the ass?

You're spelling out in error.

No I’m not. I laid out the exact charges. You either don’t understand them or your playing dumb trying to troll. Which is it?

I laid out the exact charges.

And none of the charges included conspiracy, despite your incorrect definition.

 

[Slade3200]

I speak words as I understand them or as their definitions define them.

That explains your error.

I didn’t make an error. You are avoiding the topic by playing these games

You said he conspired.
Because he communicated.

Yes, why are you playing dumb and making me continue to spell this out. Are you a child? Do you really not understand or are you just trying to be a pain in the ass?

You're spelling out in error.

No I’m not. I laid out the exact charges. You either don’t understand them or your playing dumb trying to troll. Which is it?

I laid out the exact charges.

And none of the charges included conspiracy, despite your incorrect definition.

I already corrected the record about that, why are you circling back?

 

[meaner gene]

I laid out the exact charges.

And none of the charges included conspiracy, despite your incorrect definition.

You confuse committing a crime, with being charged with the commission of a crime. Just because you were not charged, doesn't mean you're innocent.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There can be no conspiracy without an underlying crime.
Communicating with Wikileaks....not a crime.

Wikileaks was the receiver of stolen property, which is a crime. Conspiring with criminals to further foster that crime, is a crime.

Wikileaks was the receiver of stolen property, which is a crime.

And when the New York Times and Washington Post received the stolen Pentagon Papers, what happened?

Conspiring with criminals to further foster that crime, is a crime.

Further foster the hack? How did Wikileaks do that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You said he conspired.
Because he communicated.

That's correct. There can be no conspiracy without communication. People cant conspire by ESP, they have to communicate.

There can be no conspiracy without an underlying crime.
Communicating with Wikileaks....not a crime.

He lied about communications with the Russians not Wikileaks, yes the ones who committed the crime that you want to punish by death... and then talking to Trump about it in which both Trump and Stone lied about. How many times do you need me to repeat it? What don’t you understand?

He lied about communications with the Russians not Wikileaks

Which Russians did he communicate with?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The stone commutation is just more "much ado about nothing" the white liberals are planning an all out lawless crime wave from now till election day and they need to be able to point something to prove law and order should not win the day and they are now inflating this stone hot air balloon to make that point.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I speak words as I understand them or as their definitions define them.

That explains your error.

I didn’t make an error. You are avoiding the topic by playing these games

You said he conspired.
Because he communicated.

Yes, why are you playing dumb and making me continue to spell this out. Are you a child? Do you really not understand or are you just trying to be a pain in the ass?

You're spelling out in error.

No I’m not. I laid out the exact charges. You either don’t understand them or your playing dumb trying to troll. Which is it?

I laid out the exact charges.

And none of the charges included conspiracy, despite your incorrect definition.

I already corrected the record about that, why are you circling back?

Because, after correcting your error, you said you didn't make an error.
Are you still confused?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I laid out the exact charges.

And none of the charges included conspiracy, despite your incorrect definition.

You confuse committing a crime, with being charged with the commission of a crime. Just because you were not charged, doesn't mean you're innocent.

You confuse committing a crime, with being charged with the commission of a crime.

You confuse claiming he committed a crime with proving he committed a crime.

Just because you were not charged, doesn't mean you're innocent.

Just because you claim he was part of a conspiracy, doesn't mean he was.

 

[meaner gene]

Wikileaks was the receiver of stolen property, which is a crime.

And when the New York Times and Washington Post received the stolen Pentagon Papers, what happened?

The pentagon papers were not "stolen"

The Pentagon Papers, officially titled Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States' political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. The papers were released by Daniel Ellsberg, who had worked on the study; they were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1971

Daniel Ellsberg knew the leaders of the task force well. He had worked as an aide to McNaughton from 1964 to 1965, had worked on the study for several months in 1967, and Gelb and Halperin approved his access to the work at RAND in 1969

 

[Slade3200]

You said he conspired.
Because he communicated.

That's correct. There can be no conspiracy without communication. People cant conspire by ESP, they have to communicate.

There can be no conspiracy without an underlying crime.
Communicating with Wikileaks....not a crime.

He lied about communications with the Russians not Wikileaks, yes the ones who committed the crime that you want to punish by death... and then talking to Trump about it in which both Trump and Stone lied about. How many times do you need me to repeat it? What don’t you understand?

He lied about communications with the Russians not Wikileaks

Which Russians did he communicate with?

Read the report dude. I’m not going to continue down your rabbit hole of questions when you can’t give me the smallest amount of respect by answering the one I’ve asked you multiple times.

 

[beautress]

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.

I saw Hannity's interview of Roger Stone a little earlier this evening. The Obama Administration set him up for destruction using the corrupted FBI under Obama, there was considerable judicial misconduct with a Judge that is mad as hell his corruption was demonstrated in this case.

I'm glad Roger Stone is a free man now. He didn't deserve the witch hunt the Democrats used against him.

When is Trump going to pardon his good friend Ghislaine Maxwell?

View attachment 361809

That was 30 years ago, doll. lol

 

[Billiejeens]

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

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

You are an idiot.
Dismissed.

I’m the one that actually understands how the constitution works.

“the people” don’t elect the president. Never have. That’s how the constitution works.

Troll

Who’s trolling? I’m providing accurate factual information. You’ve provided nothing.

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.

Factually incorrect

 

[meaner gene]

Which Russians did he communicate with?

Read the report dude. I’m not going to continue down your rabbit hole of questions when you can’t give me the smallest amount of respect by answering the one I’ve asked you multiple times.

I've run into this type of m.o. many times. When you tell him about facts established by the Mueller report, they ask for an exact quote rather than accepting the conclusions.

 

[Billiejeens]

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

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.

Nope

 

[Slade3200]

I speak words as I understand them or as their definitions define them.

That explains your error.

I didn’t make an error. You are avoiding the topic by playing these games

You said he conspired.
Because he communicated.

Yes, why are you playing dumb and making me continue to spell this out. Are you a child? Do you really not understand or are you just trying to be a pain in the ass?

You're spelling out in error.

No I’m not. I laid out the exact charges. You either don’t understand them or your playing dumb trying to troll. Which is it?

I laid out the exact charges.

And none of the charges included conspiracy, despite your incorrect definition.

I already corrected the record about that, why are you circling back?

Because, after correcting your error, you said you didn't make an error.
Are you still confused?

I told you what I meant by conspiring. I didn’t say he was charged with conspiracy. Conspiring means secret plots intended to do something illegal OR commit harm. Stone communicated in secret with contacts who had access to stolen information with the intent to use it to harm the Clinton campaign. He communicated that to the Trump campaign and then lied about it. I’m sorry man but if you can’t see how that is conspiring then your about as dumb as a doorknob.

 

[meaner gene]

I saw Hannity's interview of Roger Stone a little earlier this evening. The Obama Administration set him up for destruction using the corrupted FBI under Obama, there was considerable judicial misconduct with a Judge that is mad as hell his corruption was demonstrated in this case.

I'm glad Roger Stone is a free man now. He didn't deserve the witch hunt the Democrats used against him.

I'm glad you think it's O.K. to lie to congress. After all, what can lying to congress lead to?

Nayirah testimony - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Nayirah testimony was a false testimony given before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990 by a 15-year-old girl who provided only her first name, Nayirah. The testimony was widely publicized, and was cited numerous times by United States senators and President George H. W. Bush in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War.

In her emotional testimony, Nayirah claimed that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die.

 

[Billiejeens]

Note the part where it says "to commit offense." What "offense" did he conspire to commit?

Breaking into the DNC server was a crime. The e-mails were the fruits of that crime, and anyone dealing with the fruits of a crime, knowing they were the fruits of a crime are guilty of dealing in stolen property.

Anyone?
No. That's not true.