Commutation of Stone Sentence Correct Move

[Billiejeens]

Left wing lunatic berg agrees with a Left wing lunatic blogger

I've give you a gold star if you can factually refute a single point made in the article. BTW, the "blog" is written by legal experts.

What makes you think that my post wasn't?

 

[Billiejeens]

You are really out there in the wildest of conspirat theorie

What's wild about it? We have testimony under oath from Rick Gates and others about how Trump was coordinating with Stone during the campaign. Such coordination would be hardly surprising given their relationship.

Yet Trump claimed he couldn't remember anything about it.

The wildest of conspiracy theories supported solely by the Democratic Media.

Wiki - to the world - We are going to be releasing some truths about Hillary that the Democratic Media has covered up.
Stone - to anyone that would listen - Wiki is going to be releasing some truths about Hillary that the Democratic Media has covered up.
BJ and everyone else paying attention - Wiki is going to be releasing some truths about Hillary that the Democratic Media has covered up.

The left -President Trump -did you hear this from Stone?
President Trump- I don't remember ( because literally everyone paying attention was talking about it.)

It's not the Democratic Media that's supporting this, it's testimony under oath and you've managed to conveniently leave out a lot of details.

What was very apparent is that the Trump campaign wanted to cover up the fact that they were trying to work with Wikileaks on the leaks. Stone's lying to investigators was just facet of this.

Everyone should have wanted to work to ensure that accurate information was disseminated.
Why do you hate freedom of speech and freedom of the press?

 

[berg80]

"It was an answer — or non-answer — that Trump had used repeatedly before.

He offered similarly hazy responses when he faced questions in a civil suit about Trump University, when he was pressed about his net worth in a deposition in another case, when reporters asked about his support for the Iraq War, and when he was quizzed about a key Oval Office encounter with then-FBI Director James B. Comey.
In the case of the special counsel investigation, prosecutors found Trump’s repeated assertions of a faulty memory “inadequate,” according to Mueller’s newly released report.
Prosecutors pushed for an in-person interview.
“This is the President’s opportunity to voluntarily provide us with information for us to evaluate in the context of all of the evidence we have gathered,” they wrote, according to the report.

Trump declined."

 

[berg80]

What makes you think that my post wasn't?

Because.............you didn't factually refute a single point in the article. We both know why. You can't.

 

[berg80]

Mueller raised possibility Trump lied to him

Special counsel Robert Mueller examined whether President Donald Trump lied to him in written answers during the Russia investigation, a possibility House Democrats have said they continue to look into even after Trump's impeachment.

www.cnn.com

That's why Stone was rewarded. He could have proved Trump lied.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Remember , everybody who knowingly deals with stolen property is a co-conspirator to the original crime.

So the New York Times should have been charged.

Again, the pentagon papers weren't "stolen"

Again, he didn't own them. Again, he had no right to hand classified info over to the New York Times to publish.

If a whistleblower steals corporate documents and a newspaper publishes them,
should the paper be prosecuted?

 

[berg80]

Remember , everybody who knowingly deals with stolen property is a co-conspirator to the original crime.

So the New York Times should have been charged.

Again, the pentagon papers weren't "stolen"

Again, he didn't own them. Again, he had no right to hand classified info over to the New York Times to publish.

If a whistleblower steals corporate documents and a newspaper publishes them,
should the paper be prosecuted?

Why the First Amendment Does Not Protect Trump Campaign Collusion with Wikileaks and Russia - Just Security

Despite the president’s signature hostility toward the press, the Trump campaign is strenuously trying to wrap itself and Wikileaks in the protective garb of the First Amendment in defending against a lawsuit involving the hacking and dissemination of Democratic National Committee emails in...

www.justsecurity.org

 

[colfax_m]

"So Trump clearly knew about and encouraged Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks, the unredacted report shows. Yet in written answers the president provided to Mueller’s office in the course of the special counsel’s investigation, Trump insisted that he did not recall “the specifics of any call [he] had” with Stone during the campaign or any discussions with Stone of WikiLeaks. And shortly after he submitted those answers, the unredacted report states, Trump began tweeting publicly in support of Stone—calling him “brave” and congratulating his “guts” for refusing to testify."

The Roger Stone Commutation Is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems

The president’s clemency for his confidante is totally unsurprising—which is part of what makes it so bad.

www.lawfareblog.com

This doesn't get as much attention as it deserves. Stone is the one who would be able to demonstrate that Trump lied in his written testimony to Mueller.

In other words, Mueller has no evidence that Trump lied, and he tried to extort Stone into lying about it.

Proving that Trump (or anyone else) lied wouldn't be easy. We already have testimony that Trump and the campaign was talking to Stone. Proving that Trump knew that he was lying in his testimony wouldn't be easy. Especially given that they were unable to depose Trump due to his refusal to do so.

That's false
They did depose him.

You're right. Technically they did depose him. But they weren't allowed to interview him and ask follow up questions that would have potentially revealed whether Trump was lying or not.

So there were no lies
Agreed

Well, Trump claimed he didn't remember talking to Stone about Wikileaks, which seems pretty improbable (although his mental status is slipping so who knows for sure). Proving that Trump is lying would have been challenging and part of the problem with his refusal to cooperate with investigators (which he lies about having done).

I'd be more open to the idea that Trump "just forgot" about this issue, except that so many people lying for the same purpose isn't just an accident. That demonstrates intent.

 

[colfax_m]

You are really out there in the wildest of conspirat theorie

What's wild about it? We have testimony under oath from Rick Gates and others about how Trump was coordinating with Stone during the campaign. Such coordination would be hardly surprising given their relationship.

Yet Trump claimed he couldn't remember anything about it.

The wildest of conspiracy theories supported solely by the Democratic Media.

Wiki - to the world - We are going to be releasing some truths about Hillary that the Democratic Media has covered up.
Stone - to anyone that would listen - Wiki is going to be releasing some truths about Hillary that the Democratic Media has covered up.
BJ and everyone else paying attention - Wiki is going to be releasing some truths about Hillary that the Democratic Media has covered up.

The left -President Trump -did you hear this from Stone?
President Trump- I don't remember ( because literally everyone paying attention was talking about it.)

It's not the Democratic Media that's supporting this, it's testimony under oath and you've managed to conveniently leave out a lot of details.

What was very apparent is that the Trump campaign wanted to cover up the fact that they were trying to work with Wikileaks on the leaks. Stone's lying to investigators was just facet of this.

Everyone should have wanted to work to ensure that accurate information was disseminated.
Why do you hate freedom of speech and freedom of the press?

Stone's actions had nothing to do with whether or not they were disseminated.

But it's hilarious to see a Trump supporter demanding transparency after the Trump administration has gone through such lengths to abolish it.

For example: Mary Trump free to promote her tell-all book after judge lifts temporary restraining order

Seems like Trump says one thing and does another.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why was he arrested and was it justified?

He lied to Congress under oath. That's a no-no.
Threatening a witness, even jokingly, also a no-no.

Even in a BS political investigation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What confuses you is that the person finding the classified material committed no crime by receiving it.

And Wikileaks committed no crime by receiving and publishing emails.

The e-mails were "stolen" property, the pentagon papers were NOT "stolen" Hence a complete difference in those receiving or dealing with them.

The e-mails were "stolen" property,

Newspapers print stolen material all the time.

A Note to Readers: The Decision to Publish Diplomatic Documents (Published 2010)

The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Billiejeens]

"So Trump clearly knew about and encouraged Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks, the unredacted report shows. Yet in written answers the president provided to Mueller’s office in the course of the special counsel’s investigation, Trump insisted that he did not recall “the specifics of any call [he] had” with Stone during the campaign or any discussions with Stone of WikiLeaks. And shortly after he submitted those answers, the unredacted report states, Trump began tweeting publicly in support of Stone—calling him “brave” and congratulating his “guts” for refusing to testify."

The Roger Stone Commutation Is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems

The president’s clemency for his confidante is totally unsurprising—which is part of what makes it so bad.

www.lawfareblog.com

This doesn't get as much attention as it deserves. Stone is the one who would be able to demonstrate that Trump lied in his written testimony to Mueller.

In other words, Mueller has no evidence that Trump lied, and he tried to extort Stone into lying about it.

Proving that Trump (or anyone else) lied wouldn't be easy. We already have testimony that Trump and the campaign was talking to Stone. Proving that Trump knew that he was lying in his testimony wouldn't be easy. Especially given that they were unable to depose Trump due to his refusal to do so.

That's false
They did depose him.

You're right. Technically they did depose him. But they weren't allowed to interview him and ask follow up questions that would have potentially revealed whether Trump was lying or not.

So there were no lies
Agreed

Well, Trump claimed he didn't remember talking to Stone about Wikileaks, which seems pretty improbable (although his mental status is slipping so who knows for sure). Proving that Trump is lying would have been challenging and part of the problem with his refusal to cooperate with investigators (which he lies about having done).

I'd be more open to the idea that Trump "just forgot" about this issue, except that so many people lying for the same purpose isn't just an accident. That demonstrates intent.

Just say -
Look I'm pissed that the people who were supposed to insulate hilliary from any repercussions of all her terrible actions, failed to do so and the fact that she is the world's most miserable bitch kept my peeps out of The White House and positions of power.

I could respect that.

The rabbit hole that you have chosen to stay in makes no sense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ellsberg "gave" classified info to the New York Times.
Was he breaking any laws when he did that?

Elsberg broke the law, the same as if he had left classified materials on a park bench. What confuses you is that the person finding the classified material committed no crime by receiving it.

What confuses you is that the person finding the classified material committed no crime by receiving it.

And Wikileaks committed no crime by receiving and publishing emails.

Maybe, but that's not entirely clear. Assange is currently under indictment for working with Manning to obtain classified information, going beyond receiving and publishing but actually participating in the crime. There's no way to know if Wikileaks had committed a crime or not without a....

...wait for it...

...investigation.

They should definitely go after Assange and Wikileaks.

 

[colfax_m]

Just say -
Look I'm pissed that the people who were supposed to insulate hilliary from any repercussions of all her terrible actions, failed to do so and the fact that she is the world's most miserable bitch kept my peeps out of The White House and positions of power.

I could respect that.

The rabbit hole that you have chosen to stay in makes no sense.

Which is mostly nonsense. Nothing that came to light about the DNC hack or Podesta emails was anywhere even remotely illegal.

Honestly, when the most terrible thing that you can dig up is that Clinton got a heads up on a question before a town hall meeting, you're really desperate. To use that desperation to justify a massive illegal hack is absurd.

 

[colfax_m]

Ellsberg "gave" classified info to the New York Times.
Was he breaking any laws when he did that?

Elsberg broke the law, the same as if he had left classified materials on a park bench. What confuses you is that the person finding the classified material committed no crime by receiving it.

What confuses you is that the person finding the classified material committed no crime by receiving it.

And Wikileaks committed no crime by receiving and publishing emails.

Maybe, but that's not entirely clear. Assange is currently under indictment for working with Manning to obtain classified information, going beyond receiving and publishing but actually participating in the crime. There's no way to know if Wikileaks had committed a crime or not without a....

...wait for it...

...investigation.

They should definitely go after Assange and Wikileaks.

True! But Assange was, at the time at least, beyond their reach. So they did the next best thing.

One thing is for sure, when you have people lying, it raises suspicion and prompts further investigation. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ellsberg "gave" classified info to the New York Times.
Was he breaking any laws when he did that?

Elsberg broke the law, the same as if he had left classified materials on a park bench. What confuses you is that the person finding the classified material committed no crime by receiving it.

Elsberg broke the law, the same as if he had left classified materials on a park bench. What confuses you is that the person finding the classified material committed no crime by receiving it.

If I find classified material on a park bench and publish them there is no crime?
If I find emails on a park bench and publish them, is there a crime?
What about stolen corporate documents exposing wrongdoing?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ellsberg "gave" classified info to the New York Times.
Was he breaking any laws when he did that?

Elsberg broke the law, the same as if he had left classified materials on a park bench. What confuses you is that the person finding the classified material committed no crime by receiving it.

What confuses you is that the person finding the classified material committed no crime by receiving it.

And Wikileaks committed no crime by receiving and publishing emails.

Maybe, but that's not entirely clear. Assange is currently under indictment for working with Manning to obtain classified information, going beyond receiving and publishing but actually participating in the crime. There's no way to know if Wikileaks had committed a crime or not without a....

...wait for it...

...investigation.

They should definitely go after Assange and Wikileaks.

True! But Assange was, at the time at least, beyond their reach. So they did the next best thing.

One thing is for sure, when you have people lying, it raises suspicion and prompts further investigation. Wouldn't you agree?

True! But Assange was, at the time at least, beyond their reach. So they did the next best thing.

Stone didn't steal emails or receive stolen emails.

One thing is for sure, when you have people lying, it raises suspicion and prompts further investigation.

Sometimes. Stone should have taken the 5th. He thought he was being a tough guy. He's a flake.

 

[colfax_m]

True! But Assange was, at the time at least, beyond their reach. So they did the next best thing.

Stone didn't steal emails or receive stolen emails.

One thing is for sure, when you have people lying, it raises suspicion and prompts further investigation.

Sometimes. Stone should have taken the 5th. He thought he was being a tough guy. He's a flake.

Stone certainly had that right. He also could have just testified truthfully, but that would have demonstrated that Trump is a liar.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Please prove to me that knowingly receiving stolen material is not illegal.

The press receives and publishes stolen material all the time.
Is that illegal?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"So Trump clearly knew about and encouraged Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks, the unredacted report shows. Yet in written answers the president provided to Mueller’s office in the course of the special counsel’s investigation, Trump insisted that he did not recall “the specifics of any call [he] had” with Stone during the campaign or any discussions with Stone of WikiLeaks. And shortly after he submitted those answers, the unredacted report states, Trump began tweeting publicly in support of Stone—calling him “brave” and congratulating his “guts” for refusing to testify."

The Roger Stone Commutation Is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems

The president’s clemency for his confidante is totally unsurprising—which is part of what makes it so bad.

www.lawfareblog.com

So Trump clearly knew about and encouraged Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks

If true, that's perfectly legal. Just as you're free to call Wikileaks.