Commutation of Stone Sentence Correct Move

[Toddsterpatriot]

Stone juror: Trump ‘attacking citizens for performing their civic duty’

A juror in the Roger Stone trial is coming to the defense of the foreperson who has become the target of attacks from President Trump and his allies in the conservative media. &#8220…

thehill.com

"When the president attacks our jury’s foreperson, he is effectively attacking every American who takes time off work, arranges child care and otherwise disrupts their life temporarily to participate in this civic duty," he added.

Even if the foreperson lied about being impartial.
Lied about being unbiased.

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

Your response makes no sense

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

He is a flake
Why take the 5th if you know that the truth is perfectly acceptable ?

 

[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?

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

Trump violated the "no collusion with Wikileaks" law?
You have the text of that law?

 

[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.

Your response makes no sense

It’s fine as long as you’re able to pop your head out of the bubble.

I get it. You’re glad the hack occurred because it helped Trump. The ends justify the means. Even if those means are felonies.

 

[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?

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.

He is a flake
Why take the 5th if you know that the truth is perfectly acceptable ?

That’s a recurring theme here. People around Trump lie to be consistent with his lies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You’re glad the hack occurred because it helped Trump.

The hack was awful!!

Hillary and Democrat wrongdoing must never be exposed.
Hillary and Democrat wrongdoing must always remain hidden.

 

[bripat9643]

And now for the crux of the matter...........

"Trump’s tweets were always suspicious, to say the least. And his answers to Mueller seemed less than entirely credible even when the redacted report was first released. But the newly revealed text makes clear Mueller’s suspicions that Trump lied in his written answers—and then pushed Stone not to testify in order to prevent Mueller from discovering that lie. As Mueller put it dryly: “[T]he 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.” The special counsel also writes that Trump’s tweets to Stone—along with his tweets criticizing Cohen, who was by then cooperating with investigators—“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 and disparaged if they chose to cooperate.”

No one gives a damn about Mueller's suspicion aside from paranoid turds like you.

You can't prosecute someone for your suspicions. You need facts.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

He is a flake
Why take the 5th if you know that the truth is perfectly acceptable ?

That’s a recurring theme here. People around Trump lie to be consistent with his lies.

Truth is never sufficient with douchebags like Mueller.

 

[bripat9643]

You are really out there in the wildest of conspirat theorie

I realize you wish that were so. You might even genuinely believe it. But that's only because you believe in lies, not the facts.

It's obviously true, shit for brains.

 

[bripat9643]

Stone always held the ace card when it came to a pardon or commutation. Trump couldn't afford to take the chance Stone would find jail for 40 months so objectionable after what he did for Trump that he might be willing to finally tell the truth. The truth he withheld from Mueller and Congress. The truth that Trump perjured himself when he said he never spoke to Stone about Wikileaks' document dumps.

Do you have any actual facts to support your idiotic legal theories?

 

[bripat9643]

"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.

If you can't prove it, then shut the fuck up. Case closed.

 

[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

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.

I seriously doubt that the Mueller team had access to the DNC server. We know the FBI was not allowed access.
And the fact that Mueller never heard of GPS Fusion cast doubt that his team even conducted an investigation.

There is one thing I would bet on.....the DNC Server has been obliterated.

Access to the actual servers isn’t necessary and would be highly unusual. This is a cyber crime. The evidence isn’t housed on a physical device. It’s data, which the DoJ most certainly did have access to.

The idea that his team didn’t conduct an investigation and made up their whole report on the hacking is beyond ridiculous.

Your quarrel is with Mueller.

It’s really not. It’s with people who are willfully ignorant by saying idiotic things like “there’s no evidence” that it was Russia (especially when they then claim it was Seth Rich which actually has no evidence).

I have no problem with Mueller. He demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Russia.

Will Julian Assange and WikiLeaks Finally Tell the Truth About Seth Rich?

In a new set of court filings, lawyers for Rich's brother are battling to get a deposition with the imprisoned Assange.

www.rollingstone.com

WASHINGTON — "There is one person who can almost singlehandedly put to rest one of the more cruel conspiracy theories to infect American politics this century. That person is Julian Assange"
----------

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.

I seriously doubt that the Mueller team had access to the DNC server. We know the FBI was not allowed access.
And the fact that Mueller never heard of GPS Fusion cast doubt that his team even conducted an investigation.

There is one thing I would bet on.....the DNC Server has been obliterated.

Access to the actual servers isn’t necessary and would be highly unusual. This is a cyber crime. The evidence isn’t housed on a physical device. It’s data, which the DoJ most certainly did have access to.

The idea that his team didn’t conduct an investigation and made up their whole report on the hacking is beyond ridiculous.

Your quarrel is with Mueller.

It’s really not. It’s with people who are willfully ignorant by saying idiotic things like “there’s no evidence” that it was Russia (especially when they then claim it was Seth Rich which actually has no evidence).

I have no problem with Mueller. He demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Russia.

WikiLeaks' Assange: Russia didn't give us emails

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has repeated his claim that the Russian government was not the source of hacked Democratic campaign emails his organization released before the US presidential election.

www.cnn.com

(CNN)"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has repeated his claim that the Russian government was not the source of hacked Democratic campaign emails his organization released before the US presidential election."

Of course he said that. If he had any evidence to back it up, I might take him seriously. Unfortunately for him, the DoJ obtained the messages sent between Wikileaks and the GRU persona "Guccifer 2.0", so the evidence betrays his assertion.

What did those messages say? I've never seen them posted anywhere. Furthermore, Assange never claimed he got the emails from Guccifer.

It's in the Mueller report. Right around page 45. Take a gander for yourself.

Post them or shut your fucking yap.

 

[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.

If you can't prove it, then shut the fuck up. Case closed.

Meh. None of you idiots ever shut the fuck up about the nonsense you can't prove, so why should I?

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

He is a flake
Why take the 5th if you know that the truth is perfectly acceptable ?

That’s a recurring theme here. People around Trump lie to be consistent with his lies.

That's only in your head.

 

[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.

If you can't prove it, then shut the fuck up. Case closed.

Meh. None of you idiots ever shut the fuck up about the nonsense you can't prove, so why should I?

Well, at least you know that you have no proof of anything.
That's a start.

 

[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?

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.

He is a flake
Why take the 5th if you know that the truth is perfectly acceptable ?

That’s a recurring theme here. People around Trump lie to be consistent with his lies.

That's only in your head.

Or it's in three different court cases. Flynn, Stone and Papadopolous. There could be more, that's just off the top of my head.

 

[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.

If you can't prove it, then shut the fuck up. Case closed.

Meh. None of you idiots ever shut the fuck up about the nonsense you can't prove, so why should I?

Well, at least you know that you have no proof of anything.
That's a start.

I said I couldn't prove that Trump lied in his written responses but there's evidence to suggest that he did.

I said that because I'm actually honest about it, unlike a lot of yall.

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

He is a flake
Why take the 5th if you know that the truth is perfectly acceptable ?

That’s a recurring theme here. People around Trump lie to be consistent with his lies.

That's only in your head.

Or it's in three different court cases. Flynn, Stone and Papadopolous. There could be more, that's just off the top of my head.

None of those three actually lied.

 

[berg80]

Even if the foreperson lied about being impartial.
Lied about being unbiased.

I agree. That would be bad if it happened. It didn't. But then, the truth means nothing to Trumpleheads because it doesn't fit Trump's dishonest narrative they are blindly devoted to. It never does.

From the juror's op-ed............. "The jury foreperson, who has been the subject recently of numerous ad hominem attacks, was actually one of the strongest advocates for the rights of the defendant and for a rigorous process. She expressed skepticism at some of the government’s claims and was one of the last people to vote to convict on the charge that took most of our deliberation time."