Commutation of Stone Sentence Correct Move

[Slade3200]

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.

Why do you think he lied?

He thought he was being a tough guy. He's a flake.

What does being tough have to do with lying to Congress. Why would he lie?

 

[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.

Why do you think he lied?

He thought he was being a tough guy. He's a flake.

What does being tough have to do with lying to Congress. Why would he lie?

He's a flake.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Why do you think he lied?

He thought he was being a tough guy. He's a flake.

What does being tough have to do with lying to Congress. Why would he lie?

He's a flake.

What does being a flake have to do with lying to Congress? Run me threw the thought process or agenda of taking that action

 

[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.

Why do you think he lied?

He thought he was being a tough guy. He's a flake.

What does being tough have to do with lying to Congress. Why would he lie?

He's a flake.

What does being a flake have to do with lying to Congress? Run me threw the thought process or agenda of taking that action

flake: a crazy or eccentric person.

 

[Billiejeens]

William Barr, President Donald Trump's nominee for attorney general, said during his confirmation hearing Tuesday that it would be illegal for the president to pardon someone in exchange for that person's silence.

Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy asked Barr if a president can "offer a pardon in exchange for the witness's promise not to incriminate the president."

"No, that would be a crime," Barr replied.

William Barr says it would be a crime for Trump to pardon someone in exchange for their silence

William Barr told lawmakers that it would "be a crime" for the president to pardon someone in exchange for their silence.

www.businessinsider.com

Luckily that didn't happen here.

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

After what Stone did to this country, he deserves to have a big, black cellmate.

Can you describe what you believe he did to harm the country?

 

[Billiejeens]

In an effort to uphold transparency in the Stone case, Fitton suggests that AG Barr “should’ve frozen everything related to Mueller.” Going forward, Fitton advocates that “the 4 lawyers who tried to punish Stone inappropriately be subject to prosecution.” While credit must be given to AG Barr “for coming in [to the prosecution] and stopping the corruption,” he must continue to “focus on the corruption in his own agency and pay attention to the president’s concerns.” After all, as the Stone case has shown, the Justice Department is in a state of disarray, a place where “Barr can’t ensure that justice is done without his personal intervention.”

Does Fitton explain why Stone's prosecution was inappropriate? Because the facts of the matter are pretty much indisputable. There's so much documentation demonstrating Stone lied and then tried to cover it up, that few people actually try to argue his innocence.

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.

You do realize neither Crowdstrike nor the FBI investigated the Podesta emails and all Crowdstrike investigated was the hack?

Not true.

Crowdstrike didn't investigate Podesta's hack, but the DoJ did. The results of that investigation are on page 37 of the Mueller report. They tracked the spearphishing campaign that they used to get Podesta's emails back to the GRU.

Yeah, that was the basis for indicting those 12 Russians who will never appear in a U.S. court. When their lawyer showed up for the trial, Mueller had no case to present, so we know that whole thing is bogus. Mueller has no evidence for any of the accusations he makes. None.

The lawyer that appeared before court was representing Concord Management, not “the 12 Russians”. The case was not presented because Mueller was not interested in a dog and pony show since the defendant never presented before the court and remained outside our jurisdiction.

So you’re clearly misinformed

Describe the role of Concord Management in the proceedings

Concord Management was a front company and bankrolled some of the IRC activities.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1035562/download

A front for who?

IRA, not IRC, my bad. Internet Research Agency.

Appreciate that correction -

Now,

A front for who?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

After what Stone did to this country, he deserves to have a big, black cellmate.

What did he do to the country?

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Why do you think he lied?

He thought he was being a tough guy. He's a flake.

What does being tough have to do with lying to Congress. Why would he lie?

He's a flake.

What does being a flake have to do with lying to Congress? Run me threw the thought process or agenda of taking that action

flake: a crazy or eccentric person.

Ok you think he is crazy and eccentric, I get it. But he is one of Trumps oldest and most trusted political advisors so I’m not buying the “he’s out of his mind” argument. I’m looking for the strategy and rationale behind why he would lie to congress and to the FBI during an investigation. Why do you think?

 

[bripat9643]

In an effort to uphold transparency in the Stone case, Fitton suggests that AG Barr “should’ve frozen everything related to Mueller.” Going forward, Fitton advocates that “the 4 lawyers who tried to punish Stone inappropriately be subject to prosecution.” While credit must be given to AG Barr “for coming in [to the prosecution] and stopping the corruption,” he must continue to “focus on the corruption in his own agency and pay attention to the president’s concerns.” After all, as the Stone case has shown, the Justice Department is in a state of disarray, a place where “Barr can’t ensure that justice is done without his personal intervention.”

Does Fitton explain why Stone's prosecution was inappropriate? Because the facts of the matter are pretty much indisputable. There's so much documentation demonstrating Stone lied and then tried to cover it up, that few people actually try to argue his innocence.

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.

You do realize neither Crowdstrike nor the FBI investigated the Podesta emails and all Crowdstrike investigated was the hack?

Not true.

Crowdstrike didn't investigate Podesta's hack, but the DoJ did. The results of that investigation are on page 37 of the Mueller report. They tracked the spearphishing campaign that they used to get Podesta's emails back to the GRU.

Yeah, that was the basis for indicting those 12 Russians who will never appear in a U.S. court. When their lawyer showed up for the trial, Mueller had no case to present, so we know that whole thing is bogus. Mueller has no evidence for any of the accusations he makes. None.

The lawyer that appeared before court was representing Concord Management, not “the 12 Russians”. The case was not presented because Mueller was not interested in a dog and pony show since the defendant never presented before the court and remained outside our jurisdiction.

So you’re clearly misinformed

Yes I'm sure that was Mueller's thinking. Where did you churn that conspiracy theory from? Laughable.

It’s in the court filings for the case. Not a conspiracy. A legal argument. And it should be obvious.

Legal argument based on FISA warrants obtained under false pretenses.

There’s nothing in this case based on a FISA warrant based under false pretenses.

Swing and a miss.

Of course there is, douchebag. That's the whole case.

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

Why do you think he lied?

He thought he was being a tough guy. He's a flake.

What does being tough have to do with lying to Congress. Why would he lie?

He's a flake.

What does being a flake have to do with lying to Congress? Run me threw the thought process or agenda of taking that action

flake: a crazy or eccentric person.

Ok you think he is crazy and eccentric, I get it. But he is one of Trumps oldest and most trusted political advisors so I’m not buying the “he’s out of his mind” argument. I’m looking for the strategy and rationale behind why he would lie to congress and to the FBI during an investigation. Why do you think?

But he is one of Trumps oldest and most trusted political advisors


Good Lord that is an insane assertion.

 

[Billiejeens]

In an effort to uphold transparency in the Stone case, Fitton suggests that AG Barr “should’ve frozen everything related to Mueller.” Going forward, Fitton advocates that “the 4 lawyers who tried to punish Stone inappropriately be subject to prosecution.” While credit must be given to AG Barr “for coming in [to the prosecution] and stopping the corruption,” he must continue to “focus on the corruption in his own agency and pay attention to the president’s concerns.” After all, as the Stone case has shown, the Justice Department is in a state of disarray, a place where “Barr can’t ensure that justice is done without his personal intervention.”

Does Fitton explain why Stone's prosecution was inappropriate? Because the facts of the matter are pretty much indisputable. There's so much documentation demonstrating Stone lied and then tried to cover it up, that few people actually try to argue his innocence.

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.

You do realize neither Crowdstrike nor the FBI investigated the Podesta emails and all Crowdstrike investigated was the hack?

Not true.

Crowdstrike didn't investigate Podesta's hack, but the DoJ did. The results of that investigation are on page 37 of the Mueller report. They tracked the spearphishing campaign that they used to get Podesta's emails back to the GRU.

Yeah, that was the basis for indicting those 12 Russians who will never appear in a U.S. court. When their lawyer showed up for the trial, Mueller had no case to present, so we know that whole thing is bogus. Mueller has no evidence for any of the accusations he makes. None.

The lawyer that appeared before court was representing Concord Management, not “the 12 Russians”. The case was not presented because Mueller was not interested in a dog and pony show since the defendant never presented before the court and remained outside our jurisdiction.

So you’re clearly misinformed

Yes I'm sure that was Mueller's thinking. Where did you churn that conspiracy theory from? Laughable.

It’s in the court filings for the case. Not a conspiracy. A legal argument. And it should be obvious.

Legal argument based on FISA warrants obtained under false pretenses.

There’s nothing in this case based on a FISA warrant based under false pretenses.

Swing and a miss.

Of course there is, douchebag. That's the whole case.

Every Trump associated charge goes back to this poisonous tree.
None of the fruit should be considered edible -

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Why do you think he lied?

He thought he was being a tough guy. He's a flake.

What does being tough have to do with lying to Congress. Why would he lie?

He's a flake.

What does being a flake have to do with lying to Congress? Run me threw the thought process or agenda of taking that action

flake: a crazy or eccentric person.

Ok you think he is crazy and eccentric, I get it. But he is one of Trumps oldest and most trusted political advisors so I’m not buying the “he’s out of his mind” argument. I’m looking for the strategy and rationale behind why he would lie to congress and to the FBI during an investigation. Why do you think?

But he is one of Trumps oldest and most trusted political advisors


Good Lord that is an insane assertion.

Why is that insane. They have known eachother for 40 years. That’s old. He is a know political operative. How do you dispute any of that?

is it the trusted part that you don’t like? You dont think Trump trusts Stone? Explain yourself child...

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

Why do you think he lied?

He thought he was being a tough guy. He's a flake.

What does being tough have to do with lying to Congress. Why would he lie?

He's a flake.

What does being a flake have to do with lying to Congress? Run me threw the thought process or agenda of taking that action

flake: a crazy or eccentric person.

Ok you think he is crazy and eccentric, I get it. But he is one of Trumps oldest and most trusted political advisors so I’m not buying the “he’s out of his mind” argument. I’m looking for the strategy and rationale behind why he would lie to congress and to the FBI during an investigation. Why do you think?

But he is one of Trumps oldest and most trusted political advisors


Good Lord that is an insane assertion.

Why is that insane. They have known eachother for 40 years. That’s old. He is a know political operative. How do you dispute any of that?

is it the trusted part that you don’t like? You dont think Trump trusts Stone? Explain yourself child...

Stone is old - yes
Stone was a lobbyist. - yes
DJT and Stone were friendly- yes

DJT has been a politician for 5 years.

DJT is the one and only old and trusted political advisor to DJT.

I get that you think that you can smear people with nonsense.
It just doesn't work when you try to sell it to me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ok you think he is crazy and eccentric, I get it. But he is one of Trumps oldest and most trusted political advisors so I’m not buying the “he’s out of his mind” argument. I’m looking for the strategy and rationale behind why he would lie to congress and to the FBI during an investigation. Why do you think?

But he is one of Trumps oldest and most trusted political advisors

Going all the way back to 2015? Wow!

I’m looking for the strategy and rationale

And that's where you made your mistake.

 

[berg80]

Luckily that didn't happen here.

Prove it.

 

[berg80]

"Unprecedented, historic corruption: an American president commutes the sentence of a person convicted by a jury of lying to shield that very president," Romney tweeted Saturday.

It doesn't get any more concise and accurate than that.

 

[bripat9643]

"Unprecedented, historic corruption: an American president commutes the sentence of a person convicted by a jury of lying to shield that very president," Romney tweeted Saturday.

It doesn't get any more concise and accurate than that.

Romney is universally despised in the Republican Party.

 

[Billiejeens]

"Unprecedented, historic corruption: an American president commutes the sentence of a person convicted by a jury of lying to shield that very president," Romney tweeted Saturday.

It doesn't get any more concise and accurate than that.

Trying to remember the last time that Romney was right about something

Thinking
Thinking
Thinking
Thinking

Oh yeah it was when he told the Half-breed Resident that Russia was our enemy.
Right before said H/B conspired with Russia and The Beast to try and steal a national election.

Remember that - I know that you do.

 

[Christ_on_a_croissant]

HELL YEAh! Democrat witch hunt comes up
Empty haha

and stone will rake in millions!

You don’t seem to know what the word ‘empty’ means in this context.

He was convicted of seven felonies by a jury of his peers.

It’s alright, though. Trump just showed the world that he is corrupt to the bone, in case there were any doubters left.

And Stone can still be brought up on state charges and probably more federal charges once a real AG gets in their to fix the DOJ.