Roger Stone's only crime was helping Trump get elected...

[justoffal]

You are trying so hard but failing so bad. You have yet to explain any of your idiotic statements that I’ve easily exposed as irrational. Keep moving the goalpost though, it’s like catching fish in a barrel

You have only exposed your own irrationality and stupidity. You lack the capacity to commit logic.

If that’s the case then you would respond directly to my statements instead of constantly moving the goalposts and changing the subject. I address your statements directly, pose a counter point and ask questions of you. You rarely give direct responses in return. That only shows a lack of capacity on your part to engage in a proper debate. Do better.

Wrong. What you're doing is trying to get my to buy your premise that Mueller is somehow justified in investigating Roger Stone and Wikileaks. That would only be true in a police state. In a free country we don't investigate people who are not suspected of committing any crimes.

Exactly....Barr almost In....I think we will see some changes.



Jo

I doubt you'll see anymore of these arrest spectacles or even indictments of witnesses who have done nothing. The Mueller circus will have to fold its tent.

While the completely mentally vacant Democrats are absorbed with the Mueller investigation and impeachment Trump and Barr will be going after the big boys like Amazon and Google as monopolies. Barr is a very strong Business AG. Trump is going after much Bigger Fish than Clinton or Obama. These implications are HUGE. Imagine Google being forced to split? Or Amazon being chopped in two?

Jo

 

[bripat9643]

You have only exposed your own irrationality and stupidity. You lack the capacity to commit logic.

If that’s the case then you would respond directly to my statements instead of constantly moving the goalposts and changing the subject. I address your statements directly, pose a counter point and ask questions of you. You rarely give direct responses in return. That only shows a lack of capacity on your part to engage in a proper debate. Do better.

Wrong. What you're doing is trying to get my to buy your premise that Mueller is somehow justified in investigating Roger Stone and Wikileaks. That would only be true in a police state. In a free country we don't investigate people who are not suspected of committing any crimes.

Exactly....Barr almost In....I think we will see some changes.



Jo

I doubt you'll see anymore of these arrest spectacles or even indictments of witnesses who have done nothing. The Mueller circus will have to fold its tent.

While the completely mental vacant Democrats are absorbed with the Mueller investigation and impeachment Trump and Barr will be going after the big boys like Amazon and Google as monopolies. Barr is a very strong Business AG. Trump is going after much Bigger Fish than Clinton or Obama.

Jo

I hope they do go after Google and Facebook. Let's see how fast they change their tune about censoring the right.

 

[justoffal]

We know Stalinists like you that don't care if people are railroaded and persecuted. That's what makes you a Stalinist.

Shouldn't lie to the FBI. Everyone knows that. Why do you think certain people should be exempt from the law?

He isn't accused of lying to the FBI, moron. He's accused of lying to Congress. However, the following people lied to Congress and haven't been charged with any felonies:

1. Hillary Clinton
2. James Comey
3. John Brennan
4. Jim Clapper
5. Andrew McCabe
6. Peter Strozk
7. Lisa Page
8. Sally Yates
9. Bruce Ohre
10. Rod Rosenstein

And now Special Counsel Robert Mueller has indicted him with one count of obstruction, five counts of false statements, and one count of witness tampering, according to a Justice Department filing on Thursday.

Seems he's been engaged in a bit more than I thought, actually.

Eh, doesn't matter. He's insignificant.

Its going to be the witness tampering thats going to land his ass in the slammer.

That's the most serious charge, but I think it was taken out of context. Was Credico even considered to be a witness at the time? I think Stone was just hot under the collar.

If he did... He's toast....I hope he didn't.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

If that’s the case then you would respond directly to my statements instead of constantly moving the goalposts and changing the subject. I address your statements directly, pose a counter point and ask questions of you. You rarely give direct responses in return. That only shows a lack of capacity on your part to engage in a proper debate. Do better.

Wrong. What you're doing is trying to get my to buy your premise that Mueller is somehow justified in investigating Roger Stone and Wikileaks. That would only be true in a police state. In a free country we don't investigate people who are not suspected of committing any crimes.

Exactly....Barr almost In....I think we will see some changes.



Jo

I doubt you'll see anymore of these arrest spectacles or even indictments of witnesses who have done nothing. The Mueller circus will have to fold its tent.

While the completely mental vacant Democrats are absorbed with the Mueller investigation and impeachment Trump and Barr will be going after the big boys like Amazon and Google as monopolies. Barr is a very strong Business AG. Trump is going after much Bigger Fish than Clinton or Obama.

Jo

I hope they do go after Google and Facebook. Let's see how fast they change their tune about censoring the right.

It's coming that's why Trump likes Barr.
Nothing to do with the investigation...much bigger plans.

Jo

 

[Leo123]

Wikileaks didn't steal any emails, and neither did Roger Stone. Nor did either "interfere" with our election. Publishing facts about Hillary is not a crime. Like all you leftwing douches, you keep trying to make things into crimes that aren't crimes. The fact that Hillary lost and you hate it doesn't make it a crime.

Get that through your thick skull.

Correct and, the only Russian collusion was Hillary selling your uranium and basically producing a fake dossier in order to take out a Presidential candidate....Talk about colluding with the Russians. It will be interesting if Mueller finds any of that......

 

[Slade3200]

Helping somebody get elected is not a crime. Breaking the law is a crime and he broke several laws. Why are these basic things so hard for some people to grasp?

But you can't really name the laws that he broke before the FBI started questioning him.
His biggest crime was not remembering an email here or there.

First of all you do t know what intel the FBI had when they started the investigation. Second, the eveidemce that we have seen about his relationships with Wikileaks and know statements is plenty of reason to question him. If he lied or co tradicted himself during questioning that warrants digging deeper. Why is he lying? Lastly if a crime is uncovered in this process they have every right to act on it. I don’t see what your issue is?

There is no reason to question him since no crimes are being investigated.

Would you consider stealing emails and interfering with a national election a crime as our intel agencies all have?

Wikileaks didn't steal any emails, and neither did Roger Stone. Nor did either "interfere" with our election. Publishing facts about Hillary is not a crime. Like all you leftwing douches, you keep trying to make things into crimes that aren't crimes. The fact that Hillary lost and you hate it doesn't make it a crime.

Get that through your thick skull.

I didn’t say they did. Are you having a hard time following or are you intentionally spinning the narrative? If you are going to respond to me then use my words and statements. Stop making shit up.

 

[Slade3200]

So if they come across a crime that has nothing to do with Russian collusion do you they they should just ignore it? What point are you trying to make here?

Well, when the investigating yields 0 evidence of collusion, instead of looking for skeletons, maybe he should fold up the tent. Hey if there was a big interest punishing those who lie to congress, there are plenty of people he could indict as well. Comey, Clapper, Hillary....The ***** who lied about being raped and probably most of the congress people.

You have no clue about the series of events involved in the investigation or what evidence they have. You are making biased assumptions based on spun up narratives. That’s not a smart way to go about it

 

[Slade3200]

I’m not asking how to conduct a witch hunt, I’m asking how you would conduct a proper investigation. But I guess you are dodging because the answer would fall right in line with what Mueller is doing. Wow, you are bad at debating.

Yes, you are asking how to conduct a witch hunt. If this was an honest investigation, it would have been over two years ago. There's nothing proper about investigating Stone or Wikileaks. There's nothing proper about the entire investigation. No crime is being investigated. Trump associates are being targeted, and than makes it a witch hunt.

No, I’m askimg how you would conduct a proper investigation. I understand you are calling this a witch hunt. But you can’t seem to answer how you would conduct the investigation. You don’t know what the hell you are talking about and it shows.

Nope. A proper investigation wouldn't be targeting people who haven't committed any crimes. In the first place, it would be investigating a actual crime. Where's the crime? The words "proper investigation" and the Mueller witch hunt have no connection with each other.

For the third time... I didn’t ask what a proper investigation wouldn’t be.... I asked what it would be. Emails were hacked and our intel agencies all agree that Russia committed crimes against the US to interfer in our election. Those are the crimes you are asking for, every sane person understands that. Now tell me how you would go about investigating that in a proper way. Don’t change the subject again, just give a direct answer or say you don’t know.

As I told you, a proper investigation" would have folded its tent two years ago because it was obvious then that no crimes were committed and no "collusion" occurred.

Russian hacking wouldn't involve a criminal investigation of Americans. It would be purely an intelligence operation. The emails probably were not hacked. The were leaked by an insider. The evidence shows that they could not have been transmitted over the internet. They were downloaded internally to a USB drive.

No matter how you look at it, Mueller has no business investigating Stone or Wikileaks. Neither has committed any crimes. Mueller should have folded up his tent two years ago.

They did an intelligence investigation and found reason to open a criminal investigation led by a special prosecutor based on whatever evidence they had. The Trump appointed leaders were the ones that initiated this investigation and have continued to condone its validity. You can’t spin your way out of that.

 

[Slade3200]

I would expect to be questioned if my neighbor robbed a liquor store and if I lied while being questioned I’d expect the probe would focus hard on me. If a crime was uncovered during that probe then I’d assume I’d be arrested. I do see how you’d expect anything different to happen in that situation

Spare us. The premise of this analogy is that the cops know who did it. We also know Wikileaks didn't steal anything.

FAIL

You are trying so hard but failing so bad. You have yet to explain any of your idiotic statements that I’ve easily exposed as irrational. Keep moving the goalpost though, it’s like catching fish in a barrel

You have only exposed your own irrationality and stupidity. You lack the capacity to commit logic.

If that’s the case then you would respond directly to my statements instead of constantly moving the goalposts and changing the subject. I address your statements directly, pose a counter point and ask questions of you. You rarely give direct responses in return. That only shows a lack of capacity on your part to engage in a proper debate. Do better.

Wrong. What you're doing is trying to get me to buy your premise that Mueller is somehow justified in investigating Roger Stone and Wikileaks. That would only be true in a police state. In a free country we don't investigate people who are not suspected of committing any crimes.

No I’m just trying to get you to give a straight answer to direct questions. You don’t seem capable of doing so

 

[Slade3200]

Helping somebody get elected is not a crime. Breaking the law is a crime and he broke several laws. Why are these basic things so hard for some people to grasp?

But you can't really name the laws that he broke before the FBI started questioning him.
His biggest crime was not remembering an email here or there.

First of all you do t know what intel the FBI had when they started the investigation. Second, the eveidemce that we have seen about his relationships with Wikileaks and know statements is plenty of reason to question him. If he lied or co tradicted himself during questioning that warrants digging deeper. Why is he lying? Lastly if a crime is uncovered in this process they have every right to act on it. I don’t see what your issue is?

There is no reason to question him since no crimes are being investigated.

Would you consider stealing emails and interfering with a national election a crime as our intel agencies all have?

What the **** does "interfering with a national election" entail? Is publishing factual information "interfering?" What is the scope of this so-called crime?

For the last time, Neither Stone nor Wikileaks stole anything.

Ask our intelligence angencies who all agree that crimes were committed

 

[Slade3200]

Spare us. The premise of this analogy is that the cops know who did it. We also know Wikileaks didn't steal anything.

FAIL

You are trying so hard but failing so bad. You have yet to explain any of your idiotic statements that I’ve easily exposed as irrational. Keep moving the goalpost though, it’s like catching fish in a barrel

You have only exposed your own irrationality and stupidity. You lack the capacity to commit logic.

If that’s the case then you would respond directly to my statements instead of constantly moving the goalposts and changing the subject. I address your statements directly, pose a counter point and ask questions of you. You rarely give direct responses in return. That only shows a lack of capacity on your part to engage in a proper debate. Do better.

Wrong. What you're doing is trying to get my to buy your premise that Mueller is somehow justified in investigating Roger Stone and Wikileaks. That would only be true in a police state. In a free country we don't investigate people who are not suspected of committing any crimes.

Exactly....Barr is almost In....I think we will see some changes.



Jo

I like Barr. I bet you see all the trumpbots turn against him when he gets behind Mueller

 

[justoffal]

You are trying so hard but failing so bad. You have yet to explain any of your idiotic statements that I’ve easily exposed as irrational. Keep moving the goalpost though, it’s like catching fish in a barrel

You have only exposed your own irrationality and stupidity. You lack the capacity to commit logic.

If that’s the case then you would respond directly to my statements instead of constantly moving the goalposts and changing the subject. I address your statements directly, pose a counter point and ask questions of you. You rarely give direct responses in return. That only shows a lack of capacity on your part to engage in a proper debate. Do better.

Wrong. What you're doing is trying to get my to buy your premise that Mueller is somehow justified in investigating Roger Stone and Wikileaks. That would only be true in a police state. In a free country we don't investigate people who are not suspected of committing any crimes.

Exactly....Barr is almost In....I think we will see some changes.



Jo

I like Barr. I bet you see all the trumpbots turn against him when he gets behind Mueller

He has already done that.

Trump's plans for Barr dwarf anything
That the Mueller investigation can
Conjure up. Barr has been aiming at Google and Amazon for some time in fact. Huge doesn't even touch it.

Jo

 

[Leo123]

You have no clue about the series of events involved in the investigation or what evidence they have. You are making biased assumptions based on spun up narratives. That’s not a smart way to go about it

It is a bullshit witch hunt based on an already discredited dossier. There is and was no Trump/Russia collusion. Try looking at Hillary, lots of evidence there.

 

[justoffal]

You have no clue about the series of events involved in the investigation or what evidence they have. You are making biased assumptions based on spun up narratives. That’s not a smart way to go about it

It is a bullshit witch hunt based on an already discredited dossier. There is and was no Trump/Russia collusion. Try looking at Hillary, lots of evidence there.

They are brain dead.

TRUMP WON SO SOMEBODY IS GUILTY

JO

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, you are asking how to conduct a witch hunt. If this was an honest investigation, it would have been over two years ago. There's nothing proper about investigating Stone or Wikileaks. There's nothing proper about the entire investigation. No crime is being investigated. Trump associates are being targeted, and than makes it a witch hunt.

No, I’m askimg how you would conduct a proper investigation. I understand you are calling this a witch hunt. But you can’t seem to answer how you would conduct the investigation. You don’t know what the hell you are talking about and it shows.

Nope. A proper investigation wouldn't be targeting people who haven't committed any crimes. In the first place, it would be investigating a actual crime. Where's the crime? The words "proper investigation" and the Mueller witch hunt have no connection with each other.

For the third time... I didn’t ask what a proper investigation wouldn’t be.... I asked what it would be. Emails were hacked and our intel agencies all agree that Russia committed crimes against the US to interfer in our election. Those are the crimes you are asking for, every sane person understands that. Now tell me how you would go about investigating that in a proper way. Don’t change the subject again, just give a direct answer or say you don’t know.

As I told you, a proper investigation" would have folded its tent two years ago because it was obvious then that no crimes were committed and no "collusion" occurred.

Russian hacking wouldn't involve a criminal investigation of Americans. It would be purely an intelligence operation. The emails probably were not hacked. The were leaked by an insider. The evidence shows that they could not have been transmitted over the internet. They were downloaded internally to a USB drive.

No matter how you look at it, Mueller has no business investigating Stone or Wikileaks. Neither has committed any crimes. Mueller should have folded up his tent two years ago.

They did an intelligence investigation and found reason to open a criminal investigation led by a special prosecutor based on whatever evidence they had. The Trump appointed leaders were the ones that initiated this investigation and have continued to condone its validity. You can’t spin your way out of that.

They found no such thing.

The "Rosenstein is a Republican" meme isn't fooling anyone other than those that want to be fooled.

 

[bripat9643]

But you can't really name the laws that he broke before the FBI started questioning him.
His biggest crime was not remembering an email here or there.

First of all you do t know what intel the FBI had when they started the investigation. Second, the eveidemce that we have seen about his relationships with Wikileaks and know statements is plenty of reason to question him. If he lied or co tradicted himself during questioning that warrants digging deeper. Why is he lying? Lastly if a crime is uncovered in this process they have every right to act on it. I don’t see what your issue is?

There is no reason to question him since no crimes are being investigated.

Would you consider stealing emails and interfering with a national election a crime as our intel agencies all have?

What the **** does "interfering with a national election" entail? Is publishing factual information "interfering?" What is the scope of this so-called crime?

For the last time, Neither Stone nor Wikileaks stole anything.

Ask our intelligence angencies who all agree that crimes were committed

They do? Where?

 

[bripat9643]

Spare us. The premise of this analogy is that the cops know who did it. We also know Wikileaks didn't steal anything.

FAIL

You are trying so hard but failing so bad. You have yet to explain any of your idiotic statements that I’ve easily exposed as irrational. Keep moving the goalpost though, it’s like catching fish in a barrel

You have only exposed your own irrationality and stupidity. You lack the capacity to commit logic.

If that’s the case then you would respond directly to my statements instead of constantly moving the goalposts and changing the subject. I address your statements directly, pose a counter point and ask questions of you. You rarely give direct responses in return. That only shows a lack of capacity on your part to engage in a proper debate. Do better.

Wrong. What you're doing is trying to get me to buy your premise that Mueller is somehow justified in investigating Roger Stone and Wikileaks. That would only be true in a police state. In a free country we don't investigate people who are not suspected of committing any crimes.

No I’m just trying to get you to give a straight answer to direct questions. You don’t seem capable of doing so

No, you're trying to get me to accept your premise that the Mueller investigation is legitimate.

It isn't.

 

[Slade3200]

But you can't really name the laws that he broke before the FBI started questioning him.
His biggest crime was not remembering an email here or there.

First of all you do t know what intel the FBI had when they started the investigation. Second, the eveidemce that we have seen about his relationships with Wikileaks and know statements is plenty of reason to question him. If he lied or co tradicted himself during questioning that warrants digging deeper. Why is he lying? Lastly if a crime is uncovered in this process they have every right to act on it. I don’t see what your issue is?

There is no reason to question him since no crimes are being investigated.

Would you consider stealing emails and interfering with a national election a crime as our intel agencies all have?

What the **** does "interfering with a national election" entail? Is publishing factual information "interfering?" What is the scope of this so-called crime?

For the last time, Neither Stone nor Wikileaks stole anything.

Don't bother reading any of it.
You can save time by Transliterating all of these pro-investigation posts into these few words:

"TRUMP WON SO SOMEBODY IS GUILTY"

It's really just that mentally vacant.


JO

“Don’t bother reading any of it” well that just about sums up the perfect quote of imbecile thinking. Way to go!

If you ever feel like stepping it up try reading “it” and then proving it wrong using facts and logic.

 

[Slade3200]

You have no clue about the series of events involved in the investigation or what evidence they have. You are making biased assumptions based on spun up narratives. That’s not a smart way to go about it

It is a bullshit witch hunt based on an already discredited dossier. There is and was no Trump/Russia collusion. Try looking at Hillary, lots of evidence there.

Wow, you almost got those tired talking points down verbatim... it can’t feel good being a puppet like that. Use your brain and come up with real arguments that you can back up and debate

 

[Slade3200]

No, I’m askimg how you would conduct a proper investigation. I understand you are calling this a witch hunt. But you can’t seem to answer how you would conduct the investigation. You don’t know what the hell you are talking about and it shows.

Nope. A proper investigation wouldn't be targeting people who haven't committed any crimes. In the first place, it would be investigating a actual crime. Where's the crime? The words "proper investigation" and the Mueller witch hunt have no connection with each other.

For the third time... I didn’t ask what a proper investigation wouldn’t be.... I asked what it would be. Emails were hacked and our intel agencies all agree that Russia committed crimes against the US to interfer in our election. Those are the crimes you are asking for, every sane person understands that. Now tell me how you would go about investigating that in a proper way. Don’t change the subject again, just give a direct answer or say you don’t know.

As I told you, a proper investigation" would have folded its tent two years ago because it was obvious then that no crimes were committed and no "collusion" occurred.

Russian hacking wouldn't involve a criminal investigation of Americans. It would be purely an intelligence operation. The emails probably were not hacked. The were leaked by an insider. The evidence shows that they could not have been transmitted over the internet. They were downloaded internally to a USB drive.

No matter how you look at it, Mueller has no business investigating Stone or Wikileaks. Neither has committed any crimes. Mueller should have folded up his tent two years ago.

They did an intelligence investigation and found reason to open a criminal investigation led by a special prosecutor based on whatever evidence they had. The Trump appointed leaders were the ones that initiated this investigation and have continued to condone its validity. You can’t spin your way out of that.

They found no such thing.

The "Rosenstein is a Republican" meme isn't fooling anyone other than those that want to be fooled.

How do you know what they “found”? Answer is you don’t. Second, it doesn’t matter if Rosenbaum is a Republican or not. Trump appointed him to his position. Trump also appointed Chris Wray to his position and Wray has always stood behind Mueller and the investigation. You lose again.