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

[Slade3200]

...all the rest is bullshit.

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?

 

[Slade3200]

It’s not irrelevant. A crime is a crime. If you are investigating the crime you start by questioning those involved. That’s how every investigation is conducted. When people lie they get looked into more. This isn’t rocket science.

If somebody gives illegally obtained intel to the WAPO then you can bet that investigators will be looking into people who were in contacted with reporters from WAPO. Do you really not understand how this works?

So it doesn't matter who committed the crime? You wouldn't have a problem with being arrested if your neighbor robbed the liquor store?

You're a moron, of course.

Wikileaks wasn't involved in committing the crime. Furthermore, Mueller hasn't questioned Assange or Wikileaks.

Illegally leaked information definitely was given to WAPO, and Mueller doesn't give a flying ****. He's only targeting associates of Donald Trump.

This is a witch hunt. Do you really not understand how this works?

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.

 

[Slade3200]

Who do you think committed the crime when it comes to hacking the DNC and Russian interference in the election? If you don’t know who, then how would you go about finding out who was associated and responsible? Come on dazzle us with your brilliant plan

You'll have to excuse me if I can't explain how to conduct a witch hunt. What an honest man would do is drop the whole thing, but Mueller has no shame. He will continue far beyond any norms of justice or common decency.

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.

 

[Leo123]

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.

 

[bripat9643]

...all the rest is bullshit.

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.

 

[justoffal]

...all the rest is bullshit.

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.

It's impossible to NOT LIE to a federal prosecutor who is determined to make you a
liar. Mueller is the cop that smashes out your break lights with his nightstick then gives you a citation for equipment failure.

Jo

Here's what you do: tell the prosecutor to talk to your lawyer whenever he asks you a question. You don't have to talk to these douchebags. However, Stone was indicted for lying to Congress. That's a non-crime if there ever was one.

Mueller has reached the point where a mispronounced word is a lie. It's called perjury trapping and at that level EVERYONE IS A LIAR.... It's a well known game that the government plays.

Jo

 

[bripat9643]

You'll have to excuse me if I can't explain how to conduct a witch hunt. What an honest man would do is drop the whole thing, but Mueller has no shame. He will continue far beyond any norms of justice or common decency.

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.

 

[justoffal]

...all the rest is bullshit.

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?

Because they have 0 to do with Russian 'collusion' which is what Mueller is supposed to be investigating.

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?

Everyone in DC is guilty by that standard.
Mueller is generating crime not finding it at this point.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

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 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.

But he almost has enough for that DC
Mansion ..... Just a few more paychecks.

Jo

 

[bripat9643]

So it doesn't matter who committed the crime? You wouldn't have a problem with being arrested if your neighbor robbed the liquor store?

You're a moron, of course.

Wikileaks wasn't involved in committing the crime. Furthermore, Mueller hasn't questioned Assange or Wikileaks.

Illegally leaked information definitely was given to WAPO, and Mueller doesn't give a flying ****. He's only targeting associates of Donald Trump.

This is a witch hunt. Do you really not understand how this works?

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.

 

[bripat9643]

...all the rest is bullshit.

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.

 

[justoffal]

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 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

 

[Asclepias]

Who the **** cares about Roger Stone?

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.

 

[justoffal]

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.

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

 

[justoffal]

Who the **** cares about Roger Stone?

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 WAS MONUMENTALLY STUPID OF HIM.

JO

 

[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 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.

 

[bripat9643]

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 WAS MONUMENTALLY STUPID OF HIM.

JO

It's not clear that he actually did any witness tampering.

 

[Asclepias]

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 WAS MONUMENTALLY STUPID OF HIM.

JO

It's not clear that he actually did any witness tampering.

Is there a name for this alternate reality you live in?

 

[bripat9643]

Who the **** cares about Roger Stone?

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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 WAS MONUMENTALLY STUPID OF HIM.

JO

It's not clear that he actually did any witness tampering.

Is there a name for this alternate reality you live in?

Yeah, it's called "reality." Where do you live?