Commutation of Stone Sentence Correct Move

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ok, then what should be done with people who conspire with these very serious crimes?

You'll have to define conspire in the context of this issue.

Well in stones case I’ll let the legal findings speak for themselves....

A jury determined Stone lied repeatedly to members of Congress. He lied about the identity of his intermediary to WikiLeaks. He lied about the existence of written communications with his intermediary. He lied by denying he had communicated with the Trump campaign about the timing of WikiLeaks’ releases. He in fact updated senior campaign officials repeatedly about WikiLeaks. And he tampered with a witness, imploring him to stonewall Congress.

Well in stones case I’ll let the legal findings speak for themselves....

So now you're saying he didn't "conspire"?

He did in exactly the way I laid out. Why aren’t you answering my question?

He did in exactly the way I laid out.

Where did he conspire? With whom?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Basically, Stone kept the campaign apprised of what these guys had illegally stolen by way of his communications with Wikileaks.

U.S. Charges Russian GRU Officers with International Hacking and Related Influence and Disinformation Operations

A grand jury in the Western District of Pennsylvania has indicted seven defendants, all officers in the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), a military intelligence agency of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, for computer hacking, wire fraud, aggravated...

www.justice.gov

He kept Trump personally apprised. Had Stone told the truth about that, Don would have been charged with perjury in the Mueller investigation since he lied in his written answers about communications with Stone.

Basically, Stone kept the campaign apprised of what these guys had illegally stolen by way of his communications with Wikileaks.

Communicating with Wikileaks wasn't illegal. He didn't steal anything.
Neither did Wikileaks.

 

[berg80]

If there is one thing that has come to light in the discussion about Stone it is the value to Trump of having so many of his followers still believe so many of the lies he and right wing media promoted about Mueller........his investigation.........his report...........the nature and importance of Stone's lies.........the FBI.........Trump's written answers to Mueller..........etc.

 

[bottlecap]

It is NOT criminal, or even wrong, for a political allay to seek that information beneficial for his candidate

Wait. You're saying it wasn't wrong for the campaign to solicit the release of material stolen from the DNC by Russia? Geeeesh. I know you guys have had your minds twisted by being cult members in Don's cult but.........................................really!!!!!!!!!!

NO evidence that the e-mails were taken by Russia. James Comey, for his part, requested that the DNC turn over their Server to the FBI for investigation.

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

Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to hacked servers
BY KATIE BO WILLIAMS - 01/10/17 01:45 PM EST

The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.

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.

“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, noting that he didn’t know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI’s request.
==============
So you see, the FBI never had a chance for their IT guys to gather any evidence.

 

[Slade3200]

Ok, then what should be done with people who conspire with these very serious crimes?

You'll have to define conspire in the context of this issue.

Well in stones case I’ll let the legal findings speak for themselves....

A jury determined Stone lied repeatedly to members of Congress. He lied about the identity of his intermediary to WikiLeaks. He lied about the existence of written communications with his intermediary. He lied by denying he had communicated with the Trump campaign about the timing of WikiLeaks’ releases. He in fact updated senior campaign officials repeatedly about WikiLeaks. And he tampered with a witness, imploring him to stonewall Congress.

A "Jury" determined! That is a laugh, as the JURY you mentioned was based in Washington DC. The Jury pool consists of Washing DC residents and a look at the results of the 2016 election reveal the following:
Results

2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia

Party Popular vote

Democratic 282,830

Republican 12,723

Independent 6,551

YES, 22 Democrats for every 1 Republican. Any serious investigation into political wrongdoing should be conducted in a politically neutral arena.

Also AG Barr called the conviction righteous and the sentencing fair. How are you going to try and explain that?

 

[berg80]

Neither did Wikileaks.

But Wikileaks knowingly accepted and published illegally stolen material for which Mueller charged these guys with crimes.

U.S. Charges Russian GRU Officers with International Hacking and Related Influence and Disinformation Operations

Whether Stone broke the law in communicating with them in order to keep the campaign informed is, I'm sure, something you will admit Trump should never have agreed to be engaged with, right? I mean, it's unethical at the very least. (the Steele dossier is not analogous to this as I'm sure you understand)

 

[Slade3200]

Ok, then what should be done with people who conspire with these very serious crimes?

You'll have to define conspire in the context of this issue.

Well in stones case I’ll let the legal findings speak for themselves....

A jury determined Stone lied repeatedly to members of Congress. He lied about the identity of his intermediary to WikiLeaks. He lied about the existence of written communications with his intermediary. He lied by denying he had communicated with the Trump campaign about the timing of WikiLeaks’ releases. He in fact updated senior campaign officials repeatedly about WikiLeaks. And he tampered with a witness, imploring him to stonewall Congress.

Well in stones case I’ll let the legal findings speak for themselves....

So now you're saying he didn't "conspire"?

He did in exactly the way I laid out. Why aren’t you answering my question?

He did in exactly the way I laid out.

Where did he conspire? With whom?

He conspired with the Russians and Trump campaign with the intel dump. Why do I need to explain this stuff it’s not a mystery. Are you playing dumb?

 

[colfax_m]

Julian Assange obtained DNC e-mails about how the DNC was being unfair to Bernie Sanders. How he got them he is not telling, but stated categorically it was NOT from Russia.

It is NOT criminal, or even wrong, for a political allay to seek that information beneficial for his candidate and detrimental to the opponent, That is how US POLITICS work. Stone had nothing to do with obtaining the e-mails from the DNC, which is where Illegality might have occurred, so the whole case against him was a Deep State Scam.

It certainly is wrong to attempt to seek advantage in a campaign through the commission of felonies.

 

[berg80]

NO evidence that the e-mails were taken by Russia.

On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence Russia stole the e-mails as well as evidence they gave them to Wikileaks. Only conspiratorial nutbags believe otherwise.

 

[berg80]

He conspired with the Russians and Trump campaign with the intel dump. Why do I need to explain this stuff it’s not a mystery. Are you playing dumb?

That's their game. They either play dumb or deny facts in evidence.

 

[colfax_m]

Because law enforcement is tracking down people who are releasing material stolen by a foreign government to figure out who was part of the illegal activity.

As you're already aware, publishing those materials isn't illegal.
Stone didn't steal them, or publish them, why was he questioned again?

Because he was talking to the people who did which means he might have useful information for the investigation.

 

[easyt65]

Correct move or not, Trump had as much authority to commute Stone's sentence as Barry did to commute the sentences of the terrorists he did.

 

[colfax_m]

Well, when you take everything out of context

You're making a comparison between any commutation by Obama (or any prez) and Trump's commutation of Stone and then have the audacity to say I'm taking something out of context. Wow.

"On August 2, Stone again called then-candidate Trump, and the two spoke for approximately ten minutes. Again, we don’t know what was said, but less than an hour after speaking with Trump, Stone emailed an associate of his Jerome Corsi, to have someone else who was living in London“ see Assange.” Less than two days later, on August 2, 2016, Corsi emailed Stone. Corsi told Stone that, “Word is friend in embassy [Assange] plans 2 more dumps. One “in October” and that “impact planned to be very damaging,” “time to let more than Podesta to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC. That appears to be the game hackers are now about."
Around this time, Deputy Campaign Chairman Gates continued to have conversations with Stone about more information that would be coming out from WikiLeaks. Gates was also present for a phone call between Stone and Trump. While Gates couldn’t hear the content of the call, he could hear Stone’s voice on the phone and see his name on the caller ID. Thirty seconds after hanging up the phone with Stone, then-candidate Trump told Gates that there would be more information coming. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, also stated that he was present for a phone call between Trump and Stone, where Stone told Trump 4 that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and in a couple of days WikiLeaks would release information, and Trump responded, “oh good, alright.” Paul Manafort also stated that he spoke with Trump about Stone’s predictions and his claimed access to WikiLeaks, and that Trump instructed Manafort to stay in touch with Stone. In his written answers to the Special Counsel’s Office, President Trump denied remembering anything about his conversations with Stone during the summer of 2016, and he denied being aware that Stone had discussed WikiLeaks with anyone associated with the campaign. One week after submitting his written answers, President Trump criticized “flipping” witnesses and stated that Stone was “very brave” in indicating he would not cooperate with prosecutors. The Special Counsel’s Report stated that the President’s statements complimenting Stone “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[.]”

Oh no!! Wikileaks published info........
Doesn't the Washington Post do the same thing?

I thought you already acknowledged the laws that were broken by Russians hacking and leaking DNC server info. Do you take that back? Do you think laws were not broken or that it’s not a big deal to break them?

I thought you already acknowledged the laws that were broken by Russians hacking and leaking DNC server info.

Yup, hacking is a crime. Stealing classified info is a crime.

Hasn't the Washington Post ever published stolen or hacked info?

Wasn’t this particular issue settled by NY Times vs United States?

Don't tell me, tell Slade.

Slade doesn't seem to have any problem with this point. In reality, it seems like a distraction from the actual topic.

Slade doesn't seem to have any problem with this point.

I haven't seen him say that yet.

it seems like a distraction from the actual topic.

The topic seems to be communicating with Wikileaks.
Is there a law against communicating with Wikileaks? Should there be?

I have commented... I’m happy to talk about waPo after we finish this convo. Do you acknowledge that the Russians hack and leak campaign was a legit and punishable breach of law? Answer please... without sarcasm

There was no Russian Hack -

Yes there was. Stop trolling.

There wasn't
Get out of your bubble.

Show any Evidence to back up your claims. I showed my proof. Where’s yours?

I laugh at your proof

Says the guy with NO PROOF. What a joke

Poor baby

I reported your trolling... you’re welcome

Fuck you

Another report... keep it up, let’s get you banned

Poor baby
Me not excepting your idiotic words as "proof" and telling you that
is not tolling
It's just not excepting your bullshit

Except you don’t provide any rebuttal. You add nothing to the conversation outside insults and habitual “nuh uhs”.

 

[easyt65]

NO evidence that the e-mails were taken by Russia.

On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence Russia stole the e-mails as well as evidence they gave them to Wikileaks. Only conspiratorial nutbags believe otherwise.

Please post the links to the 'overwhelming evidence' you claim exists...

.

 

[Billiejeens]

Julian Assange obtained DNC e-mails about how the DNC was being unfair to Bernie Sanders. How he got them he is not telling, but stated categorically it was NOT from Russia.

OK, but we know Assange was lying about that. That has clearly been established unequivocally.

It has not

 

[colfax_m]

Correct move or not, Trump had as much authority to commute Stone's sentence as Barry did to commute the sentences of the terrorists he did.

I have to believe there’s some limit to pardon power. Pardoning someone for a crime that directly benefited a president has to be so corrupt as to be unacceptable to this country. (That’s a hypothetical, not saying that’s what happened here. )

 

[colfax_m]

The Electoral College tabulates and forwards the votes from the people who voted for President

No they don't. The electors actually vote for the president. Trump won the presidency because he got 304 electoral votes, not because he got 62 million people's votes.

You are an idiot.
Dismissed.

I’m the one that actually understands how the constitution works.

“the people” don’t elect the president. Never have. That’s how the constitution works.

 

[lantern2814]

Nothing, in other words.

• Multiple top Trump campaign aides told investigators that Trump himself, then the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, knew WikiLeaks had damaging information on the Clinton campaign.
  • Then chairman Paul Manafort, deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates, and personal attorney Michael Cohen told investigators that Stone told Trump and several advisers in July 2016 that he had spoken with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and that the website would begin dumping documents in just a few days.
  • Mueller's team "established that the Trump Campaign displayed interest in the WikiLeaks releases, and that former Campaign member Roger Stone was in contact with the Campaign about those releases, claiming advance knowledge of more to come," the report said.
• Mueller concluded that Trump may have lied to investigators in his written answers to questions in the investigation.
  • "Cohen recalled a conversation in which Roger Stone told Trump that WikiLeaks planned to release information soon, and Manafort recalled that Trump had asked him to stay in touch with Stone about WikiLeaks," the report said.
  • "It is possible that, by the time the President submitted his written answers two years after the relevant events had occurred, he no longer had clear recollections of his discussions with Stone or his knowledge of Stone's asserted communications with WikiLeaks," the report said. "But the 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."
• Stone "indicated he had knowledge" of Trump's written answers to Mueller.
  • Mueller's report noted that Stone went on Fox News on the evening of January 25, 2019, the day he made his first court appearance after being indicted.
  • "That evening, Stone appeared on Fox News and indicated he had knowledge of the President's answers to this Office's written questions," the report said. "When asked if he had spoken to the President about the allegation that he had lied to Congress, Stone said, 'I have not' and added, 'When the President answered the written interrogatories, he correctly and honestly said, 'Roger Stone and I never discussed this and we never did.'"

The first item is not a crime. The next two are nothing more than gossip.

Why would Barr’s DOJ prosecute him if there were no crimes? Is Barr in on the fixx?

Barr doesn't have dictatorial control over the DOJ. Barr isn't willing to toss esablished procedures into the waste bin like Democrat AGs.

Hold up... didn’t Barr just step in and drop the Flynn case? That directly goes against what you just said does it not?

Go annoy someone else.

I’m sorry if pointing out your own contradictions and fake statements is annoying to you. Try being honest and accurate with what you say and that won’t happen.

Honesty and accuracy? From you? Hahahahaha!

Yes, that’s what I bring. Can you show otherwise?

You bring a steaming pile of bullshit. Tell us again how Cuomo has never lied. Give us some more TDS conspiracies that have been debunked countless times. That’s a all you have ever brought.

I’m sorry but I’m not going to talk with you if you’re going to lie about things I’ve said. I’ve never in my life said that Cuomo has never lied. Get honest or take a hike, I’m not wasting time with people like you.

Oh really? You just lied again. Never said Cuomo didn’t lie? Fuck you asshole. I pointed out Cuomo’s lies in a previous thread and you threw a hissy fit claiming he never lied. Run away now liar.

 

[Billiejeens]

The Electoral College tabulates and forwards the votes from the people who voted for President

No they don't. The electors actually vote for the president. Trump won the presidency because he got 304 electoral votes, not because he got 62 million people's votes.

You are an idiot.
Dismissed.

I’m the one that actually understands how the constitution works.

“the people” don’t elect the president. Never have. That’s how the constitution works.

Troll

 

[Hellokitty]

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