Commutation of Stone Sentence Correct Move

[bottlecap]

To no one in particular: This info is from a Rolling Stone Article:

"In the Dutch TV interview, Assange demurred on how he obtained the DNC emails, then dropped a tantalizing hint. “There’s a 27-year-old who works for the DNC who was shot in the back, murdered, just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington.”

“That was just a robbery, I believe, wasn’t it?” the host interjected.

“No,” Assange said. “There’s no finding.”

“What are you suggesting?”

“I’m suggesting that our sources take risks,” Assange said, “and they become concerned to see things occurring like that.”

Assange never said Rich’s name, but the implication was obvious: Rich was his source. WikiLeaks then announced a $20,000 reward on Twitter for information about Rich’s murder. "
====================
Is Assange telling the truth?? I don't know, but he one person who would know!!

 

[berg80]

Nope, they weren't stolen by Wikeleaks. They only recieved copies. You yourself say that made it legal for Wikileaks to have them.

Please prove to me that knowingly receiving stolen material is not illegal.

 

[berg80]

"So Trump clearly knew about and encouraged Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks, the unredacted report shows. Yet in written answers the president provided to Mueller’s office in the course of the special counsel’s investigation, Trump insisted that he did not recall “the specifics of any call [he] had” with Stone during the campaign or any discussions with Stone of WikiLeaks. And shortly after he submitted those answers, the unredacted report states, Trump began tweeting publicly in support of Stone—calling him “brave” and congratulating his “guts” for refusing to testify."

The Roger Stone Commutation Is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems

The president’s clemency for his confidante is totally unsurprising—which is part of what makes it so bad.

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[Billiejeens]

The will "of the people" vote ( which always elects the President) is expressed individually in each of the States

Then at best you could say it’s “the will of the states”. Calling it “the will of the people” is simply inaccurate. The people’s will is filtered, translated and transformed through an arbitrary and archaic system of the electoral college.

Your quarrel is with the poster that I am educating.

You're not educating. You're rationalizing. Trump was elected, but not as a result of the "will of the people".

I was educating the person who mentioned "the will of the people" and now you.

 

[Billiejeens]

The Roger Stone Commutation Is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems

The Roger Stone Commutation Is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems

The president’s clemency for his confidante is totally unsurprising—which is part of what makes it so bad.

www.lawfareblog.com

"But the predictable nature of Trump’s action should not obscure its rank corruption. In fact, the predictability makes the commutation all the more corrupt, the capstone of an all-but-open attempt on the president’s part to obstruct justice in a self-protective fashion over a protracted period of time. That may sound like hyperbole, but it’s actually not. Trump publicly encouraged Stone not to cooperate with Robert Mueller’s investigation, he publicly dangled clemency as a reward for silence, and he has now delivered. The act is predictable precisely because the corrupt action is so naked."

Left wing lunatic berg agrees with a Left wing lunatic blogger
Shock.

 

[colfax_m]

The will "of the people" vote ( which always elects the President) is expressed individually in each of the States

Then at best you could say it’s “the will of the states”. Calling it “the will of the people” is simply inaccurate. The people’s will is filtered, translated and transformed through an arbitrary and archaic system of the electoral college.

Your quarrel is with the poster that I am educating.

You're not educating. You're rationalizing. Trump was elected, but not as a result of the "will of the people".

I was educating the person who mentioned "the will of the people" and now you.

You're not educating. You're hiding.

 

[colfax_m]

"So Trump clearly knew about and encouraged Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks, the unredacted report shows. Yet in written answers the president provided to Mueller’s office in the course of the special counsel’s investigation, Trump insisted that he did not recall “the specifics of any call [he] had” with Stone during the campaign or any discussions with Stone of WikiLeaks. And shortly after he submitted those answers, the unredacted report states, Trump began tweeting publicly in support of Stone—calling him “brave” and congratulating his “guts” for refusing to testify."

The Roger Stone Commutation Is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems

The president’s clemency for his confidante is totally unsurprising—which is part of what makes it so bad.

www.lawfareblog.com

This doesn't get as much attention as it deserves. Stone is the one who would be able to demonstrate that Trump lied in his written testimony to Mueller.

 

[bripat9643]

No, I'm just going by what the FBI has admitted, being that they never conducted an independent investigation of the DNC server/cloud based imaging, nor did they review a final report from Crowdstrike.
It's amusing how liberals who support abolishing ICE and now Police are so trusting of the FBI.

You're purposely distorting the truth.

"Source close to the investigation says FBI didn't need the DNC servers because it already had the forensic data from upstream collection."


The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.

Comey: DNC denied FBI’s requests for access to hacked servers

The DNC and the bureau have been quibbling in public reports over whether the request was made.

thehill.com

Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails


"Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry’s testimony. Henry is asked when “the Russians” exfiltrated the data from DNC. Henry: “We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.”

More from Crowdstrike’s Shaun Henry: “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”

This takes me back to the qualified, ambiguous Mueller language I highlighted in my @RCInvestigates report “Crowdstrikeout.” The attribution of DNC hacking to Russia is tentative & appears at least partly based on inference, not hard evidence.

Recall that the Mueller report, in recounting the alleged Russian theft of emails, added the qualifier that the GRU “officers *appear* to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments.” Perhaps they weren’t sure, because Crowdstrike wasn’t either.

Henry: “Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn’t see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw.”

There’s a quote from Assange — maybe someone can find it, I can’t rn — saying that it’s possible that many different actors, including state actors, got inside the DNC system, but that doesn’t mean they actually stole (aka exfiltrated) the emails Wikileaks later released.

To be clear, Crowdstrike says it believes Russians hacked into DNC. But it admits to not having direct evidence that Russians actually exfiltrated the emails from DNC. This would track w/ what Assange has said: Russia may have hacked DNC, but they didn’t provide stolen emails."

I want to stress what a pretty big revelation this is. Crowdstrike, the firm behind the accusation that Russia hacked & stole DNC emails, admitted to Congress that it has no direct evidence Russia actually stole/exfiltrated the emails. More from Crowdstrike president Shaun Henry:

Huge: Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails

www.redstate.com

Overstated and out of context. There was ample information and evidence that demonstrated it was Russia beyond any reasonable doubt. Far more information and evidence was provided by law enforcement that went way beyond the capabilities that CrowdStrike had available to them.

Although CrowdStrike didn’t watch the files be exfiltrated, the DoJ was able to review traffic logs which demonstrated such.

Factually false

It’s in the Mueller report, troll. They tracked the data movement from the DNC servers to the Russian’s AWS server in Arizona.

You have no facts.

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

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

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

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

Your quarrel is with Mueller.

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

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

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

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

www.rollingstone.com

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

No, I'm just going by what the FBI has admitted, being that they never conducted an independent investigation of the DNC server/cloud based imaging, nor did they review a final report from Crowdstrike.
It's amusing how liberals who support abolishing ICE and now Police are so trusting of the FBI.

You're purposely distorting the truth.

"Source close to the investigation says FBI didn't need the DNC servers because it already had the forensic data from upstream collection."


The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.

Comey: DNC denied FBI’s requests for access to hacked servers

The DNC and the bureau have been quibbling in public reports over whether the request was made.

thehill.com

Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails


"Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry’s testimony. Henry is asked when “the Russians” exfiltrated the data from DNC. Henry: “We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.”

More from Crowdstrike’s Shaun Henry: “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”

This takes me back to the qualified, ambiguous Mueller language I highlighted in my @RCInvestigates report “Crowdstrikeout.” The attribution of DNC hacking to Russia is tentative & appears at least partly based on inference, not hard evidence.

Recall that the Mueller report, in recounting the alleged Russian theft of emails, added the qualifier that the GRU “officers *appear* to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments.” Perhaps they weren’t sure, because Crowdstrike wasn’t either.

Henry: “Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn’t see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw.”

There’s a quote from Assange — maybe someone can find it, I can’t rn — saying that it’s possible that many different actors, including state actors, got inside the DNC system, but that doesn’t mean they actually stole (aka exfiltrated) the emails Wikileaks later released.

To be clear, Crowdstrike says it believes Russians hacked into DNC. But it admits to not having direct evidence that Russians actually exfiltrated the emails from DNC. This would track w/ what Assange has said: Russia may have hacked DNC, but they didn’t provide stolen emails."

I want to stress what a pretty big revelation this is. Crowdstrike, the firm behind the accusation that Russia hacked & stole DNC emails, admitted to Congress that it has no direct evidence Russia actually stole/exfiltrated the emails. More from Crowdstrike president Shaun Henry:

Huge: Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails

www.redstate.com

Overstated and out of context. There was ample information and evidence that demonstrated it was Russia beyond any reasonable doubt. Far more information and evidence was provided by law enforcement that went way beyond the capabilities that CrowdStrike had available to them.

Although CrowdStrike didn’t watch the files be exfiltrated, the DoJ was able to review traffic logs which demonstrated such.

Factually false

It’s in the Mueller report, troll. They tracked the data movement from the DNC servers to the Russian’s AWS server in Arizona.

You have no facts.

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

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

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

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

Your quarrel is with Mueller.

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

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

WikiLeaks' Assange: Russia didn't give us emails

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

www.cnn.com

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

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

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

 

[bripat9643]

The will "of the people" vote ( which always elects the President) is expressed individually in each of the States

Then at best you could say it’s “the will of the states”. Calling it “the will of the people” is simply inaccurate. The people’s will is filtered, translated and transformed through an arbitrary and archaic system of the electoral college.

Your quarrel is with the poster that I am educating.

You're not educating. You're rationalizing. Trump was elected, but not as a result of the "will of the people".

I was educating the person who mentioned "the will of the people" and now you.

You're not educating. You're hiding.

You're spouting DNC talking points.

 

[bripat9643]

"So Trump clearly knew about and encouraged Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks, the unredacted report shows. Yet in written answers the president provided to Mueller’s office in the course of the special counsel’s investigation, Trump insisted that he did not recall “the specifics of any call [he] had” with Stone during the campaign or any discussions with Stone of WikiLeaks. And shortly after he submitted those answers, the unredacted report states, Trump began tweeting publicly in support of Stone—calling him “brave” and congratulating his “guts” for refusing to testify."

The Roger Stone Commutation Is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems

The president’s clemency for his confidante is totally unsurprising—which is part of what makes it so bad.

www.lawfareblog.com

This doesn't get as much attention as it deserves. Stone is the one who would be able to demonstrate that Trump lied in his written testimony to Mueller.

In other words, Mueller has no evidence that Trump lied, and he tried to extort Stone into lying about it.

 

[bripat9643]

The Roger Stone Commutation Is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems

The Roger Stone Commutation Is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems

The president’s clemency for his confidante is totally unsurprising—which is part of what makes it so bad.

www.lawfareblog.com

"But the predictable nature of Trump’s action should not obscure its rank corruption. In fact, the predictability makes the commutation all the more corrupt, the capstone of an all-but-open attempt on the president’s part to obstruct justice in a self-protective fashion over a protracted period of time. That may sound like hyperbole, but it’s actually not. Trump publicly encouraged Stone not to cooperate with Robert Mueller’s investigation, he publicly dangled clemency as a reward for silence, and he has now delivered. The act is predictable precisely because the corrupt action is so naked."

DNC twaddle.

 

[Billiejeens]

The will "of the people" vote ( which always elects the President) is expressed individually in each of the States

Then at best you could say it’s “the will of the states”. Calling it “the will of the people” is simply inaccurate. The people’s will is filtered, translated and transformed through an arbitrary and archaic system of the electoral college.

Your quarrel is with the poster that I am educating.

You're not educating. You're rationalizing. Trump was elected, but not as a result of the "will of the people".

I was educating the person who mentioned "the will of the people" and now you.

You're not educating. You're hiding.

I am not

 

[Billiejeens]

"So Trump clearly knew about and encouraged Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks, the unredacted report shows. Yet in written answers the president provided to Mueller’s office in the course of the special counsel’s investigation, Trump insisted that he did not recall “the specifics of any call [he] had” with Stone during the campaign or any discussions with Stone of WikiLeaks. And shortly after he submitted those answers, the unredacted report states, Trump began tweeting publicly in support of Stone—calling him “brave” and congratulating his “guts” for refusing to testify."

The Roger Stone Commutation Is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems

The president’s clemency for his confidante is totally unsurprising—which is part of what makes it so bad.

www.lawfareblog.com

This doesn't get as much attention as it deserves. Stone is the one who would be able to demonstrate that Trump lied in his written testimony to Mueller.

In other words, Mueller has no evidence that Trump lied, and he tried to extort Stone into lying about it.

Correct

 

[bripat9643]

To no one in particular: This info is from a Rolling Stone Article:

"In the Dutch TV interview, Assange demurred on how he obtained the DNC emails, then dropped a tantalizing hint. “There’s a 27-year-old who works for the DNC who was shot in the back, murdered, just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington.”

“That was just a robbery, I believe, wasn’t it?” the host interjected.

“No,” Assange said. “There’s no finding.”

“What are you suggesting?”

“I’m suggesting that our sources take risks,” Assange said, “and they become concerned to see things occurring like that.”

Assange never said Rich’s name, but the implication was obvious: Rich was his source. WikiLeaks then announced a $20,000 reward on Twitter for information about Rich’s murder. "
====================
Is Assange telling the truth?? I don't know, but he one person who would know!!

IF your inferences were worth anything as evidence you might have a case.

 

[bripat9643]

"So Trump clearly knew about and encouraged Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks, the unredacted report shows. Yet in written answers the president provided to Mueller’s office in the course of the special counsel’s investigation, Trump insisted that he did not recall “the specifics of any call [he] had” with Stone during the campaign or any discussions with Stone of WikiLeaks. And shortly after he submitted those answers, the unredacted report states, Trump began tweeting publicly in support of Stone—calling him “brave” and congratulating his “guts” for refusing to testify."

The Roger Stone Commutation Is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems

The president’s clemency for his confidante is totally unsurprising—which is part of what makes it so bad.

www.lawfareblog.com

Fake news.

 

[bripat9643]

Even Credico says it was a joke. Anyone with half a brain can see that Mueller railroaded him, and that you're a moron.

Maybe it's a lesson, you shouldn't joke about death threats.

Perhaps we should start locking up all the people making death threats against the police...

How about all the people who make death threats against Trump?

 

[berg80]

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

"Trump’s tweets were always suspicious, to say the least. And his answers to Mueller seemed less than entirely credible even when the redacted report was first released. But the newly revealed text makes clear Mueller’s suspicions that Trump lied in his written answers—and then pushed Stone not to testify in order to prevent Mueller from discovering that lie. As Mueller put it dryly: “[T]he President’s conduct could also be viewed as reflecting his awareness that Stone could provide evidence that would run counter to the President’s denials and would link the President to Stone’s efforts to reach out to WikiLeaks.” The special counsel also writes that Trump’s tweets to Stone—along with his tweets criticizing Cohen, who was by then cooperating with investigators—“support the inference that the President intended to communicate a message that witnesses could be rewarded for refusing to provide testimony adverse to the President and disparaged if they chose to cooperate.”

 

[Billiejeens]

"So Trump clearly knew about and encouraged Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks, the unredacted report shows. Yet in written answers the president provided to Mueller’s office in the course of the special counsel’s investigation, Trump insisted that he did not recall “the specifics of any call [he] had” with Stone during the campaign or any discussions with Stone of WikiLeaks. And shortly after he submitted those answers, the unredacted report states, Trump began tweeting publicly in support of Stone—calling him “brave” and congratulating his “guts” for refusing to testify."

The Roger Stone Commutation Is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems

The president’s clemency for his confidante is totally unsurprising—which is part of what makes it so bad.

www.lawfareblog.com

This doesn't get as much attention as it deserves. Stone is the one who would be able to demonstrate that Trump lied in his written testimony to Mueller.

You are really out there in the wildest of conspirat theorie

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

"Trump’s tweets were always suspicious, to say the least. And his answers to Mueller seemed less than entirely credible even when the redacted report was first released. But the newly revealed text makes clear Mueller’s suspicions that Trump lied in his written answers—and then pushed Stone not to testify in order to prevent Mueller from discovering that lie. As Mueller put it dryly: “[T]he President’s conduct could also be viewed as reflecting his awareness that Stone could provide evidence that would run counter to the President’s denials and would link the President to Stone’s efforts to reach out to WikiLeaks.” The special counsel also writes that Trump’s tweets to Stone—along with his tweets criticizing Cohen, who was by then cooperating with investigators—“support the inference that the President intended to communicate a message that witnesses could be rewarded for refusing to provide testimony adverse to the President and disparaged if they chose to cooperate.”

Beyond bored.

 

[berg80]

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

 

[berg80]

You are really out there in the wildest of conspirat theorie

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