I've lost all respect for the government with the ridiculous arrest of Roger Stone

[H B Lowrie]

I think that the serving of the warrant against Stone was proper because I think that he would have attempted to destroy evidence if he had been given a warning in advance. He already had self-identified as a "dirty trickster." Releasing him later is fine AFTER law enforcement was through going over his house. Getting him under control first prevented him from hitting the "delete" button and/or burning valuable documents.

You believe it's proper because you're a Trump hating douchebag, and for no other reason. If they had executed him on the spot, you have have approved of it. There is no violation of our Constitutional rights you wouldn't approve of so long as Republicans are the victims.

There was no violation of anyone's constitution rights. Don't you know anything about standard operating procedure? Are you really the same age as your avatar? Would you approve of a wanted individual being given time to destroy evidence?
Oh, gee. Call a drug dealer and tell him that you are coming to arrest him, but give him time to flush his drugs down the toilet. Grow up.

I think the complaint was that was a whole lot of agents in riot gear with guns dripping off them for one guy in his pj's.

Must agree but on the other side,,, better safe than sorry Who knows what that nut is capable of?

Chairman Mao called. He wants you to join his Red Guard.

Is it time to drop "Saul Alinsky" yet"

 

[H B Lowrie]

We are here to serve and to protect!

Trust us!

They are, as they have always been, there to serve and protect concentrated wealth and power from the unsubstantial people.

 

[bodecea]

They should really reserve all that nonsense for genuinely dangerous criminals, there's no need to burst out all the military hardware for a guy who has no record of violence who is being arrested for non-violent process crimes.

The FBI will never recover it's reputation.

You know...for someone supposedly in the legal business.................................................

 

[boedicca]

The standard procedure would have been to notify Stone's lawyer and arrange for him to surrender. The fact that the judge released him after he signed a paper underscores that this was SCARY PERP THEATER for the gullible and uninformed.

I think that the serving of the warrant against Stone was proper because I think that he would have attempted to destroy evidence if he had been given a warning in advance. He already had self-identified as a "dirty trickster." Releasing him later is fine AFTER law enforcement was through going over his house. Getting him under control first prevented him from hitting the "delete" button and/or burning valuable documents.

You believe it's proper because you're a Trump hating douchebag, and for no other reason. If they had executed him on the spot, you have have approved of it. There is no violation of our Constitutional rights you wouldn't approve of so long as Republicans are the victims.

For you bri

Guess Who Is Likely To Profit If Trump Gets His Border Wall? RUSSIAN Steel

You're such a gullible moron. Do you actually believe Trump is doing all this solely so some Russian steel company and get the contract?

along with putin benefiting? and trump wants to build in russia Are you so stupid as to think trump is above that???

What did Obabble get for giving $ Billions to Iran?

 

[bodecea]

Only now, really? No one must have enlightened you on the social security ponzi scheme and you must have been able to keep your doctor.

I and my family kept our doctor. Don't understand why others had an issue.

 

[edward37]

I think that the serving of the warrant against Stone was proper because I think that he would have attempted to destroy evidence if he had been given a warning in advance. He already had self-identified as a "dirty trickster." Releasing him later is fine AFTER law enforcement was through going over his house. Getting him under control first prevented him from hitting the "delete" button and/or burning valuable documents.

You believe it's proper because you're a Trump hating douchebag, and for no other reason. If they had executed him on the spot, you have have approved of it. There is no violation of our Constitutional rights you wouldn't approve of so long as Republicans are the victims.

For you bri

Guess Who Is Likely To Profit If Trump Gets His Border Wall? RUSSIAN Steel

You're such a gullible moron. Do you actually believe Trump is doing all this solely so some Russian steel company and get the contract?

along with putin benefiting? and trump wants to build in russia Are you so stupid as to think trump is above that???

What did Obabble get for giving $ Billions to Iran?

gave them their own money back to stop developing nukes? for 10 or so years?

 

[bodecea]

They should really reserve all that nonsense for genuinely dangerous criminals, there's no need to burst out all the military hardware for a guy who has no record of violence who is being arrested for non-violent process crimes.

The FBI will never recover it's reputation.

The FBI did fine and put the wind up Stone.

I hope they found a treasure trove of incriminating orange-colored evidence on his computer.

You're not too bright, are you? Really. Because you can't see how this could backfire.

It has injured you and your ilk without needing to backfire. Roger Stone is a scoundrel and has committed crimes.

So anyone who you think is a scoundrel and has committed crimes deserves to have a militarized FBI raid with machine guns.

Cool. We will remember this for Trump's second term.

tiny trump's next term

 

[H B Lowrie]

I think that the serving of the warrant against Stone was proper because I think that he would have attempted to destroy evidence if he had been given a warning in advance. He already had self-identified as a "dirty trickster." Releasing him later is fine AFTER law enforcement was through going over his house. Getting him under control first prevented him from hitting the "delete" button and/or burning valuable documents.

You believe it's proper because you're a Trump hating douchebag, and for no other reason. If they had executed him on the spot, you have have approved of it. There is no violation of our Constitutional rights you wouldn't approve of so long as Republicans are the victims.

For you bri

Guess Who Is Likely To Profit If Trump Gets His Border Wall? RUSSIAN Steel

You're such a gullible moron. Do you actually believe Trump is doing all this solely so some Russian steel company and get the contract?

along with putin benefiting? and trump wants to build in russia Are you so stupid as to think trump is above that???

What did Obabble get for giving $ Billions to Iran?

You're not still on about Iran getting its own money back are you? Please tell us you're referring to something else.

 

[bodecea]

You pay your fair share instead. So far you have contributed nothing to this society, in fact you actively keep taking from it. Time to pay the fair share.

11 years in the Army. Yup, I didn't contribute anything.

Go away, silly child.

If you haven't noticed...conservative republicans have NO respect for those who have served in the military beyond how they can use them.

 

[boedicca]

I read it. It doesn't say what you wish it did

It says precisely what I said it does. And the raid was to arrest him and get his devices, so that they can get his encrypted messages.

I'd suggest you read the entire excellent analysis by Andrew McCarthy, but that would be futile. Instead, I quote and link to if for the intellectually honest posters on the board.

That is, it’s a clown show. A despicable one, at that. Assange is an inveterate anti-American who has done incalculable damage to U.S. intelligence operations. How interesting that Robert Mueller led the FBI during those debacles and has special incentive to dig into the WikiLeaks–Kremlin connection. And how interesting that Assange was a heroic figure to the Left, and the bane of the national-security Right, before his apparent distaste for Hillary flipped the script (at least for blind Trump and Clinton partisans). In any event, we have Stone and Corsi racking their brains about how to ferret out what Assange has got, and to understand the timeline in which he might release it — hoping against hope that it will kill off the Clinton bid. And we have Credico, Stone’s radio-host pal, dealing directly with Assange (mainly by interviewing him), then passing information along to Stone while imploring Stone to keep his (Credico’s) name out of it.

Meanwhile, Stone tells his friends in the Trump campaign that he has heard WikiLeaks may have information that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. After the hacked DNC emails are published in July 2016, a “senior Trump campaign official was directed to contact Stone about any additional releases and what other damaging information [WikiLeaks] had regarding the Clinton campaign.”

“Was directed”? Naturally, you’re thinking, “was directed by whom?” By Trump? Could be . . . Stone says it was not, but who knows? The point, however, is not who did the directing but why it was thought necessary to reach out to Stone. The Trump campaign had to ask Stone because it was in the dark.

Plainly, the campaign was not involved in the hacking, so it did not know what the Russians gave Assange. And it had no involvement with WikiLeaks’ operations, so it turned to Stone, who had held himself out as a knowledgeable source. But Stone, too, was unsure. Mueller alleges: “STONE thereafter told the Trump campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by [WikiLeaks]” (emphasis added). The prosecutor has to say “potential” because Stone did not have solid knowledge of Assange’s intentions — he tried to find out from others (including Credico, who had contact with Assange), but they did not know for sure exactly what Assange had and whether or when he would publish it.

Mind you, it is not a crime to know that bad people have damaging information about your political opponent, nor to try to nudge them to publish it at the time most opportune for your political favorite. Here, the Trump campaign did not even know what WikiLeaks had. Its best source was Stone, but, like the campaign, he was pressing sources who might have the information about WikiLeaks that he lacked. No surprise, then, that Mueller does not even allege that Stone was in a criminal conspiracy with WikiLeaks, let alone that Trump conspired with WikiLeaks — much less with Putin.

Instead, Stone is charged with seven counts of obstructing congressional investigations — by giving misleading testimony, withholding and lying about the existence of records responsive to a congressional request, lying about his communications with Credico, and attempting to influence Credico to lie or refuse to testify. These are serious charges, and while Stone may have cards to play on the allegations that he made misrepresentations (more on that another time), the special counsel appears to have daunting evidence that Stone tampered with Credico’s testimony – a charge that involves Stone’s cheesy exhortations that Credico ape the stonewalling of both Stone hero Richard Nixon and “Frank Pentangeli” (the Michael V. Gazzo character who famously develops witness-stand amnesia in Godfather II).

Nevertheless, that’s secondary as far as the country is concerned. The salient fact is that the evidence-based narrative from which Mueller derives these obstruction charges underscores that the president and his campaign were not complicit in Russia’s hacking of Democratic accounts. That’s not new news. It is completely consistent with indictments Mueller has been filing for a year....

Stone Indictment Underscores: No Trump-Russia Conspiracy | National Review

 

[bodecea]

Only now, really? No one must have enlightened you on the social security ponzi scheme and you must have been able to keep your doctor.

I was able to keep my doctor just fine, and Social Security will be fine if we make the rich pay their fair share.

Next.

You pay your fair share instead. So far you have contributed nothing to this society, in fact you actively keep taking from it. Time to pay the fair share.

He contributes zero to society....fucker was dishonorably discharged from the army and has been grubbing off the system ever since ( as if you cant notice his hostility for his own country )

See? "Bash the Veteran" is the conservative republican #1 sport.

 

[bodecea]

They should really reserve all that nonsense for genuinely dangerous criminals, there's no need to burst out all the military hardware for a guy who has no record of violence who is being arrested for non-violent process crimes.

The FBI will never recover it's reputation.

And the Leftists don't care. They will burn it all down in their quest for power--every institution we used to trust, the few little principles they used to hold dear. Like maybe no militarized law enforcement coming into people's homes for process crimes.

So here we are. It's all over now but the shouting. I mean that nearly literally.

In that case, you really should pack your crap and go somewhere else.

Oh no, when the shouting is over, we'll have beaten you folks back same as ever.

My my...more subtle threats of violence from conservative republicans.

 

[boedicca]

You believe it's proper because you're a Trump hating douchebag, and for no other reason. If they had executed him on the spot, you have have approved of it. There is no violation of our Constitutional rights you wouldn't approve of so long as Republicans are the victims.

There was no violation of anyone's constitution rights. Don't you know anything about standard operating procedure? Are you really the same age as your avatar? Would you approve of a wanted individual being given time to destroy evidence?
Oh, gee. Call a drug dealer and tell him that you are coming to arrest him, but give him time to flush his drugs down the toilet. Grow up.

I think the complaint was that was a whole lot of agents in riot gear with guns dripping off them for one guy in his pj's.

Must agree but on the other side,,, better safe than sorry Who knows what that nut is capable of?

Better to buy steel from Russia than China, just sayin'.

and make Trumps pal Putin richer?? ,,,,,and wouldn't one think it was trump just trying to keep Putins mouth shut?

The Russian economy is 1/10th the size of the U.S.; they cannot compete with us militarily or economically. China, on the other hand, has the second largest economy in the world and is quite aggressive with its military expansion. And, didn't your Obabble-Messiah assure us all that Russia was So Yesterday back in 2012?

 

[bodecea]

"the process of discovery is gonna be fascinating in this case and i cant wait to watch it!" - Devin Nunes

Nunes isn't the head of any committee now....he can no longer help cover up.

 

[boedicca]

You believe it's proper because you're a Trump hating douchebag, and for no other reason. If they had executed him on the spot, you have have approved of it. There is no violation of our Constitutional rights you wouldn't approve of so long as Republicans are the victims.

For you bri

Guess Who Is Likely To Profit If Trump Gets His Border Wall? RUSSIAN Steel

You're such a gullible moron. Do you actually believe Trump is doing all this solely so some Russian steel company and get the contract?

along with putin benefiting? and trump wants to build in russia Are you so stupid as to think trump is above that???

What did Obabble get for giving $ Billions to Iran?

You're not still on about Iran getting its own money back are you? Please tell us you're referring to something else.

It's truly dreary what you think passes for wit.

Just sayin'.

 

[edward37]

There was no violation of anyone's constitution rights. Don't you know anything about standard operating procedure? Are you really the same age as your avatar? Would you approve of a wanted individual being given time to destroy evidence?
Oh, gee. Call a drug dealer and tell him that you are coming to arrest him, but give him time to flush his drugs down the toilet. Grow up.

I think the complaint was that was a whole lot of agents in riot gear with guns dripping off them for one guy in his pj's.

Must agree but on the other side,,, better safe than sorry Who knows what that nut is capable of?

Better to buy steel from Russia than China, just sayin'.

and make Trumps pal Putin richer?? ,,,,,and wouldn't one think it was trump just trying to keep Putins mouth shut?

The Russian economy is 1/10th the size of the U.S.; they cannot compete with us militarily or economically. China, on the other hand, has the second largest economy in the world and is quite aggressive with its military expansion. And, didn't your Obabble-Messiah assure us all that Russia was So Yesterday back in 2012?

I can agree there economy is in the toilet but they have a pretty expansive military lots of nukes

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I read it. It doesn't say what you wish it did

It says precisely what I said it does. And the raid was to arrest him and get his devices, so that they can get his encrypted messages.

I'd suggest you read the entire excellent analysis by Andrew McCarthy, but that would be futile. Instead, I quote and link to if for the intellectually honest posters on the board.

That is, it’s a clown show. A despicable one, at that. Assange is an inveterate anti-American who has done incalculable damage to U.S. intelligence operations. How interesting that Robert Mueller led the FBI during those debacles and has special incentive to dig into the WikiLeaks–Kremlin connection. And how interesting that Assange was a heroic figure to the Left, and the bane of the national-security Right, before his apparent distaste for Hillary flipped the script (at least for blind Trump and Clinton partisans). In any event, we have Stone and Corsi racking their brains about how to ferret out what Assange has got, and to understand the timeline in which he might release it — hoping against hope that it will kill off the Clinton bid. And we have Credico, Stone’s radio-host pal, dealing directly with Assange (mainly by interviewing him), then passing information along to Stone while imploring Stone to keep his (Credico’s) name out of it.

Meanwhile, Stone tells his friends in the Trump campaign that he has heard WikiLeaks may have information that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. After the hacked DNC emails are published in July 2016, a “senior Trump campaign official was directed to contact Stone about any additional releases and what other damaging information [WikiLeaks] had regarding the Clinton campaign.”

“Was directed”? Naturally, you’re thinking, “was directed by whom?” By Trump? Could be . . . Stone says it was not, but who knows? The point, however, is not who did the directing but why it was thought necessary to reach out to Stone. The Trump campaign had to ask Stone because it was in the dark.

Plainly, the campaign was not involved in the hacking, so it did not know what the Russians gave Assange. And it had no involvement with WikiLeaks’ operations, so it turned to Stone, who had held himself out as a knowledgeable source. But Stone, too, was unsure. Mueller alleges: “STONE thereafter told the Trump campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by [WikiLeaks]” (emphasis added). The prosecutor has to say “potential” because Stone did not have solid knowledge of Assange’s intentions — he tried to find out from others (including Credico, who had contact with Assange), but they did not know for sure exactly what Assange had and whether or when he would publish it.

Mind you, it is not a crime to know that bad people have damaging information about your political opponent, nor to try to nudge them to publish it at the time most opportune for your political favorite. Here, the Trump campaign did not even know what WikiLeaks had. Its best source was Stone, but, like the campaign, he was pressing sources who might have the information about WikiLeaks that he lacked. No surprise, then, that Mueller does not even allege that Stone was in a criminal conspiracy with WikiLeaks, let alone that Trump conspired with WikiLeaks — much less with Putin.

Instead, Stone is charged with seven counts of obstructing congressional investigations — by giving misleading testimony, withholding and lying about the existence of records responsive to a congressional request, lying about his communications with Credico, and attempting to influence Credico to lie or refuse to testify. These are serious charges, and while Stone may have cards to play on the allegations that he made misrepresentations (more on that another time), the special counsel appears to have daunting evidence that Stone tampered with Credico’s testimony – a charge that involves Stone’s cheesy exhortations that Credico ape the stonewalling of both Stone hero Richard Nixon and “Frank Pentangeli” (the Michael V. Gazzo character who famously develops witness-stand amnesia in Godfather II).

Nevertheless, that’s secondary as far as the country is concerned. The salient fact is that the evidence-based narrative from which Mueller derives these obstruction charges underscores that the president and his campaign were not complicit in Russia’s hacking of Democratic accounts. That’s not new news. It is completely consistent with indictments Mueller has been filing for a year....

Stone Indictment Underscores: No Trump-Russia Conspiracy | National Review

I suggest you read it yourself, since not one word of it speaks to what i said.

 

[H B Lowrie]

I read it. It doesn't say what you wish it did

It says precisely what I said it does. And the raid was to arrest him and get his devices, so that they can get his encrypted messages.

I'd suggest you read the entire excellent analysis by Andrew McCarthy, but that would be futile. Instead, I quote and link to if for the intellectually honest posters on the board.

That is, it’s a clown show. A despicable one, at that. Assange is an inveterate anti-American who has done incalculable damage to U.S. intelligence operations. How interesting that Robert Mueller led the FBI during those debacles and has special incentive to dig into the WikiLeaks–Kremlin connection. And how interesting that Assange was a heroic figure to the Left, and the bane of the national-security Right, before his apparent distaste for Hillary flipped the script (at least for blind Trump and Clinton partisans). In any event, we have Stone and Corsi racking their brains about how to ferret out what Assange has got, and to understand the timeline in which he might release it — hoping against hope that it will kill off the Clinton bid. And we have Credico, Stone’s radio-host pal, dealing directly with Assange (mainly by interviewing him), then passing information along to Stone while imploring Stone to keep his (Credico’s) name out of it.

Meanwhile, Stone tells his friends in the Trump campaign that he has heard WikiLeaks may have information that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. After the hacked DNC emails are published in July 2016, a “senior Trump campaign official was directed to contact Stone about any additional releases and what other damaging information [WikiLeaks] had regarding the Clinton campaign.”

“Was directed”? Naturally, you’re thinking, “was directed by whom?” By Trump? Could be . . . Stone says it was not, but who knows? The point, however, is not who did the directing but why it was thought necessary to reach out to Stone. The Trump campaign had to ask Stone because it was in the dark.

Plainly, the campaign was not involved in the hacking, so it did not know what the Russians gave Assange. And it had no involvement with WikiLeaks’ operations, so it turned to Stone, who had held himself out as a knowledgeable source. But Stone, too, was unsure. Mueller alleges: “STONE thereafter told the Trump campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by [WikiLeaks]” (emphasis added). The prosecutor has to say “potential” because Stone did not have solid knowledge of Assange’s intentions — he tried to find out from others (including Credico, who had contact with Assange), but they did not know for sure exactly what Assange had and whether or when he would publish it.

Mind you, it is not a crime to know that bad people have damaging information about your political opponent, nor to try to nudge them to publish it at the time most opportune for your political favorite. Here, the Trump campaign did not even know what WikiLeaks had. Its best source was Stone, but, like the campaign, he was pressing sources who might have the information about WikiLeaks that he lacked. No surprise, then, that Mueller does not even allege that Stone was in a criminal conspiracy with WikiLeaks, let alone that Trump conspired with WikiLeaks — much less with Putin.

Instead, Stone is charged with seven counts of obstructing congressional investigations — by giving misleading testimony, withholding and lying about the existence of records responsive to a congressional request, lying about his communications with Credico, and attempting to influence Credico to lie or refuse to testify. These are serious charges, and while Stone may have cards to play on the allegations that he made misrepresentations (more on that another time), the special counsel appears to have daunting evidence that Stone tampered with Credico’s testimony – a charge that involves Stone’s cheesy exhortations that Credico ape the stonewalling of both Stone hero Richard Nixon and “Frank Pentangeli” (the Michael V. Gazzo character who famously develops witness-stand amnesia in Godfather II).

Nevertheless, that’s secondary as far as the country is concerned. The salient fact is that the evidence-based narrative from which Mueller derives these obstruction charges underscores that the president and his campaign were not complicit in Russia’s hacking of Democratic accounts. That’s not new news. It is completely consistent with indictments Mueller has been filing for a year....

Stone Indictment Underscores: No Trump-Russia Conspiracy | National Review

Assange is a journalist who embarrassed the american power structure. Neither he nor wikileaks has ever had to retract anything they've ever published. How does your corporate state media machine stack up to that? "An inveterate anti-American" means nothing more than "revealed too much about how america operates".

 

[boedicca]

I think the complaint was that was a whole lot of agents in riot gear with guns dripping off them for one guy in his pj's.

Must agree but on the other side,,, better safe than sorry Who knows what that nut is capable of?

Better to buy steel from Russia than China, just sayin'.

and make Trumps pal Putin richer?? ,,,,,and wouldn't one think it was trump just trying to keep Putins mouth shut?

The Russian economy is 1/10th the size of the U.S.; they cannot compete with us militarily or economically. China, on the other hand, has the second largest economy in the world and is quite aggressive with its military expansion. And, didn't your Obabble-Messiah assure us all that Russia was So Yesterday back in 2012?

I can agree there economy is in the toilet but they have a pretty expansive military lots of nukes

Which they won't use as they can't afford to.

 

[boedicca]

I read it. It doesn't say what you wish it did

It says precisely what I said it does. And the raid was to arrest him and get his devices, so that they can get his encrypted messages.

I'd suggest you read the entire excellent analysis by Andrew McCarthy, but that would be futile. Instead, I quote and link to if for the intellectually honest posters on the board.

That is, it’s a clown show. A despicable one, at that. Assange is an inveterate anti-American who has done incalculable damage to U.S. intelligence operations. How interesting that Robert Mueller led the FBI during those debacles and has special incentive to dig into the WikiLeaks–Kremlin connection. And how interesting that Assange was a heroic figure to the Left, and the bane of the national-security Right, before his apparent distaste for Hillary flipped the script (at least for blind Trump and Clinton partisans). In any event, we have Stone and Corsi racking their brains about how to ferret out what Assange has got, and to understand the timeline in which he might release it — hoping against hope that it will kill off the Clinton bid. And we have Credico, Stone’s radio-host pal, dealing directly with Assange (mainly by interviewing him), then passing information along to Stone while imploring Stone to keep his (Credico’s) name out of it.

Meanwhile, Stone tells his friends in the Trump campaign that he has heard WikiLeaks may have information that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. After the hacked DNC emails are published in July 2016, a “senior Trump campaign official was directed to contact Stone about any additional releases and what other damaging information [WikiLeaks] had regarding the Clinton campaign.”

“Was directed”? Naturally, you’re thinking, “was directed by whom?” By Trump? Could be . . . Stone says it was not, but who knows? The point, however, is not who did the directing but why it was thought necessary to reach out to Stone. The Trump campaign had to ask Stone because it was in the dark.

Plainly, the campaign was not involved in the hacking, so it did not know what the Russians gave Assange. And it had no involvement with WikiLeaks’ operations, so it turned to Stone, who had held himself out as a knowledgeable source. But Stone, too, was unsure. Mueller alleges: “STONE thereafter told the Trump campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by [WikiLeaks]” (emphasis added). The prosecutor has to say “potential” because Stone did not have solid knowledge of Assange’s intentions — he tried to find out from others (including Credico, who had contact with Assange), but they did not know for sure exactly what Assange had and whether or when he would publish it.

Mind you, it is not a crime to know that bad people have damaging information about your political opponent, nor to try to nudge them to publish it at the time most opportune for your political favorite. Here, the Trump campaign did not even know what WikiLeaks had. Its best source was Stone, but, like the campaign, he was pressing sources who might have the information about WikiLeaks that he lacked. No surprise, then, that Mueller does not even allege that Stone was in a criminal conspiracy with WikiLeaks, let alone that Trump conspired with WikiLeaks — much less with Putin.

Instead, Stone is charged with seven counts of obstructing congressional investigations — by giving misleading testimony, withholding and lying about the existence of records responsive to a congressional request, lying about his communications with Credico, and attempting to influence Credico to lie or refuse to testify. These are serious charges, and while Stone may have cards to play on the allegations that he made misrepresentations (more on that another time), the special counsel appears to have daunting evidence that Stone tampered with Credico’s testimony – a charge that involves Stone’s cheesy exhortations that Credico ape the stonewalling of both Stone hero Richard Nixon and “Frank Pentangeli” (the Michael V. Gazzo character who famously develops witness-stand amnesia in Godfather II).

Nevertheless, that’s secondary as far as the country is concerned. The salient fact is that the evidence-based narrative from which Mueller derives these obstruction charges underscores that the president and his campaign were not complicit in Russia’s hacking of Democratic accounts. That’s not new news. It is completely consistent with indictments Mueller has been filing for a year....

Stone Indictment Underscores: No Trump-Russia Conspiracy | National Review

Assange is a journalist who embarrassed the american power structure. Neither he nor wikileaks has ever had to retract anything they're ever published. How does your corporate state media machine stack up to that? "An inveterate anti-American" means nothing more that "revealed too much about how america operates".

Wikileaks is irrelevant. The Trump campaign did not collude with either Wikileaks or the Russians, as is quite clear in the Stone indictment.