New Roger Stone indictment penetrates deep into Trump’s inner circle
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
New Roger Stone indictment penetrates deep into Trump’s inner circle
January 25, 2019
An odd two-tiered narrative has long unfolded around the Russia scandal. In much media commentary, there’s been a deeply baked-in skepticism that the Trump campaign could possibly have conspired with Russian interference in the 2016 election — even as more and more evidence of that “collusion” has surfaced.
Media figures sometimes still say “there’s no evidence of collusion,” even though we already know, among other things, that top Trump campaign officials met with Russians in the eager hope of receiving dirt on Hillary Clinton gathered by the Russian government. We still don’t know whether the “collusion” being established amounts to criminal conspiracy, but we do know that “collusion” happened.
On Friday morning, the “no collusion” narrative took yet another big blow, with the news that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has indicted longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone . Stone has been charged with obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, and witness tampering.
I want to focus on one particular nugget in the indictment that may add substantially to our understanding of what this conspiracy might — repeat, might — look like.
First, recall that on July 22, 2016, Wikileaks released thousands of emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee’s system. The Mueller indictment says that this then happened:
After the July 22, 2016 release of stolen DNC emails by Organization 1, a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other damaging information Organization 1 had regarding the Clinton Campaign. STONE thereafter told the Trump Campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by Organization 1.
The passive voice there is notable. Someone “directed” an unnamed “senior Trump campaign official” to contact Stone about any releases forthcoming from WikiLeaks that could damage Clinton. Bloomberg reports that this senior Trump campaign official was Stephen K. Bannon, a top campaign strategist.
What’s important there is the suggestion that Stone, at the urging of a senior Trump campaign official — allegedly Bannon — sought to learn of future dumps of then- unreleased information coming from WikiLeaks.
The larger timeline is key. At this point, top Trump campaign officials already knew that Russia was trying to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf.
As early as June 3, 2016, Donald Trump Jr. had been informed that the Russian government had gathered dirt on Hillary Clinton. Trump Jr. and other top officials met with Russians in the full expectation of receiving this dirt on June 9, 2016 .
What’s more, at that point there were also already clear public indications that Russia was behind the hack into the DNC’s emails. It became publicly known on June 14, 2016 that Russian hackers were the perpetrators, from reporting in The Post .
What this means is that senior Trump campaign officials allegedly sought to learn more about what information Wikileaks had gathered that was not publicly known about but might still be coming, in the full knowledge that Russia was already trying to swing the election. This was allegedly at the decree of someone who had the power to “direct” an unnamed senior Trump campaign official to pursue that information.
And Stone allegedly complied, by continuing to update the campaign “thereafter” on “potential future releases” (emphasis mine).
“The indictment confirms that Stone was acting at various points as an agent of the Trump campaign in seeking and passing back information about both the timing and substance of the WikiLeaks-Russia cache of stolen emails,” Bob Bauer, the White House counsel under former president Barack Obama, told me. “It states that someone, possibly Donald Trump, ‘directed’ a senior campaign official to initiate this relationship to learn about future releases.”
The indictment also goes into some detail on what sort of information Stone allegedly learned of in advance of its release -- information that the Trump campaign may have acted on.
For instance, the indictment says that in early August of 2016, Stone received a tip from “Person 1,” an unnamed political commentator who was in touch with him throughout the campaign, that Wikileaks was planning a “very damaging” email dump that apparently would raise serious doubts about Clinton’s health. That person told Stone it would be a good idea to float the idea that Clinton was unwell, because this would be the “focus” of the “next dump.”
It’s worth noting that the Trump campaign did then raise doubts about Clinton’s health. In mid-August, Trump gave a speech in which he suggested that Clinton “lacks the mental and physical stamina” to take on ISIS. Just before that, he had noted that Clinton’s campaign appearances were very short, and remarked that she should “go back home and go to sleep.”
What’s the legal significance of all this? As Bauer and New York University law professor Ryan Goodman have written , if Mueller believes Stone was “acting on behalf of the Trump campaign” in seeking advance knowledge of coming dumps of information stolen by Russia to interfere in the election, that could pave the way for more criminal charges:
Mueller can charge Trump Campaign associates and the campaign itself for violations of federal campaign finance law either directly under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) or as part of a conspiracy to defraud the United States by obstructing the capacity of the Federal Election Commission to enforce the FECA. … The Trump campaign could not lawfully coordinate its political communications with Wikileaks without running afoul of federal campaign finance laws. As a foreign national, WikiLeaks may not provide anything of value to an America political campaign, and Americans could not knowingly and substantially assist Wikileaks’ illegal electioneering activity. The prohibition extends to solicitations of this campaign support by any agents of the Trump campaign.
In this context, Bauer and Goodman wrote, this signals potential “legal jeopardy” for any Americans “who knowingly participated” in a “general conspiracy” with Wikileaks. The new indictment of Stone, at a minimum, adds to what this conspiracy might look like.
That said, Mueller did not charge Stone with anything along these lines. Why not? Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti suggests one explanation : The threshold here would be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stone and someone at Wikileaks agreed in advance to conspire to disseminate the stolen materials in violation of U.S. law.
If Stone had merely received advance knowledge that these materials were coming, that wouldn’t suffice. As Mariotti notes, Mueller may be confining the charges he’s bringing to ones he believes he can prove.
Of course, as Goodman points out to me, Mueller may still be waiting to bring the conspiracy charges later. “If Mueller has the goods on the Trump Campaign and the president himself being involved in a criminal conspiracy, it would be wise not to reveal any of those aspects now,” Goodman notes.
So we can’t yet know the full legal significance of this latest news. But it’s obvious that the notion that there was “NO COLLUSION!” is becoming tougher and tougher to sustain.
Tags
Who is online
36 visitors
This indictment sets the stage for the revelation of collusion.
Trump the pathological liar has yelped for months, actually years now, that the investigation is a "witch hunt".
Roger Stone is a close associate of Trump. He talks to him fairly often. It beggars belief that Trump was not aware of or directing this escapade.
I was wondering the same, is there a hierarchal chart somewhere that shows how far from direct access or how many layers of decision makers are between Trump and all these people being indicted? If it goes Trump at top then Stone or Manafort as a direct report it could get interesting.
Agreed. There can't be many between Manafort/Stone and Trump.
Guessing that Mueller may be getting closer to indicting Trump family members, but that will be the end game, because as soon as that happens Trump will probably fire him and then the shit hits the fan.
Historically, Mueller has spoken through indictment documents and Stone's indictment is another example. If Trump waits to fire Mueller until after he indicts Jr. and Jared, it will be way too late. The evidence will already be part of the record and not even Trump can do a damn thing about it.
Yet Trump, being who he is, will still probably fire Mueller and THAT will be the last straw for impeachment.
I agree, and the House will certainly start impeachment hearings, but with the Republicans still in charge of the Senate, and showing that they will do ANYTHING to protect Trump, impeachment is far from being a slam dunk.
I also agree that Mueller indicting a Trump member will be the last straw for Trump. I fully expect Mueller to be aware of this however, so when indictments come through for Ivanka, Jr., and Eric that will be Mueller's conclusion to the investigation.
Just what the public knows, shows indictable evidence for all 3 of them. I assume that they have not been subpoena'd or indicted because of the expected reaction of Trump. So Mueller's waiting until he's done before pulling that card.
Trump, Stone and Manafort have all been thick as the proverbial thieves ever since they were all proteges and personal buttboys to Olde Joe McCarthy's number one henchman and criminal mastermind the infamous NY mob lawyer Roy Cohn.
Manafort and Stone at Trump's behest conspired with Putin to effect Russian State Intelligence illegally interfering in our American election in 2016...
Nope, this indictment sets the stage for Mueller to pressure someone to lying under oath, as Stone has been saying for the past 6 months on his visits to The Daily Ledger. Yes, that's right folks, Roger Stone has been expecting this indictment for the past 6 months. Stone has repeated stated he did not lie to the House Intelligence Committee and any issues with his testimony were unintentional. Plus, you are rushing to convict Stone of crimes, remember an indictment only shows the prosecution's side of the issue and only has 2 requirements to be issued:
1) That there is evidence that a crime MIGHT have been committed. This could be as simple as the prosecutor pointing out that someone was walking just outside the lines of the crosswalk, if the charge was jaywalking.
2) That there is a POSSIBILITY that the person whom is being indicted might have been involved.
There is no definitive proof needed, and the defense does not and is not allowed to provide any sort of defense or argument against any of the potential charges. This is why many former prosecutors and defense attorneys claim that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich of any crime.
They say the evidence against Stone is overwhelming. So I guess you will see.
Every one of the people Mueller has indicted so far have either pled guilty or been convicted. I doubt if Stone will be any different.
Go READ the indictment and come back if you still have questions.
They have a 35 page indictment Wally. Do you think they made it all up?
You seem to start with the conclusion that it is all a witch hunt and then try and shape reality to fit your prejudgement.
Mueller has been doing this for a year and a half. If he didnt have anything he would have stopped a long time ago. The length of the investigation is also a bad sign for Trump and his family. If Mueller had nothing but charges against underlings it would all be over already. He's going after bigger fish.
He's not going to do that. He's allergic to facts. He has his preconceived notions and no reality is going to mess with them.
My impression exactly.
Stone, like everyone else who testifies before Congress, has the right to Amend his testimony. Since he acknowledges that he is aware of 'issues with his testimony' all he need do, through his counsel, is Amend his testimony in writing.
So Stone is full of shit, stupid or both.
The Trump campaign KNEW that the Russians had "information" about Clinton that was allegedly damaging. Then they are offered an inside track on learning the timing of damaging information on Clinton from wikileaks. There is no doubt that they connected the Russian offers with the wikileaks releases. In other words, the Trump campaign knew that Russia was the source for the wikileaks material, in fact they knew this better than anyone. At the exact same time Trump was telling America that the hacked emails may be coming from a 400 lb. guy in New Jersey. This is a conspiracy and it is collusion. Will America care? But there is more to come.
I don't know John. There's coincidence here but no direct path with proof. And the media again hedges their comments with "might be" and "if Mueller believes". Rather than jump the gun I will wait until the final report is issued.
But what do you think of the level of force displayed during the actual arrest this morning? Seems to me that was a little excessive for a non-violent crime.
I agree, it was excessive. While I disagree with Trump's complaints about Comey's arrest - a legal search warrant was served and it was NOT a break-in - in this case the complaints seem valid. A white collar criminal and possible traitor doesn't really require this type of arrest.
As long as no one was hurt, it doesnt bother me at all that they raided a scumbag's house.
Doesn't really require ...
"possible traitor"....
Give him and Trumpp the DEATH PENALTY !
.
Anyone ever stop and consider how many millions of Great Americans gave their children, husbands, wives, and sometimes entire families' ( Also how many have been maimed or lost appendages) lives, to secure the freedoms and rights that allowed pissants such as the Trumpps, a path to prosper despite Donalds asinine decisions and best efforts to prevent as much. This one who wants this , wants this once Great Country, that was designed to enable so many, to actually almost have a choice at succeeding , wants US All to fail as Mueller WILL eventually PROVE,
His traitorous treasonous traits, where as i believe will most definitely , prove he has worked extensively
with the big P's
Putin, Prostitutes, Playmates, Pornstars, Pee, and Patheticism .
He's spitting on the graves of those who fought and i'MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
possibly, NOT HAPPY ABOUT IT.
I disagree. Charges against Stone are substantial. Law enforcement, I'm sure, has procedures on enforcing warrants, the response may have been appropriate based on the number and type of felonies Stone is being charged with, I doubt they care who he is or how much money he has.
I wonder what Julius and Ethal Rosenberg would have to say...
Actually, it was excessive as all they had to do was contact Stone's attorneys and Stone would have turned himself in. He has said so multiple times on The Daily Ledger in the past 6 months all the while telling everyone that he expected to be indicted. So, please, think about that before giving Mueller the benefit of the doubt. Our entire system is based on the presumed innocence of the accused. And, right now, everyone is in a rush to convict anyone whom is indicted. Read my comment at #1.3 for an explanation of what makes up an indictment.
Prove that. He is so rich that relocating to another country would be a minor issue. He is definitely a flight risk.
Are you claiming that Mueller served the warrant personally? Law enforcement have to treat things as the worse possible occurrence, and be prepared for it no matter how unlikely.
It was proven enough to the Grand Jury for them to issue an indictment and from that a judge issued a warrant. Presumed innocence does not come into this until he walks into a court of law,.
You understand the difference between a warrant and an indictment? Your explanation is for an issued warrant, a Grand Jury indictment is a different matter. It is NOT a statement of guilt, but it goes way beyond "probable cause", which is what you described.
" Special Counsel Robert Mueller told a federal judge he was concerned Roger Stone might destroy or tamper with evidence, if not flee, ahead of his arrest on Friday morning."
Roger Stone is a slimy piece of shit who cannot be trusted and the investigators had every reason to believe he would destroy evidence or attempt to flee to Russia or the same Ecuadorian embassy in London that Julian Assange is still holed up in.
Don't you think since he KNEW this was coming down that he would have left the country SIX MONTHS AGO if he was going to run?
No law enforcement doesn't have to treat it one way or another. They can look at what they know about their arrest target for how to proceed. Otherwise, every time someone was to be arrested the doors would be busted down and 50 agents would be swarming each property. The vast majority of arrests usually have just a handful of agents to arrest the person.
As I said before, all you have to do with the Grand Jury is prove that there is a POSSIBILITY of a crime and that the person being indicted MIGHT HAVE BEEN involved.
A warrant can stem from an indictment, but an indictment cannot stem from a warrant. Big difference there.
IF that is the case, Mueller is a big idiot. Stone HAS KNOWN he would be indicted for the past SIX MONTHS. He repeatedly said that he expected to be indicted multiple times on multiple appearances on The Daily Ledger, hosted by Graham Ledger. Stone's last appearance on The Daily Ledger was November 29th, I believe, where he flat out stated he expected to be indicted at any time and would voluntarily turn himself in should that occur. If Stone was going to tamper with evidence, he has had plenty of time to do so and would most likely already did so. So, Mueller's team really lied to the judge about Stone tampering and destroying evidence if it was a possibility.
You have said that twice and you were wrong both times. The prosecutor has to prove that a crime WAS committed and that the evidence presented shows that the person that they indict committed that crime.
Yeah, then you get immunity, if you keep your mouth shut about what you know.
Poor Stone. IF Mueller handled this like Comey did the FBI "investigation" of Clinton, Cohen would have been granted immunity and allowed to act as Stone's lawyer.
I haven't looked into this, and don't really have the time, other than to read the copy of the indictment. I'm certain I could come up with more interesting nuggets, but two things stand out to me:
1: WTF. If you have traded emails and texts, F'n say it. From what I gather, he never denied communicating with P1 and P2, he denied communicating by text and email.
2: Again, WTF. Anyone who doesn't see, or won't admit, the disparate treatment here is in their own ass beyond the ears.
Agreeing that communications were had, but denying said communications took place over text or email warrants an indictment for obstruction. Refusing to deliver subpoenaed records; denying any records exist; destroying the records, or believing the records were destroyed, only to have them surface in the thousands...that does not warrant an indictment for obstruction. That's simple incompetence.
You are confusing the "standard" with the actual reality. The reality is that the prosecutor only has to show that a crime might have been committed and might have been committed by the person being accused. The standard is they are supposed to prove that a crime was committed and that the person being accused is most likely the one that committed it. They do not have to prove anything beyond any doubt at this stage.
It is somewhat like what happened to OJ Simpson in the liability case regarding Nichole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. While the murders were proven, the prosecution only had to prove that OJ might have been the perpetrator for the jury to find him liable for their deaths. Whereas, in the criminal trial, they had to prove beyond all doubt that OJ killed them both. And, the criminal trial verdict rested solely on the criminologist's handling of the evidence, which caused cross-contamination and made it all worthless.
Prove it tom.
You are confusing criminal with civil. There are NO Grand Juries in civil cases.
Dulay,
It doesn't require proof. That's called Probable Cause and any police officer can define the standards for you. If he can't, he wouldn't make it out of the Academy. They're the same standards that a Prosecutor uses to get an indictment. The Standards for a conviction are much higher.
And, you ignored the entire point of the OJ Simpson reference. It wasn't about criminal versus civil, but level of proof. The Grand Jury has the same level of proof that a particular person committed a particular crime as a civil liability jury has that someone is liable for a wrongful death suit. It only has to be proven that it is a possibility, not a hard and fast fact that so-and-so committed such-and-such.
Let's put it this way, there is as much proof that Stone was going to destroy evidence as there is of him committing perjury to the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Yet, had Stone wanted to destroy evidence do you think that he would have waited these entire 2 years since he first found out about the Mueller investigation to destroy that evidence let alone in the past 6 months knowing full well that he was going to be targeted by the investigation and indicted? Here is a report from 7 months ago that points out Stone believed he would be indicted:
Actually even less than that Tom. Deciding a civil case requires a Preponderance Of The Evidence, which means that over half of the evidence must point toward liability. An indictment in a criminal case, which is what a Grand Jury would present, only requires Probable Cause, an even lower standard than Preponderance. The standard is supposed to be that it is probable that a crime was committed and probable that the accused committed it. The way Grand Juries and Prosecutors work today, however, is that they define the word Probable as being equal to Possible. Most Prosecutors today will tell you quite frankly (about the only time a lawyer isn't lying) that "A good Prosecutor can get an indictment on a ham sandwich".
TTGA,
Probable cause is a far higher standard that 'might'.
Actually, no I didn't.
Criminal v. civil determines the level of proof required. Sheesh.
A Grand Jury decides if there is probable cause to indict, a civil jury decides if a PREPONDERANCE of the evidence PROVES the defendant is liable. Two different levels of proof...
A liability jury doesn't decide based on 'a possibility' they decide on whether is MORE LIKELY than not.
Judging from the indictment, that's plenty of proof to constitute the raids on his homes.
What lead you to that conclusion?
When I heard about the "big guns" on the radio this morning, I was wondering why a white color criminal warranted the big guns
The FBI was also processing search warrants at Stone's residences today.
Count One of the indictment charges Stone of withholding documents. Allowing him any opportunity to destroy evidence would be a dereliction of duty.
BTW, as we have seen all too often, deadly force is used on citizens for as little as a broken tail light.
An indictment that was known was coming for quite some time. Seems to me that Stone had all the time in the past several months to get rid of any evidence he would have needed to get rid of. That's a small excuse for the pre-dawn raid and the level of force. No, I think this was to send a signal.
I don't know, Stone is smug SOB.
Secondly, Stone hasn't proved to be very smart about evidence, he kept creating it every time he opened his mouth.
The neo-nationalists are all for militarization of law enforcement. Besides, nobody got hurt, no teargas, no flash grenades. So it doesn't look like ANY 'level of force' was used.
Watching Stone today I could only shake my head. Walking out and throwing up the peace signs, like Nixon. All I could think is the 'I am not a crook' meme.
When calling oneself innocent, doesn't seem to be the smart choice to emulate.
You got that right.
He's as arrogant as a smug SOB can get
"New Roger Stone indictment penetrates deep into Trump’s inner circle "
It does no such fucking thing !
Everyone indicted so far, has done nothing more than the "Martha Stewart" wrong ! Nothing ELSE what-so-ever !
The NICEST thing you can say about the Trump campaign from what we have learned so far is that they were willing and eager to accept help from Russia. AFTER Russia made the offer to Trump Jr. , it was brought to the campaign's attention that Stone may be able to get inside info on wikileaks releases. The Trump campaign knew, as anyone would , that the source of the wikileaks material was the same Russians that had previously offered them help. In fact they had better info than the average Joe out there guessing about it at the time.
At the very least the Trump campaign knew Russia was interfering in our election and said nothing about it. At the least. Most likely there is much more to it.
So says the Media....but what the heck....Liberal types are all for waiting for the Mueller Report.....unless they aren't !
Well! Aren't we getting a bit "snowflakish".
Stone was part of the campaign and reporting directly to Trump. Even after he was pushed out he still regularly communicated with and advised Trump.
Can't get more "inside" than that.
Snowflakes Love them some "Conjecture".....don't they ?
The Trump Stone combo were doing their dirty deeds together in the 1990's...
Good to see old Roger facing some serious charges....Unraveling the the ball of string so to speak.
"Martha" faced "Serious Charges too !
I hear she's back on TV though !
Went to jail as well as have a lot of other people that faced serious charges...Hopefully Roger will as well.
He probably will !
Still No TRUMP there.
Do you have a point since I didn't say anything about Trump going to jail.
The Article, The Article....
Martha faced white collar crimes, not hoodlum crimes as Trump's crew is.
Well address the article and not me...
In a Blog....one must do BOTH !
Unless you want me to "Ignore" your comment like you aren't here !
Gosh....and she went to Jail anyway !
No, she went to prison, there's a difference.
So, what's your point?
Martha was convicted of insider trading, everyone knows that. She was convicted of a white collar crime, Trump's crew will probably get the same kind of sentence.
When and if this all goes down without Trump resigning in disgrace under a deal, there will be a lot of time and fines handed down along with hundreds of civil suits that will expose and bankrupt Trump and his sperm catchers.
Not hardly but I'll leave you to go get educated about the differences.
O.....M.....G !
pris·on
[ˈprizən]
NOUN
a building in which people are legally held as a punishment for a crime they have committed
jail
[jāl]
NOUN
a place for the confinement of people accused or convicted of a crime.
That would be fine with me.
Now that's a ))))shudder(((( moment for me !
And the difference was right there in front of you.
Jail is where people that are arrested go to before they are charged formally and are holding points for convicted misdemeanor crimes.
Prison is for convicted felons.
You were saying something about your reading and comprehension skils a while back?
They say the same thing.
"Buildings and Bars" don't discriminate !
[deleted]
Please do....I have time !
Types of Prisons - Crime Museum
Like I said...it was right there in front of you when you posted it.
Difference = State or Federal.
I still see Buildings and bars for both !
No difference !
And yet again comprehension becomes the failure.
The "difference" is not "State or Federal" it's "convicted already of a felony" as state and federal prisons do not hold misdemeanor criminals.
VS
Jail which is a holding cell for people waiting for arraignment or for convicted midemeanors.
They are two totally different worlds.
But one must comprehend that difference lest they just see them as "buildings and bars" a rather pedestrian definition.
Thank-you for the definitions. I never thought they meant the same thing, but I now I know.
You need to get out more !
" Convicted of conspiracy to obstruct justice and making false statements during a federal investigation of possible insider trading, Martha Stewart was sentenced to five months in prison ".
Gosh.....maybe they should have said "Jail" instead ?
Which are felonies....duh.
You could have stated the total sentence too
The conviction resulted in a five-month prison sentence, followed by five months of house arrest and two years of probation.
Ahhh...you're a judge?
I would guess the procedure of a grand jury escapes you. Ya know, where they give evidence, explain the crime, all under the supervision of a real judge not one that makes uneducated derinitions of the law?
What does my getting out have to do with other people's lack of comprehension?
Besides, I'm on my 2nd passport in 10 years...do you even have one?
And that will probably happen anyway.
Your point is what?
Didn't need to do that. I admire your intelligence and wit.
"Martha Stewart was sentenced to five months in prison ".
Whose "Lacking" again ?
Remember…..your words...."Prison" isn't "Jail" !
Prison is Jail and Jail is Prison.
According to children left behind maybe.
Oh...and ooops! She was housed in a FEDERAL PRISON CAMP.
Because it was a felony.
I know that, I still admire your intelligence and wit.
Heh, heh, heh....uh huh.
It's like you DON'T know "ME" !
Prison is to Jail as Jail is to Prison !
oh sob !
And ?
Can't even come up with an original line of thinking? Have to borrow old phrases?
I'll wait until the trial to see if he's a criminal. I don't need to run out in the streets and go to rallies shouting "Lock her up!".
Let me know when you can be independent enough not to use catch phrases to make your point.
The one investment I failed to make was agricultural nose rings. I would be much more wealthy today
"I'll wait until the trial to see if he's a criminal. I don't need to run out in the streets and go to rallies shouting "Lock her up!".
Reading and comprehension goes a long way in adult life.
Let us know when you get there.
You'd be having a fit if a Democrat were arrested for something like this. Hell, you want Democrats locked up without due process. But it's good to see you openly display your views on ethics, and your view that these are just white collar criminals so it's no big deal. Obstruction of justice is a HUGE deal. I guess you're just preparing your brain for when/if Trump gets indicted for obstruction of justice.
Funny how you change your tune. First you claim nobody did anything wrong and it's just a witch hunt. Now that the indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions are rolling in, you claim it's no big deal.
If you have children - is this really the type of ethical and moral example you want them to follow? Smh.
The Trump base proves more every day that they have no morals or ethics.
Trump, Trump, Trump...…...is Guilty !
No due process.….right ?
Weird !
No, not really unless you've been deaf to "LOCK HER UP"
When have I said Trump is guilty? He might be, but we don't know yet. I said "when/if" Trump gets indicted. Learn to read before you make hysterical comments.
Yes.....REALLY, FOR SURE !
The "When" part of "When/If" says much !
Just noting "IF" would be more believable of your comment !
[deleted]
I read and comprehended just fine.....thank you very much !
Trump is and has always been a criminal. It's his basic nature.
Trump's folks sent him to military school because he was an out-of-control violent rapist.
Nothing has changed.
Martha Stewart? Really?
Look, Martha Stewart screwed herself. Trump and his pals are screwing everybody, and that includes you, m'dear.
oooooo.….Sorry...….
No cream on my butt ! should I be
?
As soon as I figure out what that means, I'll be back with a smart-ass reply.
Hahaha!
Here's a true story from the pen...I was in front of the canteen checking purchases when I checked this old convicts bag. He had oatmeal, crunchy peanut butter and jalepenos.
I said " strange combination" he said " Done it for years. I'm an old guy, if my bunkie decides he wants it he knows he's going to feel like he's fucking sandpaper that burns"
Aquafresh is Greeeeaaaaaat !
It's a twofer !
Take it up with the grand jury that saw the evidence and issued the indictments.
The "Grand Ol' Jury doesn't say HOW to go after someone ...... now does it !
You must have missed Count 7 when you read the indictment. /s
Sure did !
"Innocent" until "Proven" guilty is still the "Law" of this land, even though YOU wish it NOT to be ! !
Says the one who screeches "Lock Her Up!"
Point? You brought up Stewart, Stone is accused of far worse.
"INNOCENT" until "PROVEN" guilty !
Is that really so hard to understand for you ?
Now how 'bout them "Automatic weapons and body armor" showing up at Stones Residence ?
Loving it ?
"I".....did ?
"Blunder"-busting yourself isn't very flattering !
YOU brought up the INDICTMENT against Stewart.
Is it really so hard for YOU to understand that your post doesn't address the FACT that Stone is INDICTED on FAR WORSE counts than Stewart was?
Oh! Well, in that case we'll take a page right from the right wing book...
LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP!
Don' forget that Roger Stone, Paul Manafort and Trump were all proteges of olde Joe McCarthy's infamous henchman and dirty trickster Roy Cohn...
I knew Stone had a thing for crooked Presidents;
BUT...I think his new "Tramp Stamp" is taking his love of crooked, failed Presidents too far.
I guess it might make him more popular during his time in jail. (smile)
who doesn't like bangin Dick
Nixon , while in jail
house rock.
Hope the A WHOLE Administration/Family
get locked up and have to stare at Dick all day n night
Gonna be funny when Ivanka and Kushner come out of prison and she's not interested in dick but he is.
Nixon was also protege of Olde Joe McCarthy. Tricky Dicky was his name.
Joe McCarthy's #1 And #2 evil henchmen and dirty tricksters were Dick Nixon and Roy Cohn. Cohn, a self loathing gay closet case, had four young men he brought along and mentored. ROY'S BOYS, the young menCohn hand picked, his personal buttboys and pampered proteges, were Lee Attwater, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Donald J Trump the President of the United States. Anyone interested in how evil they all are should read Lee Attwater's deathbed confessions...
Will never do her doggy style.
I suppose this a form of birth control.
Paul Manafort with Roger Stone and Lee Atwater in 1985
Stone's only rule.
Admit nothing, deny everything, launch counter attack.
They have Stone by the short hairs. 50 people testified before the Grand Jury in November.
They just announced an end to the government shutdown will be announced by Trump today.
Funny how that happens on the day they indict his friend.
Trump is guilty as hell.
Quick question, who gives a shit about Roger Stone? I mean, why do we even know his name? Was he ever important at any point in time? I really am curious.
Didn't Stone testify or something during Watergate.
How come the biggest news story of the day is already off the front page?
Can you one of you Russian collusion truthers explain why roger stone was asking Wikileaks what it had, if trump was colluding with Putin?
Putin wasn't handling Trump in the summer of 2016, he waited until Helsinki to 'trigger' him...
utin wasn't handling Trump in the summer of 2016, he waited until Helsinki to 'trigger' him.
So I guess we are all on the same page that the hysteria and screaming about Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election has as much basis in reality as Pizzagate.
Baby steps.
Bad guess.
BTW you went from Putin, to Russia...
Except for one reality.
Trump wanted a way in to the Russian market for his hotels.
He showed him the Red Queen
he shows that thing to our Orange King, everytime they rendezvous
Maybe you didn't read what I wrote. Please read it again:
that the hysteria and screaming about Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election has as much basis in reality as Pizzagate.
Moving the goalposts is dishonest.
Yes, I read it.
Pizzagate was a right wing rumor started from nothing.
Trump wanting, desperately wanting, a hotel in Russia for quite some time is based in fact....and his lies about it are coming out more and more.
"I have no business dealings in Russia" turned out to be a lie.
So far we have the right starting a lie about child traffiking and another from the right wing president about his associations with Russia.
Yet he holds rallies where the sing along is "Lock her up!"
Too damn funny.
The basis in reality is that we KNOW he was going offshore for his financing mostly from Deutch bank which has direct ties to Russian oligarchs and he was selling properties to the Russians for 100's of percent over the market rate. The Russians didn't get rich by being stupid, they knew where to hide money and who to do it with. I certainly would not be surprised if a quid pro quo was discovered.
es, I read it.
I don't know how much clearer I can be. There is zero evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.
That he wanted to build a tower in Moscow doesn't change that.
It's like justifying Pizzagate because Clinton ate pizza there.
Of course not...he sent Cohen to Europe, and his son along with his campaign manager met with them at Trump Tower...to talk about "adoptions"
Yeah, no evidence there/s
You could be clearer by acknowledging that your statement is irrelevant since Mueller's mandate doesn't cite 'collusion' and that it isn't required to provide evidence of 'stealing the 2016 election'.
Yet you do just that by truncating your own quote to alter it's context.
Nice Strawman! The left has, of course, been claiming that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election since November 2016. . Or is that getting thrown into the left's prodigious memory hole now? That's what being discussed. Not Mueller's mandate. By all means, if you want to completely destroy your credibility, continue to argue that members of the left wing (on this very site no less) have claimed Trump conspired with Russia to steal the election despite having any evidence.
Mueller ( I can't believe I have to spell this out) is authorized to prosecute any crimes arising from Trump or his campaign coordinating with Russia with regards to the 2016 election. So, yes, a conspiracyt between Trump and the Russians to steal the election would fall squarely within in his mandate. Are you really going to argue that Mueller isn't looking for evidence of a conspiracy between Trump and the Russians to steal the election? TO date, Mueller has provided no evidence that any coordination existed.
he did? Why wasn't Cohen indicted for lying to Congress about that then?
How is my comment a strawman Sean? I quoted your comment and addressed it's content and context.
What did YOU say Sean? Let's look:
I told you exactly how you could be clearer.
BTW, the use of the term 'collusion' originated in conservative media, NOT the from the left. It allows for 'plausible deniability' without not technically lying.
So we're discussing if 'Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election since November 2016' but not Mueller's mandate?
You claim there's 'zero evidence that Trump colluded' but the FACT that Mueller's mandate on what to investigate doesn't actually include 'collusion' is somehow irrelevant?
So that begs the question Sean: Are you claiming that there is zero evidence that Trump or individuals associated with his campaign coordinated with Russia during his Presidential campaign?
Speaking of strawmen. Where did I make that assertion Sean?
Flynn, Cohen and Stone coordinated with Russia and Mueller has filed much of that evidence in court.
Or is that getting thrown into the neo-nationalists prodigious memory hole now?
Where did I discuss the specifics of Mueller's mandate? That Mueller is investigating any such collusion is common knowledge. Or at least I thought it was. I can see why you want to make silly semantic deflections rather then discuss the substance of Mueller's findings.
TW, the use of the term 'collusion' originated in conservative media, NOT the from the left
Right. The right preemptively made up a conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with Russia. The idea that Trump colluded with Russia is now a "right wing conspiracy. "
Too funny.
sing if 'Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election since November 2016' but not Mueller's mandate?
Unless you want to argue that Mueller's mandate prevents him from investigating said collusion, no. By all means, please make that argument.
The relevant issue is the result of the investigation.
Flynn, Cohen and Stone coordinated with Russia and Mueller has filed much of that evidence in court
Breaking news! Please point out, specifically, where Mueller alleges anyone of those men coordinated with Russia to steal the election.
This should be fun. Claiming that Flynn coordinated with Russia to steal the election by asking Russia to support Israel in a phone call after the election should be comedy gold.
Are you claiming that I can't include facts not already presented in a discussion. When the fuck did you make that rule Sean?
Mueller is NOT investigating COLLUSION. PERIOD full stop. Just because it is a 'common' misnomer, doesn't make it ACCURATE.
Yes, I know Sean, whenever one of y'all get called our on FACTS, you insist it's 'silly semantics'. It's telling that not one of you has come up with a cogent argument to support the concept that the words don't matter.
I can assure you that LEGALLY, the difference in the word COLLUSION and CONSPIRACY matters a great deal. It is my posit that that very difference is why conservatives began to use it.
Strawmen.
I have no issue making the argument the Mueller wouldn't waste his time investigating 'collusion' because 'collusion' is not cited in the criminal code. Ask Rudy.
I cited SOME of the results of the investigation, more to come.
Why? What does 'stealing the election' have to do with the Mueller investigation Sean?
Another strawman. Where did I claim that Flynn coordinated with Russia to 'steal the election' Sean?
BTW Sean, you might want to READ Flynn's plea agreement. Hint: The calls weren't about Russia supporting Israel.
Still having fun?
ueller is NOT investigating COLLUSION
Of course he is. So rather than change the topic again,, please point out to acts of collusion between Trump and Russia relating to the 2016 election that don't fall within the scope of Mueller's investigation.
. It's telling that not one of you has come up with a cogent argument to support the concept that the words don't matter.
Of course words matter. That's why its so silly to claim Mueller isn't investigating acts of collusion between Russia and Trump with regards to the 2016 election. Yet, bizarrely and against all evidence, you claim Mueller isn't investigating whether Russia and Trump colluded to steal the election.
Of course he is.
It is my posit that that very difference is why conservatives began to use it.
Okay, please support your statement that Conservatives were the first to claim Trump colluded with Russia.
But again, please show what acts of collusion (defined as: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others) relating to the the 2016 election between Trump and Russia fall outside the scope of Mueller's investigation.
Please explain how Trump could coordinate with Russia to steal an election without colluding with them. Also how Mueller would know, without any investigation, that collusive acts between Trump and Russia are not crimes? Do you believe that Mueller is omniscient and can determine whether collusive acts constitutes a crime without any investigation? What a bizarre thing to claim. That Mueller wouldn't waste his time investigating collusion between Trump and Russia with regards to an election. What an indictment of Mueller that is. (or a sign you believe he has preternatural powers, not sure which you believe).
I guess I made the mistake of thinking you had a point or were capable of following an argument.
Instead, it's apparent you just spew disjointed fragments with no regard for their relevance.
Let's review what happened here:
We are talking about Russia and Trump colluding to steal the election. I say there's no evidence of that.
In response, you say Mueller provided evidence that Flynn, Cohen and Stone coordinated with Russia.
When I call that obvious bullshit.
You respond "when did I claim that Flynn coordinated with Russia to steal the election?
Do you lack the attention span to sustain a point or do you just enjoy randomly throwing in non responsive claims when you can't defend your position honestly?
Focus: Mueller has provided no evidence that any of those men colluded with Russia to steal the election (the actual topic!).
Still having fun?
Yeah, it's amusing that you've resorted to arguing that Mueller won't investigate collusive acts between Trump and Russia to steal the 2016 election. You should probably take a step back and realize how ridiculous the claims you make are.
No he isn't. Mueller is investigating whether there are 'links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump'.
Exactly HOW does citing a fact about a topic change it Sean?
Please state that cogently.
If words matter why do you keep using the wrong ones?
Mueller investigation is about 'coordination' not 'collusion' AND the Russian governments efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, NOT 'stealing the election'.
You insist that I accept the premise of you posit. I refuse because WORDS MATTER.
Again Sean, that is a strawman. I never made such a statement. READ my comment MORE CAREFULLY.
The mistake you made was thinking that I will answer for comment that YOU fabricate out of whole cloth. What's apparent Sean is that you don't READ my comment CAREFULLY and your resulting replies end up misrepresenting what I stated, though of course you STILL demand that I defend YOUR fabrication.
Actually Sean, you said:
Which I RIGHTFULLY called a strawman.
I think it's obvious from the above comment that I don't have any issues with attention span AND that my reply WAS responsive.
I refuse to defend YOUR false narrative of my position. Do you care to ask a question that HONESTLY reflects the content of my comments?
Focus: Mueller has provided plenty of evidence that those three men coordinated with the Russians on Trump's behalf. Any thinking person reading their indictments would come to that conclusion. Flynn and Cohen have BOTH admitted to those FACTS in court. We will see about Stone.
You almost made it without another strawman. But alas...
I'll take your advice under consideration. /s
Again, please explain how supposed acts of collusion between Trump and Russia doesn't fall within that scope.
You know what, don't bother. I know you can't. You know you can't. Instead, you will continue to make cockamamie assertions that have no basis in reality.
Exactly HOW does citing a fact about a topic change it Sean?
Because it's not on topic. It's your m.o. Every time your argument gets exposed, you start a new argument. It's tiresome.
is about 'coordination' not 'collusion' AND the Russian governments efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
By all means, show how Trump coordinated with Russia without colluding with them. Because Mueller can only investigate coordination and not collusion, or so you say.
Of course, I don't see the crime of "coordination" in the statute book. Please point out the what criminal statute is called "coordination." Since I don't see the crime of "coordination" in the statute book , I have to wonder why Muller is wasting his time investigating it, because you just claimed Mueller won't investigate collusion because it's not a listed crime.
Of course, the listed crime argument was an entire post ago, and your argument's shelf life is much shorter than that.
to steal the election
Again, since you continue to change arguments willy nilly, you are probably confused about what's happening. I'll break it down for you:
1.The original claim is that the left wing in this country alleged that Trump and company stole the election by colluding with Russia. (feel free to try and rebut that )
2 I claimed that Mueller has not provided any evidence that they did. (Feel free to embarrass yourself by claiming that Mueller doesn't have authority to investigate that)
Since you can't dispute the accuracy of my allegation, you try and distract and deflect. It's sad. Again, you know and I know that Mueller is investigating any and all acts of collusion between Trump and the Russians with regards to the 2016 election. The fact that you have to try and pretend otherwise is simply pathetic.
ueller has provided plenty of evidence that those three men coordinated with the Russians on Trump's behalf.
But the topic is coordination with regards to the 2016 election. How do you keep missing that? If I claim 2+2=4, you aren't rebutting me by arguing that 2+5=6. You've managed to waste enough time with nonsense, so I'll explain how you could actually rebut what I wrote.
I claimed there is no evidence to support the left wing conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election (the claim I compared to pizzagate).
You could rebut that by showing 1. the left never claimed Trump collude with Russia to steal the 2016 (the last 2+ year history of this site alone thoroughly debunks that argument) or 2. that trump did collude with Russia to steal the election (even though the Stone indictment, along with every other Mueller filing, argues otherwise). An honest liberal would probably respond that Mueller's investigation is still ongoing, and there's a chance he has secret evidence that he hasn't divulged yet.
I don't know Sean, it's just another confirmation of Steele's dossier. You'll have to ask Mueller.
Cell signal traced to ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen outside Prague around time of alleged Russian meeting:
Hillary Clinton Benghazi Investigation:
4 years
0 indictments
0 convictions
Hillary Clinton Email Investigation:
2 years
0 indictments
0 convictions
Trump-Russia Investigation:
15 months
34 Indictments/Charges (Individuals) (and counting)
3 Indictments/Charges (Companies)
6 GUILTY pleas (and counting)
4 CONVICTIONS (and counting)
Indicted: Roger Stone
Indicted: Paul Manafort
Indicted: Rick Gates
Indicted: George Papadopoulos
Indicted: Michael Flynn
Indicted: Michael Cohen
Indicted: Richard Pinedo
Indicted: Alex van der Zwaan
Indicted: Konstantin Kilimnik
Indicted: 12 Russian GRU officers
Indicted: Yevgeny Prigozhin
Indicted: Mikhail Burchik
Indicted: Aleksandra Krylova
Indicted: Anna Bogacheva
Indicted: Sergey Polozov
Indicted: Maria Bovda
Indicted: Dzheykhun Aslanov
Indicted: Vadim Podkopaev
Indicted: Irina Kaverzina
Indicted: Gleb Vasilchenko
Indicted: Internet Research Agency
Indicted: Concord Management
Guilty Plea: Michael Flynn
Guilty Plea: Michael Cohen
Guilty Plea: George Papadopolous
Guilty Plea: Richard Pinedo
Guilty Plea: Alex van der Zwaan
Guilty Plea: Rick Gates
Over 191 Criminal Charges (and counting):
Conspiracy against the USA (2 counts)
Conspiracy to launder money (2 counts)
Bank fraud (8 counts)
Bank fraud conspiracy (10 counts)
Subscribing to false tax returns (10 counts)
Making false statements (6 counts)
Failure to file reports of foreign bank accounts (14 counts)
Unregistered agent of a foreign principal (2 counts)
False FARA statements (2 counts)
Subscribing to false tax returns (10 counts)
Assisting in preparation of false tax documents (5 counts)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States (13 counts)
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud (2 counts)
Aggravated identity theft (24 counts)
What about Hillary's emails from 8 years ago 3 gop congresses cleared her of?
I "borrowed" this information from a post on facebook.
I was just being sarcastic, again. There have still been no zero nada zip ranking Obama campaign or administration officials ever indicted for any crimes, corruption or malfeasence while the exact opposite is true of Trump & Co. It takes someone pretty darned dedicated to keep a current tally of all the multitudinous criminal indictments that keep piling up around Trump...
Now come on,
how about the many other BENGHAZI Investigations thatturned up NOTHING.?
n Wally and a few others have informed me
Mueller will be indicting Hillary soon,
Which hunt is a witch hunt
Trump's entire campaign was corrupt and everyone that has been indicted so far truly deserves it. They lied, and lied over and over just like Trump lies constantly. Birds of a feather, they all knew what they were doing and that it was wrong.