The Briefing Room
General Category => Trump Legal Investigations => Topic started by: mystery-ak on January 30, 2019, 11:56:14 pm
-
UPDATE: CNN Hid Images and Video of Roger Stone’s 72-Year-Old Wife Being Dragged Out of Home Barefoot and In Nightgown
by Jim Hoft January 29, 2019
(https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/roger-stone-wife-nydia-600x338.jpg)
On Friday the Mueller Special Counsel sent 20-29 armed FBI operatives in six vehicles and a CNN camera crew to film the arrest of Trump associate Roger Stone at his home in a predawn raid.
Roger Stone was arrested barefoot and in his shorts outside his apartment.
On Monday Roger Stone told Judge Napolitano in a FOX Nation interview that his 72-year-old wife was also forced to stand outside barefoot and in her nightgown.
more w/video
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/update-cnn-hid-images-and-video-of-roger-stones-72-year-old-wife-being-dragged-out-of-home-barefoot-and-in-nightgown/ (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/update-cnn-hid-images-and-video-of-roger-stones-72-year-old-wife-being-dragged-out-of-home-barefoot-and-in-nightgown/)
-
No need for the public to see storm troopers at work. Nothing to see here! Move along now!
-
It’s Fort Freaking Lauderdale. It’s not like they’re making her stand outside in Barrow, AK.
-
It’s Fort Freaking Lauderdale. It’s not like they’re making her stand outside in Barrow, AK.
Why does that matter? What crime was she accused of, to be dragged out of her home in her nightgown in the first place?
-
It’s Fort Freaking Lauderdale. It’s not like they’re making her stand outside in Barrow, AK.
If it was your dear departed mother...would you feel the same way?
-
Why does that matter? What crime was she accused of, to be dragged out of her home in her nightgown in the first place?
When the FBI raided Manafort’s home, they did so to secure information he had been withholding. It’s likely they removed people from the home in both cases, so nobody could destroy or conceal anything.
-
If it was your dear departed mother...would you feel the same way?
Unlike Roger and his wife, my dear departed mother never belonged to sex clubs or placed swinger ads that said...
‘Hot, insatiable lady and her handsome body builder husband, experienced swingers, seek similar couples or exceptional muscular well-hung single men.'
Let’s not kid ourselves she was somehow humiliated by this.
-
When the FBI raided Manafort’s home, they did so to secure information he had been withholding. It’s likely they removed people from the home in both cases, so nobody could destroy or conceal anything.
Roger Stone was charged with obstruction, witness tampering and making false statements. For which of those charges would he have documents/evidence laying around the house? Given that there was no warrant for her arrest, why could an officer not be stationed with her somewhere inside the house while they executed whatever search warrants they presumably had?
-
Unlike Roger and his wife, my dear departed mother never belonged to sex clubs or placed swinger ads that said...
‘Hot, insatiable lady and her handsome body builder husband, experienced swingers, seek similar couples or exceptional muscular well-hung single men.'
Let’s not kid ourselves she was somehow humiliated by this.
What?
-
Unlike Roger and his wife, my dear departed mother never belonged to sex clubs or placed swinger ads that said...
‘Hot, insatiable lady and her handsome body builder husband, experienced swingers, seek similar couples or exceptional muscular well-hung single men.'
Let’s not kid ourselves she was somehow humiliated by this.
You've crossed to the dark side. Please ... just stay there.
-
Unlike Roger and his wife, my dear departed mother never belonged to sex clubs or placed swinger ads that said...
‘Hot, insatiable lady and her handsome body builder husband, experienced swingers, seek similar couples or exceptional muscular well-hung single men.'
Let’s not kid ourselves she was somehow humiliated by this.
Ok, so that's the first I've heard of this, but even if it is true there is no law against being skanky. Her rights are still the same as Sister Mary Martha down at the convent.
-
What?
Don't let him confuse the issue. @edpc is just trying to help the FBI off the hook here. @mystery-ak What one did or did not do 1/4 century ago has nothing to do with the other.
20+ armed federal agents throwing you out of your home in the dead of night without allowing you to put on a robe or a pair of shoes, to stand in front of the cameras the FBI invited to televise the raid is a horrific abuse of power.
Period.
-
Don't let him confuse the issue. @edpc is just trying to help the FBI off the hook here. @mystery-ak What one did or did not do 1/4 century ago has nothing to do with the other.
20+ armed federal agents throwing you out of your home in the dead of night without allowing you to put on a robe or a pair of shoes, to stand in front of the cameras the FBI invited to televise the raid is a horrific abuse of power.
Period.
Absolutely!
-
20+ armed federal agents throwing you out of your home in the dead of night without allowing you to put on a robe or a pair of shoes, to stand in front of the cameras the FBI invited to televise the raid is a horrific abuse of power.
Period.
100% agreed
-
What?
He went a little Wingnut there. I hope it is temporary.
-
Don't let him confuse the issue. @edpc is just trying to help the FBI off the hook here. @mystery-ak What one did or did not do 1/4 century ago has nothing to do with the other.
20+ armed federal agents throwing you out of your home in the dead of night without allowing you to put on a robe or a pair of shoes, to stand in front of the cameras the FBI invited to televise the raid is a horrific abuse of power.
Period.
Not to worry...I hope there is some sort of investigation into what the FBI did....I was just shocked by this story as it is new to me...
-
What?
Stone was kicked off the 1996 Dole campaign for these ads. He lied and said they were opposition smears. Trump’s friend David Pecker wrote an expose’ in the Enquirer at the time.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6640233/Inside-Roger-Stones-swinging-marriage-posted-ads-online-frequented-sex-clubs.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6640233/Inside-Roger-Stones-swinging-marriage-posted-ads-online-frequented-sex-clubs.html)
-
What?
It's true. I Goggled it and there are reputable stories everywhere about it. The quote @edpc posted was from a 1996 incident that got Stone sacked from the Dole campaign.
-
Stone was kicked off the 1996 Dole campaign for these ads. He lied and said they were opposition smears. Trump’s friend David Pecker wrote an expose’ in the Enquirer at the time.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6640233/Inside-Roger-Stones-swinging-marriage-posted-ads-online-frequented-sex-clubs.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6640233/Inside-Roger-Stones-swinging-marriage-posted-ads-online-frequented-sex-clubs.html)
Yeah, I found that in more than a couple of stories about Stone and his wives.
-
Yeah, I found that in more than a couple of stories about Stone and his wives.
So frigin what? How does that justify what the feds did here?
-
Don't let him confuse the issue. @edpc is just trying to help the FBI off the hook here. @mystery-ak What one did or did not do 1/4 century ago has nothing to do with the other.
Oh, STFU. You’re on another thread making demands to know why she was outside in her nightgown, like she’s an elderly nun.
-
So frigin what? How does that justify what the feds did here?
I'm not saying it does, just reporting what I found.
I don't think this raid staged for the benefit of the Commie News Network was justified in the least. First I'd heard of the wife's treatment, and I find it distasteful she was treated in this manner, no matter what their private lives were like.
-
I'm not saying it does, just reporting what I found.
I don't think this raid staged for the benefit of the Commie News Network was justified in the least. First I'd heard of the wife's treatment, and I find it distasteful she was treated in this manner, no matter what their private lives were like.
I agree with you 100%. So why participate in clouding the issue with irrelevant stuff?
-
Oh, STFU. You’re on another thread making demands to know why she was outside in her nightgown, like she’s an elderly nun.
This whole thread is about how Stone's wife was treated. You think she earned the treatment she received.
I think you jumped the shark and exposed your true underbelly.
And, no, Mr. Ed, I will not shut up, the bleep or otherwise.
-
This whole thread is about how Stone's wife was treated. You think she earned the treatment she received.
I think you jumped the shark and exposed your true underbelly.
And, no, Mr. Ed, I will not shut up, the bleep or otherwise.
They terrorized my wife, my dogs. I was taken to the FBI facility. Although I must say the FBI agents were extraordinarily courteous.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/25/roger_stone_i_look_forward_to_being_fully_and_completely_vindicated_will_not_testify_against_trump.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/25/roger_stone_i_look_forward_to_being_fully_and_completely_vindicated_will_not_testify_against_trump.html)
Courteous terrorists. Imagine that. You expose yourself by continually siding with garbage like Manafort, Cohen, and Stone. I remember your outrage at the time of those raids, as well. Turns out, they were even worse people than we thought. It won’t be surprising if Stone follows suit, especially in light of how badly your instincts have borne out. I think what really upsets you is the fact this investigation has exposed people very close to Trump.
-
@mystery-ak
I expect the FBI must put everyone out of a house and contain them before they conduct a search. A person left in a house could kill the FBI guys searching in the house. An elderly woman can shoot a weapon. They were there to arrest and search and still be alive after doing that.
-
They terrorized my wife, my dogs. I was taken to the FBI facility. Although I must say the FBI agents were extraordinarily courteous.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/25/roger_stone_i_look_forward_to_being_fully_and_completely_vindicated_will_not_testify_against_trump.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/25/roger_stone_i_look_forward_to_being_fully_and_completely_vindicated_will_not_testify_against_trump.html)
Courteous terrorists. Imagine that. You expose yourself by continually siding with garbage like Manafort, Cohen, and Stone. I remember your outrage at the time of those raids, as well. Turns out, they were even worse people than we thought. It won’t be surprising if Stone follows suit, especially in light of how badly your instincts have borne out. I think what really upsets you is the fact this investigation has exposed people very close to Trump.
I've never been a big fan of police roughing people up because they're "bad people who deserved it." I think that's what bugs me about this and similar stories. Sometimes that puts me, in the eyes of others, of siding with the bad people. That's too bad.
-
I'm not saying it does, just reporting what I found.
I don't think this raid staged for the benefit of the Commie News Network was justified in the least. First I'd heard of the wife's treatment, and I find it distasteful she was treated in this manner, no matter what their private lives were like.
Precisely.
Otherwise, how long will it be before those nasty church-goers get dragged out in their skivvies and kicked around the streets for a public circus, arrested for some process crime by the Commie Inquisition?
-
I've never been a big fan of police roughing people up because they're "bad people who deserved it." I think that's what bugs me about this and similar stories. Sometimes that puts me, in the eyes of others, of siding with the bad people. That's too bad.
Except no one was roughed up or harmed. Stone is a known serial liar. Were the agents courteous or terrorizing? It can’t be both. The Washington Times characterized it as a ‘no knock warrant,’ like they kicked the door in, when they plainly did knock.
The only recourse guys like Stone, Manafort, and Cohen have is to attack the investigation methods and overall legitimacy, because evidence gathered against them is usually solid and damning. Two of the three mentioned have been convicted on evidence collected from their respective controversial raids and for reasons material to the probe scope and challenges against it were thrown out. I don’t see any reason why it won’t be the same in Stone’s case.
I’ve never been a big fan of people claiming police state, witch hunt, and prosecutorial misconduct, just because they don’t happen to like the person heading an investigation. That’s especially true when subsequent events show the investigation targets are guilty. Plus, there are multiple instances where judges in cases related to the investigation have been Republican appointed, known to be no nonsense types and ruled against the defense, in various challenges. See Ellis, Sutherland, and Friedrich. In the final case, Friedrich specifically rebuked the defense. Sometimes, that puts me in a position where people say I’m on the dark side. That’s too bad.
-
29 Agents to arrest a political operative with no history of violent behavior?
And these f'ers want to know why so many of us wish that 95% of the government would shut down permanently.
-
29 Agents to arrest a political operative with no history of violent behavior?
And these f'ers want to know why so many of us wish that 95% of the government would shut down permanently.
If they have an indictment, they have enough to go to trial. I really doubt they were there to prevent evidence from being destroyed when they took the guy into custody on his doorstep. It isn't like giving Hillary months to hammer phones and destroy hard drives.
-
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime†is antithetical to America’s jurisprudence traditions.
But that’s exactly what the FBI and Mueller have been doing nearly 3-years, in the finest tradition of the former Soviet empire.
Welcome to Amerika, 102 years after the bloody birth of Russian communism.
-
UPDATE: CNN Hid Images and Video of Roger Stone’s 72-Year-Old Wife Being Dragged Out of Home Barefoot and In Nightgown
by Jim Hoft January 29, 2019
(https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/roger-stone-wife-nydia-600x338.jpg)
On Friday the Mueller Special Counsel sent 20-29 armed FBI operatives in six vehicles and a CNN camera crew to film the arrest of Trump associate Roger Stone at his home in a predawn raid.
Roger Stone was arrested barefoot and in his shorts outside his apartment.
On Monday Roger Stone told Judge Napolitano in a FOX Nation interview that his 72-year-old wife was also forced to stand outside barefoot and in her nightgown.
more w/video
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/update-cnn-hid-images-and-video-of-roger-stones-72-year-old-wife-being-dragged-out-of-home-barefoot-and-in-nightgown/ (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/update-cnn-hid-images-and-video-of-roger-stones-72-year-old-wife-being-dragged-out-of-home-barefoot-and-in-nightgown/)
The Feebs responsible for making a man and woman in their 70's stand outside barefoot in late Jan need to face felony charges after being fired.
-
Oh, STFU. You’re on another thread making demands to know why she was outside in her nightgown, like she’s an elderly nun.
@edpc
You are now claiming it was ok to do this to a 72 year old woman who liked to have sex,but it would NOT be ok with a 72 year old nun who is PRESUMED to hate sex?
Seems to me you have a problem with people who enjoy sex and don't enjoy guilt,and "those evil people who enjoy sex need to be punished!"
-
If they have an indictment, they have enough to go to trial. I really doubt they were there to prevent evidence from being destroyed when they took the guy into custody on his doorstep. It isn't like giving Hillary months to hammer phones and destroy hard drives.
:amen: and as I have said elsewhere, the proper, and at one time normal, thing to do with this sort of crime is to notify the person indicted's council that Mr. XXX has 48 hours to voluntarily surrender or we will come and get him.
-
Don't let him confuse the issue. @edpc is just trying to help the FBI off the hook here. @mystery-ak What one did or did not do 1/4 century ago has nothing to do with the other.
20+ armed federal agents throwing you out of your home in the dead of night without allowing you to put on a robe or a pair of shoes, to stand in front of the cameras the FBI invited to televise the raid is a horrific abuse of power.
Period.
Right on, @Right_in_Virginia . This was a staged parade to humiliate the Stones for the benefit of the cameras - the cameras of the one network that covers Trump with no objectivity whatsoever. Trump (and, of course, the Stones) has every right to be outraged at this arbitrary and unnecessary abuse of power.
-
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime†is antithetical to America’s jurisprudence traditions.
But that’s exactly what the FBI and Mueller have been doing nearly 3-years, in the finest tradition of the former Soviet empire.
Welcome to Amerika, 102 years after the bloody birth of Russian communism.
QFT
-
Except no one was roughed up or harmed. Stone is a known serial liar. Were the agents courteous or terrorizing? It can’t be both. The Washington Times characterized it as a ‘no knock warrant,’ like they kicked the door in, when they plainly did knock.
The only recourse guys like Stone, Manafort, and Cohen have is to attack the investigation methods and overall legitimacy, because evidence gathered against them is usually solid and damning. Two of the three mentioned have been convicted on evidence collected from their respective controversial raids and for reasons material to the probe scope and challenges against it were thrown out. I don’t see any reason why it won’t be the same in Stone’s case.
I’ve never been a big fan of people claiming police state, witch hunt, and prosecutorial misconduct, just because they don’t happen to like the person heading an investigation. That’s especially true when subsequent events show the investigation targets are guilty. Plus, there are multiple instances where judges in cases related to the investigation have been Republican appointed, known to be no nonsense types and ruled against the defense, in various challenges. See Ellis, Sutherland, and Friedrich. In the final case, Friedrich specifically rebuked the defense. Sometimes, that puts me in a position where people say I’m on the dark side. That’s too bad.
That is indeed too bad. It's probably why you and I will never see eye-to-eye in these matters. It's OK, though...I learned to respect you for producing arguments and evidence when asked, although you may never care much for me.
'Salright... :shrug:
-
That is indeed too bad. It's probably why you and I will never see eye-to-eye in these matters. It's OK, though...I learned to respect you for producing arguments and evidence when asked, although you may never care much for me.
'Salright... :shrug:
Without him and Once-ler the place would be boring.
-
Without him and Once-ler the place would be boring.
I like Once-ler too, but don't tell anybody....
-
I like Once-ler too, but don't tell anybody....
Your secret is safe. I won't tell the cheaderhead.
-
Your secret is safe. I won't tell the cheaderhead.
His heart is in the right place even if his head is up his AZZ!
-
His heart is in the right place even if his head is up his AZZ!
He does like to stir the poo.
-
He does like to stir the poo.
I'm sure he likes the reaction he gets, too.... :tongue2:
-
I'm sure he likes the reaction he gets, too.... :tongue2:
Are you insinuating I'm a Poo Foo Fighter?
-
That is indeed too bad. It's probably why you and I will never see eye-to-eye in these matters. It's OK, though...I learned to respect you for producing arguments and evidence when asked, although you may never care much for me.
'Salright... :shrug:
That last particular rundown really didn’t have much to do with you. You’re at least intellectually honest enough to consider things, after the fact. There are, however, a number of others who have allowed emotional investment to rule. Mueller could say water is wet and it would have to be some sort of deep state conspiracy.
When someone surrounds himself with lowlifes engaged in unethical and illegal behavior, we shouldn’t really be surprised to find the central figure is doing similar things. In the end, I think this will be somewhat like Watergate, in the sense that the president was not directly involved in the initial actions. I doubt Nixon ordered the break in or had advanced knowledge of it.
Similarly, I think we will ultimately discover people around Trump like Bannon, Manafort, Cohen, and personnel with Cambridge Analytica had multiple contacts with Russian or WikiLeaks associated individuals. People will want to continue with the ‘show me the man and I will show you the crime’ mantra. However, in an official investigation, you cannot obstruct justice, commit perjury, or suborn perjury, in an attempt to avoid political embarrassment, without consequence. Nixon aptly demonstrated that.
-
That last particular rundown really didn’t have much to do with you. You’re at least intellectually honest enough to consider things, after the fact. There are, however, a number of others who have allowed emotional investment to rule. Mueller could say water is wet and it would have to be some sort of deep state conspiracy.
When someone surrounds himself with lowlifes engaged in unethical and illegal behavior, we shouldn’t really be surprised to find the central figure is doing similar things. In the end, I think this will be somewhat like Watergate, in the sense that the president was not directly involved in the initial actions. I doubt Nixon ordered the break in or had advanced knowledge of it.
Similarly, I think we will ultimately discover people around Trump like Bannon, Manafort, Cohen, and personnel with Cambridge Analytica had multiple contacts with Russian or WikiLeaks associated individuals. People will want to continue with the ‘show me the man and I will show you the crime’ mantra. However, in an official investigation, you cannot obstruct justice, commit perjury, or suborn perjury, in an attempt to avoid political embarrassment, without consequence. Nixon aptly demonstrated that.
How do you cross the George Washington Bridge and not be surrounded by the unethical and illegally behaving lowlifes? Where is Hillary's SWAT team?
The FBI/DOJ guys are looking for fly sh*t on a football field, when right across the aisle there are manure heaps.
-
That last particular rundown really didn’t have much to do with you. You’re at least intellectually honest enough to consider things, after the fact. There are, however, a number of others who have allowed emotional investment to rule. Mueller could say water is wet and it would have to be some sort of deep state conspiracy.
When someone surrounds himself with lowlifes engaged in unethical and illegal behavior, we shouldn’t really be surprised to find the central figure is doing similar things. In the end, I think this will be somewhat like Watergate, in the sense that the president was not directly involved in the initial actions. I doubt Nixon ordered the break in or had advanced knowledge of it.
Similarly, I think we will ultimately discover people around Trump like Bannon, Manafort, Cohen, and personnel with Cambridge Analytica had multiple contacts with Russian or WikiLeaks associated individuals. People will want to continue with the ‘show me the man and I will show you the crime’ mantra. However, in an official investigation, you cannot obstruct justice, commit perjury, or suborn perjury, in an attempt to avoid political embarrassment, without consequence. Nixon aptly demonstrated that.
Yes, the mentioned people are likely to be found guilty, but I prefer the "trial first, sentence second" standard. I'm not very interested in getting into the "is it a witch hunt or not?" thicket, other than the passing observation that's also likely given the DeeCee political climate in 2019. :shrug:
It's hard to measure it when one is sure that the Special Prosecutor is dirty. I'm pretty sure about that because of the men who successfully sued Mueller for framing them for Whitey Bulger's crimes.
-
How do you cross the George Washington Bridge and not be surrounded by the unethical and illegally behaving lowlifes? Where is Hillary's SWAT team?
The FBI/DOJ guys are looking for fly sh*t on a football field, when right across the aisle there are manure heaps.
Thank you @Smokin Joe for injecting some perspective here. @edpc is blinded to all else by his Trump hatred it seems.
-
Yes, the mentioned people are likely to be found guilty, but I prefer the "trial first, sentence second" standard. I'm not very interested in getting into the "is it a witch hunt or not?" thicket, other than the passing observation that's also likely given the DeeCee political climate in 2019. :shrug:
It's hard to measure it when one is sure that the Special Prosecutor is dirty. I'm pretty sure about that because of the men who successfully sued Mueller for framing them for Whitey Bulger's crimes.
Muller is a made man in the Clinton Mafia just like James Comey is!
-
Muller is a made man in the Clinton Mafia just like James Comey is!
And he's supposed to be the straight line from which we measure guilt or innocence. It's like trying to hang drywall on an unlevel floor and crooked studs.
It takes an almost fanatical belief in Mueller's infallibility to take his side on each and every controversy. I'm having trouble believing a single thing he says!
-
And he's supposed to be the straight line from which we measure guilt or innocence. It's like trying to hang drywall on an unlevel floor and crooked studs.
It takes an almost fanatical belief in Mueller's infallibility to take his side on each and every controversy. I'm having trouble believing a single thing he says!
Damned sure safer to err in that direction IMHO!
-
It's hard to measure it when one is sure that the Special Prosecutor is dirty. I'm pretty sure about that because of the men who successfully sued Mueller for framing them for Whitey Bulger's crimes.
Except that’s not entirely accurate and certain factoids have persisted for years. The government was successfully sued for the trial and actions of the agents involved with the original investigation. Mueller wasn’t even a practicing attorney at the time. The judge who presided over the case wrote an op-ed in the NYT, explaining how Mueller was never mentioned in the trial.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/opinion/robert-mueller-smearing-complicit.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/opinion/robert-mueller-smearing-complicit.html)
-
How do you cross the George Washington Bridge and not be surrounded by the unethical and illegally behaving lowlifes? Where is Hillary's SWAT team? The FBI/DOJ guys are looking for fly sh*t on a football field, when right across the aisle there are manure heaps.
@Smokin Joe @Bigun
This is so fallacious and embarrassing. There’s a huge difference between direct associates or employees and people in the general public with whom you may have incidental contact. You both know it. Also, whataboutism is not a defense for another person’s actions. If you want to know where the Clinton swat team is, ask Trump why he considered them to be ‘good people who had suffered enough,’ after the election.
-
Thank you @Smokin Joe for injecting some perspective here. @edpc is blinded to all else by his Trump hatred it seems.
@Bigun @edpc
Blinded, obsessed, deranged.
Still waiting for a sound basis for Russian collusion. Absent that, it is a witch hunt.
So what if Roger Stone has made a career of being a political operative? That alone does Not justify dragging his hearing impaired 72 year old wife out to be scared, made an example of.
It is obvious that the Deep State stench runs deep and wide, in career government circles.
They intend to remind you that THEY are in charge.
-
Lets say this had happened to a democrat "operative" of color and his wife.
Oh wait that would be over in the fiction aisle. Never mind.
-
Except that’s not entirely accurate and certain factoids have persisted for years. The government was successfully sued for the trial and actions of the agents involved with the original investigation. Mueller wasn’t even a practicing attorney at the time. The judge who presided over the case wrote an op-ed in the NYT, explaining how Mueller was never mentioned in the trial.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/opinion/robert-mueller-smearing-complicit.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/opinion/robert-mueller-smearing-complicit.html)
What about Ted Stevens? Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) supplied a list for you to explain away, but I'm not in the mood to argue the qualities of Mueller today (a direct link to a PDF of his report is in the link below). Too busy assembling furniture today.
I'm as convinced he's dirty as you seem to be he's a straight arrow.
https://gohmert.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398634 (https://gohmert.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398634)
-
@Smokin Joe @Bigun
This is so fallacious and embarrassing. There’s a huge difference between direct associates or employees and people in the general public with whom you may have incidental contact. You both know it. Also, whataboutism is not a defense for another person’s actions. If you want to know where the Clinton swat team is, ask Trump why he considered them to be ‘good people who had suffered enough,’ after the election.
Yeah @edpc! You know and the rest of us just fell off the turnip truck! {{{{Sigh!!!}}}}}}
-
Still waiting for a sound basis for Russian collusion. Absent that, it is a witch hunt.
No, you are not. You have the most contradictory and ironic screen name - ever. You know who says this is not a witchhunt? The handpicked AG nominee, who has known Mueller for decades, extolled his integrity. Under direct questioning, in his confirmation hearings, Barr has said Mueller would not be involved in one. You and your ilk are very predictable. No matter what the investigation results determine, you’ll fall back into the citadel of your deep state defense.
-
It’s Fort Freaking Lauderdale. It’s not like they’re making her stand outside in Barrow, AK.
The temperature or climate is not the point. It's the abuse of power against someone that has done NOTHING to warrant such abuse. The very same abuse that can and probably will be directed and you and at me some day... if the leftist PTBs so choose. It's just another symptom of the left dragging our nation into the 'lawless' era. Nothing they will do will be Constitutional in future.
-
The temperature or climate is not the point. It's the abuse of power against someone that has done NOTHING to warrant such abuse. The very same abuse that can and probably will be directed and you and at me some day... if the leftist PTBs so choose. It's just another symptom of the left dragging our nation into the 'lawless' era. Nothing they will do will be Constitutional in future.
Yeah, we know. Remember when they picked the lock on Manafort’s house for his raid? Remember how they seized items from Cohen, when he was still an active attorney for Trump? Those were all supposedly outrageous abuses, as well. After those raids secured evidence and produced results in trial or plea agreement, suddenly, no one wants to defend those people anymore. They executed searches on Stone’s properties in FL and NY. People only seem to care about the one, because he happened to be there.
-
Ok, gonna tarnish my stellar reputations here /s
I mostly agree with EDPC, I think this is a big to-do over nothing.
Lot of agents, probable needed to carry all the paperwork from a big house.
Outside barefoot... probable briefly in transit and then put somewhere warm in short order.
CNN reporter on scene... something needs to be done about that... He was tipped off and FBI has another political leaker that needed his cavities filled with cement and dumped in a river.
-
Ok, gonna tarnish my stellar reputations here /s
I mostly agree with EDPC, I think this is a big to-do over nothing.
Lot of agents, probable needed to carry all the paperwork from a big house.
Outside barefoot... probable briefly in transit and then put somewhere warm in short order.
CNN reporter on scene... something needs to be done about that... He was tipped off and FBI has another political leaker that needed his cavities filled with cement and dumped in a river.
I also mostly agree with @edpc about this being not much of a story. I think the FBI can easily explain it away by simply stating they were preserving evidence. That may still be BS, but it will be believed by enough people to sweep it under the rug. Lindsey Graham, for example.
As for the leaker (We all know damned well how that happened), that will also be swept under a rug.
-
Yeah, we know. Remember when they picked the lock on Manafort’s house for his raid? Remember how they seized items from Cohen, when he was still an active attorney for Trump? Those were all supposedly outrageous abuses, as well. After those raids secured evidence and produced results in trial or plea agreement, suddenly, no one wants to defend those people anymore. They executed searches on Stone’s properties in FL and NY. People only seem to care about the one, because he happened to be there.
Dude... you're missing the point here. Which is.... Stone's wife is INNOCENT. She was victimized by over-reaching, over-reacting, sensationalizing law enforcement... all so the left could get a big headline. It's not about Stone's guilt or innocense, much less anyone else's that you mentioned. The abuse of power can and WILL be used against any or all of us at some point. To not recognize that for what it is and be against it is just.... (I'll be nice here)... short-sighted and tunnel-visioned. Sheesh.
-
Dude... you're missing the point here. Which is.... Stone's wife is INNOCENT. She was victimized by over-reaching, over-reacting, sensationalizing law enforcement... all so the left could get a big headline. It's not about Stone's guilt or innocense, much less anyone else's that you mentioned. The abuse of power can and WILL be used against any or all of us at some point. To not recognize that for what it is and be against it is just.... (I'll be nice here)... short-sighted and tunnel-visioned. Sheesh.
There is no report she was shackled or injured. If she was victimized by anyone, it’s her reprobate husband. She’s been married to him for 25 years. The man has no moral compass and is the ultimate ends justify the means individual. She’s no babe in the woods and knows exactly who he is and what he does. The worst thing she had to do was stand outside, with temperatures in the 60s, in the most conservative outfit she’s probably owned. BFD.
-
There is no report she was shackled or injured. If she was victimized by anyone, it’s her reprobate husband. She’s been married to him for 25 years. The man has no moral compass and is the ultimate ends justify the means individual. She knows exactly who he is and what he does. The worst thing she had to do was stand outside, with temperatures in the 60s, in the most conservative outfit she’s probably owned. BFD.
Everything in this quote presupposes the husband's guilt of the charged crimes. That's well after the point I get off the bus.
-
There is no report she was shackled or injured. If she was victimized by anyone, it’s her reprobate husband. She’s been married to him for 25 years. The man has no moral compass and is the ultimate ends justify the means individual. She’s no babe in the woods and knows exactly who he is and what he does. The worst thing she had to do was stand outside, with temperatures in the 60s, in the most conservative outfit she’s probably owned. BFD.
And again.... that's not the point. She did nothing wrong... except, in your mind and in the mind of the lefties, marry Stone. You're blaming the victim here. Not cool and not right. Having to stand outside of your house in your nightgown, having been dragged from sleep in your bed, when you have done nothing wrong, unethical or illegal... is the very definition of victimization. They could have easily sat her down inside the house while they did whatever they needed to do. But no, they wanted the leftist media to "get an eyeful" ... probably for the mock factor. I can't believe you're ok with this.
-
And again.... that's not the point. She did nothing wrong... except, in your mind and in the mind of the lefties, marry Stone. You're blaming the victim here. Not cool and not right. Having to stand outside of your house in your nightgown, having been dragged from sleep in your bed, when you have done nothing wrong, unethical or illegal... is the very definition of victimization. They could have easily sat her down inside the house while they did whatever they needed to do. But no, they wanted the leftist media to "get an eyeful" ... probably for the mock factor. I can't believe you're ok with this.
It "happens every day," so therefore it's "OK." 9999hair out0000
-
Everything in this quote presupposes the husband's guilt of the charged crimes. That's well after the point I get off the bus.
This is true, but I’m far from convinced Stone has done nothing wrong, given who he is, the way things have unfolded for the indicted in these cases, and the fact even Corsi is at the point where he’s willing to cooperate with Mueller and throw Stone under the bus.
-
It "happens every day," so therefore it's "OK." 9999hair out0000
Not to DemocRats.
-
This is true, but I’m far from convinced Stone has done nothing wrong, given who he is, the way things have unfolded for the indicted in these cases, and the fact even Corsi is at the point where he’s willing to cooperate with Mueller and throw Stone under the bus.
So... have we really come to the point... where public opinion sanctions abuses of power like this depending upon who the "perp" is and who the public despises... as to how even their family is treated? **nononono*
-
This is true, but I’m far from convinced Stone has done nothing wrong, given who he is, the way things have unfolded for the indicted in these cases, and the fact even Corsi is at the point where he’s willing to cooperate with Mueller and throw Stone under the bus.
You just enunciated perfectly the "Guilty until proved innocent" line of reasoning.
-
Not to DemocRats.
That's because "everybody knows" Rats are innocent and Pubbies are guilty. Start from that premise and work outward to find evidence.
-
That's because "everybody knows" Rats are innocent and Pubbies are guilty. Start from that premise and work outward to find evidence.
Yeah, that's just one of the lies the idiot left pushes. But we know better.
Truth is.... Democrats get away with their crimes and are treated with kid gloves by the media AND by our intel agencies and law enforcement. Almost like they are special people... far superior to anyone on the right. *****rollingeyes*****
-
So... have we really come to the point... where public opinion sanctions abuses of power like this depending upon who the "perp" is and who the public despises... as to how even their family is treated? **nononono*
No, we’re at the point where in two previous instances, people have screamed ‘abuse’ about FBI arrests/searches and the actions produced evidence, convictions, and plea deals. So, if I have to choose between Mueller or Stone over who’s right and who’s wrong, it’s not particularly difficult. Just like the Manafort case, don’t be surprised when subsequent superseding indictments are filed against Stone.
-
Yeah, that's just one of the lies the idiot left pushes. But we know better.
Truth is.... Democrats get away with their crimes and are treated with kid gloves by the media AND by our intel agencies and law enforcement. Almost like they are special people... far superior to anyone on the right. *****rollingeyes*****
It's because, to the "press," Rats (the Party that fought a losing war to keep their slaves) are on the "correct" side of History and Pubbies are not.
-
And he's supposed to be the straight line from which we measure guilt or innocence. It's like trying to hang drywall on an unlevel floor and crooked studs.
It takes an almost fanatical belief in Mueller's infallibility to take his side on each and every controversy. I'm having trouble believing a single thing he says!
Mueller isn't plumb.
-
Mueller isn't plumb.
Correct. He is at minimum a half bubble off.
-
No, we’re at the point where in two previous instances, people have screamed ‘abuse’ about FBI arrests/searches and the actions produced evidence, convictions, and plea deals. So, if I have to choose between Mueller or Stone over who’s right and who’s wrong, it’s not particularly difficult. Just like the Manafort case, don’t be surprised when subsequent superseding indictments are filed against Stone.
You're either refusing or are incapable of seeing my point here. I'm putting myself in her (Stone's wife) place.... which is probably what everyone should do if/when something like this happens. Because sooner or later... this same abuse can and will occur to us or someone in our family.
Roger Stone: They did. I was made to stand in the street, handcuffed and in bare feet. They brought my wife out in her nightgown and also in bare feet to stand next to me even though she's not accused of any crime.
https://www.tapwires.com/2019/01/29/cnn-hid-this-fbi-thugs-forced-roger-stones-wife-to-stand-outside-barefoot-in-nightgown-during-home-raid-video (https://www.tapwires.com/2019/01/29/cnn-hid-this-fbi-thugs-forced-roger-stones-wife-to-stand-outside-barefoot-in-nightgown-during-home-raid-video)
You're talking about an arrest for a process crime that didn't even exist until AFTER Mueller began his witch hunt.
I am very disappointed that you can't/won't see how wrong this is.
-
No, we’re at the point where in two previous instances, people have screamed ‘abuse’ about FBI arrests/searches and the actions produced evidence, convictions, and plea deals. So, if I have to choose between Mueller or Stone over who’s right and who’s wrong, it’s not particularly difficult. Just like the Manafort case, don’t be surprised when subsequent superseding indictments are filed against Stone.
Life is not a series of binary choices, as you have made this (and other of Mueller's scalps) one out to be.
I prefer to wait until a conviction. I am sure if you were the accused, you'd prefer it that way.
-
Mueller isn't plumb.
LOL! Nope. Thing is, even if he really has the goods on Stone and others (as he's been convicted of already on this thread), a lot of people aren't going to believe this "straight arrow" Mueller.
-
No, you are not. You have the most contradictory and ironic screen name - ever. You know who says this is not a witchhunt? The handpicked AG nominee, who has known Mueller for decades, extolled his integrity. Under direct questioning, in his confirmation hearings, Barr has said Mueller would not be involved in one. You and your ilk are very predictable. No matter what the investigation results determine, you’ll fall back into the citadel of your deep state defense.
mueller had no integrity long before trump came onthe scene. You forget the other cases he has been involved in during his career.
But, not trying to change your mind; I know it's made up and. closed.
-
You just enunciated perfectly the "Guilty until proved innocent" line of reasoning.
I’m just following the trend and pointing out that no one wants to own the fact they were wrong about their previous assertions in the investigation. Mueller has been assumed to be abusing power and going outside his scope on multiple occasions. Facts and judicial rulings by unfriendly judges ultimately demonstrated that was untrue. Where’s the condemnation of those assumptions?
-
Correct. He is at minimum a half bubble off.
However far off he has to be to please his Masters.
-
Yeah, that's just one of the lies the idiot left pushes. But we know better.
Truth is.... Democrats get away with their crimes and are treated with kid gloves by the media AND by our intel agencies and law enforcement. Almost like they are special people... far superior to anyone on the right. *****rollingeyes*****
The Democrats and their fellow travelers spent the better part of a century constructing the leviathan which is currently in place on the Potomac. And none of it was done by accident!
-
However far off he has to be to please his Masters.
This house of cards he has built doesn't have a square corner anywhere in it. Just obtuse angles.
-
I’m just following the trend and pointing out that no one wants to own the fact they were wrong about their previous assertions in the investigation. Mueller has been assumed to be abusing power and going outside his scope on multiple occasions. Facts and judicial rulings by unfriendly judges ultimately demonstrated that was untrue. Where’s the condemnation of those assumptions?
So, because a Judge found against Manafort's motions, Stone (and by extension his wife) is as guilty as all get-out.
Gotcha. At the risk of being called a teenage girl again, I must conclude the discussion to nowhere at this point. We have different notions of what constitutes "guilt." I say this without a hint of butthurt.
-
This house of cards he has built doesn't have a square corner anywhere in it. Just obtuse angles.
How do you drive an idiot nutz?
Put him in a round house and tell him he can only pee in the corner.
-
mueller had no integrity long before trump came onthe scene. You forget the other cases he has been involved in during his career.
But, not trying to change your mind; I know it's made up and. closed.
Here’s another close minded individual defending Mueller....
Sorry... (http://youtube.com/watch?v=zLwYK-XpH_U#)
-
mueller had no integrity long before trump came onthe scene. You forget the other cases he has been involved in during his career.
But, not trying to change your mind; I know it's made up and. closed.
So...Barr and Mueller are buddies. IIRC, Comey and Mueller were good buddies, too. :pondering:
-
So...Barr and Mueller are buddies. IIRC, Comey and Mueller were good buddies, too. :pondering:
So...the only thing we on the right should be surprised at....
is if any real justice occurs going forward and henceforth.
I, personally, am not holding my breath for that "happening".
-
So, because a Judge found against Manafort's motions, Stone (and by extension his wife) is as guilty as all get-out.
No, again, what I am saying is there have been assertions previously made about the investigation and tactics. Given the way things have unfolded, the prosecution has been vindicated in those instances. There’s been no shortage of opinions on it and people have obviously chosen sides. I’m not on Stone’s. It’s not because of who he is, but what he is - a man who engages in underhanded dealings, lies, and says/does anything for the win as a profession.
-
So...the only thing we on the right should be surprised at....
is if any real justice occurs going forward and henceforth.
I, personally, am not holding my breath for that "happening".
See my most recent post above. THAT is what we are up against and if ANY of these low life pukes ever face any real justice it will surprise the HELL out of me! I LOVE surprises and still hope for one in this instance!
-
If this raid was 'dangerous' enough to need 29 armed agents, then why would they invite CNN to come along? Wouldn't that be putting reporters in danger of being shot or harmed somehow?
Obviously, this was a circus sideshow. Mueller is desperate to justify his stupid, ridiculous, so called "investigation". And his mandate is to embarrass Trump in any way he can. We have all seen many times over on that level of government 'Laws' or rules or due process are totally meaningless. There is NO oversight to anything he does. Everybody is scared to death of him.
-
See my most recent post above. THAT is what we are up against and if ANY of these low life pukes ever face any real justice it will surprise the HELL out of me! I LOVE surprises and still hope for one in this instance!
Yeah.... I have hope too. But unfortunately... (especially) these days.... when hope springs....
it trips, falls and breaks its stupid neck. **nononono*
-
So...the only thing we on the right should be surprised at....
is if any real justice occurs going forward and henceforth.
I, personally, am not holding my breath for that "happening".
Whatever happens will be unbelievable to many because of all the chaff that's been thrown by both "sides."
-
If this raid was 'dangerous' enough to need 29 armed agents, then why would they invite CNN to come along? Wouldn't that be putting reporters in danger of being shot or harmed somehow?
Obviously, this was a circus sideshow. Mueller is desperate to justify his stupid, ridiculous, so called "investigation". And his mandate is to embarrass Trump in any way he can. We have all seen many times over on that level of government 'Laws' or rules or due process are totally meaningless. There is NO oversight to anything he does. Everybody is scared to death of him.
QFT, especially the part in bold. The "press" is not highlighting this aspect because they want their "journalists" portrayed as being beyond merely brave.
-
@Bigun @edpc
Blinded, obsessed, deranged.
Still waiting for a sound basis for Russian collusion. Absent that, it is a witch hunt.
So what if Roger Stone has made a career of being a political operative? That alone does Not justify dragging his hearing impaired 72 year old wife out to be scared, made an example of.
It is obvious that the Deep State stench runs deep and wide, in career government circles.
They intend to remind you that THEY are in charge.
Bingo!
No one, from Mueller to media legal experts, has given a coherent legal justification for starting this investigation. There are no statutes that cover “collusion.†It appears to be a term of political art, rather than of law.
But, once Mueller got himself appointed, the cry “Russian collusion†became his cover, and the investigation itself became the event horizon for any truth regarding how Donald Trump won his election fair and square.
Absent a basis for the investigation, as you said, it is a witch-hunt. And with democrats throwing a two year temper tantrum who knows what kind of civil unrest leftist kooks might start.
-
There is NO oversight to anything he does.
False. It was pointed out, in the T. S. Ellis ruling, during Manafort’s trial, exactly how the oversight worked. He was originally under Deputy AG Rosenstein, given the recusal. Sessions has been gone for months. He’s now under acting AG Whitaker. It’s likely he had seen and signed off on the Stone warrant. Once confirmed, he’ll be under Barr.
-
False. It was pointed out, in the T. S. Ellis ruling, during Manafort’s trial, exactly how the oversight worked. He was originally under Deputy AG Rosenstein, given the recusal. Sessions has been gone for months. He’s now under acting AG Whitaker. It’s likely he had seen and signed off on the Stone warrant. Once confirmed, he’ll be under Barr.
So Mueller was afraid that Stone was going to open up on the 'Feds' with Tommy Guns from the second story like Ma Barker? No wonder they sent close to 30 armed agents to arrest him and his wife. These guys are worse than Bonny and Clyde. They are known to have murdered countless people. Better safe than sorry. These are dangerous people!
The only thing this raid accomplished is to cause everyone who has ever met with Trump or anyone who even knows Trump to immediately burn anything related to anything Trump. If there are any raids in the future, I promise you that Mueller and his goon squad aren't going to find a damn thing. It has all been destroyed by now.
I hope the changing of the chain of command makes a difference, but that remains to be seen. With the House being controlled by fanatic NeverTrump fascist, I doubt anyone will be able to rein Mueller and his thugs in even a little.
-
Bingo!
No one, from Mueller to media legal experts, has given a coherent legal justification for starting this investigation. There are no statutes that cover “collusion.†It appears to be a term of political art, rather than of law.
Wrong. It was retroactively justified in September, with this statement: “...the ability of persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States to interfere in or undermine public confidence in United States elections, including through the unauthorized accessing of election and campaign infrastructure or the covert distribution of propaganda and disinformation, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.â€
Care to guess who issued it? Hint: it was part of an emergency declaration. Also, there are laws against collusion. You may know it better as ‘conspiracy.’
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-imposing-certain-sanctions-event-foreign-interference-united-states-election/ (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-imposing-certain-sanctions-event-foreign-interference-united-states-election/)
But, once Mueller got himself appointed, the cry “Russian collusion†became his cover, and the investigation itself became the event horizon for any truth regarding how Donald Trump won his election fair and square.
The word ‘collusion’ is never mentioned in the SC mandate. This is what it says...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAD8nX8U0AE5Z1v?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Absent a basis for the investigation, as you said, it is a witch-hunt. And with democrats throwing a two year temper tantrum who knows what kind of civil unrest leftist kooks might start.
As previously stated, the president retroactively provided the basis. Want to know who says it’s not a witch hunt, aside from William Barr? Try former Trump lawyer Ty Cobb on for size. Here’s someone who dealt directly with the legal team and respects Mueller.
Former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb on Monday said he doesn't think special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election interference is a witch hunt, breaking with President Trump.
"I don't think it's a witch hunt," Cobb said during a political conference hosted Monday by CNN.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/412612-former-trump-lawyer-mueller-probe-is-not-a-witch-hunt (https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/412612-former-trump-lawyer-mueller-probe-is-not-a-witch-hunt)
Sorry... (http://youtube.com/watch?v=u-mT-1J2FUM#)
-
(https://usatftw.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/ap_ray_rice_nfl_investigation_football_69866030.jpg)
OK troops. We're going in to arrest Roger Stone, an extremely dangerous man. I'm going to need every armed agent we have. I've also called in the National Guard for backup support. Prepare for a real fight, a fire fight! Bring the grenades, bazookas, and any other heavy ordinance you can muster.
Roger Stone yells, "Come and get me coppers!! Say hello to my little friend!!"
(http://is1.mzstatic.com/image/pf/us/r30/Purple/v4/33/e6/a4/33e6a417-55ca-34ba-d33a-b4ea08a1ef58/mzl.lopywnhr.png)
-
You just enunciated perfectly the "Guilty until proved innocent" line of reasoning.
Such it is, in the frenzied minds of deranged #nevertrumpers, media and democrats.
Roger is guilty until found innocent, and his 72 year old hearing impaired wife is fair game too.
Republicans generally admire and laugh about their own. Donald Segretti. Lee Atwater. Roger Stone.
On my side.
-
I suppose mentioning the fact the original Special Counsel mandate is irrelevant is pointless. It was superseded by a secret memo issued by Rosenswine after Mueller was appointed SC. Because of this, we really don't know what Mueller's mandate is...it's classified. That's why T.S. Ellis had to demand the memo, and then ruled against Manafort based on it. This is the true meaning of the Ellis findings.
That's because it's a secret, not for our eyes. As far as the public is concerned, it's easy to see why people think he has no control at all.
-
I suppose mentioning the fact the original Special Counsel mandate is irrelevant is pointless. It was superseded by a secret memo issued by Rosenswine after Mueller was appointed SC. Because of this, we really don't know what Mueller's mandate is...it's classified. That's why T.S. Ellis had to demand the memo, and then ruled against Manafort based on it. This is the true meaning of the Ellis findings.
That's because it's a secret, not for our eyes. As far as the public is concerned, it's easy to see why people think he has no control at all.
Except you were making it sound more sinister than it actually is. There was no expansion. Redacted portions are specific case related allegations, not broadened authority. The second paragraph makes that clear. Once the judge saw it, the ruling was easy and he did so in favor of the prosecution.
There was no rebuke about changing the rules in the middle of the game, because none was required. The memo was called a CYA by critics. It was, in a sense, because they wanted a trail demonstrating how the bank fraud and money laundering allegations reached back to Manafort’s contacts in Ukraine, who were connected to Russia. Ellis ultimately agreed, after seeing the classified sections.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4429623-Rosenstein-Aug-2-2017-Memo-on-Mueller-Authority.html (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4429623-Rosenstein-Aug-2-2017-Memo-on-Mueller-Authority.html)
-
There's CYA going on, no doubt in my mind...
And I don't generally believe gummint people who tell me to relax, don't worry! Yes, it's a secret but it's to protect me.
-
There's CYA going on, no doubt in my mind...
And I don't generally believe gummint people who tell me to relax, don't worry! Yes, it's a secret but it's to protect me.
It wasn’t to protect you – it was to protect people who were subjects of the active investigation from finding out about it.
-
It wasn’t to protect you – it was to protect people who were subjects of the active investigation from finding out about it.
And I believe them every time they tell me "it's for National Security."
****sheep**** ****sheep**** ****sheep**** ****sheep**** ****sheep**** ****sheep**** ****sheep**** ****sheep**** ****sheep**** ****sheep**** ****sheep**** ****sheep**** ****sheep**** ****sheep**** ****sheep****
-
And I believe them every time they tell me "it's for National Security."
I misstated what I previously said. It should have said to prevent people who were subject of investigations from finding out about it.
-
@Smokin Joe @Bigun
This is so fallacious and embarrassing. There’s a huge difference between direct associates or employees and people in the general public with whom you may have incidental contact. You both know it. Also, whataboutism is not a defense for another person’s actions. If you want to know where the Clinton swat team is, ask Trump why he considered them to be ‘good people who had suffered enough,’ after the election.
Then tell me how this dog and pony show (New, improved, with GUNS!) is justified.
Andh how Hillary hasn't been the 'guest of Honor' at one of these?
Obstruction?
Destroying evidence?
egregious violations of the law?
You'd think they were running an overstock special on that stuff at the CLinton Camp.
You might not think whataboutism applies, so how about Equal Protection under the law?
And I'd wager form the guys who sweep the floor right to the top, if you dig hard enough, with a powerful enough microscope, You'd find prosecutable dirt on anyone--and if you put them in the hot seat over a few days or just hours and ask them the same questions under oath, sooner or later they will say something that will put them up on charges.
As for Mueller, he and Comey are old hands when it comes to witch hunts, and they don't let go of whoever is the person they have decided to convict, no matter what the evidence says. http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/08/robert-mueller-botching-investigations-since-anthrax-attacks/ (http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/08/robert-mueller-botching-investigations-since-anthrax-attacks/) https://www.genengnews.com/news/comey-mueller-and-anthrax/ (https://www.genengnews.com/news/comey-mueller-and-anthrax/)
Do I honestly believe that there would be suppression of Brady Material, despite the law? Yep.
So, frankly, I'm seeing an absence of pursuit or prosecution of egregious and admitted crimes, including writing the report exonerating Clinton when the investigation was still in progress...
And dogged pursuit of any hair out of place with other, politically targeted people. The problem is that there appears to be partisan bias in those results.
-
And how Hillary hasn't been the 'guest of Honor' at one of these?
Obstruction?
Destroying evidence?
egregious violations of the law?
You'd think they were running an overstock special on that stuff at the Clinton Camp.
Again, you'd have to ask Trump exactly why. If I had to guess, it probably has something to do with his previous relationship with them. Remember how he defended the Access Hollywood audio?
"This was locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago," Trump said in the statement. "Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course — not even close. I apologize if anyone was offended."
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-statement-audio-bill-clinton-women-2016-10 (https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-statement-audio-bill-clinton-women-2016-10)
They likely know a few interesting things about each other. Hillary has been marginalized, after her humiliating loss. The foundation is a shell without their political influence. Trump stands to lose more by going after her and isn't interested in mutually assured destruction.
-
And he's supposed to be the straight line from which we measure guilt or innocence. It's like trying to hang drywall on an unlevel floor and crooked studs. It takes an almost fanatical belief in Mueller's infallibility to take his side on each and every controversy. I'm having trouble believing a single thing he says!
@Cyber Liberty
Mueller has stayed silent during his investigation. Do not believe what others say when they trash him. Please read his life and you will believe this honorable man. I could list some of it here, but you need to read it all to know him. Reply to me after your reading. :patriot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mueller
-
@Cyber Liberty
Mueller has stayed silent during his investigation. Do not believe what others say when they trash him. Please read his life and you will believe this honorable man. I could list some of it here, but you need to read it all to know him. Reply to me after your reading. :patriot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mueller
I read it. I don't believe all the bad stuff I hear about people, nor all the good stuff. I'm wishy-washy. :shrug:
-
@Cyber Liberty
Mueller has stayed silent during his investigation. Do not believe what others say when they trash him. Please read his life and you will believe this honorable man. I could list some of it here, but you need to read it all to know him. Reply to me after your reading. :patriot:
Oy vay.
-
Roger Stone was charged with obstruction, witness tampering and making false statements. For which of those charges would he have documents/evidence laying around the house? Given that there was no warrant for her arrest, why could an officer not be stationed with her somewhere inside the house while they executed whatever search warrants they presumably had?
@Polly Ticks
Stone said it was 6 am in the morning. He said they knocked on the door, did not break down the door as others have said. He said he was taken to the street and held until the house was searched. He said his wife was "brought out", not "dragged out" as others have said. The two of them waited until the search was done.
Law officers do not leave people in a house when they are searching - officers get killed sometimes if someone/others are in the house.
People under stress who have access to a weapon, even at 72 yrs. old as the wife was, can kill, just pull on the trigger. So could Stone have killed had he known they were coming. This happened in Florida, not in the northern cold, so they were not freezing outside. Only Stone and his wife knew, if there was a weapon in the house. Also, no one knew what each one would do, so caution was used and always is when officers go to a home.
It was said today, Mueller now has several years of documents, emails, phone calls, computer information that Stone had. Stone has been a buddy of Trump for 40 years, just as Manafort has - they were three buddies together.
-
@Polly Ticks
It was said today, Mueller now has several years of documents, emails, phone calls, computer information that Stone had. Stone has been a buddy of Trump for 40 years, just as Manafort has - they were three buddies together.
Yeah, and Stupid Bobby Mueller is close friends with James Comey who is staring down the barrel at federal jail time for being corrupt and a liar. What's your point other than to circle the wagons around degenerate perverts and Establishment hacks like Lying Comey and Stupid Bobby Mueller.
-
@Polly Ticks
Stone said it was 6 am in the morning. He said they knocked on the door, did not break down the door as others have said. He said he was taken to the street and held until the house was searched. He said his wife was "brought out", not "dragged out" as others have said. The two of them waited until the search was done.
Law officers do not leave people in a house when they are searching - officers get killed sometimes if someone/others are in the house.
People under stress who have access to a weapon, even at 72 yrs. old as the wife was, can kill, just pull on the trigger. So could Stone have killed had he known they were coming. This happened in Florida, not in the northern cold, so they were not freezing outside. Only Stone and his wife knew, if there was a weapon in the house. Also, no one knew what each one would do, so caution was used and always is when officers go to a home.
It was said today, Mueller now has several years of documents, emails, phone calls, computer information that Stone had. Stone has been a buddy of Trump for 40 years, just as Manafort has - they were three buddies together.
OK. For the sake of argument let's believe what you are saying is true. So this very nice and very kind little 'visit' required 39 armed Federal Agents to accomplish?
-
@Cyber Liberty
Mueller has stayed silent during his investigation. Do not believe what others say when they trash him. Please read his life and you will believe this honorable man. I could list some of it here, but you need to read it all to know him. Reply to me after your reading. :patriot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mueller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mueller)
Oh yes. Of course! Mueller is a holy angel who is without sin. I get it. LOL
Mueller is paid attack dog on the payroll of Soros and the DNC. What the hell have you been smoking tonight?
-
Oh yes. Of course! Mueller is a holy angel who is without sin. I get it. LOL
Mueller is paid attack dog on the payroll of Soros and the DNC. What the hell have you been smoking tonight?
The poster apparently gets cheap thrills when Stupid Bobby throws hollow indictments around.....either that or the poster is Stupid Bobby's mother.
-
The poster apparently gets cheap thrills when Stupid Bobby throws hollow indictments around.....either that or the poster is Stupid Bobby's mother.
@Amb. Frank Cannon
There is certainly something going on there. In her eyes Mueller walks on water and can do no wrong. Even when he does do wrong consistently in a very obvious and flagrant manner. She doesn't respond to me.
Somebody ask her why Saint Mueller decided to drag CNN along with him, if he was just stopping by to have tea and crumpets with the family.
-
Somebody ask her why Saint Mueller decided to drag CNN along with him, if he was just stopping by to have tea and crumpets with the family.
It's my understanding that Stupid Bobby likes to meet up with Don Lemon at a rest stop bathroom stall on the southern part of the 495 Beltway somewhere around Largo. They like to poll each other on how they are doing.
-
It's my understanding that Stupid Bobby likes to meet up with Don Lemon at a rest stop bathroom stall on the southern part of the 495 Beltway somewhere around Largo. They like to poll each other on how they are doing.
If you didn't know about sex, you would have no post on this forum.
-
OK. For the sake of argument let's believe what you are saying is true. So this very nice and very kind little 'visit' required 39 armed Federal Agents to accomplish?
"On Friday the Mueller Special Counsel sent 20-29 armed FBI operatives..."to Stone's house.
-
If you didn't know about sex, you would have no post on this forum.
For a so called writer that's a real clunky sentence.
BTW if you would venture outside of these threads involving this filthy pervert Stupid Bobby (where the only appropriate comments are sexual) you would see me cover a whole multitude of things you hate.
-
"On Friday the Mueller Special Counsel sent 20-29 armed FBI operatives..."to Stone's house.
So which is it? 20, 25, 27 3/4 or 29? Seems like this is something you would have a definitive number on.
-
"On Friday the Mueller Special Counsel sent 20-29 armed FBI operatives..."to Stone's house.
Yep. You're right. I mistyped. But when you are dealing with that many armed agents, what's another dozen here or there? I wonder if CNN was armed. Or if they had armed security with them?
That Roger Stone guy is a dangerous dude! He might have killed them all!
-
So which is it? 20, 25, 27 3/4 or 29? Seems like this is something you would have a definitive number on.
It's the government. They have problems counting to "5".
-
It's the government. They have problems counting to "5".
Unless it's YOUR money at tax time.
-
"On Friday the Mueller Special Counsel sent 20-29 armed FBI operatives..."to Stone's house.
"What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"
-
@edpc
No one, from Mueller to media legal experts, has given a coherent legal justification for starting this investigation. There are no statutes that cover “collusion.†It appears to be a term of political art, rather than of law.
Wrong. It was retroactively justified in September, with this statement: “...the ability of persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States to interfere in or undermine public confidence in United States elections, including through the unauthorized accessing of election and campaign infrastructure or the covert distribution of propaganda and disinformation, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.â€
Care to guess who issued it? Hint: it was part of an emergency declaration. Also, there are laws against collusion. You may know it better as ‘conspiracy.’
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-imposing-certain-sanctions-event-foreign-interference-united-states-election/ (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-imposing-certain-sanctions-event-foreign-interference-united-states-election/)
WHY did you bother with this artful dodge (link)?
Because you figured most folk wouldn't bother to read it?
ED: The word "collusion" does not appear in that copious pile of specificity. The word "conspiracy" does.
(I speed read it, then pasted it into a Word Doc and used Find. Nada.) Conspiracy is at 7(B).
Adding this link as verification is BS. YOU can affix Any meaning you like to a word.
And I can go look it up.
Collusion is not the legal equivalent of Conspiracy, . . . . anymore than the GD Federal Reserve is IN Article 1 of the Constitution.
Collusion remains a term of misdirecting theatrics, like calling someone a 'thespian'.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Mueller has stayed silent during his investigation. Do not believe what others say when they trash him. Please read his life and you will believe this honorable man. I could list some of it here, but you need to read it all to know him. Reply to me after your reading. :patriot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mueller
Wiki can be (and is) edited by anyone who wants to at any time of day. It's only the user community that discovers inaccuracies/lies, later, and corrects them.
General Washington would have had Dear Bobby Hanged by his neck before it ever got this far out of control.
-
Collusion is not the legal equivalent of Conspiracy, . . . . anymore than the GD Federal Reserve is IN Article 1 of the Constitution
Sure it is. For instance, let's say a group of pharmaceutical companies - a favorite target of your screeds - attempts to engage in price fixing. They'd be investigated and possibly charged. How do the feds define price fixing?
An Antitrust Primer
This primer briefly describes the most common antitrust violations and outlines those conditions and events that indicate anticompetitive collusion.
Introduction
American consumers have the right to expect the benefits of free and open competition — the best goods and services at the lowest prices. Public and private organizations often rely on a competitive bidding process to achieve that end. The competitive process only works, however, when competitors set prices honestly and independently. When competitors collude, prices are inflated and the customer is cheated. Price fixing, bid rigging, and other forms of collusion are illegal and are subject to criminal prosecution by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice.
-snip-
Price fixing is an agreement among competitors to raise, fix, or otherwise maintain the price at which their goods or services are sold. It is not necessary that the competitors agree to charge exactly the same price, or that every competitor in a given industry join the conspiracy. Price fixing can take many forms, and any agreement that restricts price competition violates the law.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/price-fixing-bid-rigging-and-market-allocation-schemes (https://www.justice.gov/atr/price-fixing-bid-rigging-and-market-allocation-schemes)
-
@edpc
That reply is not German.
The LEGAL equivalent, not a Primer for noobs.
If you're going to indict and prosecute someone for Anything you Have to have the Correct Section and exact, relevant language of the part of the law you claim they violated.
Without it you got bupkiss in Court.
The Law does not deal in Thesaurus/Simile English.
And in the future I'd appreciate it if you'd Cite the Actual Section of the Law with a link (Cornell Law will do) rather than back handed ask us to prove any more negatives.
-
The Law does not deal in Thesaurus/Simile English.
This is like saying possession of purloined goods isn't illegal, because it's just a prettier word for stolen and isn't in the statute.
Giuliani has been out there, for months, saying there was no campaign collusion and it's not a crime, even if there was. Now that Manafort was convicted and shown to have given campaign data to Kilimnik, he's changed his tune to say...
“I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign. I said the president of the United States."
Notice he completely abandoned the technical aspect and never said any potential 'collusion' on a campaign member's part is irrelevant to law. He knows that would be roundly and rightfully mocked by people on all sides.
The word 'collusion' may not appear is specific statute, but conspiracy does. In that context, they're completely interchangeable. You cannot engage in a conspiracy without colluding. Investigation of 'collusion' doesn't appear in the SC mandate, anyway. So, your attempt to split hairs on definition and synonyms is kind of senseless.
-
This is like saying possession of purloined goods isn't illegal, because it's just a prettier word for stolen and isn't in the statute.
Giuliani has been out there, for months, saying there was no campaign collusion and it's not a crime, even if there was. Now that Manafort was convicted and shown to have given campaign data to Kilimnik, he's changed his tune to say...
“I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign. I said the president of the United States."
Notice he completely abandoned the technical aspect and never said any potential 'collusion' on a campaign member's part is irrelevant to law. He knows that would be roundly and rightfully mocked by people on all sides.
The word 'collusion' may not appear is specific statute, but conspiracy does. In that context, they're completely interchangeable. You cannot engage in a conspiracy without colluding. Investigation of 'collusion' doesn't appear in the SC mandate, anyway. So, your attempt to split hairs on definition and synonyms is kind of senseless.
Look Ed, I will give you that you are usually very good at backing your positions. You bring data to the topic.
Just not this time.
I don't care a fig about Giuliani. He's another Red Herring.
Stop dancing and stick to the point.
If the Courts had been meant to get involved on 'collusion', Congress would have criminalized 'collusion' rather than 'conspiracy'.
So see my previous response, again.
Come up with the Statute.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/51769813_10215597558346199_6620490472429191168_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=588dd420a4405dc8302ab3c7430a96a8&oe=5CE942FD)
Anybody still think CNN is doing anything other than spewing Democrat propaganda 24/7/365?
-
Look Ed, I will give you that you are usually very good at backing your positions. You bring data to the topic.
Just not this time.
I don't care a fig about Giuliani. He's another Red Herring.
Stop dancing and stick to the point.
If the Courts had been meant to get involved on 'collusion', Congress would have criminalized 'collusion' rather than 'conspiracy'.
So see my previous response, again.
Come up with the Statute.
I've already demonstrated how collusion and conspiracy can be synonymous, in the example of the justice department excerpts. That's data. You didn't like it, because it's not a statue. Talk about dancing.
-
I've already demonstrated how collusion and conspiracy can be synonymous, in the example of the justice department excerpts. That's data. You didn't like it, because it's not a statue. Talk about dancing. /???
Fine. You take your Synonym and I'll take my Statute, to Court, and we'll see who gets How far filing on which of them.
-
Fine. You take your Synonym and I'll take my Statute, to Court, and we'll see who gets How far filing on which of them.
OK. While you’re at it, get hired as an attorney for someone charged with conspiracy. Argue in open court that your client didn’t conspire, they colluded. See what happens with the verdict.
-
OK. While you’re at it, get hired as an attorney for someone charged with conspiracy. Argue in open court that your client didn’t conspire, they colluded. See what happens with the verdict.
Game, set, match.
For someone who digs as deep as you do on post after post, . . . . . and you can't come up with the actual Law.
It's not that tough, if it exists.
-
Game, set, match.
OK - if that makes you feel better.
For someone who digs as deep as you do on post after post, . . . . . and you can't come up with the actual Law.
It's not that tough, if it exists.
Show me a successful defense against a conspiracy charge, where ‘collusion is not a crime’ was used. It’s not that tough, if it exists. Besides, there has already been a ruling in the case where collusion has been directly related to a conspiracy charge. Incidentally, this judge was a Trump appointee.
This court ruling should drive another nail in the coffin of the argument that collusion is not a crime. It clearly can be, and the crime is conspiracy – even if no other independent criminal violations are identified,†wrote Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor and lecturer at George Washington Law School. “Mueller’s use of that theory in his Russian social media indictment is a textbook example of a 371 conspiracy to defraud the U.S., and that theory has now been validated by the trial judge’s ruling.â€
As U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich explained in her opinion last week, there are two ways to violate 18 U.S.C. 371. One can either “conspire … to commit any offense against the United States,†which is conspiracy in the traditional sense, or one can conspire “to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose[.]â€
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/bad-news-for-trump-judge-in-russia-case-says-collusion-could-be-enough-for-criminal-charge/
It’s true there is no criminal statute titled “collusion.†But as I’ve noted in several places (here and here, for example) the relevant crime is conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 371. Collusion refers to an agreement with others to achieve some improper end. In criminal law, we call that a conspiracy – a partnership in crime. And the breadth of the federal conspiracy statute makes it particularly well-suited for cases like Mueller’s probe of Russian interference with the election.
https://sidebarsblog.com/collusion-crime-mueller-judge-decision/
-
"It’s true there is no criminal statute titled “collusion.â€
Ed, you have to get your paperwork Filed with the Court before you can argue anything, and the Court doesn't care about synonyms, Period.
The Court wants the actual Law and nothing but.
:seeya:
-
"It’s true there is no criminal statute titled “collusion.â€
Ed, you have to get your paperwork Filed with the Court before you can argue anything, and the Court doesn't care about synonyms, Period.
The Court wants the actual Law and nothing but.
:seeya:
Unless it's the Ninth Circus...then the law means whatever is necessary to support leftists. Or if it's CJ Roberts wanting to fabricate an argument to keep Obastardcare legal by redefining a "penalty" as a "tax."
-
"It’s true there is no criminal statute titled “collusion.â€
Ed, you have to get your paperwork Filed with the Court before you can argue anything, and the Court doesn't care about synonyms, Period.
The Court wants the actual Law and nothing but.
:seeya:
I noticed you skipped right over the next sentence that began with ‘but....’
Also, if the court wanted ‘actual law’ and nothing else, there wouldn’t be challenges, opinions, or interpretations.
-
I noticed you skipped right over the next sentence that began with ‘but....’
Also, if the court wanted ‘actual law’ and nothing else, there wouldn’t be challenges, opinions, or interpretations.
Or ignoring the plain meanings of words of the Statutes/Constitution to mean what they want it to mean. It's good to remember the vast majority of Judges spent years practicing this as Lawyers.
-
womp womp.
-
Or ignoring the plain meanings of words of the Statutes/Constitution to mean what they want it to mean. It's good to remember the vast majority of Judges spent years practicing this as Lawyers.
Yeah! You can read all about that The Problem with Lawyers and the Constitution (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,350127.msg1907684.html#msg1907684) if anyone's interested!
-
Bastards.
-
As I said 18 pages ago. FBI employing "stunt justice" recorded for posterity by the propaganda wing of the democrat party, CNN.
Nothing to see her folks. Move along.
-
There is no way to commit conspiracy without colluding. By the same token, not all collusion rises to the level of criminal conspiracy.
-
There is no way to commit conspiracy without colluding.
Thank you. I said the same thing, almost a week ago.
The word 'collusion' may not appear is specific statute, but conspiracy does. In that context, they're completely interchangeable. You cannot engage in a conspiracy without colluding. Investigation of 'collusion' doesn't appear in the SC mandate, anyway. So, your attempt to split hairs on definition and synonyms is kind of senseless.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,349796.msg1907465.html#msg1907465 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,349796.msg1907465.html#msg1907465)
-
Roger Stone's arrest, notice the t-shirt: http://twitter.com/i/status/1093613120851984386 (http://twitter.com/i/status/1093613120851984386)
-
Thank you. I said the same thing, almost a week ago.
The word 'collusion' may not appear is specific statute, but conspiracy does. In that context, they're completely interchangeable. You cannot engage in a conspiracy without colluding. Investigation of 'collusion' doesn't appear in the SC mandate, anyway. So, your attempt to split hairs on definition and synonyms is kind of senseless.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,349796.msg1907465.html#msg1907465 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,349796.msg1907465.html#msg1907465)
You misread @Jazzhead's comment. The terms are NOT interchangeable.
-
You misread @Jazzhead's comment. The terms are NOT interchangeable.
They are, depending on context. As I had said in the thread from the link, try defending against a charge of conspiracy, by saying it was merely collusion.
-
Thank you. I said the same thing, almost a week ago.
The word 'collusion' may not appear is specific statute, but conspiracy does. In that context, they're completely interchangeable. You cannot engage in a conspiracy without colluding. Investigation of 'collusion' doesn't appear in the SC mandate, anyway. So, your attempt to split hairs on definition and synonyms is kind of senseless.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,349796.msg1907465.html#msg1907465 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,349796.msg1907465.html#msg1907465)
By your own statement @Jazzhead , there is no conspiracy without collusion. But also, collusion itself does not necessarily rise to the level of conspiracy.
Collusion is not listed in statute, while conspiracy is, and for that reason. Collusion is not necessarily criminal.
-
By your own statement @Jazzhead , there is no conspiracy without collusion. But also, collusion itself does not necessarily rise to the level of conspiracy.
Collusion is not listed in statute, while conspiracy is, and for that reason. Collusion is not necessarily criminal.
And your point is . . .?
-
And your point is . . .?
You can have collusion with out having committed a crime.
Unless, of course, someone can point out the statute prohibiting collusion.
"Collusion" and "Conspiracy" are not interchangeable terms.