Roger Stone arrested

[fskimospy]

Just wondering why the lead wasnt chased as they clearly lied to the FBI. But, I know the daily caller isn't recognized by the left as a valid news source.

1) you have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not the lead was chased and you also don’t know that they intentionally lied. The FBI clearly didn’t see it as material or proveable.

2) the daily caller isn’t recognized by any reasonable or objective person as a valid news source. They are an ultra, ultra right propaganda site and I’m very sure you know that.

3) since we all agree the FBI was not biased towards Clinton or against Trump who cares anyway? Trump is the president now and his associates are what are important.

 

[blackangst1]

The article you linked offered no proof of any kind. It's unsupported accusation of the worst sort. It's a string of buzz words.

And it doesn't matter at all wrt Roger Stone, either. The conduct of the SCO & the FBI in this investigation has been exemplary so far & I doubt that will change. They're doing exactly what we the people are paying them to do.

Really?

So Strozk interviewed them, and they said they know nothing of the email servers until after she left the State dept. In fact, she is quoted she isnt entireley sure what a server is:

But, an email was turned up showing they did, in fact, know about it:

Mills and Abedin were also involved in an Aug. 30, 2011 exchange in which State Department official Stephen Mull mentioned that Clinton’s “email server is down.”

So, yes, there is evidence they clearly lied in an investigation.

Let me also make the distinction, again, this isnt about Hillary. No where have I ever said put her in jail. I would go so far as to say having a personal email server isnt necessarily a violation. But the selective prosecution of government officials is puzzling.

It appears, to me, the Justice dep[t only goes after those whom they want to, and not those whom have proven to have broken the law. Selective prosecution I guess.

 

[fskimospy]

Really?

So Strozk interviewed them, and they said they know nothing of the email servers until after she left the State dept. In fact, she is quoted she isnt entireley sure what a server is:
https://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Screen-Shot-2017-12-05-at-5.45.33-AM-620x143.png[/quote]

[img]https://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Screen-Shot-2017-12-04-at-3.58.58-PM-620x152.png

But, an email was turned up showing they did, in fact, know about it:

Mills and Abedin were also involved in an Aug. 30, 2011 exchange in which State Department official Stephen Mull mentioned that Clinton’s “email server is down.”

So, yes, there is evidence they clearly lied in an investigation.

Let me also make the distinction, again, this isnt about Hillary. No where have I ever said put her in jail. I would go so far as to say having a personal email server isnt necessarily a violation. But the selective prosecution of government officials is puzzling.

It appears, to me, the Justice dep[t only goes after those whom they want to, and not those whom have proven to have broken the law. Selective prosecution I guess.

I think you are confused as to the standard for what is considered a proveably, deliberately false statement to the FBI. As I said before it is not saying anything false ever, it is establishing that the person knew the statement was false and made it anyway. You know as well as I do that people who have absolutely no idea how an email system is set up would talk about a ‘server’ without knowing the slightest thing about how it was set up.

You are making an extraordinarily serious charge of wanton professional misconduct by FBI officials, saying that you have evidence that a prosecutor could use to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt but that the FBI either concealed this evidence from federal prosecutors or that federal prosecutors chose not to pursue charges they could prove. As far as I can tell this is based on like two emails. The charges of selective prosecution also make zero sense in terms of motive.

Can you explain why the FBI would torpedo Clinton’s campaign and not leak any information about the investigation into Trump when it could have made a difference and then turned around and decided to eschew all standards of professional conduct to go after Trump after it was too late?

Conservatives aren’t being picked on, you’re not the victim yet again. Stone is being prosecuted because they have MOUNTAINS of evidence that he repeatedly lied. If they had 3 emails they wouldn’t bother.

 

[blackangst1]

I think you are confused as to the standard for what is considered a proveably, deliberately false statement to the FBI. As I said before it is not saying anything false ever, it is establishing that the person knew the statement was false and made it anyway. You know as well as I do that people who have absolutely no idea how an email system is set up would talk about a ‘server’ without knowing the slightest thing about how it was set up.

You are making an extraordinarily serious charge of wanton professional misconduct by FBI officials, saying that you have evidence that a prosecutor could use to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt but that the FBI either concealed this evidence from federal prosecutors or that federal prosecutors chose not to pursue charges they could prove. As far as I can tell this is based on like two emails. The charges of selective prosecution also make zero sense in terms of motive.

Can you explain why the FBI would torpedo Clinton’s campaign and not leak any information about the investigation into Trump when it could have made a difference and then turned around and decided to eschew all standards of professional conduct to go after Trump after it was too late?

Conservatives aren’t being picked on, you’re not the victim yet again. Stone is being prosecuted because they have MOUNTAINS of evidence that he repeatedly lied. If they had 3 emails they wouldn’t bother.

I get it. And if the recovered emails and reports dont prove anything I dont know what will.

Still, youre right. This thread isnt about anything except Stone. I was getting trolled after making an innocent statement "I wonder why the Justice Dept selectively prosecutes" and I bit. My apologies for taking the bait. Doesnt make me wrong though.

 

[fskimospy]

I get it. And if the recovered emails and reports dont prove anything I dont know what will.

I doubt you would ever see a prosecution based on such flimsy evidence from any prosecutor, regardless of the target.

Regardless, all the relevant federal prosecutors are Trump appointees now and I doubt the statute of limitations has expired on this. If it’s such a slam dunk why has no prosecutor elected to make the case, especially considering the president clearly wants them to? Are the Trump appointees in on the conspiracy now too? Did the Democrats wield their zero power over the last two years to intimidate them? What?

How does any of this make even the slightest sense?

Still, youre right. This thread isnt about anything except Stone. I was getting trolled after making an innocent statement "I wonder why the Justice Dept selectively prosecutes" and I bit. My apologies for taking the bait. Doesnt make me wrong though.

I think you are confusing what would be considered extraordinarily flimsy evidence with some sort of iron clad evidence of guilt. No prosecutor would follow this because they would lose.

 

[Jhhnn]

So, yes, there is evidence they clearly lied in an investigation.

Let me also make the distinction, again, this isnt about Hillary. No where have I ever said put her in jail. I would go so far as to say having a personal email server isnt necessarily a violation. But the selective prosecution of government officials is puzzling.

It appears, to me, the Justice dep[t only goes after those whom they want to, and not those whom have proven to have broken the law. Selective prosecution I guess.

Yes, obfuscate the present with the disinformation bullshit of the past. Leaving out the link, of course.

None of it changes the fact that Roger Stone lied to Congress about his ongoing communications with Credico. Outright lied & expected Credico to run cover, even threatening Credico via the electronic means he swore he never used with Credico.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ats-against-a-dog-the-roger-stone-indictment/

Stone is undone by his own arrogance. Maybe he & Manafort can be bunkies in the joint, amuse each other with tales of the good old days...

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Really?

So Strozk interviewed them, and they said they know nothing of the email servers until after she left the State dept. In fact, she is quoted she isnt entireley sure what a server is:

But, an email was turned up showing they did, in fact, know about it:

Mills and Abedin were also involved in an Aug. 30, 2011 exchange in which State Department official Stephen Mull mentioned that Clinton’s “email server is down.”

So, yes, there is evidence they clearly lied in an investigation.

Let me also make the distinction, again, this isnt about Hillary. No where have I ever said put her in jail. I would go so far as to say having a personal email server isnt necessarily a violation. But the selective prosecution of government officials is puzzling.

It appears, to me, the Justice dep[t only goes after those whom they want to, and not those whom have proven to have broken the law. Selective prosecution I guess.

Ok explain something to me using what you just posted.

a) Where, in what was posted, does Huma Abedin or Cheryl Mills make explicitly clear that they have knowledge that Hillary Clinton is running a private email server out of her residence in that email chain.

2) Once you establish (a) as fact, explain how that is materially significant.

I receive at least 100 emails a day. I actually read maybe 10 of them that I deem significant or requiring my attention. The rest are filed. Ask me to recall the content of one sent to me... yeah I won't have any recollection of them.

 

[fskimospy]

Ok explain something to me using what you just posted.

a) Where, in what was posted, does Huma Abedin or Cheryl Mills make explicitly clear that they have knowledge that Hillary Clinton is running a private email server out of her residence in that email chain.

2) Once you establish (a) as fact, explain how that is materially significant.

I receive at least 100 emails a day. I actually read maybe 10 of them that I deem significant or requiring my attention. The rest are filed. Ask me to recall the content of one sent to me... yeah I won't have any recollection of them.

I agree that a) is utterly impossible to establish from the evidence presented. No sane prosecutor would attempt a case based on that.

As for b) though, the standard for what is ‘material’ is super low. From my understanding the sort of things that wouldn’t be material would be lying about her weight, if she was having an affair, etc. This would be.

 

[blackangst1]

I doubt you would ever see a prosecution based on such flimsy evidence from any prosecutor, regardless of the target.

Regardless, all the relevant federal prosecutors are Trump appointees now and I doubt the statute of limitations has expired on this. If it’s such a slam dunk why has no prosecutor elected to make the case, especially considering the president clearly wants them to? Are the Trump appointees in on the conspiracy now too? Did the Democrats wield their zero power over the last two years to intimidate them? What?

How does any of this make even the slightest sense?



I think you are confusing what would be considered extraordinarily flimsy evidence with some sort of iron clad evidence of guilt. No prosecutor would follow this because they would lose.

Perhaps.

 

[blackangst1]

Yes, obfuscate the present with the disinformation bullshit of the past. Leaving out the link, of course.

None of it changes the fact that Roger Stone lied to Congress about his ongoing communications with Credico. Outright lied & expected Credico to run cover, even threatening Credico via the electronic means he swore he never used with Credico.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ats-against-a-dog-the-roger-stone-indictment/

Stone is undone by his own arrogance. Maybe he & Manafort can be bunkies in the joint, amuse each other with tales of the good old days...

I posted the link earlier, which was dismissed.

Im done with this. I understand its likely insignificant, but my original opinion remains: The Justice Dept picks and chooses what it wants to pursue. I guess the same can be said of DA's all around the country too.

Anyway.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I posted the link earlier, which was dismissed.

Im done with this. I understand its likely insignificant, but my original opinion remains: The Justice Dept picks and chooses what it wants to pursue. I guess the same can be said of DA's all around the country too.

Anyway.

I'll ask my question again since you're playing the victim. How do the emails you sent establish that either person was aware that Hillary Clinton was running a private email server from her home?

 

[blackangst1]

I'll ask my question again since you're playing the victim. How do the emails you sent establish that either person was aware that Hillary Clinton was running a private email server from her home?

Seriously?

 

[woolfe9998]

I posted the link earlier, which was dismissed.

Im done with this. I understand its likely insignificant, but my original opinion remains: The Justice Dept picks and chooses what it wants to pursue. I guess the same can be said of DA's all around the country too.

Anyway.

They pick and choose winnable cases. All prosecutors are like that.

It's why they didn't prosecute many of the Wall Street people during the Obama years. Most of what they did was legal due to de-regulation, and some of the illegal stuff was too hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Prosecutors don't like to lose.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Seriously?

View attachment 2883

Yes, seriously. That is an email sent TO Huma. In no way does it detail specifics about the server, where it's located, how it is run or operated. Nor is there any indication she read the email or retained any of it's information. Further, this does not establish her awareness in any way shape or form.

So yes, seriously I will ask again. How does this establish that she was aware the server was a private server housed in Hillary Clinton's residence.

 

[blackangst1]

They pick and choose winnable cases. All prosecutors are like that.

It's why they didn't prosecute many of the Wall Street people during the Obama years. Most of what they did was legal due to de-regulation, and some of the illegal stuff was too hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Prosecutors don't like to lose.

I get that.

Yes, seriously. That is an email sent TO Huma. In no way does it detail specifics about the server, where it's located, how it is run or operated. Nor is there any indication she read the email or retained any of it's information. Further, this does not establish her awareness in any way shape or form.

So yes, seriously I will ask again. How does this establish that she was aware the server was a private server housed in Hillary Clinton's residence.

Ive already said perhaps there wasnt enough to prosecute on. What else do you want me to say?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I get that.



Ive already said perhaps there wasnt enough to prosecute on. What else do you want me to say?

Clearly I missed that part. The perils of replying at work. Not reading all other posts.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I posted the link earlier, which was dismissed.

Im done with this. I understand its likely insignificant, but my original opinion remains: The Justice Dept picks and chooses what it wants to pursue. I guess the same can be said of DA's all around the country too.

Anyway.

You are not done with the last statement you gave.
The Justic Department is all of the Presidents boys and I am confident you remember the lock Her Up chants.
Why have they not acted it has to be one of the following:

A) Hillary and/or Her aids did nothing wrong to justify charges

B) Trumps Justice appointees are not the best people and in fact useless

Which one is it?

 

[blackangst1]

You are not done with the last statement you gave.
The Justic Department is all of the Presidents boys and I am confident you remember the lock Her Up chants.
Why have they not acted it has to be one of the following:

A) There wasnt enough evidence to convict Hillary and/or Her aids that the public knows about

B) Trumps Justice appointees are not the best people and in fact useless

Which one is it?

Fixed A for you, and both. Lack of evidence doesnt imply innocence.

And I dont remember the Justice Dept chanting lock her up. Do you?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Fixed A for you, and both. Lack of evidence doesnt imply innocence.

And I dont remember the Justice Dept chanting lock her up. Do you?

I remember the guy they all report to chanting lock Her Up

 

[blackangst1]

I remember the guy they all report to chanting lock Her Up

then that is the incompetence I spoke of, no?

 

[interchange]

Really?

So Strozk interviewed them, and they said they know nothing of the email servers until after she left the State dept. In fact, she is quoted she isnt entireley sure what a server is:

But, an email was turned up showing they did, in fact, know about it:

Mills and Abedin were also involved in an Aug. 30, 2011 exchange in which State Department official Stephen Mull mentioned that Clinton’s “email server is down.”

So, yes, there is evidence they clearly lied in an investigation.

Let me also make the distinction, again, this isnt about Hillary. No where have I ever said put her in jail. I would go so far as to say having a personal email server isnt necessarily a violation. But the selective prosecution of government officials is puzzling.

It appears, to me, the Justice dep[t only goes after those whom they want to, and not those whom have proven to have broken the law. Selective prosecution I guess.

Here's a possible reconciliation of the evidence provided: they didn't know that Hillary had a private non-government email server. They knew that a server being functional had something to do with email working. But they didn't know what a server really was beyond that.

Here's another possible reconciliation of the evidence provided: they were the recipients of an email about this. They didn't read the emails, didn't understand the emails, or forgot about the emails because the knowledge was only of limited value at the time. Even if they understood the emails, they may not have appreciated at the time the potential concerns over the private server setup.

These emails aren't even proof that they offered statements that were false much less intentionally misrepresented the truth. Rendering an opinion on that would require access to a much greater pile of evidence we don't have access to.

But let's say that opinion is that they lied outright. Now you have to consider 1. is this crime of enough significance to dedicate resources to prosecute and 2. is there enough evidence to prove that this crime was committed beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law?

I bring this up to contrast with Stone. He made statements under oath (not just to field agents) e.g. about never having any contact through text messages with an individual that, when they obtained phone records, the FBI found that he made 30 such text messages on the same day. There is no doubt about what Stone said and no doubt that he lied, making this count a slam dunk to prove. Is his crime significant enough? Well, we have quite a lot that shows him being directly involved in a conspiracy to coordinate with a hostile foreign government to influence a US presidential election utilizing illegally obtained data. I'd say it's important to hold him accountable for his deceit.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

then that is the incompetence I spoke of, no?

So what exactly are you saying, you’ve been avoiding speaking in a clear tone.
At this point in time should Hillary or an associate of Hillary be charged with a crime? Is the person at the top of the food chain incompetent?

 

[Jhhnn]

Fixed A for you, and both. Lack of evidence doesnt imply innocence.

And I dont remember the Justice Dept chanting lock her up. Do you?

Right back to impugning the integrity of the FBI even though you know a helluva lot less about it than they do. Just burn it down, burn down the institutions of our Democracy!

 

[hal2kilo]

I think you are confused as to the standard for what is considered a proveably, deliberately false statement to the FBI. As I said before it is not saying anything false ever, it is establishing that the person knew the statement was false and made it anyway. You know as well as I do that people who have absolutely no idea how an email system is set up would talk about a ‘server’ without knowing the slightest thing about how it was set up.

You are making an extraordinarily serious charge of wanton professional misconduct by FBI officials, saying that you have evidence that a prosecutor could use to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt but that the FBI either concealed this evidence from federal prosecutors or that federal prosecutors chose not to pursue charges they could prove. As far as I can tell this is based on like two emails. The charges of selective prosecution also make zero sense in terms of motive.

Can you explain why the FBI would torpedo Clinton’s campaign and not leak any information about the investigation into Trump when it could have made a difference and then turned around and decided to eschew all standards of professional conduct to go after Trump after it was too late?

Conservatives aren’t being picked on, you’re not the victim yet again. Stone is being prosecuted because they have MOUNTAINS of evidence that he repeatedly lied. If they had 3 emails they wouldn’t bother.

He can't help it. I was just on my mail run listening to MSNBC on Sirius and Katy Tur (hot) was interviewing the newest or first Republican congressman to be assigned to the intelligence committee with Dems in majority. Anyway, after asking if the Republicans were purposely going slow on approving members to be seated in the intelligence committee, the subject changed to what he was interested in finding out...apparently him including Blankangst were given same talking points. This is the standard response to the Russian investigation is to accuse the FBI being basically in on getting Trump out of office.

 

[blackangst1]

So what exactly are you saying, you’ve been avoiding speaking in a clear tone.
At this point in time should Hillary or an associate of Hillary be charged with a crime? Is the person at the top of the food chain incompetent?

Nope, and I've answered the second question several times.