FBI Arrests Roger Stone

a reply to: Extorris

Absolutely terrible, I agree.

And should be charged.

The thing with Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi... they're just side pawns, used for media distraction/

If Seth Rich was alive today, Stone and Corsi wouldn't be on any FBI hit list.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Extorris

It was not irrelvant bwhen a poster was saying it was illegal.

I was correcting that.

Wikileaks is not a proven russian organization.

I have as much proof that CNN is a CIA assett as you do wiwkileaks is russian.

The Trump Administration (aka NSA, CIA, FBI) has officially referred to them as a Russian Agent in court filings.

Anyone that has followed WIkileaks closely knew this before.

Recently, by error, a court has revealed sealed indictments against wikileaks and Julian Assange.

Julian Assange, purportedly the worlds advocate for political leaks, tore into the Panama Papers defending Russian Oligarchs exposed in those leaks. He also asked Ecuadorian officials to replace his security detail with Russian FSB agents.

It is not complex, it is sad and desperate.

CNN was there well before the FBI. The title should read "Stone arrested in CNN led FBI raid." I think what happened is Muller called CNN and forgot to call the FBI. CNN had to actually call the local FBI field office after sitting around for two hours. Sources are saying CNN actually knocked on Stones door for the FBI..

a reply to: Scifi2424

It was obviously done for show, the Mueller team could have asked Stone to turn himself in at a set date and time and he would have done it, or they could have taken him into custody anywhere any time without incident.

They went in cameras rolling, armed, guns drawn, full armor like they were raiding an illegal drug compound or terrorist hideout, capturing a most wanted violent criminal.

It was all for the cameras! Of course, the cameras had to be there.

a reply to: theantediluvian

These are the same charges that will impeach Trump. Though in the end, he'll have many articles of impeachment

a reply to: Willtell

Good luck with that.

As a side note, what was with the 15 or so armed FBI agents decked out in tactical gear????
They were arresting an old dude who was being arrested for a non violent crime?

originally posted by: a325nt
CNN watched them enter?
Why would they know to be watching this guys house at 6am?

This right here. Does CNN work for the FBI? Anderson Cooper was CIA once right?

originally posted by: oloufo
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

Deflecting the "deflection"? So you aren't the least bit curious about how CNN could have known a raid was going down? Does the FBI just announce raids now?

first off am pro trump so take this as you will, stone is probally boned and after he threatened dudes dog he probally sealed his fate as apparently they have transcripts of such.
www.usatoday.com...

Stone for example told one witness to “Stonewall it. Plead the fifth. Anything to save the plan’ . . . Richard Nixon.” The Special Counsel also recounts how Stone told a “You are a rat. A stoolie. You backstab your friends-run your mouth my lawyers are dying Rip you to shreds.” He also allegedly threatened the man’s dog and said that he would “take that dog away from you.” Hardly nice, but Stone is likely to point out that he spoke publicly in the same fashion and he is known for such colorful language. In the end, however, Stone could have talked himself into an indictment just as Trump could well tweet himself into an impeachment. The main issue however remains the lack of objectivity of the coverage of the indictment. Stone has featured prominently in theories seeking "smoking gun" evidence of collusion. There is nothing smoking in this indictment. There is no suggestion of involvement or knowledge by Stone in the hacking. Stone has suggested that he was a conduit of hacked information from Wikileaks but he later insisted that he was not actually speaking to Julian Assange and that he had no direct knowledge that Russians were responsible for the Democratic hackings. The indictment does not contradict that later account. The indictment clearly states that Stone told multiple campaign officials that he had such information and the question is who "directed" campaign officials to reach out to Stone. Obviously, many will want to know if that person was President Trump or his close aides. On the other hand, it also references people like Steve Bannon as not even returning his calls. The important thing is that, even if Stone and the campaign did seek the email information, it would not be a crime. The crime is the conspiracy to hack the email system. Campaigns often seek confidential information obtained by journalists, leakers, whistleblowers and others. Indeed, the Clinton campaign (while denying its role before the election) funded the Steele dossier investigation to dig up dirt on Trump, including dirt from Russian intelligence figures. Even if Stone implicated Trump in seeking the information, it would merely establish the type of dirty politics that Stone expressly embraced as his curious calling and talent. Nailing Roger Stone on false statements was hardly a challenge. Stone could not give an interview without contradicting himself on national television. The question is, without Stone, what is left of the hack-and-attack conspiracy between the Russians and the Trump campaign? Like the Trump Tower meeting, the Stone angle seems to have fizzled out. On closer examination, there clearly appears to be dirty politics but nothing that can be fairly described as a criminal conspiracy. Mueller has been unrelenting in pursuing Stone. Now he has him. For whatever it is worth.

so this is USA today takes on the matter and here is the hills which tends to lean right

thehill.com...

However, the real problem with the current coverage is that, even if Stone was actively trying to get the emails, it was not a crime of any kind. A criminal case would be ideally based on a conspiracy to use the Russians or others to hack the DNC or Clinton camp. The emails suggest the opposite. Stone appears to be seeking information on the release, as opposed to conspiring to hack the systems. Even if Trump encouraged Stone to get copies of the Wikileaks material, that would be the same as trying to get copies of information leaked to the media. Campaigns often seek information illegally leaked by whistleblowers or public officials. Indeed, the Clinton campaign admitted after long denials that it financed the Trump dossier assembled by a former British spy, including information Russians connected to the intelligence services. Mueller would raise serious First Amendment concerns over political speech with such sweeping theories. When the emails started to roll out, Trump publicly praised Wikileaks and mentioned it 137 times on the campaign trail. He was hardly hiding in the shadows in declaring “WikiLeaks! I love WikiLeaks” and “This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable. You’ve got to read it!” He also said he hoped the Russians had copies of the tens of thousands of emails deleted by Clinton. There is no law preventing Trump from citing such information in the public domain, or even praising the hackers. Putting aside the propriety of such statements, they do not constitute a criminal conspiracy to hack the system, even after the fact. Under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, an accessory after the fact is limited to those who “knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment.” None of these allegations suggest an effort to hinder or prevent the apprehension of any offender. None of this means Stone could not prove to be the next Mata Hari, as opposed to the next Martha Mitchell. If there was a prior encouragement or involvement in the hacking, there would be a credible claim. However, none of these facts would suggest a criminal case, let alone a criminal nexus to Trump. Stone is a recreational disrupter. His modus operandi was summed up by Martha Mitchell in her own handwriting next to her high school yearbook picture: “I love its gentle warble, I love its gentle flow, I love to wind my tongue up, and I love to let it go.”

so they appear to get some one for process crimes and threatening some ones dog (not a fan) but still nothing remotely on radar relating to russian collusion or what ever they are going with these days

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Bluntone22

I also wonder how CNN just happened to be there with a TV crew

They filed the indictment yesterday... In public court.
Then everyone was watching Stone.
I saw your illustrious leader asked this same question...peas in a pod.

Didnt you guys already hear how CNN knew?
This was stated as a fact so I will bump it.
Lol

a reply to: theantediluvian



They'll be coming for Alex Jones soon and others who stand against the system. A silencing campaign, so their evil deeds can continue unimpeded and their lying media will have no competition.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

They got fired, but used that to set up the Meuller ploy, they also still have their pensions, and GoFundMe accounts, and book deals, from the very same hypocrites. What did they lose?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Wow - Now I really understand why people say, "the coverup is worse than the crime."

The indictment is devastating in its specificity about Stone's efforts to threaten witnesses and obscure his ties to Wikileaks.

Wikileaks clearly was biased against the Democratic Party leading up to the election. And now, credible evidence exists that links Stone (and others) to coordination with Wikileaks.

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: Scifi2424

It was obviously done for show, the Mueller team could have asked Stone to turn himself in at a set date and time and he would have done it, or they could have taken him into custody anywhere any time without incident.

They went in cameras rolling, armed, guns drawn, full armor like they were raiding an illegal drug compound or terrorist hideout, capturing a most wanted violent criminal.

It was all for the cameras! Of course, the cameras had to be there.

Shakespeare said it best:

All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

People don’t realize Stone did NOT say he wouldn’t testify against Trump


He said exactly this:

I won't FALSELY testify against Trump

originally posted by: a325nt
CNN watched them enter?
Why would they know to be watching this guys house at 6am?

Because of the odd Grand Jury activity yesterday. The witness that appeared was the one everyone knew could nail Stone.

a reply to: F4guy

How did they know that? Sorry. I call baloney. That is a trying to cover our butt story. Someone let CNN know that they would be kicking in his door this morning like he was Tony Soprano.

It was a show because they knew that Trump was going to end the shutdown today.