FBI Arrests Roger Stone

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xtrozero

Right just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they are not after you....

This above doesn't even make sense. You missed my point completely....

originally posted by: matafuchs
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.

Mueller's Grand Jury met on Thursday, when its normal practice is to only meet on Fridays. It doesn't take a genius to figure something is up, and since the last witness to appear walking to the grand jury room was tied to Stone, connectting the dots led to watching Stone's house. And they didn't kick in the door. That is an outright lie. They knocked on the door and announced, "FBI. Warrant." Look at www.washingtonpost.com... direct=on&utm_term=.192a94ec42c4

a reply to: F4guy

You think they are that bright?

a reply to: F4guy

Jerome corsi said on the radio yesterday that his son-in-law was before the grand jury for several hours on Thursday.

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 simultaneously served warrants and searched and seized evidence at both his Palm Beach and New York residences at 6AM on Friday.

They were concerned that giving him advance notice would afford him time to destroy evidence.

They absolutely brought the appropriate number of agents to ensure his arrest without incident and to conduct the search in a speedy, thorough and professional manner.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
Stone will be pleading not guilty...
Almost all of the information being used against him was already public knowledge...
Piss poor attempt to silence Roger, he will be found innocent...

His biggest problem is his current personal financial situation, he will be relying on donations to help fund his Defense fees...
Anyone believing this will lead to an issue for Trump is mistaken...

No, Stone is an idiot. He had done nothing wrong and he made the stupid mistake of lying to guard against the media spinning his answers. He fell into the trap.. in fact he dived in. He then realised his error and tried to cover his initial lies to Congress by attempting to get another person to tell the same lie. He's going to be found guilty.

The bigger question is not whether he is guilty, but why he has been indicted when others have lied to the FBI and Congress and faced no consequences. Unequal application of the law is not justice.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
...
If Stone broke the law to a significant extent, then yes - justice needs to prevail. But in the current political climate, ethical reporting would require you state the facts around its link to the Trump campaign.

Here is the thing. These..."charges" hang upon the "claim" that "Russia hacked the DNC."

Sorry, no that is not the thing.

The indictment is about lying to Congress and trying to persuade someone else to tell the same lie. The indictment has nothing to do with Russian collusion, wikileaks activity, Stones relationship with wikileaks or anything else to do with the 2016 election.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Typical nothingburger from mueller. This all gets so tiring. I wish trump would just fire him and be done with it. It's the same story every few months.

>Mueller indicts x
>Left goes crazy screaming collusion
>Indictments undermine collusion narrative
>x denies their guilt
>mueller squeezes their friends and family to get them to cop to a process crime
>Left thinks they got another "corrupt trumpite"
>Right sees the show trial for what it is
>Banana republic status = repeatedly confirmed

a reply to: UKTruth

Witness tampering requires one of the following:
1) Murder/assault
2) Intimidation
3) Harassment
4) Corrupt persuasion (usually bribes)

Did stone do any of that? Or did he say, gee I think I might not have gotten this correct in my testimony jim, would you reaffirm it so they don't come after me for this? Because that is not witness tampering.

IDK what stone did, don't know or care (as it was completely irrelevant to any real crimes). All I know is mueller typically overcharges because he's using strongman tactics to squeeze people in hopes they'll compose testimony or if he wants to get someone he doesn't like.

a reply to: ausername

Wouldn't they be the one to know how they did it.

Or of course you can assume they just made it up.

a reply to: roadgravel

I'll say it again...

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 (CNN) had to be there.

originally posted by: Drucifer

originally posted by: Jobeycool

originally posted by: Drucifer

originally posted by: Jobeycool
Stone basically talked to Julian Assange and told Him some stuff......That is grounds for being arrested...I guess Congress did not like His answers.The country literally is going absolutely utterly insane in the head over the most ridiculous stuff.All for votes.

He lied. Do you “like” it when you’re lied to?

Hillary Clinton lied will never be arrested.....proves how dangerous this government really is.

I don’t disagree, but that doesn’t change the fact that Stone lied and got caught. You post is whataboutism and deflection.

No, it is a direct question and a statement of facts at same time.

IT DOES CHANGE the fact..the deflections and ism's are fully established.

a reply to: ausername

So CNN is their preferred news reporting service. Sweet deal.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

CNN on scene as fib approached tells me this was the fib working with CNN. It amazes me that my spellchecker autocorrect fbi to fib but back on topic this shows that a main law enforcement organization is colluding with msm to make the excutive branch look bad. It is unheard of for them to tell media they going to raid a location beforehand .

Satire:

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: UKTruth

Witness tampering requires one of the following:
1) Murder/assault
2) Intimidation
3) Harassment
4) Corrupt persuasion (usually bribes)

Did stone do any of that? Or did he say, gee I think I might not have gotten this correct in my testimony jim, would you reaffirm it so they don't come after me for this? Because that is not witness tampering.

IDK what stone did, don't know or care (as it was completely irrelevant to any real crimes). All I know is mueller typically overcharges because he's using strongman tactics to squeeze people in hopes they'll compose testimony or if he wants to get someone he doesn't like.

Given the text messages, I think 2&3 might apply.
I do think Stone is being indicted for things that others have not been, so it stinks, BUT he did lie to Congress - although now he is saying he didn't tell the truth because he forgot.
Come on, it's pretty obvious. He had the squeeze put on him and didn't want to say what he had done - even though it was nothing illegal - becaus ehe didn't want to give ammunition to the media and Democrats. So he lied. Same as Flynn. These guys are getting caught lying to avoid a media storm and ending up in a legal storm. Idiocy. If you know you are under attack, you don't hand over the bullets to shoot you with.

I agree totally that the US is now a banana republic of selective and politcally motivated persecution, but it doesn't change the fact that Stone hung himself instead of being smart. He had all the bravado saying he WANTED to testify. He loved the limelight. He couldn't just be smart and tread carefully.

Soooo does CNN have a journalist embedded with the FBI or were they just cruising local neighborhoods at 6 am looking for news?

a reply to: w810i
bro, CNN actually is part of the CIA. I mean, how in the # else would they have the exclusive footage of Russian soldiers rebooting an old soviet base in Egypt, only to scrub it out after I posted it back in 2016 I think it was. Maybe 2017.

Not only that, they also were right there for the fake, propaganda movie theater productions of Sandy Hook and Parkland moments after the carnage broke.

This whole reply I just wrote is going to be scrubbed by the CIA in a moment too, because for some odd reason just saying out loud that Sandy Hook and Parkland were staged government operations based on the exact wording of the NDAA 2017 and NDAA 2012 in what they can do to influence targeted populations.

I mean, if the plans, motives, and actual authority is written down in legally binding documents, how in the # would that not be the most likely scenario?? Of course it is also the reason this whole post won't last 48 hours before it gets removed for a "extreme manners violation" or "extreme terms and conditions violation" .

It is some kind of world where having the actual legal writing that backs our conspiracy theories entirely is considered equivalent to praising # for brains Hitler when applying it to Sandy Hook and Parkland. I could say it about Vegas, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Charleston and Texas church murders without consequence. But the moment I say it about Parkland or Sandy Hook, its post deletion time. And the goal is to bait you for more warnings so they can strike a ban hammer. They will use other members to goad you into it too, so be careful.

a reply to: UKTruth

What did he lie about? It's interesting that you're so certain he lied when his testimony is not publicly available. These lies are stretches. Here is one of the exchanges he's alleged to have lied to congress about (this is only an excerpt and only available due to the dem response to the republican memo last year):

SCHIFF: Mr. Stone, I wanted to ask you, on Oct. 12, [2016], you gave an interview to NBC News where you said that: We have a mutual friend who's traveled to London several times, and everything I know is through that channel of communication.
STONE: Yes.
SCHIFF: Referring to a friend of Assange.
STONE: Yes.
SCHIFF: And you said something similar in another interview on October — to CBS Miami. Did the intermediary tell you how often he traveled to London to meet with Mr. Assange?
STONE: No. I just knew he had been there a couple times.
SCHIFF: So throughout the many months in which you represented you were either in communication with Assange or communication through an intermediary with Assange, you were only referring to a single fact that you had confirmed with the intermediary —
STONE: That —
SCHIFF: — was the length and breadth of what you were referring to?
STONE: That is correct, even though it was repeated to me on numerous separate occasions.

Mueller says stone lied because he referred only to one intermediary (credico) when there were two (credico and corsi). Is that really a lie? Remember, the standard for these charges is that if there is ANY way to take them innocently, that's how they must be interpreted.

One of the other alleged lies was that stone said he communicated with credico via phone. Mueller alleges he communicated with credico via phone and email.

Another lie alleged in the indictment is this:

During his HPSCI testimony, STONE was asked, “So you have no emails to anyone concerning the allegations of hacked documents . . . or any discussions you have had with third parties about [the head of Organization 1]? You have no emails, no texts, no documents whatsoever, any kind of that nature?” STONE falsely and misleadingly answered, “That is correct. Not to my knowledge."

This is a two part question and is presented in the indictment as a one part question but stone covered his bases with "not to my knowledge." So how exactly is mueller going to prove that stone not only possessed such emails, but knew on the day of his testimony that he had them and willingly covered up that he had them?

I'm betting mueller might get one of these charges to stick. But that's why there are so many, because they're all flimsy.

How about if mueller finds crimes that happened BEFORE he took over the investigation.

Some special council.
If he had a shred of integrity he would tell the public the truth. There was no collusion. The "counter intell" investigation was politically motivated and based on NO actual evidence.
Oh snd no obstruction.