Crowd chants ‘lock him up’ as Roger Stone speaks outside courthouse

[Xelor]

Ouch. That was painful to watch. She pretended she answered his question about was Trump the one who directed Stone, and she kept saying "I'm not an attorney". Does she think everyone is stupid?

How did she end up babbling about his "predecessor" and NATO?

She's as vile as Trump is.

Red:
That's exactly the phrase I've heard 20 times today. A few of my "regular" chat buddies who can't stand S. Sanders said it was so painful to watch they hurt for her.

 

[Saladin4]

Well, in fairness, I think that video is the result of someone aiming their phone at their television and recording the video. I saw that interview live and she didn't look as bad.

Here's a slightly better version:



That said, she may be pregnant. She's got that "motherly" plumpness about her face. Of course, it could just be that nobody's protesting her appearances at restaurants and she's just eating heartily these days...They say some people eat to make themselves feel better.

She is just an awful person...Her father is a fat ass also...and just as awful

 

[Saladin4]

Roger Stone is the connection between the campaign and the russians.

Way too difficult for the average uneducated trump ass kisser to understand

 

[yankintx]

Roger Stone will be on Tucker Carlson tonight at 9 EST if anyone is interested. Personally I don't care to watch any more lying liars that lie anymore. I don't watch any of Trump's pressers, I don't watch any of his announcements in the Rose Garden and I certainly won't watch his SOTU address that will indeed go on as scheduled on the 29th. He won't miss any opportunity to scare the living beejeebers out of his base with a 'crisis of epic proportions with hordes of brown skinned dirty illegals flooding over the border to rape and kill their innocent children'.

Back to Stone....

In his own book 'Stone's Rules', he has laid out the rules of engagement, "admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack". Roger Stone is betting that this battle is going to be won in the court of public opinion and he's betting on a pardon from Trump. The special counsel is betting that this is going to be won in a court of law. The court of law is much bigger than the court of public opinion, so we'll see who wins this one. Tonight we'll see Roger Stone put his own words into practice once more.

Stone over estimates Trumps loyalty. If I were him I would not bank on a Pardon. Rump has shown on multiple occasions that loyalty only works one way. Stone is an idiot if he believes a pardon is coming his way instead of a prison sentence.

 

[j-mac]

Crowd chants ‘lock him up’ as Roger Stone speaks outside courthouse

A large crowd gathered outside a Florida courthouse began chanting “lock him up” as Trump associate Roger Stone addresses his indictment.



"Everyone" knows Stone is a shady mofo! People are finally "waking up" and realizing that everyone around Trump is little but a "white collar" gangster. And one must ask oneself "who would insinuate and surround themselves with such character but someone who is every bit as corrupt, deceitful, etc."

Nice to see your mob taking shape....wonder if anyone had a rope.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[JackA]

Not one tiny shred of evidence toward Russian collusion. So you get this. And you lap this up like the dogs you are.

Stone connected to Trump (a long standing connection}, to the campaign as an informal adviser, thence to Wikileaks, thence to Russia, would seem to pass a test of "one tiny shred".

 

[tres borrachos]

Red:
That's exactly the phrase I've heard 20 times today. A few of my "regular" chat buddies who can't stand S. Sanders said it was so painful to watch they hurt for her.

I half agree with them. It was painful to watch. I didn't hurt for her.

 

[ElChupacabra]

He was one piss poor leader of his own campaign if he didn't know about all of these dirty deed doers acting on his behalf.

Maybe his staffers just all thought he was too stupid to share anything with?

Well, it's not that hard to believe if Trump isn't a guy bothered with details.

 

[ElChupacabra]

I half agree with them. It was painful to watch. I didn't hurt for her.

What I'm fascinated by is what it takes to be focused and stick to a narrative; assuming she even believes what she's saying. As a professional she has to perform her duties to the best of her abilities, but you have to wonder what she's thinking once she's off the camera. I know I've been in professional situations where I had to project manage ill conceived projects by stakeholders who had no practical sense at all, but you do what you have to do.

 

[tres borrachos]

What I'm fascinated by is what it takes to be focused and stick to a narrative; assuming she even believes what she's saying. As a professional she has to perform her duties to the best of her abilities, but you have to wonder what she's thinking once she's off the camera. I know I've been in professional situations where I had to project manage ill conceived projects by stakeholders who had no practical sense at all, but you do what you have to do.

As a Christian, or so she claims, I hope she lays in bed at night reminding herself that God damns all liars to Hell.

 

[ElChupacabra]

As a Christian, or so she claims, I hope she lays in bed at night reminding herself that God damns all liars to Hell.

Indeed. Heck, even as a non-theist there has to come a point where you draw the line; unless she does sincerely think this is all some kind of subterfuge to undermine Trump.

 

[TDGonDP]

What I'm fascinated by is what it takes to be focused and stick to a narrative; assuming she even believes what she's saying. As a professional she has to perform her duties to the best of her abilities, but you have to wonder what she's thinking once she's off the camera. I know I've been in professional situations where I had to project manage ill conceived projects by stakeholders who had no practical sense at all, but you do what you have to do.

Actually I was impressed with how she handled those hard balled questions. Whether she believes her stories or not is, to me, a moot point. She is very skillful at her job.

 

[Deuce]

As a Christian, or so she claims, I hope she lays in bed at night reminding herself that God damns all liars to Hell.

Narrator: She doesn’t.

 

[Mach]

Not one tiny shred of evidence toward Russian collusion. So you get this. And you lap this up like the dogs you are.

Collusion? Plenty of that. But this sure looks like it may be part of the actual criminal conspiracy.

From the Russian Hacking indictment, establishing one of the conspiracies against the United States

The object of the conspiracy was to hack into the computers of U.S. persons and entities involved in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, steal documents from those computers, and stage releases of the stolen documents to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election

You read that last part? Staging the release of the stolen emails to interfere in the 2016 election.

Corsi said he'll testify to the below:

In your book, you say Roger Stone contacted you before the release of that "Access Hollywood" tape, the one with Billy Bush, and asked you to try to get word to Assange, release John Podesta's e-mails, so -- to change the news cycle.
Now, you write in your book; "I believe I told the daily World Net Daily news team conference call that the Billy Bush tape was coming. I'm sure I asked that if anybody had a way to reach Assange, we should pass the alert to Assange, so he could begin dropping the Podesta file right away."

As we know, on October 7, WikiLeaks did release those e-mails just half-an-hour after "The Washington Post" published the "Access Hollywood" story.

Do you take credit for that? Do you think what you said on that conference call got word to Assange?
.....
And it's my recollection that Roger mentioned that this Billy Bush was coming, and he wanted to know if Assange could begin dropping e-mails. Now, Roger may have a different recollection of that. I'm not disputing what Roger's recollection is.

You e-mailed Roger Stone to say you -- quote -- "should be given credit," according to an e-mail the prosecutors have.
Why would you say that if you don't think you deserved credit for the timing of the WikiLeaks dump right after the "Access Hollywood" tape? [/quote]

Sure looks like Trump's campaign advisor (and maybe Corsi) was trying is hardest to help with the email timing, as part of that conspiracy?

 

[Xelor]

As a Christian, or so she claims, I hope she lays in bed at night reminding herself that God damns all liars to Hell.

She ain't doin' anything of the sort. You know that as sure as the day is long, and so do I.

 

[Xelor]

Indeed. Heck, even as a non-theist there has to come a point where you draw the line; unless she does sincerely think this is all some kind of subterfuge to undermine Trump.

Red:
That woman barely thinks about the words that cross her lips. There's almost no way a rational strategic thought such as the one you've noted has, in the past lustrum, crossed her mind.

 

[Xelor]

Actually I was impressed with how she handled those hard balled questions. Whether she believes her stories or not is, to me, a moot point. She is very skillful at her job.

Red:
Seriously?

1. Berman's question -- "By whom? Did the President direct someone to contact Roger Stone about stolen emails?" -- wasn't a "hardball question," and it damn sure isn't one that's hard to answer directly. As I discussed elsewhere, Sanders didn't answer it.
2. It's never difficult to not answer a non-leading/non-loaded question; thus not answering such a question is not impressive, save maybe to minors and dissemblers.

 

[TDGonDP]

Red:
Seriously?

1. Berman's question -- "By whom? Did the President direct someone to contact Roger Stone about stolen emails?" -- wasn't a "hardball question," and it damn sure isn't one that's hard to answer directly. As I discussed elsewhere, Sanders didn't answer it.
2. It's never difficult to not answer a non-leading/non-loaded question; thus not answering such a question is not impressive, save maybe to minors and dissemblers.

She handled those questions as best she could. The Trump base would be satisfied with such commentary. A less competent communicator would cause a slow defection of the base.

I won't claim she answered the questions directly, but they were skillfully deflected. She is not the only political player to engage in this practice.

 

[Xelor]

She handled those questions as best she could. The Trump base would be satisfied with such commentary. A less competent communicator would cause a slow defection of the base.

I won't claim she answered the questions directly, but they were skillfully deflected. She is not the only political player to engage in this practice.

Red:
I suspect that's true. The problem, however, is that her handling of the questions is the best she had to offer.


Blue:
And therein is alluded to one of the reasons I never pursued elected office....

Simply, the buffoons who might consider supporting me would with me find no quarter; I wouldn't demur or deflect merely to retain their approbation. If answering directly and truthfully (fact and context) sends them fleeing from my camp, well, it just does. I value truth, integrity and directness far more than I do (would) the support of mindless masses and minions; I'd sooner share a sour sooth than spin it into something somewhat savory. A consequence of that is, as I've long known and owned, is that politicking/politics just isn't my thing; public policy, however, is. (Yes, I understand political strategy; I don't care for some of the ways it must be applied to curry folks' favor...and I just won't do it.)


Pink:
No, she is not; however, my disdain for spin is universal. It doesn't matter who does it.

Though I don't think silence is acceptable from holders of elected office and other government servants, I think overt "spin," deflection, and the like are even worse than saying nothing at all.

 

[TDGonDP]

Red:
I suspect that's true. The problem, however, is that her handling of the questions is the best she had to offer.


Blue:
And therein is alluded to one of the reasons I never pursued elected office....

Simply, the buffoons who might consider supporting me would with me find no quarter; I wouldn't demur or deflect merely to retain their approbation. If answering directly and truthfully (fact and context) sends them fleeing from my camp, well, it just does. I value truth, integrity and directness far more than I do (would) the support of mindless masses and minions; I'd sooner share a sour sooth than spin it into something somewhat savory. A consequence of that is, as I've long known and owned, is that politicking/politics just isn't my thing; public policy, however, is. (Yes, I understand political strategy; I don't care for some of the ways it must be applied to curry folks' favor...and I just won't do it.)


Pink:
No, she is not; however, my disdain for spin is universal. It doesn't matter who does it.

Though I don't think silence is acceptable from holders of elected office and other government servants, I think overt "spin," deflection, and the like are even worse than saying nothing at all.

Unfortunately, you and I have the same votes as everyone else. Ms Sanders is skillfully plying her trade to maintain Mr. Trump's base. While those outside the base are not so easily fooled, I give her full credit.

In another vein, this whole dramatic episode is very indicative of what is wrong with western democracy. We cannot fix it by complaining about it. And I would say the next populist leader in the United States will learning a lot from the Trump administration. Ms. Sanders will be a central example of how to tailor a message.

I do have a possible solution. Unfortunately the rules of DP won't allow me to go in that direction. And I did check with the moderators, and they said "no".

If you want to hear more, you can private message me.

Dave Volek