- Joined
- Nov 16, 2017
- Messages
- 69,311
- Reaction score
- 64,004
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The media has long described Stone as the possible Trump campaign conduit to WikiLeaks and the Russians, citing his presumed communications with Julian Assange and his advance knowledge of the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign email hacks.
Yet, none of that was confirmed or even suggested in the indictment. There was no charge of collusion. No hint of meetings or arrangements with Assange. Not even a charge as an unregistered foreign agent of the Russians. Just collateral crimes with nary a mention of collusion and a defendant who alternatively presents himself as the tragically comic and the comically tragic figure mired in the special counsel investigation
Impeached and tossed out by who? The Republican cowards Congress? You're kidding, right?
When the NEW USAG tells Mueller to **** or get off the pot.
37 indictments would seem to indicate that the investigation is bearing fruit, yes?
University of Chicago and Northwestern legal expert, Turley, read the memo.
Where did you get your law degree from?
rotten fruit.
Nothing that even resembles high crimes.
University of Chicago and Northwestern legal expert, Jonathan Turley, had this to say:
"The media has long described Stone as the possible Trump campaign conduit to WikiLeaks and the Russians, citing his presumed communications with Julian Assange and his advance knowledge of the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign email hacks.
Yet, none of that was confirmed or even suggested in the indictment. "
This means that Jonathan Turley, University of Chicago and Northwesternal legal expert, did not actually read the memo he wrote an opinion piece on.
Also, Jonathan Turley, ace legal expert, has this to say:
"There was no charge of collusion..."
Jonathan Turley, legal expert extraordinaire, appears to be unaware that collusion is not a legal term.
"A close review of the indictment reveals there is less than meets the eye to both Stone and his alleged crimes. The indictment contains the same collateral crimes used against every person who is not Russian charged by Mueller with false statements or unrelated crimes. Stone was charged on five overlapping claims of false statements in an indictment of seven counts. For example, Mueller alleges that Stone lied when he denied communicating through texts or emails with a WikiLeaks intermediary."
Whether Stone is found guilty of lying to investigators or tampering with witnesses, nothing in the indictment suggests he took part in Russia collusion.
Doesn't matter. Crimes discovered in the course of any investigation are fair game.
rotten fruit.
Nothing that even resembles high crimes.
Not so fast, Mr. armchair legal expert...
Legal expert Turley opined:
"A close review of the indictment reveals there is less than meets the eye to both Stone and his alleged crimes. The indictment contains the same collateral crimes used against every person who is not Russian charged by Mueller with false statements or unrelated crimes. Stone was charged on five overlapping claims of false statements in an indictment of seven counts. For example, Mueller alleges that Stone lied when he denied communicating through texts or emails with a WikiLeaks intermediary."
SOSDD, Mueller's circus show.
They don't care about actual evidence. They are counting on being able to impeach Trump based on perception.
And so where are they?
What a deliciously absurd bit of dishonest tripe.
You should really consider familiarizing yourself with the whole Mueller probe so that you can avoid making statements like that.
lying to the FBI
acting as an unregistered foreign agent
money laundering
conspiracy against the United States
conspiracy to obstruct Justice
identity fraud
unauthorized access to a protected computer
tax fraud
bank fraud
campaign finance violations
lying to Congress
witness tampering...
Is that enough?
University of Chicago and Northwestern legal expert, Jonathan Turley, had this to say:
"The media has long described Stone as the possible Trump campaign conduit to WikiLeaks and the Russians, citing his presumed communications with Julian Assange and his advance knowledge of the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign email hacks.
Yet, none of that was confirmed or even suggested in the indictment. "
This means that Jonathan Turley, University of Chicago and Northwesternal legal expert, did not actually read the memo he wrote an opinion piece on.
Also, Jonathan Turley, ace legal expert, had this to say:
"There was no charge of collusion..."
Jonathan Turley, legal expert extraordinaire, appears to be unaware that collusion is not a legal term.
The Mueller probe is essentially irrelevant to the House, except insofar as they can find stuff to spin.
Seriously...are you aware of the plan Pelosi and her House Dems have constructed? It's not a secret, you know.
That would be the majority, 2/3 of the senate to convict.
Why would anyone kid about this? :doh
Again, Jonathan Turley, Expert Law Hero of the Seven Seas, did not actually read the memo he's opining on, so why should anybody care what he thinks?
The Mueller probe is essentially irrelevant to the House, except insofar as they can find stuff to spin.
Seriously...are you aware of the plan Pelosi and her House Dems have constructed? It's not a secret, you know.
You have no idea as does anyone else exactly what Mueller has found and we won’t until the investigation is done.
More delusional dishonest not based in reality. Yay!
Seriously, are you aware that the GOP house utterly failed in its responsibility for oversight over the executive branch, even running interference for it, and now the Dems are actually going to do the work the House is supposed to do?
I can see what that frightens some people to death.
I look forward to a very, very painful year for Trump and his sycophants.
Of course we do. We know Mueller is not indicting anyone from the Trump campaign for conspiring to throw the 2016 election. We can at least conclude that this is because nobody in the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to throw the 2016 election.
You have no idea as does anyone else exactly what Mueller has found and we won’t until the investigation is done.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?