• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mueller hunt for Russia collusion turns into circus show with Stone

Carleen said:
It isn’t over yet.
Click to expand...

It gets worse and worse. In the Stone indictment, Mueller claims that the Trump campaign had to ask Stone to find out if there were more leaks on the horizon. Kind of tough to conspire when you are out of the loop and in the dark.
It's over.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Impeached and tossed out by who? The Republican cowards Congress? You're kidding, right?
Click to expand...

many of which have taken money from Russia themselves.....
 
Athanasius68 said:
It gets worse and worse. In the Stone indictment, Mueller claims that the Trump campaign had to ask Stone to find out if there were more leaks on the horizon. Kind of tough to conspire when you are out of the loop and in the dark.
It's over.
Click to expand...

No it’s not.
 
Mycroft said:
Most of that is a result of Mueller's investigative tactics and none of it involves Trump, his campaign or the Russians.

Oh...and some of them are just plain bogus allegations.

But hey...that's all Mueller has been able to find/create.
Click to expand...

How do you know that some of them are bogus allegations? You are insisting on this without providing any evidence. People are showing you evidence that you are wrong and you are simply refusing to look at it.

Almost all of the allegations involve Trump's campaign and Russia. The only thing we have yet to see is a direct connection to Donald Trump that can't be explained by his own incompetence, i.e. "I had no idea what any of the top people in my campaign were doing."

And there is a doctrine in law called Respondeat Superior: Let the master answer (for his underlings.)
 
lwf said:
How do you know that some of them are bogus allegations? You are insisting on this without providing any evidence. People are showing you evidence that you are wrong and you are simply refusing to look at it.

Almost all of the allegations involve Trump's campaign and Russia. The only thing we have yet to see is a direct connection to Donald Trump that can't be explained by his own incompetence, i.e. "I had no idea what any of the top people in my campaign were doing."

And there is a doctrine in law called Respondeat Superior: Let the master answer (for his underlings.)
Click to expand...

One that is bogus is that "campaign finance violations". But hey...of course you'll object...even though nothing was proven about the charge.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Collusion means conspiracy of some sort. No such indictment.
Moreover, Turkey seems correct that there is nothing in his indictment indicating that he had advanced knowledge.
Click to expand...

Manafort and Gates pleaded guilty to conspiracy against the United States.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
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?
Click to expand...

What a silly, ignorant thing for you to say...

Actually, it looks more and more like you didn't read the indictment closely enough...Hence, it is impossible for you to refute Legal expert Turley's factual summary.
Speaking as a former prosecutor, Lieu said that this all “looks like collusion” because Stone spoke to Trump campaign officials and a senior Trump campaign official “was directed to contact Stone about any additional releases.”

That theme was picked up by other news outlets, which declared that communications between Trump campaign officials and a leading Trump supporter on the WikiLeaks material is finally the long awaited proof of a conspiracy. That is wrong. Stone has previously admitted to wanting to see WikiLeaks material, as did Trump himself on the campaign trail. Many reporters also wanted to see the WikiLeaks material during this period.

Seeking the WikiLeaks material is not illegal. Both campaigns actively sought dirt on each other, including from Russian sources. What is illegal is conspiring to hack a computer system or steal files, and Stone is not accused of any such actions.

None of that makes this indictment invalid. There are indeed conflicts in his testimony before Congress. However, a conviction of Stone will not yield much of a winning trophy for Mueller.
Click to expand...
 
lwf said:
How do you know that some of them are bogus allegations? You are insisting on this without providing any evidence. People are showing you evidence that you are wrong and you are simply refusing to look at it.

Almost all of the allegations involve Trump's campaign and Russia. The only thing we have yet to see is a direct connection to Donald Trump that can't be explained by his own incompetence, i.e. "I had no idea what any of the top people in my campaign were doing."

And there is a doctrine in law called Respondeat Superior: Let the master answer (for his underlings.)
Click to expand...

The allegations, indictments, convictions involve lying to the feds or Congress about various issues regarding the campaign and Russia. They have nothing to do with the campaign or Russia itself-- except for perhaps with Flynn.
 
Mycroft said:
One that is bogus is that "campaign finance violations". But hey...of course you'll object...even though nothing was proven about the charge.
Click to expand...

Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations.
 
trixare4kids said:
What a silly thing to be guessing about.
Actually, it looks more and more like you didn't read the indictment closely enough...Hence, it is impossible for you to refute Legal expert Turley's interpretation.
Click to expand...

It sounds as though unlike Jonathan Turley (Ace Legal Expert), Ted Lieu actually read the indictment.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The allegations, indictments, convictions involve lying to the feds or Congress about various issues regarding the campaign and Russia. They have nothing to do with the campaign or Russia itself-- except for perhaps with Flynn.
Click to expand...

This isn't true. Manafort and Gates pleaded guilty to conspiracy against the United States. 13 Russian nationals and 3 companies were indicted on conspiracy charges related to throwing the election to Trump. 12 GRU officials were charged with hacking into Hillary Clinton's emails and passing them to wikileaks, who passed them to Stone. Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Yep, so why are you saying if Trump was really guilty he'd be gone by now?? lol

Who's going to throw him out? Guilty or not, not the Senate.
Click to expand...

Just because you are keen on making blanket assumptions, doesn't mean that you're factually correct about the Republicans keeping a Russian foreign agent in the WH.
 
Cardinal said:
It sounds as though unlike Jonathan Turley (Ace Legal Expert), Ted Lieu actually read the indictment.
Click to expand...

Since you know more than legal expert Jonathan Turley, can you point out in the indictment where it proves Stone colluded with Russians?

:coffeepap:
 
trixare4kids said:
Just because you are keen on making blanket assumptions, doesn't mean that you're factually correct about the Republicans keeping a Russian foreign agent in the WH.
Click to expand...

False dilemma. The allegations could be true without the Republicans' knowledge. In fact, I think that's the suspicion. Hence the investigation.
 
trixare4kids said:
As usual, legal expert Johnathan Turley hits it out of the ballpark! The opinion piece is lengthy, but so worth the read....Note, nothing in the indictment suggests Stone took part in Russia collusion but that's not what some prominent Democrats such as Ted Lieu, the leftist media, and their lemmings will have you believe. Therein lies the real circus show.

"Mueller hunt for Russia collusion turns into circus show with Stone"

https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...a-collusion-turns-into-circus-show-with-stone
Click to expand...


People, including Jonathan Turley, should understand that the charges against Roger Stone are in connection to Stone lying to Congress and to obstruction of justice. The obstruction charge also alleges Stone attempted to prevent Credico from testifying or tried to convince him to testify falsely. That's witness tampering. Additionally, investigators are looking into whether Stone shared information that he believed was from WikiLeaks with members of Trump's presidential campaign.

Here's the part that involves possible Russia collusion with the Trump campaign; the question about whether Stone may have shared information with the Trump campaign are a strong indication that Mueller's team is still actively investigating the possibility that someone close to Trump engaged in collusion with the Russians.

Stone is scheduled to appear before U.S. District Judge Amy Berman on Tuesday and she's the same Federal Judge that Manafort appeared before. She issued a gag order on Manafort and I'm assuming she just might do the same with Stone. Under a gag order, prosecutors and defense lawyers are barred from making statements to the news media “or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to the case.
 
Last edited:
trixare4kids said:
Since you know more than legal expert Jonathan Turley, can you point out in the indictment where it proves Stone colluded with Russians?

:coffeepap:
Click to expand...

If the entry for being a legal expert is "to actually read the material I'm commenting on," then that would technically make me a bigger legal expert than Jonathan Turley.

In any case, I posted that page from the indictment already.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Collusion means conspiracy of some sort. No such indictment.
Moreover, Turkey seems correct that there is nothing in his indictment indicating that he had advanced knowledge.
Click to expand...

Of course, Turley is correct.
Good luck convincing cardinal though.
Honestly, I've tried and what I have learned is that there's no teaching those who refuse to learn.
 
Cardinal said:
If the entry for being a legal expert is "to actually read the material I'm commenting on," then that would technically make me a bigger legal expert than Jonathan Turley.

In any case, I posted that page from the indictment already.
Click to expand...


:2wave:

As I was just saying to the above poster....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom