• 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!

Roger Stone wanted WikiLeaks dump to distract from ‘Access Hollywood’ tape, says Mueller witness

And before Corsi, the key witness was, at various times Manafort, or Papadapoulous, Page, Cohen, lots of key witnesses.

Yip, a whole lot of flipping and testimony that has not been leaked.

This is the biggest political corruption in American history.

This will make Watergate look like breaking into a gumball machine.

It is so poinent that one of the traitors going to jail has a tato of Nixon on his back...
 
Actually, what we know nothing of the sort. We know from the Stone indictment that the Trump campaign had no idea what Wikileaks had and had reached out to Stone to find out (the Clinton campaign was also endeavoring to find out). And we know Stone was not sure what Wikileaks had.
We also from the emails with regards to the Trump Tower meeting involving Trump Jr st. al. there was no general focus on Wikileaks and what they had within the campaign.

If you think Stone had no idea what they had then you simply haven't kept up with the info.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ampaign/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0e2042dd8964

He knew of the podesta hack before anything was ever made public and he knew of the DNC hack before anything was made public. He was also aware of the times of the releases, the info they contained, he was in contact with an intermediary for much of the campaign, he discussed how to hide all of these communications. It's all there.
 
Good luck proving that. :lamo

Already been proven, just in what is available to the public.

And as an American you should not be saying good luck proving it".

You should be saying if true, burn the witches...
 
Ahhh! The method of launching insults because you have nothing else to say.

Where in my statement did you read an insult, I only pointed out what you did there, and do a whole lot along with many other cultists...
 
The American people would have distrusted anything coming from Russia? The FBI did not distrust the Steele dossier...

Question: the emails turned over to Wikileaks to distribute "as ordered." Who is being ordered? Russia or Wikileaks?

The dossier came from a highly decorated British ally.

The coordination seems to have originally been with Russian ops, then later wikkileaks.

At this point the who is not public knowledge, however we know it did by what has been released at this point.
 
That doesn't change the reality that no one has been charged with hacking.



There's nothing illegal about that. Again, it's protected by the 1st Amendment.

Nope. If they were knowingly engaging in discussions and giving orders on how to best distribute illegally obtained material, that's a crime. The only defence of that is if you are a media organization and you release it simply in the public interest. But if you are planning on exactly how to release it so as to hurt a politician or to help another you've crossed the line from "journalistic release for the public interest" to crimes.
 
Nope. If they were knowingly engaging in discussions and giving orders on how to best distribute illegally obtained material, that's a crime. The only defence of that is if you are a media organization and you release it simply in the public interest. But if you are planning on exactly how to release it so as to hurt a politician or to help another you've crossed the line from "journalistic release for the public interest" to crimes.

Doesn't already have had to been released?

If it is stolen information and the local TV channel has it sent to them, I believe they have to contact the authorities before release, I could be wrong, however we are talking about stolen, private property...
 
Nope. If they were knowingly engaging in discussions and giving orders on how to best distribute illegally obtained material, that's a crime. The only defence of that is if you are a media organization and you release it simply in the public interest. But if you are planning on exactly how to release it so as to hurt a politician or to help another you've crossed the line from "journalistic release for the public interest" to crimes.

You guys and the overuse of the hypothetical fallacy ... ;)
 
Already been proven, just in what is available to the public.

And as an American you should not be saying good luck proving it".

You should be saying if true, burn the witches...

Link?
 
Nope. If they were knowingly engaging in discussions and giving orders on how to best distribute illegally obtained material, that's a crime. The only defence of that is if you are a media organization and you release it simply in the public interest. But if you are planning on exactly how to release it so as to hurt a politician or to help another you've crossed the line from "journalistic release for the public interest" to crimes.

Actually, you're wrong:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States
 
Doesn't already have had to been released?

If it is stolen information and the local TV channel has it sent to them, I believe they have to contact the authorities before release, I could be wrong, however we are talking about stolen, private property...

Link?
 
It’s hard to wrap my mind around how wilfully blind one must be to make such a patently asinine assertion.

OK then...you show proof that he broke any laws.
 
Take what Corsi says with a grain of salt, but he's been angling to cooperate with Mueller and he wants to testify against Trump/Stone...



Roger Stone wanted WikiLeaks dump to distract from ‘Access Hollywood’ tape, says Mueller witness

Are you suggesting that Stone released these documents? Or had the power to get Assange to do it? If you read the indictment, it is clear that Stone had nothing to do with either the timing or the content of the releases by Assange. Sorry to have to be the one to shoot down your fantasy.
 
Nope. If they were knowingly engaging in discussions and giving orders on how to best distribute illegally obtained material, that's a crime. The only defence of that is if you are a media organization and you release it simply in the public interest. But if you are planning on exactly how to release it so as to hurt a politician or to help another you've crossed the line from "journalistic release for the public interest" to crimes.

There is nothing in the indictments that show that. What the indictments do show is that Stone was very interested in the timing of these releases, but they also make it obvious that he had zero control or influence over that timing or anything else for that matter.
 
OK then...you show proof that he broke any laws.

He can't.
Hell, if Mueller could prove it, Stone would have already been charged with high crimes.

Stone lied about about his pursuit of alleged Russian-hacked emails, Wikileaks email dumps, damaging to Hillary Clinton's 2016 election bid while under oath; process crimes. He will probably be convicted of lying under oath.
The Clinton campaign also lied about how they came into contact with the Russian disinformation opposition research dossier. They paid for it, lied about it, and attempted to cover it up.

All this shows are the double standards of the Mueller investigation.
 
He can't.
Hell, if Mueller could prove it, Stone would have already been charged with high crimes.

Stone lied about about his pursuit of alleged Russian-hacked emails, Wikileaks email dumps, damaging to Hillary Clinton's 2016 election bid while under oath; process crimes. He will probably be convicted of lying under oath.
The Clinton campaign also lied about how they came into contact with the Russian disinformation opposition research dossier. They paid for it, lied about it, and attempted to cover it up.

All this shows are the double standards of the Mueller investigation.

Yes Trix I'm well aware of the double-standard being applied.
As far as I'm concerned, Mueller has shown himself to be nothing more than a Clinton shill.
He's also been in on the breaking of several laws himself.
He needs to unceremoniously fired immediately, and his material...such as it is...needs to be released along with all the FISA warrant applications and the entire infamous dossier...UNREDACTED!

Let's really find out just who the real criminals are around here.
 
Yes Trix I'm well aware of the double-standard being applied.
As far as I'm concerned, Mueller has shown himself to be nothing more than a Clinton shill.
He's also been in on the breaking of several laws himself.
He needs to unceremoniously fired immediately, and his material...such as it is...needs to be released along with all the FISA warrant applications and the entire infamous dossier...UNREDACTED!

Let's really find out just who the real criminals are around here.

Yes!

I honestly think all this investigating came about for the reason stated near to the last couple paragraphs of the above Tribune op-ed.

No one thought Hillary Clinton would blow the election. Top Obama officials at the FBI, DOJ, intelligence agencies and National Security Council believed in 2015-16 that they could ignore laws with impunity since a protective Clinton administration would soon be in power. Politics have infected these investigations. Trump was seen as a threat to the status quo, and FBI and DOJ lawbreakers were seen as custodians of it.
You're right too about their end justifies the means used by this ONE sided, lopsided sham of an investigation.
 
Of course. I'm generally concerned for your washing machine.

You presume I wash clothes?

And do you have a penis "type" that you fantasize about? Or do you just dream of dicks? Do you prefer semen or urine when it comes to bodily fluids?
 
Opposition research is not illegal.
Why would that make others sad?

Depends on whether that research is legally obtained or not. And complies with election laws.

You're probably gonna have a sad too.

Republicans made the feds dirty with the drug war and the patriot act.

Now it looks like they're about to reap that whirlwind

We'll all know before long.
 

Actually, what you linked to doesn't negate what I said. At all. I specifically said that media organizations can release stolen or classified info, unless they are doing it specifically to influence an election. If they are doing it merely out of the interests of educating the public on the information at hand, it is legal for them to do so. I'm starting to think you aren't even reading what your replying to or what you're linking to.
 
There is nothing in the indictments that show that. What the indictments do show is that Stone was very interested in the timing of these releases, but they also make it obvious that he had zero control or influence over that timing or anything else for that matter.

They most definitely do not show that.
 
Yes!

I honestly think all this investigating came about for the reason stated near to the last couple paragraphs of the above Tribune op-ed.


You're right too about their end justifies the means used by this ONE sided, lopsided sham of an investigation.

Well it didn't take a genius to figure this out.
All one had to do was watch with a critical eye. Instead of an approving eye.
I know the Libbies in here don't like to admit it but...Hillary lost to a loud mouthed schnook who should have never won.
But he identified the very thing that the real politicians would never have committed to. Actually working for the middle-class.
To sweep away the status quo, and fix the things that really needed fixing. To oppose Globalism.

It is, IMO, this rather irrational anti-globalist agenda that Trump is working on, that forces me to believe that through all the blatant crudeness the man musters, he actually has the backbone to oppose that which hurts the Western middle-class, even though one would think an international businessman would support complete globalism. There's just no other explanation I can think of except that...in his own odd way...he actually WANTS to do the right thing.

That's gawd-damn refreshing to see.
 
Back
Top Bottom