- Joined
- Jan 21, 2013
- Messages
- 25,357
- Reaction score
- 11,557
- Location
- Post-Trump America
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
So? Hillary wanted the Access Hollywood tapes to distract from her email investigation.
And before Corsi, the key witness was, at various times Manafort, or Papadapoulous, Page, Cohen, lots of key witnesses.
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.
Good luck proving that. :lamo
Ahhh! The method of launching insults because you have nothing else to say.
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?
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.
You are going to be so sad...
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.
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...
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...
It’s hard to wrap my mind around how wilfully blind one must be to make such a patently asinine assertion.
Are you ever not fantasizing about penises and bodily fluids?
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
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.
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.
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.
You're right too about their end justifies the means used by this ONE sided, lopsided sham of an investigation.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.
Of course. I'm generally concerned for your washing machine.
Opposition research is not illegal.
Why would that make others sad?
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.
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.
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?