• 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

roughdraft274 said:
They most definitely do not show that.
Click to expand...

But they do. If you read them. Stone had no direct contact with Assange. He stated in August that there would be a release in October. He didnt create the date of release and he had no control over the date of release. What was to be released and when was entirely up to Assange.
 
Fletch said:
But they do. If you read them. Stone had no direct contact with Assange. He stated in August that there would be a release in October. He didnt create the date of release and he had no control over the date of release. What was to be released and when was entirely up to Assange.
Click to expand...

1. Stone claimed numerous times that he did have direct contact with Assange. We also know for a fact he had direct contact with Wikileaks via DM's on twitter. Not sure if we know for sure Assange runs that account, but we know there was communication. Also, you don't need direct contact to coordinate the release. I'm also not claiming that he had full authority of the release. You are taking this far away from my original comments. I strongly urge you to read the post that I was responding to so that you understand my comments.
 
Yet more evidence that one's vote does not count and that Presidents are ultimately Selected (NOT Elected) by foreign and special interests...
 
roughdraft274 said:
1. Stone claimed numerous times that he did have direct contact with Assange. We also know for a fact he had direct contact with Wikileaks via DM's on twitter. Not sure if we know for sure Assange runs that account, but we know there was communication. Also, you don't need direct contact to coordinate the release. I'm also not claiming that he had full authority of the release. You are taking this far away from my original comments. I strongly urge you to read the post that I was responding to so that you understand my comments.
Click to expand...

If Stone had direct contact with Assange, Mueller would know that. But the indictment doesnt mention it, nor does it show any coordination in the release of the info.
 
Fletch said:
If Stone had direct contact with Assange, Mueller would know that. But the indictment doesnt mention it, nor does it show any coordination in the release of the info.
Click to expand...

Moving the goal posts. First you claimed that it showed that there was no coordination. No you are saying that it merely didn't show any coordination. Those are two different things.

This indictment could very well not be the only indictment coming down. Neither you nor I know that. So claiming you know there was no coordination or direct communication is false. You do not know that. This was a very limited indictment. Only to show that there was witness tampering and lying to congress. Mueller needed to give all info regarding those crimes and he could have omitted anything else. Which would make sense. I'm not saying I know that to be the case, just that you certainly can not say "it's not in here therefor it never happened." That kind of argument would get you laughed out of an entry level logic course at the nearest community college.

The same argument goes with coordination. It shows that there were ample attempts and go betweens and information being passed. You're earlier assertion that he had no idea what was to be leaked is just plain false. You or I have no idea if we will see further evidence of coordination through Stone or even others at a later date.
 
To this day it appears as most of the Trump haters care little about what was said in those emails as to the act of obtaining them.. I find that just a little bit troubling, myself.


Tim-
 
roughdraft274 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Post a link that supports that claim, because it's assinine to suggest that the press never releases information to influence and election.

When Maddow released President Trump's illegally leaked tax records, she was doing it to influence an election. :lamo
 
Fletch said:
But they do. If you read them. Stone had no direct contact with Assange. He stated in August that there would be a release in October. He didnt create the date of release and he had no control over the date of release. What was to be released and when was entirely up to Assange.
Click to expand...

Evidence will prove you wrong...Stone is going to prison for being a traitor
 
apdst said:
When Maddow released President Trump's illegally leaked tax records, she was doing it to influence an election. :lamo
Click to expand...

Not the same thing. One was released as soon as it was confirmed authentic. The other was held on to and only released at a certain time when the trump campaign apparently told them to so as to distract from other issues. Very different.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Not the same thing. One was released as soon as it was confirmed authentic. The other was held on to and only released at a certain time when the trump campaign apparently told them to so as to distract from other issues. Very different.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. There's no law making that distinction.

NYT v United States doesn't make that distinction, either.
 
apdst said:
Irrelevant. There's no law making that distinction.

NYT v United States doesn't make that distinction, either.
Click to expand...

If it's irrelevant why did you bring it up? lol.
 
roughdraft274 said:
If it's irrelevant why did you bring it up? lol.
Click to expand...

I'm pointing out that receiving and relessing stolen emails, documents, etc. isn't illegal.

You seem to think it's legal for some people, but not for others. :lamo
 
CitizenBasehead said:
There are a lot of stupid women and your post proves it.

Why should value the opinion of those idiots?
Click to expand...

There are a lot of stupid men, and your posts prove that. It doesn't mean ALL men. You're the one who chose the word "nobody."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom