You are not logged in. Please register or login.

PaSnow
 Rep: 200 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:
PaSnow wrote:

He's full of sh!t. He said 'No one in the Trump campaign or on the peripheral" worked with Russia & Wikileaks in the release of the leaks. How about Roger Stone!!


No, your conspiracy about Stone is just wrong. Stone had nothing to do with the release from Wikileaks. You’d know that if you attempted to pay attention. Being told a release is coming isn’t working with them. Or is every journalist who breaks a story working with someone?

I beleive he stated it's not illegal to publish stolen documents (journalism). It is illegal to work with the purveyors of stolen documents. Stone worked with & corraborated with them to ensure their release. Hence, he's on trial.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 114 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:
PaSnow wrote:

He's full of sh!t. He said 'No one in the Trump campaign or on the peripheral" worked with Russia & Wikileaks in the release of the leaks. How about Roger Stone!!


No, your conspiracy about Stone is just wrong. Stone had nothing to do with the release from Wikileaks. You’d know that if you attempted to pay attention. Being told a release is coming isn’t working with them. Or is every journalist who breaks a story working with someone?

I beleive he stated it's not illegal to publish stolen documents (journalism). It is illegal to work with the purveyors of stolen documents. Stone worked with & corraborated with them to ensure their release. Hence, he's on trial.


That’s not why he’s on trial. Not at all. This is exactly what I mean. What you’re saying is objectively false.  You can read the indictments. It’s public. Yet you choose to remain ignorant and repeat this absolute falsehood. Link the article showing Stone is on trial for working with Wikileaks.

PaSnow
 Rep: 200 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:
PaSnow wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:

No, your conspiracy about Stone is just wrong. Stone had nothing to do with the release from Wikileaks. You’d know that if you attempted to pay attention. Being told a release is coming isn’t working with them. Or is every journalist who breaks a story working with someone?

I beleive he stated it's not illegal to publish stolen documents (journalism). It is illegal to work with the purveyors of stolen documents. Stone worked with & corraborated with them to ensure their release. Hence, he's on trial.


That’s not why he’s on trial. Not at all. This is exactly what I mean. What you’re saying is objectively false.  You can read the indictments. It’s public. Yet you choose to remain ignorant and repeat this absolute falsehood. Link the article showing Stone is on trial for working with Wikileaks.

Took me :30 seconds moron!

_________________________________________________________________________________

4.

ROGER JASON STONE, JR. was a political consultant who worked for decades in U.S.

politics and on U.S. political campaigns. STONE was an official on the U.S. presidential campaign
of Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign”) until in or around August 2015, and maintained regular
contact with and publicly supported the Trump Campaign through the 2016 election.
5.

During the summer of 2016, STONE spoke to senior Trump Campaign officials about

Organization 1 and information it might have had that would be damaging to the Clinton
Campaign. STONE was contacted by senior Trump Campaign officials to inquire about future
releases by Organization 1.

6.

By in or around early August 2016, STONE was claiming both publicly and privately to

have communicated with Organization 1. By in or around mid-August 2016, Organization 1 made
a public statement denying direct communication with STONE. Thereafter, STONE said that his
communication with Organization 1 had occurred through a person STONE described as a “mutual
friend,” “go-between,” and “intermediary.” STONE also continued to communicate with members
of the Trump Campaign about Organization 1 and its intended future releases.

____________________________________________________________________________

It's on page 2 of the indictment, so hard to find & buried in the finer details (NOT!)

PaSnow
 Rep: 200 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:

She kilt it


Smoking Guns
 Rep: 327 

Re: US Politics Thread

Smoking Guns wrote:

Barr seems very professional and objective honestly. What more could one want him to do? Do you think he is more biased than Loretta Lynch or Eric Holder? This shit is OVER.

PaSnow
 Rep: 200 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:
Smoking Guns wrote:

Barr seems very professional and objective honestly. What more could one want him to do? Do you think he is more biased than Loretta Lynch or Eric Holder? This shit is OVER.

Have you ever heard a DA speak of the accuseds feelings?  Did anyone in Chicago or LA during OJ mention Smoletts or OJs feelings?  Unabomber or anyone else?

He's speaking as Trumps counsel NOT as an AG.

PaSnow
 Rep: 200 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:
Smoking Guns wrote:

This shit is OVER.

In 1 hour, this may not age well.

PaSnow
 Rep: 200 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:

The fact you're calling it "over", before even seeing a piece of the report, speaks volumes as to Barr's influence & partisanship. And attempt to influence it's findings.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 114 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:
PaSnow wrote:

I beleive he stated it's not illegal to publish stolen documents (journalism). It is illegal to work with the purveyors of stolen documents. Stone worked with & corraborated with them to ensure their release. Hence, he's on trial.


That’s not why he’s on trial. Not at all. This is exactly what I mean. What you’re saying is objectively false.  You can read the indictments. It’s public. Yet you choose to remain ignorant and repeat this absolute falsehood. Link the article showing Stone is on trial for working with Wikileaks.

Took me :30 seconds moron!

_________________________________________________________________________________

4.

ROGER JASON STONE, JR. was a political consultant who worked for decades in U.S.

politics and on U.S. political campaigns. STONE was an official on the U.S. presidential campaign
of Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign”) until in or around August 2015, and maintained regular
contact with and publicly supported the Trump Campaign through the 2016 election.
5.

During the summer of 2016, STONE spoke to senior Trump Campaign officials about

Organization 1 and information it might have had that would be damaging to the Clinton
Campaign. STONE was contacted by senior Trump Campaign officials to inquire about future
releases by Organization 1.

6.

By in or around early August 2016, STONE was claiming both publicly and privately to

have communicated with Organization 1. By in or around mid-August 2016, Organization 1 made
a public statement denying direct communication with STONE. Thereafter, STONE said that his
communication with Organization 1 had occurred through a person STONE described as a “mutual
friend,” “go-between,” and “intermediary.” STONE also continued to communicate with members
of the Trump Campaign about Organization 1 and its intended future releases.

____________________________________________________________________________

It's on page 2 of the indictment, so hard to find & buried in the finer details (NOT!)


Like I said, not a fucking clue. What is he indicted for?  It ain’t Wikileaks. You peddled your conspiracy bullshit for 2 years and consistently get basic facts wrong (like this one).

He’s not on trial for “working with Wikileaks”. The indictment clearly makes the case he’s in trouble for lying about his involvement (process crimes). You don’t have a clue, you’re entering Jason and Mitch territory, and even when Mueller, Rosenstein and Barr tell you you’re wrong, you don’t give up. But call me a moron. I’m not the one who clearly can’t read and refuses to acknowledge they were part of a conspiracy and smear far worse than birtherism.

Read the fucking indictment and connect it back to your claim.

It’s in plain language on page 10. You’re embarrassing yourself.

Smoking Guns
 Rep: 327 

Re: US Politics Thread

Smoking Guns wrote:
PaSnow wrote:
Smoking Guns wrote:

Barr seems very professional and objective honestly. What more could one want him to do? Do you think he is more biased than Loretta Lynch or Eric Holder? This shit is OVER.

Have you ever heard a DA speak of the accuseds feelings?  Did anyone in Chicago or LA during OJ mention Smoletts or OJs feelings?  Unabomber or anyone else?

He's speaking as Trumps counsel NOT as an AG.

Did Mueller know there was no collusion prior to the midterms? Highly likely 

Did Trump invoke executive privilege in regards to this report? No

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB