Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

LOL... defending stone now? LOL. And tucker carlson? LOL.

 

an alternative perspective in case anyone tires of the 'this-is-huge' coverage of the Stone arrest:

". . . Roger Stone’s arrest. a) Stone is a thoroughly loathsome individual—the man has Richard Nixon’s face tattooed on his back, for heaven’s sake—but like the Mueller investigation generally, his arrest seems more like continued politically-motivated harassment of anyone connected to Donald Trump in order to isolate and impede his Presidency rather than part of a legitimate and independent investigation. Stone’s indictment is substantially made up of the now-familiar “obstruction of justice” bootstrap regarding an investigation of a non-crime charge. In Watergate, there was a crime. In the Clinton impeachment, there was a crime (a President lying under oath). In the Valerie Plame fiasco, there was at least a sort-of crime. Even Martha Stewart’s “obstruction of justice” conviction was related to the crime of insider-trading. “Collusion” isn’t a crime, and if Stone lied to Congress about the degree to which he was communicating heads-ups to the Trump campaign about what Wikileaks had and was about to release, that has no implications of wrongdoing for the Trump campaign at all. Stone telling the Trump campaign, “Hey, Wikileaks has a bunch of DNC emails that show Hillary’s campaign was sleazy and that the Clinton Foundation is an influence peddling scam!” isn’t illegal, it isn’t unethical, and I doubt that this sort of communication is unusual for any campaign in any party. b) CNN cameras were on the scene when Stone was arrested, which means the FBI or the Mueller team leaked to CNN. Now THAT’s unethical, and possibly illegal. c) Once again, President Trump’s persistent failure to avoid close contact with obvious slime-balls has caused problems. “Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas” : It’s not a hard concept to grasp, but for a man who was raised and rose to wealth and power in the dog-dominated worlds of real estate, hotels, casinos, show business and now politics, I suppose its hard to imagine NOT being surrounded by the metaphorically flea-infested."
​

https://ethicsalarms.com/2019/01/25...-movies-false-equivalency-and-female-bigotry/

 

So the judge released Stone on a signature bond. No money down, just a promise to pay if he does not show up later. And then Stone went back home to have breakfast as usual. That is how egregious the judge perceived all of this to be.

 

How do you know if there's a crime until you investigate if there's a crime?

 

I notice that u conveniently omitted to mention ex-Gen Michael Flynn, Trump’s NSA; also Trump coffee boy & Rick Gates

They were not raided

 

Yes, we will see.

 

Ridiculously excessive misplaced self-confidence seems to be pretty common in the land of Trump. Trump, Manafort, Bannon, Mooch, Stone etc have all consistently played a pair of 3's as though they had a straight flush and fallen flat on their face.

 

The last time someone under investigation by Mueller did an interview it did not turnout well.

Then again Roger Stone founded a corporation with Mannafort and has admitted that he is a sleaze.

I wonder how other inmates will handle looking at Richard Nixon tattooed on Stone's back when they bend him over to take the business.

 

Let me just **** all over this for you.

Collusion is a semantic, like the word "crime"

No one is convicted of "crime". No one is charged with "crime". Just like no one is convicted of "collusion" and no one is charged with "collusion".

Its a blanket term, of specific things, that are a crime.

 

This is ridiculous and I hope to God that nobody who writes this type of article, shares it online or defends it ever pretends to care about "law and order" in the future.

The core tenet of the argument being made is that people should have the right to lie, under oath, to Congress and to the FBI to hide things if there isn't a clear illegality around what they are hiding. Not only is that outrageous on it's face (granting people the power to determine whether they have to tell the truth to Congress and the FBI geez, sell explanatory) but it also would strip law enforcement and Congress of powerful investigative and oversight tools.

Let's pretend for a minute that there is some crime under all these stones (pun intended) that Mueller is turning over. The only way to get to the nexus of the crime is to go through all the tangled webs that have been woven by all of the different players. Many of the acts taken that make up the web are not crimes in and of them itself, but they still want to hide them because they could lead to uncovering other crimes.

I'll create a really dumb hypothetical for you and pretend that Roger Stone didn't commit a real crime by colluding to try to illustrate why his lying to investigators is still a crime worthy of prosecution.

John drives to Dallas. While in Dallas he meets Sarah. Sarah likes John and agrees to give him $300,000 in drug money (all cash) as long as John uses his car to drive some of the drugs back to Houston. John agrees. John has a party with his new money and introduces Sarah to his friend Stewart. They agree to be friends.

John is vying for a promotion at his company. He's competing with Clark. It looks like Clark is going to get the promotion when suddenly information comes out that costs Clark the job and John gets it. John's friend Stewart brags about this information to their circle of friends and hints he had a hand in it.

Coincidentally, the employer discovers that the information came from Sarah. They aren't sure why Sarah, in Dallas, is interested in their hiring practices. They alert law enforcement. Law enforcement noses around and realizes that Sarah is a drug dealer. They see some weird, opaque connection between Sarah and John but can't figure out why. They interview Stewart because of his bragging earlier. Stewart lies to them and says he's never met Sarah.

Now, all Stewart did in this scenario is coordinate with Sarah to do a little sabotage of someone's professional career. He didn't break any laws. BUT...the police know there's more to this story. Should Stewart be allowed to lie without repercussion in this scenario? The author of your article would say yes because he's not lying to hide an underlying "crime" because the act he was involved in wasn't a crime. However, there probably is a real crime here. Why did Sarah want to help John get the job to begin with? It's THEIR criminal enterprise that the police are really trying to get to and Stewart effing knows it. His lie is a crime. His lie is obstructing justice.

 

If the campaign received information from Stone about hacked and stolen property and didn't report it to the authorities then that is about as unethical as it possibly gets, where do you even find these articles that are such complete trash?

 

When will people WAKE THE **** UP!

 

No tank, no military style. I have my standards.

 

Just your run of the mill indictment and FBI raid. You know who the real victim is in all of this?

Rich, arrogant white men. Now they have something else to worry about beyond golf swings and hiding their various mistresses. Those FBI assholes should spend less time worrying about wether or not a foreign government colluded with Trump to put him in the White House, and more time patrolling the border looking for those MS13 Coyote Drug Caravans!

 

This is a VERY VERY dangerous way to look at crime and criminal behavior.

 

My post is or the article is?

 

If you still support Trump you are not all that bright.

DD

 

Look, this is all fine and dandy.......BUT WHAT ABOUT HILLARY???

Spoiler

 

DaDakota do you ever have any opinion on anything? You just seem to pop in with insults from time to time. I believe your post count is high enough, it isn't that necessary.