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

... and thus the attraction to @Os Trigonum .

 

Good to see the openness to differing viewpoints here

 

[

It's not even a differing viewpoint, friend Os

It's not "no collusion" it's "yeah criminal collusion but really badly executed!"

I agree!

The penalty for this and your president and his accomplices is impeachment and jail. The penalty for the morons who say it is lol go back to 4chan or 21 club you dopes

 

fify

 

okay, you guys will like this one better. "The Mueller investigation is closing in on Trump"

https://theweek.com/articles/819785/mueller-investigation-closing-trump

 

"Ya think?"

 

If that was even remotely true, Stone would not have been let out on a signature bond.

And, his lawyers are at least asserting that they offered to have Stone voluntarily surrender.

So, the idea that the manner of the arrest was justified by "fight, flight, flee" is ridiculous.

Also, the suggestion that he might destroy evidence if his counsel was called to arrange his voluntarily coming in is equally silly given that Stone has been predicting his arrest publicly for months.

 

At the time of the arrest they also executed a search warrant of the premises, so apparently the Grand Jury thought otherwise.

 

Really not a direct response.

One subject is whether Stone would suddenly destroy evidence if "alerted" to his impending arrest. Stone predicted his arrest for months. His counsel supposedly offered to have him voluntarily submit. So, Stone had a long, long time to destroy evidence. The theatrical method of his arrest (with press in tow) did nothing to lessen the chance of evidence destruction.

A different subject is that there was a subpoena for evidence collection. Not surprising. And in no way indicative that the Grand Jury believed that Stone would try to destroy evidence if less than 27 agents in full gear showed up to deliver a newsworthy perp walk.

Does not address the absurdity of "fight, flight or flee" being a real risk if the arrest had been less purposefully dramatic.

 

I am struck at how the narrative has changed.

First it was: Trump is a Russian spy.
Then it became: Trump was colluding with Russia.
Which evolved into: Trump is a useful asset of Russia.
Leading to: Trump colluded with WikiLeaks.

And here we are at: Trump asked Roger Stone to see if WikiLeaks had more info.

Wow.

 

just stop because what you are suggesting is to simply send 2 agents which is moronic

FBI sends at the very least 2 agents just to question a child witnesses

so unless can directly quote any law enforcement official or expert that maximum of 2 agents were suffice to arrest Stone who was indicted on 7 charges - inlcuding obstruction of justice, witness tampering, etc.. and search his property then STFU

https://www.lawfareblog.com/roger-stones-arrest-was-appropriate-not-heavy-handed
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...-arrested-stone-fully-armed-but-not-clear-yet

 

I’m struck that you believe these narratives replaced rather than supplemented each other.

 

And... stone said the FBI was polite during the arrest. trump defenders... SMH.

 

@jcf : but but if I were the head of the FBIz I will only send 2 agents max

LOL 'Really Smart’ and ‘Very Stable Genius’

the agents never used any kind force, never violated Stone human rights

stop whining!

 

Try reading before throwing around words like moronic. I never mentioned 2 agents. I was responding to your suggestion that Stone was a "fight/flight/flee" risk that justified 27 agents in tactical gear.

 

did you read the 2 articles I posted? did you want me to post the relevant quotes here for you?

he made violent threats even murdering a witness so no one know what he's capable of when arrested. and even law enforcement officials and experts admitted he was a flight / flee / destroy evidence risk.

in your opinion, how many agents should have been sent to arrest someone charged with 7 - obstructing justice, tampering witnesses, threatening to murder a witness, etc
and how many agents to conduct a search warrant on that same individual?

 

I thought the arrest was pretty lol. All that force for an old man with a deaf wife. I mean I guess they can say that they thought he was a flight risk and would destroy evidence but it doesn’t seem to match up with reality. They’ve waited this long to charge him and he’s been all over tv and the bond granted didn’t really seem to rise to the level of a significant flight risk. Hard to believe they truly felt he was going to destroy evidence after this long or that he was a flight risk lol.

Whatever *hands in the air emoji* ...at least it gave Chad Ochocinco something to tweet about.

A tangent, but the firm where my dad worked represented a Merrill Lynch guy who was charged with being involved in all the Enron stuff. Dan Bailey I think was his name. Either way the govt did the same sort of theatric arrest with him like he was a drug kingpin. The lead attorney in that case was actually the same as this Mueller one, Andrew Weissmann. Long story short they got the conviction on the client but it was later appealed and thrown out of court after it was shown the govt withheld exculpatory evidence.

I’m curious where this Stone case ends up since they are basically all procedural crimes and Stone has been talking non stop and seemingly been open about everything. It will be interesting to watch it play out in court.

 

[

No, I don't need you to do so. I can google too. And when I do, I find a lot of articles criticizing the FBI's/Mueller's approach as well. Do you need me to post them for you?

Seriously, I don't care for Stone. But I don't think this is a game where we pick sides and then decide whether law enforcement's actions were warranted based on whether we like the target or not.

I think it is scary that federal law enforcement can and does use such heavy handed tactics (including having CNN out there to memorialize the entire event) when it isn't actually warranted. You might cheer for it here, but I would think you would hate/fear it in other situations.

How many agents? Well, unless Stone's counsel is lying, they could have arranged for a voluntary submission rather than a televised perp walk. This was all about "shock and awe."

(And yes, the FBI typically has a minimum of 2 agents handling an interview -- even over the phone. Look up why. Hint: no one is worried about safety or fight/flight/flee over a telephone call.)

 

I haven’t kept up with all this that much but if he was threatening to kill someone shouldn’t the police have stepped in much sooner?