FBI Arrests Trump Associate Roger Stone Over His Communications With WikiLeaks (nytimes.com) 486
Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime informal adviser to President Trump, was charged as part of the special counsel investigation over his communications with WikiLeaks, the organization behind the release of thousands of stolen Democratic emails during the 2016 campaign, in an indictment unsealed Friday.
From a report: Mr. Stone was charged with seven counts, including obstruction of an official proceeding, making false statements and witness tampering, according to the special counsel's office. F.B.I. agents arrested Mr. Stone before dawn on Friday at his home in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and he was expected to appear in a federal courthouse there later in the morning. F.B.I. agents were also seen carting hard drives and other evidence from Mr. Stone's apartment in Harlem.
The indictment is the first in months by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who is investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election and possible coordination with Trump campaign associates. Citing details in emails and other forms of communications, the indictment suggests Mr. Trump's campaign knew about additional stolen emails before they were released and asked Mr. Stone to find out about them. Moments ago, Stone was released on a $250,000 bond.
The indictment is the first in months by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who is investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election and possible coordination with Trump campaign associates. Citing details in emails and other forms of communications, the indictment suggests Mr. Trump's campaign knew about additional stolen emails before they were released and asked Mr. Stone to find out about them. Moments ago, Stone was released on a $250,000 bond.
Witch hunt! (Score:2, Insightful)
Looks like they're finding a lot of witches.
Nixon tattoo (Score:2, Informative)
The freaky detail on this is that Stone has a richard nixon tattoo (not kidding). And he's being indicted for orchestrating a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Fate?
Re: (Score:3)
There's a weird Nixon reference that I didn't understand. I don't know if he's quoting or just name-dropping him:
a. On or about November 19, 2017, in a text message to STONE, Person 2 said that
his lawyer wanted to see him (Person 2). STONE responded, "‘Stonewall it. Plead
the fifth. Anything to save the plan' . . . Richard Nixon." On or about November
20, 2017, Person 2 informed HPSCI that he declined HPSCI's request for a
voluntary interview.
It looks like a quote. Nixon probably isn't the greatest person to quote when you're being investigated.
Re:Nixon tattoo (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nixon tattoo (Score:5, Insightful)
The freaky detail on this is that Stone has a richard nixon tattoo (not kidding).
If they get the definitive proof that Trump colluded with Russia then Nixon is going to look a saint in comparison. If Nixon were alive today he'd be excited that he could be on the verge of losing the title of the most vilified President.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, he didn't. Feel free to post all of the numerous public statements made by Mueller if you disagree.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, yes. That's how a witch hunt works. You look for reasons to declare people to be witches. A witch hunt by definition always will find witches.
What they're doing now is going after people for "lying" to them, which is one of those "we couldn't find anything you did that's illegal, so now we're over-analyzing everything you ever told us in the hopes of being able to charge you with something and justify the massive waste of time and money our investigation has been." Which you should know, as a lawyer.
M
Re:Witch hunt! (Score:5, Insightful)
You look for reasons to declare people to be witches.
Pretty easy when they walk up and tell you they're a witch, or they have text messages saying they're a witch, or their associates tell you straight up that they're a witch, just look at this email they sent. Seriously, read the indictment.
Which you should know, as a lawyer.
I'm not one, I just have the ability to read and understand an indictment. Weird, I know.
now the FBI and Mueller have to invent ways of charging people of crimes to justify their waste of time and money.
No reason to invent anything when they make it so obvious that they're breaking the law. Again, maybe take a little glance at the indictment.
Here, let me help you out. The words of someone who is definitely not a witch (probably can't even build a bridge out of him):
e. On multiple occasions, including on or about December 1, 2017, STONE told
Person 2 that Person 2 should do a "Frank Pentangeli" before HPSCI in order to
avoid contradicting STONE's testimony. Frank Pentangeli is a character in the film
The Godfather: Part II, which both STONE and Person 2 had discussed, who
testifies before a congressional committee and in that testimony claims not to know
critical information that he does in fact know.
f. On or about December 1, 2017, STONE texted Person 2, "And if you turned over
anything to the FBI you're a fool." Later that day, Person 2 texted STONE, "You
need to amend your testimony before I testify on the 15th." STONE responded, "If
you testify you're a fool. Because of tromp I could never get away with a certain
[sic] my Fifth Amendment rights but you can. I guarantee you you are the one who
gets indicted for perjury if you're stupid enough to testify."
Here you go:
39. Following Person 2's invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify before
HPSCI, STONE and Person 2 continued to have discussions about the various investigations into
Russian interference in the 2016 election and what information Person 2 would provide to
investigators. During these conversations, STONE repeatedly made statements intended to
prevent Person 2 from cooperating with the investigations. For example:
a. On or about December 24, 2017, Person 2 texted STONE, "I met [the head of
WikiLeaks] for f[i]rst time this yea[r] sept 7 . . . docs prove that. . . . You should
be honest w fbi . . . there was no back channel . . . be honest." STONE replied
approximately two minutes later, "I'm not talking to the FBI and if your smart you
won't either."
b. On or about April 9, 2018, STONE wrote in an email to Person 2, "You are a rat.
A stoolie. You backstab your friends-run your mouth my lawyers are dying Rip
you to shreds." STONE also said he would "take that dog away from you,"
referring to Person 2's dog. On or about the same day, STONE wrote to Person 2,
"I am so ready. Let's get it on. Prepare to die [expletive]."
c. On or about May 21, 2018, Person 2 wrote in an email to STONE, "You should
have just been honest with the house Intel committee . . . you've opened yourself
up to perjury charges like an idiot." STONE responded, "You are so full of
[expletive]. You got nothing. Keep running your mouth and I'll file a bar
complaint against your friend [the attorney who had the ability to contact the head
of WikiLeaks]."
So, what do you do when you've done nothing illegal and you don't care what anyone is claiming about you? You call them a rat and tell them you're going to take their dog. Makes perfect sense. "Rat" is just a term for someone who lies, right? It's not a term for someone telling the truth about the shady shit you did, right?
Re:Witch hunt! (Score:5, Funny)
Can't understand how your [amicusNYCL's] long argument with such an obvious troll earned an insightful mod.
I think we'll turn this over to an expert:
t is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
Re: (Score:3)
Can't understand how your [amicusNYCL's] long argument with such an obvious troll earned an insightful mod.
I think we'll turn this over to an expert:
t is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
I think you should have included the source (as in the name of the expert (though it may be one of those quotations of confused provenance)).
I think the way to interpret your comment is that you mean the troll is getting a salary. If so, then it is not a matter of understanding and the troll quite probably knows the truth, the better to muddle it.
My focus is on the folly of feeding them. I wish that Slashdot would help them in rendering themselves invisible. However I have no serious expectations along such
Re: Witch hunt! (Score:3)
Fuck off, fascist, and take your dreams of a totalitarian Social Credit system with you.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I would rather say that the Internet trolls and their herds of sock puppets are exploiting our civilized tendencies to grant a certain amount of credibility to each stranger. We greet strangers politely and listen to them. In a civilized society, we should not greet all strangers with loaded guns pointed at their faces. Accidents would happen, and it would be quite awkward on the buses and trains, too. Now I'm thinking about escalators and elevators...
My solution approach would essentially add a layer o
Re:Witch hunt! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the DOJ did find Clinton and Kavanaugh innocent of wrong doing.
Clinton: 20+ years of nonstop partisan driven investigations originating from congress and an FBI field office that is widely known for hating Hillary. From the present House minority leader: "We are doing a great job driving her poll numbers down."
Kavanaugh: 4 days including the weekend to make a determination and here is a long list of things you cannot look into.
Yep. The investigations into these two individuals was exactly the same.
Re: (Score:3)
NONE of the witnesses provided ANY corroboration of the event whatsoever.
You really aren't very hard to refute. You should probably pick up the practice of reading yourself before you admonish others to do so.
Here is a list [time.com] that includes a list of witness the FBI did NOT contact either because they did not have the time or they were instructed not to. Lawyers for both Ramirez and Ford provided lists of corroborating witnesses which were never contacted.
It was clear from the very start that the only purpose of the FBI "investigation" was not to vet the SCOTUS candidate, bu
Re:Witch hunt! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have communications with WikiLeaks, you're a witch.
Nice try, but wrong. Communicating with WikiLeaks is not a crime. No one is being charged with that. Nice attempt to derail though.
Go read the indictment if you want to talk about it.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't watch a movie on a projector, you watch it on the screen the projector is aiming at.
Aha! (Score:2, Funny)
They really have Trump where they want him now...
Re: (Score:2)
I won't be convinced they're any nearer to putting him behind bars until he's walked out the white house in handcuffs.
Stone is going to have to think about whether he wants to tell Mueller what Trump directed him to do and when, or if he dies in prison, or if he ends his life on his own terms. Those are probably his options.
Re: (Score:2)
I won't be convinced they're any nearer to putting him behind bars until he's walked out the white house in handcuffs.
Stone is going to have to think about whether he wants to tell Mueller what Trump directed him to do and when, or if he dies in prison, or if he ends his life on his own terms. Those are probably his options.
He has two choices.
1) Talk and get his sentence reduced.
2) Don't talk and Trump will pardon him in a couple of years right before he walks out of the white house.
He's not going to get a pardon if he squeals. He will get a pardon if he doesn't.
Re:Aha! (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Don't talk and Trump will pardon him in a couple of years right before he walks out of the white house.
That's very optimistic. Stone would be betting his freedom and life on that happening. Getting a pardon and Trump serving out his term are not guaranteed at this point. And, guess what happens if anyone finds out that Stone or his lawyers were communicating with Trump or his team to discuss a potential pardon. That's another charge against Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
Incredibly optimistic. A case like this will take more than 2 years to reach a jury verdict for someone as high profile and as prone to fighting as Stone. Trump can't pardon him until he's actually convicted of something. So if Stone has two choice, bet his freedom on Trump winning in 2020 or plead guilty immediately so Trump can pardon him.
There's also no guarantee Trump would pardon him, the political fallout could be too heavy and Trump proves over and over again he's not loyal to anyone but himself. He'
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Trump can't pardon him until he's actually convicted of something.
Wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump can't pardon him until he's actually convicted of something.
Somehow President Ford managed to pardon former President Nixon before was even charged with a crime, let alone convicted. [wikipedia.org]
You can not commute someone's sentence until they've been convicted and sentenced, perhaps you've confused the two?
For example, Bush'43 commuted Scooter Libby's sentence before he spent 30 months in jail. [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt that he'll do the perp walk out of the White House. I notice a distinct lowering of the invective from Trump against Mueller ever since Barr was passed to be Att. Gen. I think the fix is in, Mueller's report will never see the light of day through that justice dept. And Trump's surpreme court picks seem favorable to an imperial presidency.
Trump is more like a bumbling Mafia don. He even co-opted one of the men who brought the Mafia down in Guliani. Why does he keep him that bumbling fool around, he'
Re: (Score:3)
The problem, say with some of the rats, is that Trump may know where some of their skeletons are buried. He's trying shut Cohen up over spilling his guts to Congress using vague threats about his family, i.e., Cohen's father's business dealings.
Another lucky break for the President (Score:5, Funny)
Park tried that defense in South Korea (Score:5, Interesting)
Former President Park of South Korea tried that defense a few years ago, and she didn't get the funny mod points. She got a long prison sentence.
Right now I think there are two big differences here: (1) She's young enough that she may get out of prison someday. (2) The South Korean government is much more honest than America under #PresidentTweety.
I'm not sure how similar Roger Stone is to Choi Tae-min, but it was the close advisor's arrest that soon led to the arrest of Park. I want to refer to her as Inmate #x, but I can't find the number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Sounds good to me. (Score:3)
Which is it? (Score:2)
the indictment suggested that Mr. Trumpâ(TM)s campaign knew about additional stolen emails before they were released and asked Mr. Stone to find out about them.
Indictment (Score:5, Informative)
The indictment is 24 pages long. I'm going through it, but this is part of the introduction (which goes on for 20 pages until the first count). In the indictment, they use the term "Organization 1", which I have replaced with "WikiLeaks".
1. By in or around May 2016, the Democratic National Committee ("DNC") and the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC") became aware that their computer
systems had been compromised by unauthorized intrusions and hired a security company
("Company 1") to identify the extent of the intrusions.
2. On or about June 14, 2016, the DNC—through Company 1—publicly announced that it
had been hacked by Russian government actors.
3. From in or around July 2016 through in or around November 2016, an organization
("WikiLeaks"), which had previously posted documents stolen by others from U.S. persons,
entities, and the U.S. government, released tens of thousands of documents stolen from the DNC
and the personal email account of the chairman of the U.S. presidential campaign of Hillary
Clinton ("Clinton Campaign").
a. On or about July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released documents stolen from the
DNC.
b. Between on or about October 7, 2016 and on or about November 7, 2016,
WikiLeaks released approximately 33 tranches of documents that had been
stolen from the personal email account of the Clinton Campaign chairman, totaling
over 50,000 stolen documents.
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
WikiLeaks 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 WikiLeaks.
6. By in or around early August 2016, STONE was claiming both publicly and privately to
have communicated with WikiLeaks. By in or around mid-August 2016, WikiLeaks made
a public statement denying direct communication with STONE. Thereafter, STONE said that his
communication with WikiLeaks 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 WikiLeaks and its intended future releases.
I'll stop there. So, Russians attack the DNC. WikiLeaks releases stolen DNC documents, presumably obtained from the attackers, Russians. During the time period when WikiLeaks was releasing the DNC documents obtained from the Russians, Stone was talking to Trump's campaign about the leaks, and the Trump campaign contacted Stone and directed him to ask WikiLeaks about future releases. Stone then claimed publicly that he had been communicating with WikiLeaks, before then denying that he had done so. And he continued to communicate with the Trump campaign about what WikiLeaks intended to release in the future.
So, Russians steal DNC documents, give them to WikiLeaks, and Stone acts as an intermediary between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks, holder of the documents stolen by Russia, about when those documents are going to be released. Stone was specifically asked by the campaign to communicate with WikiLeaks about the release of documents stolen by Russians. This is where the claims of collusion are starting to coagulate.
Then, since everyone did everything just fine, and there was No Collusion(tm), this happened:
7. After the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent
Select Committee on Intellig
Re: (Score:3)
Is there anything else shocking or illegal in these events? There doesn't seem to be.
You forgot about the counts of Obstructing a Proceeding and Witness Tampering.
Anyway, when you're trying to defend Stone, just keep in mind that he decided that the lesser evil was lying to Congress and the FBI about what he had been up to.
He's such a great guy that he threatened someone's dog.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you're making certain assumptions based on only what Mueller has revealed so far.
I'm making assumption by only going with the evidence to date. That's an interesting interpretation of "assumptions". :-)
It sounds like you're wondering how many men need to be in the middle before it's no longer considered collusion or cooperation
Nope, zero to many in the middle is irrelevant. All that matters is active cooperation between the campaign and the Russian government, a Russian oligarch, etc. Absent such cooperation the fact that the wikileaks info originally game from Russian hackers is effectively trivia. Russia, China, North Korea, or US teenager in Mom's basement (Sarah Palin's gmail publication?) makes no differen
Re:So someone lied about contacting journalists ? (Score:5, Informative)
No indictments of the Trump Campaign (Score:3, Insightful)
https://www.vox.com/policy-and... [vox.com]
Another reason to NEVER talk to the FBI without a lawyer.
George Papadopoulos Pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI
Paul Manafort - indicted on a total of 25 different counts related mainly to his past work for Ukrainian politicians and his finances.
Rick Gates - pled guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge.
Michael Flynn - pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI.
Richard Pinedo: pled guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments
Alex van der Zwaan: pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI
Michael Cohen: pled guilty to 8 counts — tax and bank charges, related to his finances and taxi business, and campaign finance violations
Roger Stone: accused Stone of lying to the House Intelligence Committee
Re:No indictments of the Trump Campaign (Score:4, Insightful)
Another reason to NEVER talk to the FBI...
This is where you should have stopped.
Re:No indictments of the Trump Campaign (Score:5, Insightful)
Kind of makes you wonder why this list of the best people thought that the lesser evil was lying to either Congress or the FBI. That's the thing to keep in mind, people keep suggesting that the only crime was lying, you have to keep in mind that they chose to lie versus just telling the truth. The question is why.
Re: (Score:2)
Invoke the Ronald Reagan Defense (Score:2)
I forgot.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, Trump! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Stuff that matters". I'd say that big politics is stuff that matters.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why so many lies to the FBI if there was nothing to hide?
Re:Only took two years (Score:4, Insightful)
Hold on. How the fuck does that dumb analogy have anything to do with the 24-page indictment against Stone. Have you read it?
Re: (Score:3)
They are stupid lies
You mean that lying to Congress is stupid? Yes, we agree.
If you're suggesting that the things that they're lying about are inconsequential, keep in mind that these people thought the lesser of evils was a federal crime of lying to Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
They are stupid lies - notice how there's rarely a crime alleged when Mueller charges someone with lying?
For example, manafort lied about a perfectly legal and appropriate meeting with the Russian ambassador, the issue was CHI had a transcript of call, and manafort lied about conversation. Woo-hoo, that's good for ten years hard time!
That's what got Bill Clinton in trouble... lying about something that (whereas immoral), was illegal. It's also what got Nixon in trouble, lying about knowledge of what happened in Watergate. (he wasn't actually involved in planning that- he just found out about it later and denied knowing).
Lying to congress always has got people in trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously I meant "was legal" not "was illegal" unless my subconscious knows something my conscious doesn't! :)
Re: (Score:3)
I personally love the bipartisan approach of locking up both the Clintons and the Trumps.
No tears would be shed on my end!
Re:Absolutely no evidence (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Except there is evidence right there in the indictment to support the charges. If you bothered to read it that is.
Read the whole post, not just the title, which was sarcasm.
"There appears to be incredible amounts of no evidence" should have been the real clue.
Re: (Score:2)
"There appears to be incredible amounts of no evidence" should have been the real clue.
These are weird times we're living in, man. I forget which law or theory it is that says it's increasingly difficult to differentiate real opinion from sarcasm online, because enough people who actually have those opinions post online. You can see people claiming that there is no evidence in this very thread.
Re:Absolutely no evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely no evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
Obstruction of Proceeding, 5 counts of false statements, and Witness Tampering. And, what were his false statements about? Being the go-between for the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks regarding documents that were stolen from the DNC by Russians. Those 7 counts against Stone are enough to put the old man away for the rest of his life, so with that mind we'll see what he has to say about Trump. Maybe he'll admit which senior campaign officials directed him to contact WikiLeaks about the documents stolen by the Russians.
Re: Absolutely no evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
Again, have you read the actual indictment? They list the text messages. They show the actual lies. They show him threatening potential witnesses. Hell, they show him threatening the pets of potential witnesses.
He doesn't have to admit anything, it's already there. And if you've got a liar, are you really going to put a lot of stock into whether or not they admit to it? You've got evidence that he did specific things, in writing. Then you ask him, and he says no, I never did those specific things. That's a lie. So, start applauding.
The thing to not lose sight of is that Stone is not the target, Trump is. This isn't victory, it's just the next domino.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it is not. Mueller has, very obviously, and very deliberately, not released any information that he has but that he does not need to release yet. And, exactly like during every other release, when everyone is quick to jump on the fact that this is not proof of Trump colluding with Russia, I will, once again remind people that we have not seen the iceberg yet.
Patience, my young padawan. Mueller has prosecuted organized crime before. This is not his first rodeo. You start at the bottom rung of the la
Re:Absolutely no evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll just stick to the facts, thanks. Facts like the DNC announced that Russians were responsible for attacking them (unless you're trying to assert that the DNC was never hacked in the first place, in which case good luck explaining away all of that evidence), facts like the numerous Russians who have been indicted or sanctioned by the US, facts like Ms. Butina being charged here after attempting to infiltrate various conservative groups (with mountains of evidence), etc.
Keep your conspiracy theories to yourself, you don't speak for me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are other things besides collusion.
There's the basic mistake of attacking every critic including the FBI, the failing NYT, Wapo, every goddam Trump aid, and so on.
Remember that Trump never bothered to replace Obama's staff at the mid-lower levels of government, especially the FBI.
Those people are pranking Trump all over hell's half an acre with leaks and the intent to bolster the indictment count.
Trump has fired all the competent advisers in his hive and is left with celebrities like himself who know
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, innocent people always quote The Godfather to imply threats against your family, and explicitly threaten your dog. To try to get you to not testify. Because, Tuesday?
LOL
Re: (Score:2)
He was arrested for "making false statements." That is exactly the reason you shouldn't talk to cops, because even if you are completely innocent they can convict you based on a slip-up in the interview
Not really.
You can of course, decline to talk to law enforcement. But once you agree to talk to them, you are required to tell the truth, because lying to them can be considered obstruction of justice.
Let's say I know you robbed a bank, but I agree to talk to the police and in my interview I instead
Re: (Score:3)
Not really.
Yes, really. And your next paragraph says exactly what you deny.
You can of course, decline to talk to law enforcement. But once you agree to talk to them, you are required to tell the truth, because lying to them can be considered obstruction of justice.
Which is another way of saying "That is exactly the reason you shouldn't talk to cops, because even if you are completely innocent they can convict you based on a slip-up in the interview."
If I do that, then my lie about you being on the beach with me has obstructed justice - That's a crime. That isn't a "slip-up in the interview"
So to prove that they won't charge you with lying based on a slip-up you use an example of where you deliberately lied to them? Sorry. They will charge you with lying if you slip-up in an interview. That's because they won't ask you just once if you tell them
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely no evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
The evidence of the text and emails he made are right there in the indictment. The evidence will be easy for any jury or judge to understand. He's toast. It's kind of pathetic to rationalise this away and yet...
There will be some people who will never admit the world is not flat, that we landed on the moon, that O'Blama is an American Citizen, or that there is any evidence of Russian interference, collusion, or criminal acts. They still think PizzaGate is real.
I read the document. Stone isn't in a real good place, no matter what the kooks think.
Re: (Score:2)
"There appears to be incredible amounts of no evidence." - Except for his own text messages black-letter outlining his obstruction effort? Except that, no evidence. Right. Excellent job Mr. Giuliani, you've done it again lol!
Hehe! Is crime actually a crime?
Re: (Score:2)
Not to slashdot MAGA neckbeards. They're not sure what is on the surface these days, but they really hope somebody makes it Great before they get there. And builds a wall to keep out the aliens. Because they never learned to speak Romulan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I ever feel sorry for criminals, but him getting elected was the worst thing that could have happened to them.
On some level, I find this completely hilarious. He likely thought that he was invincible now. Looking forward to him trying to pardon himself when he is up personally. He will probably make history as the worst scum to ever be a US president.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I ever feel sorry for criminals, but him getting elected was the worst thing that could have happened to them.
On some level, I find this completely hilarious. He likely thought that he was invincible now. Looking forward to him trying to pardon himself when he is up personally. He will probably make history as the worst scum to ever be a US president.
I guess it's greed and avarice when taken to an extreme. I know if I were acting as a criminal, I'd fly as far below the radar as possible, and plan everything out to stay that way. But criminal greed and avarice knows no bounds I suppose, and always trips itself up.
Something tells me there will be a broad relaxation to the statutes of limitation, in which he might be offered to resign, or else be handcuffed as soon as he walks out of the White House in 2021.
Re: (Score:2)
There's 20 pages of evidence in the indictment. Feel free to actually read what you're trying to sound intelligent about.
Re: (Score:2)
There's 20 pages of evidence in the indictment. Feel free to actually read what you're trying to sound intelligent about.
Did you actually read my post? Or just the top tier sarcasm of the title?
There are mountains of evidence that have been released already. I'm pretty certain there is a Tsunami of evidence we don't know about yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence, properly collected and protected, is not released until an indictment is made. It might amount to nothing, but just declaring there’s nothing before the evidence is released doesn’t make it true.
Come on folks - read my whole post, not just the headline.
Re: (Score:2)
There appears to be incredible amounts of no evidence.
Have you read the indictment? You understand he was indicted by a grand jury right? Do you know how that works? Where exactly did you get your law degree?
Sigh.... yes, I've read it. Stone is in a big pile of self inflicted shit. But doesn't anyone get that when a person writes "incredible amounts of no evidence" that he's meaning there is actually a lot of evidence?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't read reddit at all. Why the simple fuck would I?
They aren't a more valid source than say, Facebook, right?
Those people don't know bullshit from wild honey.
Re:NOT Technology News (Score:5, Insightful)
Tangential to wikileaks, I imagine. Also because events taking place at the highest level of US politics have such wide-ranging impacts that they are of importance to every field. Even when everyone is sick of hearing about them, they still matter.
Is Slashdot a form of journalism? (Score:3)
Actually I think there is a strong relationship between journalism and technology in general. Also some sort of relationship between Wikileaks and Slashdot in particular.
It is clear that journalism is in trouble these years. I think most of the problems are related to bad economic models. For example, Slashdot can't be improved because the economic model is so broken. Also, much of Wikileaks destructive behavior was driven by the need to generate the kind of publicity that would produce funding.
Don't want t
Re: (Score:3)
The media is 'broken' in a sense, but consider that it is actually doing exactly what the people want. It's a perfect example of the free market in action - a highly competitive industry, in which a great number of companies compete to produce the product which best satisfies the demands of the customer. The unfortunate complication is that what the customers largely want is sensationalist reporting, conspiracy theories, political interpretation that reassures them that their particular faction is superior
Re: NOT Technology News (Score:2)
Anonymous cowards have UIDs?
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous cowards have UIDs?
Says the 4-digit UID.
However, given the current state of Slashdot, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there's a bug that exposes the AC's user ID.
Re: (Score:3)
Context is everything, especially for humor--but you may note I that I rarely earn any "funny" points.
You, as the 4-digit UID, suggested that the AC's UID was visible, and I attempted to make a joke on that theme. I don't think I even looked at the AC comment you were commenting on (since I ignore ACs), but now I see that there was an earlier reference to a 5-digit UID.
However these days I'm actually kind of suspicious of small UIDs... Overly juicy targets, and possibly orphaned years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
To wit - he's being charged for a process crime
Process crimes are crimes. Should people not be charged for certain kinds of crimes?
Re: So get this... (Score:2)
The point is, without the investigation there would be no crime. The only reason the crime occurred was because of the investigation. At least some have been historical charges unrelated to the trump campaign, russia, etc... Like manaforts 10 year old money laundering charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Give it time, innocent people usually don't lie to investigators ;-)
Re:So get this... (Score:5, Insightful)
The same James Comey, former registered Republican, who chose to gratuitously kneecap Hillary's campaign at the last minute, is the one who could not justify bringing charges against Hillary. And you think she benefitted from some kind of privilege in that matter?
Also CNN had staked out Stone's house for days beforehand because they strongly suspected Roger Stone would be arrested. That's good ol' fashioned American hard work, don't Republicans normally pretend to admire that sort of thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Where did Comey say this? The only explanation I've seen for why he released info about the investigation late in the game was that he felt it was important to be transparent about the state of the investigation. But he didn't feel the same way about the investigation into the Trump campaign, oddly enough.
But if he was biased in favor of Hillary and he thought that releasing that info on her campaign would actually be beneficial, why didn't he also disclose that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign
Re: (Score:2)
He's arrested for allegedly lying about how he communicated with wikileaks to "leak" information about Hillary's email server AFTER the election
That's not what the indictment says, he was lying about things which happened both during the campaign and after the election. Specifically, Stone was lying about the nature of his contacts with both WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know what all the capitalization is about.
The indictment clearly and obviously spells out Stone's lies about his activities during and after the campaign, including the period in the summer of 2016 when WikiLeaks was releasing the documents that Russians had stolen from the DNC. Stone was one of people between the campaign and WikiLeaks trying to... what's the word... coordinate? cooperate? something, about which documents that were stolen by the Russians they were going to release and when.
If yo
Re: (Score:2)
Can't it be both? Sure, it takes somebody utterly blinded by his own light for that, but Trump seems to qualify.
Re: Not much room left... (Score:2)
Reminds me of this famous SNL sketch [youtube.com]
Re:I find it unsettling (Score:5, Insightful)
And why he would be indicted with stuff instead of other things is because it's a simple charge to make stick - did he lie under oath? Bigly. Did he intimidate a witness / suborn perjury? Yup.
He's going to go jail and the only question is for how long. That depends on his cooperation with the investigation or not.
Re: (Score:3)
That depends on his cooperation with the investigation or not.
From what I heard, the prosecution is saying there should be no credit for cooperation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump isn't going to pardon him just like he's not going to Pardon Manafort. He'll use the excuse the crimes were unrelated to him just like he did with Cohen. Trump isn't loyal, he never has been, it's why it's so Ironic that he demands it. He'll gladly throw anyone to the wolves to save himself.
Can they stick Stone on state charges? (Score:2)
It isn't at all clear to me that Stone will go to jail unless they can stick him on some state charges, too. If it's only a federal rap, then #PresidentTweety is certain to pardon him for his "brave" silence.
Re:I find it unsettling (Score:5, Informative)
but when are they going to arrest any Democrat for blatantly lying before Congress about running arms to al-Qaeda and Mexican drug lords
When they actually do that. Turns out Inforwars isn't the best source of reality.
(Fast and Furious, btw, was a program started under W's administration. It had strict rules about the guns and following them....until one DEA agent broke all the rules about distributing guns, got caught, and started screaming to certain media outlets to cover his own ass. Difficult to indict a "whistle-blower" and Holder didn't want to try.)
giving $billions to Iran
That would be the Reagan administration.
having the GCHQ spy on the opposing party's candidates
[Citation Required]. No need have GCHQ do it when there's already a FISA warrant.
or any of a half dozen other scandals that would have gotten anyone other than America's First Black President impeached
Yeah, like Pizzagate, right? How'd you guys figure out to cover over the fact that the building doesn't have a basement?
It turns out, you don't have to actually tell the truth to put a story into the media. Lots of people will believe you are telling the truth when you're lying about, say, birth certificates. And many of a certain set of people will gladly eat up the tabloid reporting, so the tabloids keep doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Government breakdown: (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.nytimes.com/intera... [nytimes.com]
https://www.cheatsheet.com/cul... [cheatsheet.com]
Spoiler: for the worst lies, Obama raked in 2 per year, Trump was on course for 124 per year (but that only counted his first 10 months in office - it's higher now).
Re:No one cares (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, until the same standards of justice are applied equally, nobody gives a fuck about these indictments.
You don't speak for anyone else.
Why should we care if Roger Stone lies?
Because doing it was a crime. Try to keep up. The indictment is only 24 pages.
Oh, that's right, that will never happen, because they are not under investigation
2 years of Republican controlled White House and Congress, and no Democrats under investigation. It must be because Mitch McConnell and Trump and his buds are willing to let the Democrats break the law and get away with it. Yeah, that's the most obvious answer. Because they're such great friends.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The NY Times article isn't, this Slashdot one indeed is fake news.
"FBI Arrests Trump Associate Roger Stone Over His Communications With WikiLeaks"
Actual counts :
COUNT ONE (Obstruction of Proceeding)
COUNTS TWO THROUGH SIX (False Statements)
COUNT SEVEN (Witness Tampering)
He was arrested because he was too stupid to simply keep his mouth shut, not over his communications with Wikileaks.
Re:real news (Score:3)
So if you absolutely want to split hairs:
"FBI Arrests Trump Associate Roger Stone Over His Communications With WikiLeaks" is not quite accurate
"FBI Arrests Trump Associate Roger Stone Over His Communications ABOUT WikiLeaks" would fix the semantics.
Re: (Score:3)
They invested too much time and face into this. Even if they had no evidence about the communications at all, any lie to investigators they thought they could prove would have led to his arrest at this point. The reason for his arrest was because they thought they could prove those counts.
Of course they started the investigation because they were hoping they could prove something like commissioning a crime or conspiring to commit a crime. If that were one of the counts it would actually be over the communic