BREAKING: Mueller’s Prosecutor Abruptly Resigns From Roger Stone Case After DOJ Backs Down From Exce

What mindlessness is this. We are not discussing anything related to Mueller indicting the Russian Gov't.

We are discussing your demonstrably false claim that disseminating information related to the Hack made the disseminators co-conspirators.

Your brain is failing you - you are like blocking out stuff and can't maintain a coherent thought.

The opinion of a federal Judge deals directly with your specific claim - in a case directly related to the parties involved - dealing directly with the specific claim you are making - and states directly that your claim is false.

 

Prosecutors should only be arrested when they are caught rigging trials. In this case the trial was rigged, but only an investigation of the prosecution team can determine whether anyone on that team has committed a crime.

The jury foreperson is now fully exposed and should be arrested for her involvement in several serious felonies connected with the sham prosecution of Roger Stone.

 

Know what? Read the thread.

 

I have no problem...you are the one contradicting yourself. That may be your problem, not mine. No one is arguing the "truth" of the stolen information. But, true or false, it does not change the fact that it was stolen. No one is arguing that the e-mails were false. The argument concerns the way in which the e-mails were obtained...and that is where the crime lies. They were politically damaging, but Clinton paid the price for that. That doesn't eliminate the crime.

 

Meaning you have no answer?

 

I agree this budget deal is a non-starter. While I have argued for a self-sustaining system in lieu of the heavy dependence and reliance on government programs(which will, not maybe, will lead to increase taxation as demand increases. And no, it will not only be the 'rich'. Because if you read between the lines, they admit there's not that many rich people.)

Stocks and other forms of wealth aren't equitable forms of money. In fact, if they lose said stocks and derivatives, the real value will be revealed. It's better said to call these people "false millionaires" since their wealth is entirely focused on the value of the stock.

But my main point being is that we don't have the self-sustaining system yet, for people to 'bounce back up' and become productive individuals. I certainly am not a ruthless cutter for cut's sakes. I simply think making it more efficient will lead it to last in the long run.

And we're going to have to become a more self-sufficient and self-reliant country in the era ahead, as China becomes more draconian and as our European partners haven't been equitable with us either.

But I would aim to make the cuts as less drastic and as slow as possible. Again, to promote the self-efficiency. If people know to plan ahead, they generally will.

I also agree with you that Mitch McConnell should do the right thing and allow these bills to come up for a vote. It would allow for negotiation and discussion where there presently is none. Even if it's voted down, the House can work on it again.

So no, Mitch isn't doing the right thing. He's doing the political thing but I think the House should keep trying.

 

The grand jury is neither here nor there, as they only give a prosecutor permission to proceed to trial.

-OR-

Refuse to give a prosecutor permission to proceed to trial.

 

Where is the contradiction ? You have just gone some rant - accusing me of numerous things I did not say.

Now you claim "contradiction" but don't state what the contradiction is. ?

You then completely avoid addressing the fact that your "co conspirators" claim was proven false.

 

Are you referring to the 200+ hyperpartisan bills which demonstrated no attempt at compromise with the Republicans?

 

People are encouraged to believe in corrupt institutions. They have to at least try to dodge the truth, especially when it is right in their face.

"Certain popular institutions work the same way. They appear to stand for justice, defying unjust authorities; but in fact they help to keep the rulers in power. Although seeming otherwise, these institutions are thus domesticated within the hegemonic lie that the strong use to gain consent from the week."
THE PREVALENCE OF DECEIT, F. G. Bailey, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY 1991.Page 84.

 

All ancillary, just making up accusations doesn't make them true.

 

That's why Stone lied to investigators

Your melodramatic description is a cliche.

 

In fact, the DP party bosses run the House.
The USG cannot spend a dollar without their consent.

 

See whatever you want to see.

 

Yes...if those who disseminated the stolen information were aware that the e-mails had been obtained were stolen. Its the same way a pawn broker may be prosecuted in knowingly selling stolen objects. I have no idea why you even brought up the NY civil law suit, in which the judge confirmed the Mueller Report findings? Why do you think that relates to the Stone trial? Stone was not charged with or convicted of conspiring with the Russians or the Russian government for such dissemination. He was charged with witness tampering and lying to a Congressional Committee, thus obstructing justice.

 

Have a nice day.

 

Post a coherent question and I will try to answer it. Try to be specific if you can.

 

They indict or refuse to indict. My point was that the proper process was followed. A Grand Jury indicted Stone and a jury of his peers found him guilty on all counts.

 

You made very strong accusations against the Stone jury foreperson. What do you have that substantiates your charges? Certainly you may have at least one credible link/source?

 

"That's why Stone lied to investigators..."

What is why Stone lied to investigators?

"Your melodramatic description is a cliche."

My succinct and completely accurate description is neither melodramatic nor cliche. Your indefensible denial, in the face of universally known fact, is incredible.

 

I know the DNC allegations were untrue.

 

Pure evasion. Read the thread.

 

No, the 275 that were passed with bipartisan support in the United States House... Here's an excellent recap of what's outstanding

SNIP
Let’s start with the 116 roll call votes: 71 passed with the support of a majority of Republican members of the House, ranging from 100 votes to 196 votes. Seven bills passed with anywhere from 55 to 93 GOP votes, and 38 passed with fewer than 50 Republican votes — 23 of which passed with fewer than 10 Republican votes.

Escobar’s team flagged 175 bills that passed via a voice vote and have at least one Republican co-sponsor. Of those, 63 have Republican sponsors, meaning a Republican introduced the bill, and at least one Democrat as a co-sponsor.

Looking at the 112 bills with a Democrat as the sponsor, five have more than 50 Republican co-sponsors and the rest have 32 or fewer Republican co-sponsors. Of those, 95 have fewer than 10 Republican co-sponsors.
ENDSNIP

https://www.statesman.com/news/20200213/fact-check-how-many-bipartisan-bills-has-congress-passed

I know you have to try, but it's REAL hard to call bills that had an R INTRODUCE the bill "hyperpartisan"

Seriously.... READ those numbers... It's a D house, but there's stuff sitting in the inbox from both sides... Mitch doesn't really care which side it comes from, if it comes out of THIS House...

 

I'm not the one evading. Your lack of a source tells me you have none.

 

Except when Trump decides to play 3 Card Monte for his FenWall......