HUGE DEVELOPMENT: ROGER STONE Files Two Court Documents – BLASTS FBI and Mueller’s False Allegations

Were they.

Two cases of "lying" that didn't cover up any actual crimes.

One guy who evaded taxes having nothing to do with Russians that Mueller declined to prosecute in 2014.

Some Russians that were indicted that will never be adjudicated.

Some hoping and wishing that talking about firing Mueller represents "obstruction".

That's the absurdity of your entire narrative.

Oh no, in Roger Stone's case, he's asking the FBI to prove a crime was committed by Russia, not Trump, and it's going to be a fun ride.

 

So you can tell us how Mueller came to the conclusion. When did he look at the servers and interview Russian witnesses?

 

I am sure that you and Roger Stone enjoy running your heads into brick walls.

 

1. Yes it does. Corrupt intent is a requirement.
2. For things having nothing to do with Russia or Russian conspiracies.
3. Wrong, since the underlying crime and corrupt intent I already mentioned.
4. No, they don't. That's why the NSA only had medium confidence.

 

Says the people who are very angry their coup didn't work.

 

They had the images of the servers and we were already spying on the hackers

 

Mueller did not examine any images, and any images that had been provided came from the DNC's lawyers, who obtained them from a DNC employee called CrowdStrike, who were (very ironically), appointed as heads of cyber-security by Obama.

So the people who initiated the Trump-Russia collusion hoax provided all information regarding the "hack" to the intelligence agencies.

All information, opinions, and indictments stem from the people who funded the dossier.

 

Not true at all. You should read the indictment.
Unless you think the dnc was hacking Russia your claims are illogical

 

Oh I did read it.

Everything in it was based on information obtained from the DNC's report given to the US intelligence agencies.

It's illogical to question the Russian hacking narrative given to us by the people who created the Trump/Russia collusion narrative?

 

They had data from Russian computers, they DNC didn’t provide that lol

 

lmao @ "they had data from Russian computers".

Do tell. How did "they" get access to these Russian speaking PC's, and who is "they"?

 

This is old news indeed. Yes, the official narrative concocted by Mueller involves among other things the specious claim that the Russians hacked into DNC.

The FBI failed to even examine those supposedly hacked computers. They were too worried they would expose the hoax.

Veteran Intelligence Professionals noted early on that there was no hack involved. The DNC material in question was leaked, not hacked.

On the off chance that a conscientious and honorable judge gets Stone case, I hope Stone blows the DOJ guys out of the water.

 

I've read the indictments

 

Then you know the us govt was already spying on them

 

You’re cheering an accused criminal against your own govt, and the DOJ of a president you support? Should Barr be fired for allowing this to continue?

 

I'm cheering an accused criminal?

Have you ever heard of the old saying regarding criminal procedures in the US, "Innocent until proven guilty"?

Hell yes I'm pulling for Stone. The same organization, the US Department of Just Us, that ran guns in Fast & Furious, that has indicted and imprisoned Julian Assange, sponsored and promoted the Collusion Delusion. More crapola.

Hell yes I'm cheering for the defendant. US DOJ is rotten to the core. Clearly they won't indict Hillary for her crimes, but that hardly matters anymore.

 

Says the guy who voted for someone who deleted 33,000 emails while under subpoena.

 

Be a shame if this forced discovery of who exactly hacked the DNC.

China? A DNC insider?

 

I bet Saddam wished he could have sued for the WMD discovery.

 

We have long been in agreement.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...nitys_betrayal_of_their_responsibilities.html

More vital details not likely to be located on the Democrats own news networks.

June 15, 2019
Stone defense team exposes the 'intelligence community's' betrayal of their responsibilities
By Thomas Lifson
As the Russia Hoax is being unwound, we are learning some deeply disturbing lessons about the level of corruption at the top levels of the agencies charged with protecting us from external threats. One jaw-dropping example has just been exposed by the legal team defending Roger Stone.

Foundational to the entire narrative that Russia "interfered" with our election and that President Trump "colluded" with this interference is the conclusion issued by the "intelligence community" that the DNC emails were hacked by Russia. According to this assertion, the exposure of those emails affected the election, and therefore Trump benefited from Russian interference, and colluded by joking that Russia should locate the 30,000 emails Hillary Clinton deleted and BleachBitted, making recovery impossible.

There has already been ample reason to dismiss this collective judgment from the Intelligence Community, primarily focusing on the fact that the download speed of the emails could only have been achieved by loading it on a device attached to the server itself. It was too fast to have been sent via the internet to a hacker. But now, the Department of Justice had made an admission in response to a filing by Stone's defense team that reveals they did not carry out their basic responsibilities.

Sundance of Conservative Tree House explains:

Despite the Russian 'hacking' claim the DOJ previously admitted the DNC would not let FBI investigators review the DNC server. Instead the DNC provided the FBI with analysis of a technical review done through a cyber-security contract with Crowdstrike. (snip)

 

Commonly done by loyal party members of the Democratic party.

 

She was obligated to delete personal emails

 

Oh yeah. That's like when the FBI issues you a warrant for document seizures, you're obligated to review them and burn the non-applicable ones.

That's exactly what law enforcement wants you to do under subpoena of documents.

 

She told you that? If so, when?