Is there an 'agreed statement of facts'? I may have missed it.Sean Hayden wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:09 pm2. Get away from the implications of a plain reading of the facts
Do you think CNN had a copy of the indictment before Stone's lawyers?Sean Hayden wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:09 pm3. Misrepresent Stone's treatment as extraordinary despite expert testimony to the contrary as well as widespread knowledge of how the police have moved toward this type of apprehension in general.
Would it make a difference?
I'm just saying that I don't find a perp-walk convincing of much, except for the clear fact that this was a perp-walk.Sean Hayden wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:09 pm4. Use the above to portray the investigation itself as extraordinary for reasons other than the rather simple fact that the charges leveled at Trump and co, if true, combined with the range of players and variety of conspiracy are extraordinary.
I'm sure I'm missing loads. Also, you don't have to be a troll to engage in this.
If there is an agreed statement of facts, which include what you say, then I'd like to check it out.
But this is more noise about collusion, which has been the conspiracy theory of the left for years now.
You would think they would get a new one, what with this one being so empty, for so long.
Trump has been investigated more than almost everyone on earth. What did they find? Some locker-room talk?
Making fun of people?