Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:03 am
Forty Two wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:25 pm
Svartalf wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:40 am
well, talking to people is legal, it's up to Mueller to establish that the talks were actually a conspiration to meddle (successfully as it appears) with the electoral process.
...and to prove that the conspiracy to meddle was a violation of the law.
It's hard to imagine how one person talking to another in order to try to get "dirt" on political opponents is criminal meddling.
If that's all it was you might have a point. You know that 'criminal meddling', or conspiracy as it's usually called, is an agreement between parties to engage in some form of illegal conduct.
Are you aware of what the "illegal conduct" was? specifically? Not "to meddle" or "to interfere" - what did Stone do or agree to do that was an illegal act?
Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:03 am
Do you really think that the FBI arrested Stone simply because he was trying to get dirt or leverage on a political opponent for political purposes - i.e. just because he was doing politics?
Until I see something else set forth, then yes. Because that does look like what he was doing. They are hammering him for claiming he was in contact with wikileaks directly, and knew there was some juicy stuff coming out. That's part of it.
And, yet, Wikileaks wasn't doing anything illegal, as far as we know, and the FBI hasn't said they were. And, Stone talking to them would not be illegal.
Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:03 am
That is the point here though isn't it - giving the impression that Stone is being unfairly pilloried in the press and unduly singled out by the FBI just for going about his, normal everyday political business. Accepting that premise therefore means the FBI are actually engaged in a program of partisan political interference which they are prioritising above their duties as investigators and law enforcers. At some point you'll probably start complaining that the FBI have forced Stone to lie by asking him questions to which they already know the answers.
That isn't the point of it. What's the illegal act the FBI says he agreed to do?
The indictment does not allege any criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. Instead, it accuses Stone of making false statements, obstruction of a legal proceeding and witness tampering – charges that are related to Stone’s congressional testimony in 2017 about his contacts with WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign.
Here's what Vanity Faire said - "The only question was whether Stone’s interactions amounted to conspiracy, or—as he has maintained all along—whether he had no advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’s plans and was simply passing along public information." Only, that's not the "only" question. Given that "advance knowledge of wikileak's plans" is not itself a crime, or even wrong, one question is: "what did he do wrong again?" (referring to pre-investigation conduct). He's not charged with conspiracy, so, what was he doing that was a crime? And, why would that be a problem for the President?
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/01 ... -collusion
Like all these conversations, the article says what the anti-Trumpers say: "We can see collusion..." -- you can? Where? To do what? Collusion to do WHAT? Collusion to release wikileaks information, which isn't illegal to release?
According to the 24-page indictment, in or around June and July 2016, Stone informed “senior Trump campaign officials” that WikiLeaks had “documents whose release would be damaging to the Clinton campaign.”
So? So what? What if it was Stone informing senior Clinton campiagn officials that that wikileaks had documents damaging to the Trump campaign? It's not illegal or even wrong to know about some entity having damaging documents.
Later, an unnamed individual “directed” a senior Trump campaign official to “contact Stone about any additional releases and what other damaging information” WikiLeaks—identified as “Organization 1” in the filing—“had regarding the Clinton campaign.”
Again, so? What's wrong with that?
Sometime after the release of the first cache of e-mails on July 22, Stone allegedly “told the Trump campaign about potential future releases of damaging material” by WikiLeaks.
So?
Of course, Stone was not indicted on charges of collusion or conspiracy. Rather, as Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani noted, he was indicted for process crimes. Which invites the question: could Mueller not find an underlying crime?
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/01 ... -collusion
Sure, those process crimes can be very serious. But, they are characteristically different from an underlying criminal conspiracy of some kind. The article quotes people as saying how this smells or hints at collusion - the trump campaign wanted what the Russians had stolen. First, nobody knew at the time where wikileaks got their documents, and we still don't know. IT'S NOT A CRIME TO RECEIVE STOLEN INFORMATION - SEE PENTAGON PAPERS. And, there isn't anything wrong with wanting to see it. And, there is a good argument to make that the shady tactics and communications revealed in wikileaks dumps are valuable information for voters. Are the laws here to protect wrongdoers, allowing their nefarious emails and communications to be ignored, just because some other evildoers got ahold of them? I wouldn't want that rule to apply to the Trump administration. I'm sure the CIA doesn't like what wikileaks dumped about Venezuela, but so what - the CIA are not elected officials, and if they're toppling governments without the President's knowledge, then he and we have a right to know about it, and if they are toppling governments WITH the President's knowledge, then there is HUGE problem and the President should have to answer for it. It doesn't matter if someone "stole" the CIA's documents -- maybe it matters to the person who had an obligation not to steal it, or to the hacker - but to an innocent party who happens to receive copies of them distributed? That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar