ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

RICO is arguably (IMHO blatantly) too easy to prosecute. Because of this, I wouldn't be completely shocked if Mueller pushes for an impeachment, even though the evidence he has is very weak and mostly process crimes. Naturally, the White House will ignore any indictment claiming a sitting president cannot be indicted, the courts should uphold that, and you'll never get conviction from the Senate.

Keep in mind, Reporter, that an indictment tends to have two parts: the prosecution's narrative of events first and the actual charges second. The first part is a story based on persuasion, the second based on proof and facts (and even then, sometimes insufficient proof for preventing reasonable doubt). You tend to quote from the "narrative" portion of indictments, instead of focusing on the meat and potatoes.

For instance, what do they believe they have Stone on, that they think they can actually prove?
1. That he had emails related to the October 7 WikiLeaks dump when he was asked if he had any such emails, and he said no, he didn't. (Imagine if the FBI asked you if you had any emails about such and such a topic. The ONLY prudent response is "I'm not sure, I'd have to check and get back to you.") If you ask me this is a bullshit offense until and unless we create something similar to Miranda rights where those interviewed by the FBI are explicitly reminded that any claim they make that they sincerely believe is true, that turns out to be untrue, will be considered a crime, and thus to avoid giving any statements about which one is not fully certain. If TheLightShinesOn got detained by the FBI and told them the Earth is flat, they'd indict him for it. The majority of the "false or misleading statements" charges are nothingburgers.

2. Apparently Stone told the FBI his connect at WikiLeaks was one person, when it was actually someone else. That doesn't seem to me like it could have been an innocent mistake. I honestly don't see how this isn't a legit count of perjury; doubtlessly the FBI recorded the interview and doubtlessly the person Stone named as his connect denies it and could provide evidence to support that denial. If Stone gets acquitted of all charges his lawyer is God-tier.

3. That he pressured his fake WikiLeaks connect to not share true information with the FBI — in other words, to play along as a fake. That's actually pretty damning if true, but I have yet to understand the nature of the evidence behind this charge. This makes the Stone case interesting rather because it could go either way. Suspense!

Still, that's it. The actual substance of the indictment has no Russia-related charges, only WikiLeaks-related charges involve him trying to hide his WikiLeaks connects — a not-unreasonable thing to do for a news organization that values anonymity. As a journalist (for all intents and purposes Stone was InfoWars staff, even if he was officially a "guest" in those days), I think Stone should have pursued legal defenses regarding the non-revealing of sources rather than perjuring himself, and I predict he'll be found guilty of at least one count of lying to the FBI and maybe the witness tampering for his poor judgement. Naughty boy, but not naughty in the ways that legitimately fit your russophobic narrative.

"

It's about public perception. The Trump/Putin conspirators are pushing the word "collusion" as the only possible crime to worry about, so that when "collusion" is ultimately never mentioned, they'll use it as an excuse to call it ALL bunk. The propaganda machine marches on. (Ain't gonna work though) ;)

I've made this argument before that the country would probably be better off if Trump is handily defeated in 2020 rather than impeached and removed from office. The reason I mention that again is that I just thought of another reason I might like the losing election scenario better. I think it might be more likely that whatever crimes Mueller comes up with (if any) our ex-President would be convicted and jailed, if he were a private citizen at that point.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

collusion - secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

That's great that you know how to use a dictionary, but mere collusion isn't illegal. Conspiracy — a subset of collusion involving cooperation to commit a crime — is illegal. For instance, the Clinton campaign colluded with major media outlets to promote what they called "Pied Piper candidates" such as Ben Carson and Donald Trump during the Republican primaries, but that wasn't technically a conspiracy because no US law prohibits news organizations from promoting the candidates they feel are weakest, instead of promoting the ones they feel are strongest.

That was exactly my point. It was in support of The_Reporter post where he explicitly stated that it was not always a crime. https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2031510/page/545#p16205864 As a matter of fact I had to visit 3 dictionaries to find a definition that made it clearer that it was not always a crime. :-)

Here was my first dictionary that I went to

Collusion - A secret agreement for an illegal purpose; conspiracy.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/collusion

Sorry, I can't remember what the second one was. ;-)

Mueller has had over two years to prove collusion...

You guys remind me of Wile E Coyote, always have a new way to get the trump.

"

He'd already be indicted if he weren't President. After his impeachment or resignation he WILL be indicted. He may even be indicted as President, because there is no law constitutionally forbidding it.

His best case scenario is if he works out a plea deal with Congress to resign in exchange for immunity.

Actually, Roger Stone was just indicted. Since they usually indict going up the ladder, the top rungs of the ladder would be next, maybe in the next few months? What we have almost zero visibility of is the state of the counter-intelligence investigation. That could be closed down or just starting to get going? Not sure if the DOJ would indict a sitting President unless it was like really bad finding from the counter-intelligence investigation or something?

A deal with Pence might be more likely? That might get pardons for him and his family. Likely would hold up in court much better than if Trump tried to do the pardons himself.

Of course this is all just idle speculation though. Call it hoping?

"

Turtledove wrote:

Actually, Roger Stone was just indicted.

The fbi can indict a ham sandwich if they want to. Didnt they indict him for perjury over a 2yr old email?

Im not sure how familiar you are with law, but perjury is only punishable if there was intent. Roger simply forgot about it, then handed it over. It has nothing todo with any current investigation but when you cant find anything after 2+ years you have to make stuff up to justify the expense.

Mueller (looks like bad guy from scooby do) is so desperate he got a hooker out of a thai jail because he thought she had something.

There is no collusion aside from the russian who spent 12k on facebook ads. Sour grapes from the democrats. Children who cant handle losing, thats why their side no longer keeps score in sports.

Btw, did anyone find it hillarious as to why they raided Stones house in the middle of the night?

They didnt want him to physically destory the data on his cloud. They dont even know how a cloud works, that data isnt at his house, lol

Between hillarys server that used "password" as the password, i really question the competency.