Mueller arrests Roger Stone (but who tipped off CNN?)

[Tassman]

And the sky could be blue.

It's no big deal. CNN itself explains how it came to be there:

"The rare, dramatic video from CNN Friday capturing the early morning FBI raid of longtime Donald Trump confidante Roger Stone's Florida home was the product of good instincts, some key clues, more than a year of observing comings at the DC federal courthouse and the special counsel's office -- and a little luck on the timing".

"They were there staking out Stone because there was just enough evidence lurking in the special counsel's activity over the past week that CNN's team covering the Mueller investigation placed a bet that Stone could be arrested as early as Friday".

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/25/p...aid/index.html

[oxmixmudd]

And the sky could be blue.

The pertinant quote from my post is

"There is no evidence anywhere that could convince you it was anything other than a tip - right? So on to something else."

Jim

[Mountain Man]

It's no big deal. CNN itself explains how it came to be there:

"The rare, dramatic video from CNN Friday capturing the early morning FBI raid of longtime Donald Trump confidante Roger Stone's Florida home was the product of good instincts, some key clues, more than a year of observing comings at the DC federal courthouse and the special counsel's office -- and a little luck on the timing".

"They were there staking out Stone because there was just enough evidence lurking in the special counsel's activity over the past week that CNN's team covering the Mueller investigation placed a bet that Stone could be arrested as early as Friday".

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/25/p...aid/index.html

Riiiiight. And that allowed them to pinpoint within the hour when a secret and unusual FBI raid was happening. As the saying goes, that doesn't pass the smell test. And, yes, this is highly unusual. Seriously, how many times in the FBI's history have they sent a heavily armed SWAT team to arrest a non-violent senior citizen for a process crime? Normally in these situations, the plaintiff is sent a notice asking him to turn himself in, so why would CNN show up within the hour with cameras rolling just in time for the morning shows? The most likely answer is that someone on the inside tipped then off with the intent of influencing public perception.

Of course this wouldn't be the first time the dirty cop leaked something...

https://nypost.com/2017/11/06/robert...-leak-problem/

[Mountain Man]

The pertinant quote from my post is

"There is no evidence anywhere that could convince you it was anything other than a tip - right? So on to something else."

What evidence? CNN's explanation is vague and doesn't offer any specifics. You're far too gullible if you think this was just good journalism.

Based on everything we know, "tipped off by Dirty Cop Mueller" is the most likely explanation.

[JimL]

And the sky could be blue.

Hurry Ollie, get out the tin foil hats.

[Mountain Man]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump confidant Roger Stone may be accused of lying and tampering with witnesses, but it’s equally notable what he’s not charged with: colluding with the Kremlin in a grand conspiracy to help Trump win the presidency in 2016.

...

The Stone case is in some way reminiscent of Mueller prosecutions that have accused former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen of lying to Congress about his role in a Moscow real estate project; former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn of lying about his contacts with the Russia’s U.S. ambassador; and ex-campaign aide George Papadopoulos of lying about his knowledge that Russia had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of stolen emails.

In none of those cases did prosecutors say the things the defendants lied about were crimes themselves.

https://apnews.com/10b780d45d9e4c52b3546916347e2040

© Copyright Original Source

Somebody needs to bury this dead horse of an investigation before it gets any more rotten.

[Tassman]

Based on everything we know, "tipped off by Dirty Cop Mueller" is the most likely explanation.

Only for those who are prepared to take any wacko conspiracy theory to exonerate "dirty president Trump". Six down, only Jared, Pence and Trump to go.

[Mountain Man]

"Six down" ... for process crimes that only exist because Dirty Cop Mueller is on a witch-hunt to take down a duly elected President of the United States. It's disgraceful. Even the Associated Press, that bastion of liberal propaganda masquerading as a legitimate news source, has been forced to admit that "In none of those cases did prosecutors say the things the defendants lied about were crimes themselves."

I've explained how these things work when a prosecutor is trying to work his way up the food chain: first, you charge the small fish with the big crime, flip him in exchange for a lighter sentence, then use his testimony as evidence against the big fish. No competent prosecutor would allow one key witness after another to go down with a perjury charge because it destroys their credibility and makes easy work for the defense.

So that leaves us with two options: 1) Mueller is incompetent. Now I don't believe that. He's corrupt as hell, there can be no doubt, but I don't think he's incompetent; or 2) Nothing-burger process crimes that actually undermine his overall case are the best he's got after two-years.

And thems the facts, Jack.

[Tassman]

"Six down" ... for process crimes that only exist because Dirty Cop Mueller is on a witch-hunt to take down a duly elected President of the United States.

Well the much respected Robert Mueller is certainly getting his witches.

As for the "duly elected president of the USA", the whole point of the investigation is to determine whether or not your "duly elected president" was helped into power by a hostile foreign power, namely Russia. It's sure looking that way.

It's disgraceful.

[Mountain Man]

Well the much respected [ -MM] Robert Mueller is certainly getting his witches.

Yeah... process crimes, which is just about the weakest charge you can bring against the target of an investigation. If the dirty cop had anything worthwhile then we would have seen evidence of it by now in his indictments.

[JimL]

Yeah... process crimes, which is just about the weakest charge you can bring against the target of an investigation. If the dirty cop had anything worthwhile then we would have seen evidence of it by now in his indictments.

Process crimes, Ollie? Why do you think they are all lying to the FBI and going to jail for it? You should want Trump to be impeached just for hiring so many crooks in the first place. "I know all the best people," Ya right! Only a simpleton would think that his hiring a bunch of crooks was a mistake, and only a dope would continue to defend him.

[oxmixmudd]

What evidence? CNN's explanation is vague and doesn't offer any specifics. You're far too gullible if you think this was just good journalism.

Based on everything we know, "tipped off by Dirty Cop Mueller" is the most likely explanation.

CNN's explanation is they could tell an arrest was imminent and they determined to stake out Stones house over the next few days in the hopes of getting lucky.

If an arrest was imminent, and the CNN crew was planning on being there day in and day out for a few days to a week, they'd have gotten the scoop regardless of when it happened. There is nothing all that 'unlikely' about it.

As I said, if they are telling the truth, there is nothing on this planet that could convince you they are telling the truth, so the only way to make you happy would be for all of CNN's reporters to stop trying place themselves in the right place at the right time - in which case they'd lose there jobs because they weren't doing their jobs. So you, once again, are just that mocking, cynical, skeptical voice in the background encouraging suspicion, paranoia, and chaos in the world.



Jim

[Mountain Man]

Why do you think they are all lying to the FBI and going to jail for it?

Did you miss the AP story, Jimmy? Even they have been forced to concede that

"In none of those cases did prosecutors say the things the defendants lied about were crimes themselves."

https://apnews.com/10b780d45d9e4c52b3546916347e2040

[Mountain Man]

CNN's explanation is they could tell an arrest was imminent and they determined to stake out Stones house over the next few days in the hopes of getting lucky.

If an arrest was imminent, and the CNN crew was planning on being there day in and day out for a few days to a week, they'd have gotten the scoop regardless of when it happened. There is nothing all that 'unlikely' about it.

As I said, if they are telling the truth, there is nothing on this planet that could convince you they are telling the truth, so the only way to make you happy would be for all of CNN's reporters to stop trying place themselves in the right place at the right time - in which case they'd lose there jobs because they weren't doing their jobs. So you, once again, are just that mocking, cynical, skeptical voice in the background encouraging suspicion, paranoia, and chaos in the world.

Right, and what luck, huh? An almost unprecedented FBI raid on a non-violent senior citizen accused of a white collar crime. When has the FBI ever sent dozens of heavily armed SWAT officers into a similar situation? It's pretty much unheard of, so what "clues" did CNN use to stake out Stone's home within an hour of his arrest? Their sketchy narrative simply doesn't pass the smell test. William of Ockham would say the most likely explanation is that they were given inside information.

[JimL]

Did you miss the AP story, Jimmy? Even they have been forced to concede that

"In none of those cases did prosecutors say the things the defendants lied about were crimes themselves."

https://apnews.com/10b780d45d9e4c52b3546916347e2040

Yeah, so tell us then Ollie, if there were no crimes, what was the purpose of all their lying. People lie for a reason.