Roger Stone's Time in the Barrel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Trump is sharing his orange make up with Stone. He's got it on and there is a big line where he missed a spot applying it. Maybe he should get some tips from Mr. Trump.

Liberal: I can’t argue with the truth so I’m going to say something stupid

Ummm, what? This is just a comment about Stone's stupid make up. Thought it would liven the debate or at the very least make someone chuckle. It is a bit ridiculous defending this media hound, don't ya think?

Your comment was beyond vapid. I'm not defending anyone - I'm simply interested in equal application under the law. The FBI seems to be weaponized for the Democrats, as I don't see Abedin nor Mills being perp-walked.

Maybe Abedin didn't commit any crimes or lie to the FBI. Has that thought even occurred to you?

OMG, the stupid just radiates off the screen:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/07/breaking-report-top-hillary-aide-huma-abedin-gave-false-statements-to-fbi-agents-in-2017-interview/

https://dailycaller.com/2017/12/04/clinton-aides-went-unpunished-after-making-false-statements-to-anti-trump-fbi-supervisor/

And for the people that missed it the first time I posted it:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-hanson-mueller-mccabe-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-james-comey-huma-abedin-investigation-0430-story.html

Yes, the stupid radiates from the screens of idiots linking to thegatewaypundit and daily caller. Why don’t you find some normal sources? Yours promulgate pizzagate and Jade helm conspiracies. Seriously, you are brainwashed and you’re too dunning-Kruger to see it.

+1 The sources are unreliable, and themselves are lying or Dunning-Krueger victims. I look at Abedin's actual F-302 the way a prosecutor or defense lawyer would, and it is not a prosecutable case. Anyone who thinks she is lying makes an unwarranted assumption about her meaning. Any 3rd rate defense lawyer could drive a truck through that assumption. I'd explain it, but Dunning-Krueger PP who called me stupid would not understand it.

Again, you ignore the Chicago Tribune. But of course you do. Brennan thought she and Mills were lying but I guess he's not nearly as smart as you are. Narcissistic much?

The Chicago Tribune published an opinion piece by a National Review columnist.

And?

As in, it's opinion piece by a conservative columnist, not a news article.

These idiots sit around all day watching FoxNews thinking that it’s all news, not opinions, because it’s called FoxNEWS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Love Roger Stone. Such a badass ... and with panache. The Nixon salute was priceless.

Weird that he's married to a woman. Stone's flame is brighter than a solar flare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Trump is sharing his orange make up with Stone. He's got it on and there is a big line where he missed a spot applying it. Maybe he should get some tips from Mr. Trump.

Liberal: I can’t argue with the truth so I’m going to say something stupid

Ummm, what? This is just a comment about Stone's stupid make up. Thought it would liven the debate or at the very least make someone chuckle. It is a bit ridiculous defending this media hound, don't ya think?

Your comment was beyond vapid. I'm not defending anyone - I'm simply interested in equal application under the law. The FBI seems to be weaponized for the Democrats, as I don't see Abedin nor Mills being perp-walked.

Maybe Abedin didn't commit any crimes or lie to the FBI. Has that thought even occurred to you?

OMG, the stupid just radiates off the screen:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/07/breaking-report-top-hillary-aide-huma-abedin-gave-false-statements-to-fbi-agents-in-2017-interview/

https://dailycaller.com/2017/12/04/clinton-aides-went-unpunished-after-making-false-statements-to-anti-trump-fbi-supervisor/

And for the people that missed it the first time I posted it:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-hanson-mueller-mccabe-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-james-comey-huma-abedin-investigation-0430-story.html

Yes, the stupid radiates from the screens of idiots linking to thegatewaypundit and daily caller. Why don’t you find some normal sources? Yours promulgate pizzagate and Jade helm conspiracies. Seriously, you are brainwashed and you’re too dunning-Kruger to see it.

+1 The sources are unreliable, and themselves are lying or Dunning-Krueger victims. I look at Abedin's actual F-302 the way a prosecutor or defense lawyer would, and it is not a prosecutable case. Anyone who thinks she is lying makes an unwarranted assumption about her meaning. Any 3rd rate defense lawyer could drive a truck through that assumption. I'd explain it, but Dunning-Krueger PP who called me stupid would not understand it.

Again, you ignore the Chicago Tribune. But of course you do. Brennan thought she and Mills were lying but I guess he's not nearly as smart as you are. Narcissistic much?

The Chicago Tribune published an opinion piece by a National Review columnist.

And?

As in, it's opinion piece by a conservative columnist, not a news article.

These idiots sit around all day watching FoxNews thinking that it’s all news, not opinions, because it’s called FoxNEWS.

The probywith this thinking is it allows liberals to dismiss facts addressed in the article. Did Mills and Abidin lie or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Trump is sharing his orange make up with Stone. He's got it on and there is a big line where he missed a spot applying it. Maybe he should get some tips from Mr. Trump.

Liberal: I can’t argue with the truth so I’m going to say something stupid

Ummm, what? This is just a comment about Stone's stupid make up. Thought it would liven the debate or at the very least make someone chuckle. It is a bit ridiculous defending this media hound, don't ya think?

Your comment was beyond vapid. I'm not defending anyone - I'm simply interested in equal application under the law. The FBI seems to be weaponized for the Democrats, as I don't see Abedin nor Mills being perp-walked.

What did they do wrong? What have they been charged with? The GOP had two years to investigate them. Did they?

Rosenstein, Mueller, Comey -- they are not Dems

You seem to believe that reality and laws have a liberal bias.

All protect Hillary

Yeah Comey protected her so much that she lost the election.

He actually did try to protect her but it backfired.

Because being stupid about emails is not illegal and not unAmerican.

She was freaking Secretary of State and supposedly a brilliant woman. You think she had no clue? Really?

Lol Ivanka didn't know better.

C'mon, everyone is so stupid about email. Not everyone has clandestine Russian contacts.

So you think Hillary had no clue. That says loads

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the time, the rules around emails and secure devices was such that Hillary didn't break any laws. Was it unethical to circumvent government email servers? Sure. But now, because of Hillary, it is illegal. So why is it ok for GWB and Se. Powell to have done the same thing Hillary did, and now it is ok for the Trumps to do it (and worse actually, because they have been explicitly told their devices are unsecure?)

She said she didn’t know what the C was for. Please!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the time, the rules around emails and secure devices was such that Hillary didn't break any laws. Was it unethical to circumvent government email servers? Sure. But now, because of Hillary, it is illegal. So why is it ok for GWB and Se. Powell to have done the same thing Hillary did, and now it is ok for the Trumps to do it (and worse actually, because they have been explicitly told their devices are unsecure?)

She said she didn’t know what the C was for. Please!

Are you still obsessing about HRC’s email?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Trump is sharing his orange make up with Stone. He's got it on and there is a big line where he missed a spot applying it. Maybe he should get some tips from Mr. Trump.

Liberal: I can’t argue with the truth so I’m going to say something stupid

Ummm, what? This is just a comment about Stone's stupid make up. Thought it would liven the debate or at the very least make someone chuckle. It is a bit ridiculous defending this media hound, don't ya think?

Your comment was beyond vapid. I'm not defending anyone - I'm simply interested in equal application under the law. The FBI seems to be weaponized for the Democrats, as I don't see Abedin nor Mills being perp-walked.

What did they do wrong? What have they been charged with? The GOP had two years to investigate them. Did they?

Rosenstein, Mueller, Comey -- they are not Dems

You seem to believe that reality and laws have a liberal bias.

All protect Hillary

Yeah Comey protected her so much that she lost the election.

He actually did try to protect her but it backfired.

Because being stupid about emails is not illegal and not unAmerican.

She was freaking Secretary of State and supposedly a brilliant woman. You think she had no clue? Really?

Lol Ivanka didn't know better.

C'mon, everyone is so stupid about email. Not everyone has clandestine Russian contacts.

So you think Hillary had no clue. That says loads

I don't think Hillary was a great candidate. But given the alternative, someone with no clue about so many things?

You can love Trump, if you want. And everyone who comes along with him, including Cohen, Manafort, Stone, Flynn, etc.

[Anonymous]

For those going on about Stone trying to steal someone's dog, yes he did. Reason you haven't heard? Because the dog was being mistreated and not getting proper medical care. He's a huge dog lover.

Just an example of yet another media manipulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Trump is sharing his orange make up with Stone. He's got it on and there is a big line where he missed a spot applying it. Maybe he should get some tips from Mr. Trump.

Liberal: I can’t argue with the truth so I’m going to say something stupid

Ummm, what? This is just a comment about Stone's stupid make up. Thought it would liven the debate or at the very least make someone chuckle. It is a bit ridiculous defending this media hound, don't ya think?

Your comment was beyond vapid. I'm not defending anyone - I'm simply interested in equal application under the law. The FBI seems to be weaponized for the Democrats, as I don't see Abedin nor Mills being perp-walked.

What did they do wrong? What have they been charged with? The GOP had two years to investigate them. Did they?

Rosenstein, Mueller, Comey -- they are not Dems

You seem to believe that reality and laws have a liberal bias.

All protect Hillary

Yeah Comey protected her so much that she lost the election.

He actually did try to protect her but it backfired.

Because being stupid about emails is not illegal and not unAmerican.

She was freaking Secretary of State and supposedly a brilliant woman. You think she had no clue? Really?

Lol Ivanka didn't know better.

C'mon, everyone is so stupid about email. Not everyone has clandestine Russian contacts.

So you think Hillary had no clue. That says loads

I don't think Hillary was a great candidate. But given the alternative, someone with no clue about so many things?

You can love Trump, if you want. And everyone who comes along with him, including Cohen, Manafort, Stone, Flynn, etc.

That you believe that Hillary didn't know the C was for classified has to be willful ignorance. That you would accept that as a defense is laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the time, the rules around emails and secure devices was such that Hillary didn't break any laws. Was it unethical to circumvent government email servers? Sure. But now, because of Hillary, it is illegal. So why is it ok for GWB and Se. Powell to have done the same thing Hillary did, and now it is ok for the Trumps to do it (and worse actually, because they have been explicitly told their devices are unsecure?)

She said she didn’t know what the C was for. Please!

Are you still obsessing about HRC’s email?

I'm 'obsessing' about the lack of equal application of law.

[Anonymous]

Fun Fact; There were more people (29) that took down Stone than Osama bin Laden (11)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those going on about Stone trying to steal someone's dog, yes he did. Reason you haven't heard? Because the dog was being mistreated and not getting proper medical care. He's a huge dog lover.

Just an example of yet another media manipulation.

Did you hear that on Infowars?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fun Fact; There were more people (29) that took down Stone than Osama bin Laden (11)

More people were scheduled to take down bin Laden but one of the helicopters crashed.

And what makes you think Stone would just go willingly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fun Fact; There were more people (29) that took down Stone than Osama bin Laden (11)

More people were scheduled to take down bin Laden but one of the helicopters crashed.

And what makes you think Stone would just go willingly?

Actually, it was 23 navy seals who went for Osama Bin Laden. Yes, a copter crashed, but it did so on landing and didn't hurt anyone on board, so they participated in the raid.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/02/politics/obama-osama-bin-laden-raid-helicopter-crash/index.html

As for the crazy NYDaily News article you posted..... really? You think this is an indication that Stone is a violent person? Someone who would go out with guns blazing even though he has never shown himself to be violent or aggressive?

Face it.... The FBI totally overdid the arrest, likely on orders from Mueller. And, if you think the CNN crew was there because they had a "gut feeling" that he would be arrested, well, as the saying goes..., I have a bridge to sell you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fun Fact; There were more people (29) that took down Stone than Osama bin Laden (11)

More people were scheduled to take down bin Laden but one of the helicopters crashed.

And what makes you think Stone would just go willingly?

Actually, it was 23 navy seals who went for Osama Bin Laden. Yes, a copter crashed, but it did so on landing and didn't hurt anyone on board, so they participated in the raid.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/02/politics/obama-osama-bin-laden-raid-helicopter-crash/index.html

As for the crazy NYDaily News article you posted..... really? You think this is an indication that Stone is a violent person? Someone who would go out with guns blazing even though he has never shown himself to be violent or aggressive?

Face it.... The FBI totally overdid the arrest, likely on orders from Mueller. And, if you think the CNN crew was there because they had a "gut feeling" that he would be arrested, well, as the saying goes..., I have a bridge to sell you.

What do you think indicates that someone a violent person?