Writing in The New York Times, Weissmann also pushed a false claim about the criminal charges against Stone, whose prison sentence Trump commuted on Friday.Speaking of Andy Weissass and the Mueller team, a new favorite, "shipwreckedcrew" (apparently an anonymous former federal prosecutor) from Red State dismantles their case against Stone in The Drafting of the Indictment Against Roger Stone Shows The Duplicity Of Mueller’s Special Counsel Prosecutors. This is long, detailed and lawyerly and worth every word, but I'll pull a single example:
Weissmann, who is currently an MSNBC analyst, asserted that Stone was convicted on charges of “lying to Congress about the coordination between the Trump 2016 campaign, Mr. Stone, WikiLeaks and Russia.”
Stone was convicted on five counts of making false statements to Congress, an obstruction charge and a witness tampering charge, none of which involved allegations of coordination between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks, or anything to do with Russia.
The special counsel’s report said that no Trump associates were found to have coordinated with the Kremlin or to have taken part in the hacking or release of emails that WikiLeaks published.
I’ve read through Roger Stone’s indictment several times. The first time I read it I was struck by the fact that I had trouble following the connection between the “facts” and the charged offenses. After I read it again I became convinced that the confusion was purposeful. The indictment was written in such a way that the nature of the relationship between the “facts” and the charged offenses would be convoluted. In my opinion, the purpose behind the drafting was to “tie” Stone to the nefarious actions of the Russians about which he had no involvement. This was accomplished by “suggesting” such an involvement purely as a result of Stone’s lies to Trump campaign officials about those nefarious actions – statements presented in the indictment in a fashion suggesting they are true when the SCO knew the statements were false.The whole purpose of pursuing Stone was to attempt to keep the Russia collusion narrative alive, and to hurt Trump. Andy Weissass is still at it.
Rather than be forthright in the indictment and acknowledge that Stone was lying when he engaged in certain conversations with third parties, the indictment is silent about the truth or falsity of Stone’s statements to others, and merely lays out what he was alleged to have said. They do this by employing the kind of “qualifiers” I mentioned above. When you know what you are looking for, these qualifiers jump out and make you take a closer look what the indictment is really saying reading “between the lines.”
By using Stone’s words in this fashion, the indictment spins a story which is factually false but tells it in such a way that the reader is going to at first glance conclude Stone statements constitute “facts” themselves suggesting that the story is true. But the SCO knew it was false, but nevertheless wrote the indictment in such a way as to make it easy to misconstrue the story told as being true.
Here are some examples of what I’m referring to:
5. During the summer of 2016, STONE spoke to senior Trump Campaign officials about [Wikileaks] and information it might have had that would be damaging to the Clinton campaign.The SCO admits in the indictment with the bolded language that in the summer of 2016 Stone didn’t know what Wikileaks had – his conversation with other campaign officials is speculation about Wikileaks might have, not facts about what Wikileaks had. The indictment had to be written that way because the SCO knew that Stone had NEVER been able to make contact with Wikileaks/Assange prior to October, 2016, and the first contact they could find was one of antagonism after Wikileaks had made a public comment that it had no association with Stone. But the indictment doesn’t clarify – as was true – that in the summer of 2016 Stone, in fact, had no knowledge or information about Wikileaks beyond that which had appeared in the press.
But with the language in the indictment appearing the way it did, the former SCO members now, and their fellow-travelers in the press, continue to push the narrative that Stone was sharing information with the Trump Campaign in the summer of 2016 about what Wikileaks had, supporting the false innuendo that Stone had been in contact with Wikileaks/Assange in the same time frame in order to acquire that information.
That is all false.
Sundance at CTH, Keep Hammering – Devin Nunes Keeps Mueller Fraud in Tight Focus…
Nicholas Ballsy at JTN, Susan Rice says Obama admin. was 'absolutely' not spying on Trump campaign, just like the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous demonstration in response to a video.
"Absolutely no, it did not happen. That is false. That is another lie designed to deflect from the president's own very bizarre relationship with Russia; to distract from the much validated reality that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump," Rice said during a discussion with Washington Post Live.Sundance, DOJ Spox Kerri Kupek Discusses “Operation Legend”, China and The John Durham Investigation…
Smart and fierce DOJ spokesperson Kerri Kupek discusses DOJ Operation Legend, an organized and focused effort by the federal government to reduce crime and violence stemming from Antifa and other violent extremists.
Additionally, Ms. Kupek discusses the DOJ taking a stronger approach toward the corrupt influence of China within various U.S. systems (economic, political and social). Lastly @4:30 Kerri outlines the status of John Durham’s ongoing investigation: “the restoration of that one-tiered system of justice.”
Tristan Justice at Da Fed, House Judiciary Republicans Refute Democratic Narrative On Fired US Attorney
House Republicans made four primary points in their Monday memo refuting the Democratic narrative:The Peacock whines that White House officials sent document to Pentagon criticizing Vindman after impeachment testimony. When you strike at the king . . .
I. Berman stubbornly resisted the Attorney General’s attempts as an amicable transition for Berman out of his position in favor of a Senate-confirmed United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.Read the Republican memo here: GOP Memo On House Judiciary Interview of Geoffrey Berman
II. Berman did not testify that any specific wrongdoing, misconduct, or other impropriety occurred during his dismissal by the Attorney General
III. Berman believed himself to be independent of supervision from superior officers in the Executive Branch and immune from removal from his position
IV. Berman’s purported concerns about the Attorney General’s actions are unfounded, vague, and lacking specific evidence.
On the downfall of Russiagate alum Jeff Sessions, Jazz Shaw at Hot Air thinks Sessions Went Down Fast, Hard, And… Gracefully EBL says Jeff Sessions, Goodbye đź‘‹
Jeff Sessions was just over his head and not up for this fight. I do not vilify him for recusing himself, he was blocked in by the Democrats, but he should have seen that trap coming and never let himself be set up as he was. That is true for Michael Flynn too (and for that matter Donald Trump). The problem is none of them anticipated how dirty and corrupt the FBI and the Democrats really were.
So why I don't think the President should dump on Sessions as much as he does, I recognize why he does so. Flynn was loyal and fought. Stone and Manafort stayed loyal and fought back. They all suffered terrible losses doing so. Sessions basically stepped back and did not have the President's back.Sessions could have been more effective than he was.
No comments:
Post a Comment