[Winstonm]

Chas_P, on 2019-January-29, 19:07, said:

I read today that Mueller sent in more men (clad in body armor and carrying loaded semi-automatic weapons) to arrest 66 year-old Roger Stone, indicted by Mueller for lying to Congress, than were sent in to attempt a rescue of Chris Stephens and other Americans when they were under siege by Islamic militants in Benghazi during the Obama Presidency with HRC as Secretary of State. If this is true I agree with you 100%. The country is in deep stuff and I too hope for the best.

That's awfully white of you.

[kenberg]

Chas_P, on 2019-January-29, 19:07, said:

I read today that Mueller sent in more men (clad in body armor and carrying loaded semi-automatic weapons) to arrest 66 year-old Roger Stone, indicted by Mueller for lying to Congress, than were sent in to attempt a rescue of Chris Stephens and other Americans when they were under siege by Islamic militants in Benghazi during the Obama Presidency with HRC as Secretary of State. If this is true I agree with you 100%. The country is in deep stuff and I too hope for the best.

I have no strong opinion, make that no opinion, comparing these two events. I am massively ignorant of the details of either. As a guess, Mueller secured an indictment, however that is done, and then informed the FBI, and then left the details of the arrest to them. I doubt that Mueller told the FBI how many agents they should use to make the arrest. I would assume the FBI agents are often/usually/always armed when they go to arrest someone on substantial multiple charges. Already I am doing a lot of guessing and assuming. I really don't know arrests at all. Isn't there a song like that?


As far as his age is concerned, 66 is a youngster. I don't own a gun, and I don't run as fast as I used to, but also I am not expecting the FBI to appear at my door either.

I rarely second guess such things. They could have sent in fewer agents, then maybe there would have been a tussle, maybe someone would have been shot, then people would say why didn't they send in enough agents to keep that from happening. If I take up a second career as an FBI agent I'll have opinions on how best to make an arrest.
Short answer: Surely nobody really cares how many agents were sent. Or at least I don't.

[johnu]

Chas_P, on 2019-January-29, 19:07, said:

...
Fox Propaganda and Roger Stone sh*t deleted
...

You have no self control and are embarrassing yourself once again. As I said last month

Quote

Posted 2018-December-16, 22:48

Quote

View Postjohnu, on 2018-October-25, 20:20, said:

Apparently you have Dennison's disease and can't remember that you quit this forum. Or maybe you just don't have any integrity and your word means nothing.

Quote

At least try to have some fake self respect. Just create a new username and pretend that you are a new poster. I can suggest a couple of names for you:

Chas_Miller
Chas_Barron
Chas_Dennison

and a new one, Chas_R_Stone

[Al_U_Card]

kenberg, on 2019-January-29, 20:52, said:

If I take up a second career as an FBI agent I'll have opinions on how best to make an arrest.
Short answer: Surely nobody really cares how many agents were sent. Or at least I don't.

Mueller surely wouldn't either....he never had anything to do with the FBI...
Besides, they sent 20 cops to arrest someone that snuck into the Texas theatre without paying, didn't they?
When intimidation is your best weapon, you are certainly hiding something about the veracity and value of your position.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2019-January-29, 20:52, said:

I have no strong opinion, make that no opinion, comparing these two events. I am massively ignorant of the details of either. As a guess, Mueller secured an indictment, however that is done, and then informed the FBI, and then left the details of the arrest to them. I doubt that Mueller told the FBI how many agents they should use to make the arrest. I would assume the FBI agents are often/usually/always armed when they go to arrest someone on substantial multiple charges. Already I am doing a lot of guessing and assuming. I really don't know arrests at all. Isn't there a song like that?


As far as his age is concerned, 66 is a youngster. I don't own a gun, and I don't run as fast as I used to, but also I am not expecting the FBI to appear at my door either.

I rarely second guess such things. They could have sent in fewer agents, then maybe there would have been a tussle, maybe someone would have been shot, then people would say why didn't they send in enough agents to keep that from happening. If I take up a second career as an FBI agent I'll have opinions on how best to make an arrest.
Short answer: Surely nobody really cares how many agents were sent. Or at least I don't.

Fox and Friends has been making much about the fact that armed agents were sent in to arrest Stone and, as such, there's quite of lot of easy to find information about why the FBI choose to act in the way that it did...

1. The FBI sent agents rather than letting Stone surrender because they wanted to be able to seize property that the feared Stone would otherwise destroy. (Cell phones, computers, etc)

2. The FBI chose to send armed agents because the charges against Stone included threatening violence against Corsi.

All of this is completely standard practice by the FBI...

[Winstonm]

Charles_P...come on down! You're the next contestant on the exciting new game show: False Equivalency!

[andrei]

hrothgar, on 2019-January-30, 10:25, said:

1. The FBI sent agents rather than letting Stone surrender because they wanted to be able to seize property that the feared Stone would otherwise destroy. (Cell phones, computers, etc)

Like HC did?

It was common knowledge he was under investigation, so if he needed to destroy some evidence it was already taken care of.

Like HC did.

hrothgar, on 2019-January-30, 10:25, said:

2. The FBI chose to send armed agents because the charges against Stone included threatening violence against Corsi.

Is this for real?

hrothgar, on 2019-January-30, 10:25, said:

All of this is completely standard practice by the FBI...

Sending tens of agents?

[hrothgar]

andrei, on 2019-January-30, 11:36, said:

Is this for real?

Sending tens of agents?

FFS, do some basic reading before you gift us with your inane opinions...

https://www.lawfareb...ot-heavy-handed

I do applaud your transparent attempts to ignore the fact that Stone was arrested, preferring instead to invent complaints about the manner in which he was arrested...

Not quite up to the earlier cry of "Benghazi", but at least its a different complaint.

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2019-January-30, 12:19, said:

FFS, do some basic reading before you gift us with your inane opinions...

https://www.lawfareb...ot-heavy-handed

I do applaud your transparent attempts to ignore the fact that Stone was arrested, preferring instead to invent complaints about the manner in which he was arrested...

Not quite up to the earlier cry of "Benghazi", but at least its a different complaint.

The cited article makes for interesting reading, so thanks.

Not surprisingly, the arrest, and the manner of arrest, is explained. But my basic thinking was and is this: If I ever get arrested by the FBI, I really hope I can come up with something better than "Oh horrors, they sent too many agents to arrest 80 year old me". Why anyone would buy into this desperate attempt at distraction totally escapes me. Often I can understand a view even if I disagree.but this just seems nuts. Stone got indicted on multiple and serious federal charges stemming from an investigation of national and international importance. So we will debate how many agents should have been involved in making the arrest? This simply cannot be taken seriously.

Basically the article says that the FBI had good reasons for their choices. I'm not surprised, but even if the article said it seemed they used more agents than necessary this would not rattle me to the core. An indicted guy got arrested. He didn't like it. Well, I wouldn't like it if I got arrested by the FBI. Even if it was just one agent I wouldn't like it. So?

[johnu]

Al_U_Card, on 2019-January-30, 09:41, said:

Mueller surely wouldn't either....he never had anything to do with the FBI...
Besides, they sent 20 cops to arrest someone that snuck into the Texas theatre without paying, didn't they?
When intimidation is your best weapon, you are certainly hiding something about the veracity and value of your position.

LOL. Stone has said he thought he was going to be indicted (and arrested) since at least May, 2018.

Roger Stone acknowledges he might be indicted

Maybe he could have avoided the FBI raid by self-arresting himself or taking a vacation to a country without an extradition treaty with the US. Stone seemed absolutely giddy with happiness after being taken into custody. Just looking at and listening to him, one might have thought that Mueller had dropped all charges against him. That was in sharp contrast to Dennison that same day announcing victory in ending the government shutdown. Dennison looked like his bone spurs were killing him and he had just been drafted into the military.

BTW, since you apparently don't know, government's intimidation factor against criminals is the threat of indictment and arrest (and ultimately punishment).

[Winstonm]

Bad news today for Jr. The Republicans named their House Intelligence Committee members so now the committee can meet and vote on sending transcripts of testimony to the Special Council's Office. Lying to Congress is a felony, as Stone and Cohen learned.

At the same time, the same Washington Grand Jury that indicted Stone is still in operation meaning there must be more indictments coming concerning contact with WikiLeaks and Assange.

[y66]

From Why Trump’s Tariffs Didn’t Help Create More Steel Jobs by Joe Deaux at Bloomberg:

Quote

Visiting the massive steel mill in Crawfordsville, Ind., operated by Nucor Corp., the largest American steelmaker, helps explain why the much-ballyhooed steel tariffs promoted by Donald Trump have so far been a bust for the steelworkers he successfully courted in his 2016 presidential bid. The Crawfordsville facility, set amid sprawling acres of farmland, looks like many other plants. But the 30-year-old factory has the ability to shrink or expand production at will, depending on demand by customers, while employing pretty much the same number of workers.

That flexibility is why, as the first year of Trump’s steel tariffs comes to a close, the U.S. industry’s biggest players are enjoying increasing demand and revenue but adding few of the jobs promised during the campaign. “They’re expanding production, demand is really strong in the country, and crude steel production will rise as imports remain low, but they’re not hiring much,” says Cicero Machado, a steel analyst at metals researcher Wood Mackenzie. The firm forecast that the number of U.S. steel jobs barely budged last year despite a bump in output from the tariffs.

[Chas_P]

Winstonm, on 2019-January-29, 19:16, said:

That's awfully white of you.

I appreciate your support Winnie. That's awfully white of you too and I thank you from the heart of my bottom.

[Chas_P]

Winstonm, on 2019-January-30, 10:55, said:

Charles_P...come on down! You're the next contestant on the exciting new game show: False Equivalency!

Or Selective Persecution depending on one's point of view.

[Chas_P]

hrothgar, on 2019-January-30, 10:25, said:

Fox and Friends has been making much about the fact that armed agents were sent in to arrest Stone and, as such, there's quite of lot of easy to find information about why the FBI choose to act in the way that it did...

1. The FBI sent agents rather than letting Stone surrender because they wanted to be able to seize property that the feared Stone would otherwise destroy. (Cell phones, computers, etc)

2. The FBI chose to send armed agents because the charges against Stone included threatening violence against Corsi.

All of this is completely standard practice by the FBI...

You may find this interesting.

[Winstonm]

On a larger scale and from a higher perspective, isn't it amazing how when Individual-1 shows signs of imminent Russian-related trouble his disciples suddenly appear and try to change the subject?

Let's get serious about Roger Stone. He is accused of lying to Congress, witness tampering, and obstruction regarding his contacts with the organization that released documents stolen by Russian hackers for the purpose of interfering with democracy in the United States.

That is the story and the only Stone story right now that matters.

[johnu]

Chas_P, on 2019-January-30, 20:01, said:

You may find this interesting.

What I find interesting is that your word means nothing and you don't have the "tegridy" to stop posting on this thread. At least have enough self respect to start posting under a 2nd user name.

[hrothgar]

Chas_P, on 2019-January-30, 20:01, said:

You may find this interesting.

Couldn't care less about Dershowitz's opinion on this or anything else...
He lost whatever credibility he had a long time ago.

Its interesting that Dershowitz chose to publish this on the Gatestone Institute's web site.
Dershowitz normally uses this site for bigoted attacks on Muslims or parroting Russia Today talking points rather than defending Trump...

https://en.wikipedia...stone_Institute

[kenberg]

johnu, on 2019-January-30, 23:37, said:

What I find interesting is that your word means nothing and you don't have the "tegridy" to stop posting on this thread. At least have enough self respect to start posting under a 2nd user name.

It wasn't a pledge signed in blood. Some time back I indicated I was going to stop, and I still try to keep it to a minimum but we get to change our mins. A few (?) years back Richard announced he was going to stop. "Thanks for all the fish" I believe he said.

Posting is a tricky business. We don't actually know each other. Not in a way that we know people that we see over time in various settings. It matters. Example: My wife Becky walks with a group of women on Saturdays, men are welcome, and I sometimes go. One of them is quite a serious Christian and a Republican. She is also a very good person, I enjoy her company greatly, she came to my 80th birthday party and mentioned later how much she enjoyed talking with my older daughter, whose religious views, and really her political views as well, could be described as complicated. Definitely not a church goer or a Republican, but that only says what she is not.

Anyway there are times i think "Why am I posting my thoughts to people that I would not recognize if I saw them in the check-out line at the grocery store?" I learn things from reading posts, but still ....

As far as Dershowitz goes, I hope to never need him. Even bad people are entitled to a good lawyer, I not only accept that I praise it, but that doesn't mean that I congratulate him on his success in getting people off that should not get off. If I ever slice someone up I really hope he will represent me. Meanwhile I can happily ignore him.

[johnu]

kenberg, on 2019-January-31, 07:37, said:

It wasn't a pledge signed in blood.

Chas_R_Stone never really stopped after saying he would. He had a petulant, childish outburst because his mostly ridiculous links and quotes from right fringe sources were skewered by actual facts and started to decompose once they saw the light of day. If I was a moderator, I would have held him to his word and helped him keep his dignity by taking away his posting privileges. Just like the BBO playing area, you can just create a new ID and keep on playing/posting.

I'm just trying to help him get a fresh start.