Roger Stone Indictment

[Seabass]

https://www.wired.com/2016/09/actually- ... es-better/

FOLLOWING FRIDAY AFTERNOON'S FBI release of documents about Hillary Clinton’s private email servers, Julian Assange, CNN, and Donald Trump have all railed against the revelation that her aide smashed two of her 13 private BlackBerrys with a hammer in an attempt to destroy them. Trump, with his usual talent for avoiding nuance, summed up the criticism: “People who have nothing to hide don’t smash phones with hammers." But ask a few security and forensics experts, and they'll tell you Clinton's mistake wasn't destroying the devices. If anything, she should have wrecked them more thoroughly.

Whether you're a Secretary of State with a phone full of classified documents or an average sext-sending citizen, data removal is a crucial security step before you let a device leave your control or recycle it. And security experts agree there's at least one surefire way to be certain that data is truly removed and unrecoverable: kill the hardware. "You destroy that certain piece that’s storing the critical information, and there’s little chance you’re going to get it back," says Eric Brown, a lab manager at the forensic data-recovery firm Flashback Data. "It doesn’t matter how much money you throw at it or how much experience you have."

On the question of transparency rather than security, none of this should let Clinton off the hook entirely. It's still not clear whether her efforts to eliminate her data were motivated by the desire to conceal information as her critics imply or dedication to information security—or a bit of both. But given that Clinton was relying on a handful of aides with limited resources to act as her entire IT infrastructure, it was the right idea from a security standpoint to attempt to destroy the devices rather than letting them sit exposed in a local Goodwill, says Jonathan Zdziarski, an iOS forensics expert and security researcher. He says the FBI report "shows that [Clinton's aides] were very serious about wanting to destroy the content, but very inexperienced with how to do it."

Clinton's approach to her phones and their disposal, in other words, may have fit with her overall track record for handling sensitive data, which FBI director James Comey has himself described as "extremely careless." But the worst screwups she and her staff made, like setting up her private server outside the federal government's protection and losing a backup of those emails on a computer sent through the mail, were moves that threatened to let sensitive data leak, not make it disappear. Friday's FBI release even showed that one of Bill Clinton’s staffers, who was using the same private email server, was actually hacked and had her emails and attachments accessed by that intruder.

Clinton clearly committed some gross errors in judgment in her IT decisions. But having her aides bust out a hammer wasn't one of them. If anything, it should have been a jackhammer.

[Animavore]

Why is whataboutism always in the form of, "Well this other person also lied and committed crime and they got away with it so why the big deal now?" And not, "This other person got away with lying and committing crime so let's make sure it doesn't happen again and deter others from pursuing it."?


It's the most fucked up argument ever.

[Cunt]

Why is whataboutism always in the form of, "Well this other person also lied and committed crime and they got away with it so why the big deal now?" And not, "This other person got away with lying and committing crime so let's make sure it doesn't happen again and deter others from pursuing it."?


It's the most fucked up argument ever.

When a law is enforced unevenly, especially with political motivation, it only bothers those who are on the losing end.

This is why laws should not only BE fair, but need to be SEEN to be fair.

Of course, if your bias says fair, then it MUST be fair, right?

[Seabass]

Why is whataboutism always in the form of, "Well this other person also lied and committed crime and they got away with it so why the big deal now?" And not, "This other person got away with lying and committing crime so let's make sure it doesn't happen again and deter others from pursuing it."?


It's the most fucked up argument ever.

In this case, it's even worse than whataboutism. Hillary didn't do the things he's accusing her of. It's a falsewhataboutism...

[Animavore]

Why is whataboutism always in the form of, "Well this other person also lied and committed crime and they got away with it so why the big deal now?" And not, "This other person got away with lying and committing crime so let's make sure it doesn't happen again and deter others from pursuing it."?


It's the most fucked up argument ever.

In this case, it's even worse than whataboutism. Hillary didn't do the things he's accusing her of. It's a falsewhataboutism...

It doesn't need to be true for my point. Whataboutism is a tacit admission you know something is wrong.

[pErvinalia]

It's also really juvenile. It's like the childish refrain - "I know what I am, but what are you?!".

[Animavore]

It's also really juvenile. It's like the childish refrain - "I know what I am, but what are you?!".

It's more like when a squealing little tattletale says, "He did it too!"

[Joe]

Why is whataboutism always in the form of, "Well this other person also lied and committed crime and they got away with it so why the big deal now?" And not, "This other person got away with lying and committing crime so let's make sure it doesn't happen again and deter others from pursuing it."?


It's the most fucked up argument ever.

In this case, it's even worse than whataboutism. Hillary didn't do the things he's accusing her of. It's a falsewhataboutism...

Or a Forty Tu Quoque.

[Hermit]

Forte tu quokka

[Joe]

[rainbow]

Sure, it is a crime to knowingly mislead investigators. But, not every misstatement or error is that. Also, there is a difference when there is not "there" there. I.e., if you're looking for buried treasure, and I say, "go look under the porch" and you look under the porch and there isn't any buried treasure there, because there isn't any buried treasure anywhere, have I "misled" you?

Drivel. We are talking about misleading an investigation, nothing else. buried treasure, my arse

...so you're admitting that it is in fact a crime in the US?

If it's within the purview of 18 USC Section 1001, yes. In any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States - a knowingly and willfully false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, could be a crime. It doesn't apply to "volunteered" information (provided not in response to an inquiry), and doesn't apply to denials of guilt. The knowing and willful falsity requirement involves intent - so, not all false statements are "lies" and violations of the law. If you believe you are telling the truth, but you're mistaken, then it's not a "lie," but as we can see over years of cases, the FBI likes to characterize untruths as wilfully made. That's a real issue with talking to the police or the FBI -- as we all know - witness testimony is notoriously unreliable - one person may think red is green and the other green is red and both believe their stories. Which is "lying?" The FBI could charge whoever is wrong with misleading them. If there wasn't an underlying crime, and someone mad e a false statement about when or where or with whom some conversations 2 years ago occurred, is that really something that should itself be prosecuted as a crime?

What are you babbling on about?
If one knowingly misleads investigators, there is intent.
Stop trying to muddy the waters. You are fooling nobody but yourself.

[Brian Peacock]

well, talking to people is legal, it's up to Mueller to establish that the talks were actually a conspiration to meddle (successfully as it appears) with the electoral process.

...and to prove that the conspiracy to meddle was a violation of the law.

It's hard to imagine how one person talking to another in order to try to get "dirt" on political opponents is criminal meddling.

If that's all it was you might have a point. You know that 'criminal meddling', or conspiracy as it's usually called, is an agreement between parties to engage in some form of illegal conduct. Do you really think that the FBI arrested Stone simply because he was trying to get dirt or leverage on a political opponent for political purposes - i.e. just because he was doing politics? That is the point here though isn't it - giving the impression that Stone is being unfairly pilloried in the press and unduly singled out by the FBI just for going about his, normal everyday political business. Accepting that premise therefore means the FBI are actually engaged in a program of partisan political interference which they are prioritising above their duties as investigators and law enforcers. At some point you'll probably start complaining that the FBI have forced Stone to lie by asking him questions to which they already know the answers.

[Brian Peacock]

...At some point you'll probably start complaining that the FBI have forced Stone to lie by asking him questions to which they already know the answers.

I don't believe it!

...
If it's within the purview of 18 USC Section 1001, yes. In any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States - a knowingly and willfully false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, could be a crime. It doesn't apply to "volunteered" information (provided not in response to an inquiry), and doesn't apply to denials of guilt. The knowing and willful falsity requirement involves intent - so, not all false statements are "lies" and violations of the law. If you believe you are telling the truth, but you're mistaken, then it's not a "lie," but as we can see over years of cases, the FBI likes to characterize untruths as wilfully made. That's a real issue with talking to the police or the FBI -- as we all know - witness testimony is notoriously unreliable - one person may think red is green and the other green is red and both believe their stories. Which is "lying?" The FBI could charge whoever is wrong with misleading them. If there wasn't an underlying crime, and someone made a false statement about when or where or with whom some conversations 2 years ago occurred, is that really something that should itself be prosecuted as a crime?

Depends what they were talking about I guess. The context isn't abstract or relative, it's concrete and absolute. Waffling on about hypothetical, imaginable scenarios doesn't mean that every purportedly non-illegal thing you can think of applies equally to the Stone business. You know this, but keep it up if it helps.

[Forty Two]

So, make the argument from your assessment of the specific context of the Roger Stone case. I don't agree that the context is concrete here. What's concrete here is that there is no underlying crime - that's concrete. He's being prosecuted for things like, saying it's person A that told him X when really it was person B. A lot of that indictment is very thin, and should be concerning to people, because it's a powerful political weapon.

[Forty Two]

well, talking to people is legal, it's up to Mueller to establish that the talks were actually a conspiration to meddle (successfully as it appears) with the electoral process.

...and to prove that the conspiracy to meddle was a violation of the law.

It's hard to imagine how one person talking to another in order to try to get "dirt" on political opponents is criminal meddling.

If that's all it was you might have a point. You know that 'criminal meddling', or conspiracy as it's usually called, is an agreement between parties to engage in some form of illegal conduct.

Are you aware of what the "illegal conduct" was? specifically? Not "to meddle" or "to interfere" - what did Stone do or agree to do that was an illegal act?

Do you really think that the FBI arrested Stone simply because he was trying to get dirt or leverage on a political opponent for political purposes - i.e. just because he was doing politics?

Until I see something else set forth, then yes. Because that does look like what he was doing. They are hammering him for claiming he was in contact with wikileaks directly, and knew there was some juicy stuff coming out. That's part of it.
And, yet, Wikileaks wasn't doing anything illegal, as far as we know, and the FBI hasn't said they were. And, Stone talking to them would not be illegal.

That is the point here though isn't it - giving the impression that Stone is being unfairly pilloried in the press and unduly singled out by the FBI just for going about his, normal everyday political business. Accepting that premise therefore means the FBI are actually engaged in a program of partisan political interference which they are prioritising above their duties as investigators and law enforcers. At some point you'll probably start complaining that the FBI have forced Stone to lie by asking him questions to which they already know the answers.

That isn't the point of it. What's the illegal act the FBI says he agreed to do?

The indictment does not allege any criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. Instead, it accuses Stone of making false statements, obstruction of a legal proceeding and witness tampering – charges that are related to Stone’s congressional testimony in 2017 about his contacts with WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign.

Here's what Vanity Faire said - "The only question was whether Stone’s interactions amounted to conspiracy, or—as he has maintained all along—whether he had no advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’s plans and was simply passing along public information." Only, that's not the "only" question. Given that "advance knowledge of wikileak's plans" is not itself a crime, or even wrong, one question is: "what did he do wrong again?" (referring to pre-investigation conduct). He's not charged with conspiracy, so, what was he doing that was a crime? And, why would that be a problem for the President? https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/01 ... -collusion

Like all these conversations, the article says what the anti-Trumpers say: "We can see collusion..." -- you can? Where? To do what? Collusion to do WHAT? Collusion to release wikileaks information, which isn't illegal to release?

According to the 24-page indictment, in or around June and July 2016, Stone informed “senior Trump campaign officials” that WikiLeaks had “documents whose release would be damaging to the Clinton campaign.”

So? So what? What if it was Stone informing senior Clinton campiagn officials that that wikileaks had documents damaging to the Trump campaign? It's not illegal or even wrong to know about some entity having damaging documents.

Later, an unnamed individual “directed” a senior Trump campaign official to “contact Stone about any additional releases and what other damaging information” WikiLeaks—identified as “Organization 1” in the filing—“had regarding the Clinton campaign.”

Again, so? What's wrong with that?

Sometime after the release of the first cache of e-mails on July 22, Stone allegedly “told the Trump campaign about potential future releases of damaging material” by WikiLeaks.

So?

Of course, Stone was not indicted on charges of collusion or conspiracy. Rather, as Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani noted, he was indicted for process crimes. Which invites the question: could Mueller not find an underlying crime?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/01 ... -collusion

Sure, those process crimes can be very serious. But, they are characteristically different from an underlying criminal conspiracy of some kind. The article quotes people as saying how this smells or hints at collusion - the trump campaign wanted what the Russians had stolen. First, nobody knew at the time where wikileaks got their documents, and we still don't know. IT'S NOT A CRIME TO RECEIVE STOLEN INFORMATION - SEE PENTAGON PAPERS. And, there isn't anything wrong with wanting to see it. And, there is a good argument to make that the shady tactics and communications revealed in wikileaks dumps are valuable information for voters. Are the laws here to protect wrongdoers, allowing their nefarious emails and communications to be ignored, just because some other evildoers got ahold of them? I wouldn't want that rule to apply to the Trump administration. I'm sure the CIA doesn't like what wikileaks dumped about Venezuela, but so what - the CIA are not elected officials, and if they're toppling governments without the President's knowledge, then he and we have a right to know about it, and if they are toppling governments WITH the President's knowledge, then there is HUGE problem and the President should have to answer for it. It doesn't matter if someone "stole" the CIA's documents -- maybe it matters to the person who had an obligation not to steal it, or to the hacker - but to an innocent party who happens to receive copies of them distributed? That's a good thing, not a bad thing.