Status
Not open for further replies.
Stone is in a predicament not unlike Cohen. When you're on record as one the biggest liars known to man, and you're so idiotic that it's your credo to lie, you're not useful to prosecutors as a witness. He's not apt to get a sweet deal like Flynn. One might say that Stone will be hoisted with his own retard.


He doesn't need to be useful as a witness if he has cold, hard evidence he can barter with.

Cohen was smart enough to make recordings. Stone is smarter than Cohen. I wouldn't be surprised if he has something worthwhile to Mueller stockpiled away somewhere.
 
Last edited:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/politics/mueller-report-whitaker/index.html
Headline:
Acting AG Whitaker: Mueller investigation 'close to being completed'

And... there's an expectation that Whitaker will try hard to hide anything to do with Trump in it based on what he's said. An unindicted co-conspirator is still unindicted, after all! Even if that's only because of an arbitrary and likely somewhat political decision from the Watergate era and the person in question would otherwise be buried in indictments.
 
Man, those on the left are so deluded and conspiracy minded. They were predicting that he would be talking to Trump, not Pence! Wrong again, those losers!:rolleyes:

If I was conspiracy minded, I'd wonder whether Barr and Pence were talking about the removal of Trump, given the results of the Mueller probe.
 
Seth Ambramson thread on why this is likely not true

FWIW, he mostly blames the press for distorting what Whitaker said for the sake of a story, rather than Whitaker for saying it.

Someone here said recently that Rachel Maddow is "beyond thorough". I agree with that, but its clear that Seth Abramson is beyond "beyond thorough".

Absolutely everything in this tweet series makes perfect sense and is extremely hard to fault.

His analysis is flawless.
 
Seth Ambramson thread on why this is likely not true

FWIW, he mostly blames the press for distorting what Whitaker said for the sake of a story, rather than Whitaker for saying it.

As usual, Abramson's analysis was a good read. I'd like to put forward a variation on Abramson's interpretation (and this doesn't actually conflict with what Abramson said):

When Whitaker said that investigation was "close to being completed," that wasn't necessarily a chronological thing. Suppose Mueller's status report said,"We're expecting a total of about 110 indictments. We've executed 37 so far, we filed 15 sealed indictments, we have 38 more waiting to be filed, and we're working on about 20 more." That makes it look like Mueller's almost done, though to the rest of the world, we've seen only about 1/3 of it.
 
Thorough thorough Poet:

"And everything from Whitaker *must* come with a mountain of salt: he was, pre-AG, a Trump plant at DOJ briefing Trump about the Russia probe behind Sessions' back, and pre-AG he said, in effect, that the probe was legitimate."

So, he said the probe was legit? well if he is thorough, I guess it must be
 
Thorough thorough Poet:

"And everything from Whitaker *must* come with a mountain of salt: he was, pre-AG, a Trump plant at DOJ briefing Trump about the Russia probe behind Sessions' back, and pre-AG he said, in effect, that the probe was legitimate."

So, he said the probe was legit? well if he is thorough, I guess it must be

Wow, that was surprisingly content-free, even for you.
 
Thorough thorough Poet:

"And everything from Whitaker *must* come with a mountain of salt: he was, pre-AG, a Trump plant at DOJ briefing Trump about the Russia probe behind Sessions' back, and pre-AG he said, in effect, that the probe was legitimate."

So, he said the probe was legit? well if he is thorough, I guess it must be

Why is the highlighted part not illegal?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom