Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
plague311 said:
Can you break that metadata down in your link for me? I'm not sure how it shows that the evidence came from the FBI and not the courts. I'm always so excited to hear you speak on a technical level that I just can't wait now.

Please, feel free to get as technical as you want, I think I can follow.
Click to expand...

HI! This is a legal issue, you see the document that CNN received was NOT a file stamped legal copy from the court file. But they had it within 20 minutes of the arrest???

Now what would excite all of us if you wanted to regale us with your exciting breakdown of the metadata.
 
The Big Dog said:
HI! This is a legal issue, you see the document that CNN received was NOT a file stamped legal copy from the court file. But they had it within 20 minutes of the arrest???

Now what would excite all of us if you wanted to regale us with your exciting breakdown of the metadata.
Click to expand...

A few simple questions. Are Roger Stones lawyers using the metadata as proof? If you're saying it's just a file stamp, why did they link to the metadata at all? Is it your position that the only reason Stone's lawyers are making this claim is because the stamps aren't on the documents (that aren't being shown in that article despite them claiming they've received copies?)

ETA: This is the best line too "... indeed the Office of the Special Counsel, who colluded with the notoriously anti-Trump news network to produce a propaganda broadcast of the arrest that is reminiscent of the Nazi era tactics of the Gestapo and propaganda ministry lead by Joseph Goebbels."

and

"To help Roger fight back against this rogue prosecutor, patriots can visit StoneDefenseFund.com."

That is some next level ******** right there and the bias is just bleeding from that whole article. I mean, even for a "news source" as lame as the gateway pundit.

They also, conveniently don't link to documents that they claim to have repeatedly in the article. All you get is an Apple Metadata box. Hell, even TBD's claim that it doesn't have the stamps isn't confirmed anywhere in that entire article.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
Why should anyone get upset at all? There's absolutely no evidence that what TBD claims is the truth.
Click to expand...

Because the FBI and DoJ abuses are rampant regardless of what happened to this guy. That is why TBD needs to get behind us in the complaints line.
 
Drums fingers expectantly about how CNN got an unfiled copy of the sealed indictment at 6 am...
 
The Big Dog said:
Drums fingers expectantly about how CNN got an unfiled copy of the sealed indictment at 6 am...
Click to expand...


Twiddles fingers wondering why any of this matters anyway. Who gives a rat's arse? I don't!


I simply file all this under "media finds out when scumbag is about to be arrested" shocker!
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
Drums fingers expectantly about how CNN got an unfiled copy of the sealed indictment at 6 am...
Click to expand...

I agree, now if you could just provide some evidence to backup that horse **** drivel you called a news story, we could move on.

Do you have any evidence to backup the claims in that article? If not, rescind and admit it's unproven.
 
TBD said:
Drums fingers expectantly about how CNN got an unfiled copy of the sealed indictment at 6 am...
Click to expand...
1) No proof it was unfiled.
2) Because Stone's lawyers were given it at 5am, and they were the ones claiming Stone was harassed so they have constructed a tower of falsehoods on this, so they whined via Gateway Pundit that CNN was harassing their tattooed client boo hoo.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Gateway pundit is not credible.
Click to expand...

Cool, cool.

Had an actual copy to the actual letter stone’s lawyer actually sent to the court.

Funny we were going to get regaled with tales of metadata, but that seems to have gone by the wayside.

Curious.

I could have used a good regaling!
 
The Big Dog said:
Cool, cool.

Had an actual copy to the actual letter stone’s lawyer actually sent to the court.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything?

The Big Dog said:
Funny we were going to get regaled with tales of metadata, but that seems to have gone by the wayside.
Click to expand...

I asked you to explain it to me since it was your article. It's not my fault you're doing your best Ali impersonation by dodging having to take responsibility and support your argument.

The Big Dog said:
Curious.
Click to expand...

Not really, seems to be SOP if you ask me.

The Big Dog said:
I could have used a good regaling!
Click to expand...

Look at that metadata, then look at the "evidence" they are claiming supports their story. The initials AAW, which they think is Andrew Weissmann, they aren't even really sure as they say:

who is suspected to be
Click to expand...

Yeah, rock solid stuff there TBD. The rest of it they just show metadata, but they compare it to absolutely nothing. Then throw in the fact that they say they received the evidence, but don't even link to actual evidence. It's a long winded story from a lawyer supported by 2 images of metadata, that doesn't support what they're claiming.

So again, break it down for me and give me the evidence, or rescind it and say it's unproven. It's just that easy.
 
plague311 said:
What does that have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

It is cool, there was literally no way that you were going to address the actual issues about how CNN got an unfiled copy of the indictment at 6 am.

Instead you were bragging about teaching us all about metadata, but abandoned that.

Oh well.
 
The Big Dog said:
It is cool, there was literally no way that you were going to address the actual issues about how CNN got an unfiled copy of the indictment at 6 am.

Instead you were bragging about teaching us all about metadata, but abandoned that.

Oh well.
Click to expand...

There is no reason to say anything about it until the story is substantiated. Nothing personal.
 
The Big Dog said:
It is cool, there was literally no way that you were going to address the actual issues about how CNN got an unfiled copy of the indictment at 6 am.

Instead you were bragging about teaching us all about metadata, but abandoned that.

Oh well.
Click to expand...

Dood, I literally just explained it. There isn't anything there. There's absolutely zero evidence in that article at all that supports anything they're saying. Yet, for some reason they claim to have actual evidence that they aren't showing in that article at all.

Conveniently though, you left out the rest of my post that clarified that.

It's cool, I'm sure no one noticed. :thumbsup:

I didn't abandon anything. I thought I was pretty clear. There's absolutely nothing in that article that supports their claim in any way, shape or form. I even said, "you just get two apple metadata boxes".

I'm asking you to support your article with actual evidence. If you don't have any, just say that. This is getting pretty blatant at this point.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
Just wait until we see TBD break down this metadata for me. I have some very interesting things to show him.
Click to expand...

plague311 said:
Dood, I literally just explained it. There isn't anything there. .
Click to expand...

Hey! What happened to the very interesting things that you were going to show us?

Was the interesting thing the fact that there "isn't anything there"? Because that is not interesting at all.

protip: look at the actual letter...

Still looking forward to you regaling us.
 
It looks for all the world like a typical Roger Stone "dirty trick", for which he is famous for decades and boasts about it himself at length to all and sundry.

Just that he is utterly crap at it every time. But hey ho.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom