Mueller Investigation pt4

[KDLarsen]

You don't know that. It could have been anyone including local authorities.

It could even have been the fact that Mueller empaneled a grand jury on a thursday instead of the usual friday, and the last time that happened, indictments followed the very next day.

And given how coy Stone has been about his involvement with the Individual 1Trump campaign, Guccifer 2.0, and Organisation 1WikiLeaks, and yet still remained unindicted, I'd imagine someone put two and two together and came up with Roger Stone.

Edit: An article laying out how CNN got the scoop. They were even discussing and namedropping Stone as a potential indictee last night: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/how-cnn-beat-everyone-to-roger-stone

 

[The Big Dog]

It's ridiculous that TBD is whining about Stone's treatment when TBD's Dear Leader is on record telling police officers to slam peoples' heads into cop cars.

Ad hominem fallacy of the tu quoque variety.

That is what is ridiculous.

 

[KDLarsen]

It's ridiculous that TBD is whining about Stone's treatment when TBD's Dear Leader is on record telling police officers to slam peoples' heads into cop cars.

He's only following Roger Stone's modus operandi: Attack, attack, attack. Never let up. Never go on the defensive.

 

[The Big Dog]

He's only following Roger Stone's modus operandi: Attack, attack, attack. Never let up. Never go on the defensive.

It should go without pointing out the irony in posting this in response to an ad hominem fallacy.

Simply another example that the first thing that TDS attacks is critical thinking.

 

[Segnosaur]

I guess it's just my military background. In Afghanistan we didn't use that level of response to literal enemies. We didn't roll that deep and strapped just to go get one guy and the guys we had to dealt with were a little more dangerous than a 66 year old politician.

I expect different rules of engagement and/or different goals apply here.

I suspect you probably 1) had more leeway to return fire if the situation called for it, 2) probably didn't have to deal as much with executing search warrants.

Maybe it's just a perspective thing. On duty we guarded an entire Guided Missile Cruiser in port with like... 8 guys, 6 with side arms, two with long arms....

I think its a little different when you're guarding something (i.e. are acting in a defensive capacity where you know the terrain) compared to when individuals are actually taking offensive action (i.e. trying to actively arrest someone in another location.) But that's just a guess.

My assumption that the claims of "excessive force" when executing Stone is just a combination of:
- Officers/agents wearing standard gear common during arrests
- Being more agressive to prevent the destruction of evidence
- Arriving in larger numbers in order to execute a search of the premises (i.e. needing more people to do the search)

 

[Molinaro]

So? Are you saying that local authorities did not aid the operation? That they weren't alerted to it?

If people are going to question how those making the arrest were geared up, they should talk about the correct group of people who were making the arrest.

That was the only point I intended to make.

 

[Molinaro]

Yes.
Yes.

Are you literally not even familiar with CNN’s cover story.

Come on.....

Are you saying that your evidence is nothing more than the fact that you dismiss the facts as stated by CNN?

 

[The Big Dog]

Are you saying that your evidence is nothing more than the fact that you dismiss the facts as stated by CNN?

Add a so on the front next time.

CNN did not claim that they had a crew on standby there, they claimed that they went there because of activity at the grand jury, the problem being that there were other experienced local media who were also monitoring the docket and were not tipped off.

A basic understanding of CNN’s own story is the minimum one should expect.

 

[Crossbow]

Just saw CNN exclusive video of federal agents' paramilitary-style Roger Stone arrest in Florida this morning. 'Many lights, heavy weaponry,' according to CNN producer on scene.



FBI tips off the leader in fake news of the FBI using gestapo tactics to arrest a 66 year old guy for process violations.

Video credited to CNN producer L. Riefenstahl

Another fine example of total hypocrisy in action.

When it was Hillary Clinton who was facing legal trouble, then 'The Big Dog' was all for her being treated like a criminal.

False, I said the scumbag SHOULD be frogmarched to prison, but that she very well will not be.

On the other hand? "Not indicted" is about as low a standard as you can get for an actual Presidential Candidate.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11241821#post11241821

And now, when it is another Trump lackey who is in legal trouble, all of sudden 'The Big Dog' is terribly concerned about him being treated like criminal.

 

[plague311]

I think this is most likely. Is it known if CNN was the only news network there, or if they are just the one most people will go to?

It has been posted upthread that Fox is not reporting this at all. If true, for a supposedly "dominant" and "accurate" news network they really missed the boat on this one

One of the CNN anchor's explicitly said on their show this morning that they had people staked out at Stone's place. The reason I so distinctly remember it is because I said to my mother-in-law (Who watches her news, I can't stand it) that people just staking out a house is pathetic and people deserve privacy.

ETA: I don't have a link or anything, I just heard it. It was at about 7:40-7:50 central standard time on CNN if someone can look it up by the criteria and cares enough. I don't.

 

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue
This. All this proves is that somebody was staked outside stones house with a camera and CNN was the person with the deep enough pockets to buy it first.

Uh, CNN claimed they got the idea from sitting on the grand jury.

What is going on here?

Yes, what is going on here?

You claimed that CNN was tipped off about the arrest by Mueller in order to serve as propaganda.

Now you're pointing out that it was due to CNN following the actions of the grand jury. Yes, that does suggest JoeMorgue was wrong in his claims that CNN just bought the footage. But it also illustrates that you were wrong in your claims that there was a tip-off. (And you spent a lot more time claiming that it was a tip off than JoeMorgue's claim that it was purchased footage, so you should be a lot more embarrassed than him.)

 

[Molinaro]

Add a so on the front next time.

CNN did not claim that they had a crew on standby there, they claimed that they went there because of activity at the grand jury, the problem being that there were other experienced local media who were also monitoring the docket and were not tipped off.

A basic understanding of CNN’s own story is the minimum one should expect.

You are asserting they were tipped off without providing any evidence.

 

[acbytesla]

//Slight hijack, don't want this to go too far down the rabbit hole, especially since other forces would spin a way I'm not wanting to//

I guess it's just my military background. In Afghanistan we didn't use that level of response to literal enemies. We didn't roll that deep and strapped just to go get one guy and the guys we had to dealt with were a little more dangerous than a 66 year old politician.

Maybe it's just a perspective thing. On duty we guarded an entire Guided Missile Cruiser in port with like... 8 guys, 6 with side arms, two with long arms and we just wore the vests, with the full trauma plate, helmet setup just ready if we deemed it necessary. After you do that for 20 years watching a dozen cops all geared up with long rifles doing a tactical stack upside an APC all to arrest a wheelchair bound, blind and deaf thalidomide baby that ripped a tag off a mattress just looks pretty farcical.

But again (and to counter the "Oh so it's a problem when it happens to rich white men..." comment) I've always found police responses excessive. You don't need a tank and a sniper position to arrest someone behind on their child support payment. Watching the police react to a threat with a level of force the military doesn't react to threats with has always struck me as odd and off putting.

I can appreciate that. It seems as if every police force has turned to paramilitary weapons and tactics and they roll them out every chance they get.

My best friend is a Seattle Police Officer and he looks at it in a few ways. On the one hand he doesn't like it. But he also is aware that lots of people are packing and even when things are expected to go routinely, it sometimes isn't the case.

Best to have an overwhelming force that discourages problems then not have enough and a problem where a fellow officer get shot.

 

[Aber]

I guess it's just my military background. In Afghanistan we didn't use that level of response to literal enemies.

The President has just ensured you've missed another paycheck; there's an opportunity to arrest a close friend of the President.

I assume there were plenty of volunteers.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The President has just ensured you've missed another paycheck; there's an opportunity to arrest a close friend of the President.

I assume there were plenty of volunteers.

and/or, any agent signing up for the arrest might have been paid by the funds of the Mueller probe, which aren't affect by the shutdown.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, what is going on here?

You claimed that CNN was tipped off about the arrest by Mueller in order to serve as propaganda.

Now you're pointing out that it was due to CNN following the actions of the grand jury. Yes, that does suggest JoeMorgue was wrong in his claims that CNN just bought the footage. But it also illustrates that you were wrong in your claims that there was a tip-off. (And you spent a lot more time claiming that it was a tip off than JoeMorgue's claim that it was purchased footage, so you should be a lot more embarrassed than him.)

No. One expects that one would spend time thinking about things.

A poster made up out of whole cloth an excuse that even the CNN did not try to make. CNN’s own excuse contradicts that assertion (as does other evidence), that precludes that made up excuse but does not prove that CNN’s excuse was correct.

Let me show this using a simple analogy.

Perp: I killed him in self defense.
Wrong excuse maker: it could have been someone else.
Critical thinkers: the fact he claimed he killed the person precludes the claim that it was someone else, but does NOT PROVE he did it in self defense.

 

[Segnosaur]

Add a so on the front next time.

CNN did not claim that they had a crew on standby there, they claimed that they went there because of activity at the grand jury, the problem being that there were other experienced local media who were also monitoring the docket and were not tipped off.

Not a problem.

CNN is an extremely large news organization with plenty of resources to thrown at the Mueller investigation.

All you need is a reporter to 1) hit on an idea (i.e. "grand jury is working... maybe we should stake out some potential targets") and 2) the resources to follow through.

(For all we know, they also sent out people to watch Kushner, Bannon, etc. just in case they were arrested but since they weren't there would be no need to air that footage.)

 

[The Big Dog]

Another fine example of total hypocrisy in action.

When it was Hillary Clinton who was facing legal trouble, then 'The Big Dog' was all for her being treated like a criminal.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11241821#post11241821

And now, when it is another Trump lackey who is in legal trouble, all of sudden 'The Big Dog' is terribly concerned about him being treated like criminal.

Your fallacy is tu quoque.

Let me tell you a tale of a time when the JREF forum was considered a center of critical thinking, and where people would not permit their political prejudices to get in the way of calling out their fellow travelers who perpetrated fallacious arguments such as this one. That forum is dead in many more ways than one.

Sad.

 

[Steve]

No. One expects that one would spend time thinking about things.

A poster made up out of whole cloth an excuse that even the CNN did not try to make. CNN’s own excuse contradicts that assertion (as does other evidence), that precludes that made up excuse but does not prove that CNN’s excuse was correct.

Let me show this using a simple analogy.

Perp: I killed him in self defense.
Wrong excuse maker: it could have been someone else.
Critical thinkers: the fact he claimed he killed the person precludes the claim that it was someone else, but does NOT PROVE he did it in self defense.

An excuse is not required. Substituting the word "reason" would be much more accurate.

 

[Crossbow]

Your fallacy is tu quoque.

Let me tell you a tale of a time when the JREF forum was considered a center of critical thinking, and where people would not permit their political prejudices to get in the way of calling out their fellow travelers who perpetrated fallacious arguments such as this one. That forum is dead in many more ways than one.

Sad.

Your usual dodge has been noted.