Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Globe and Mail)   Stone warrants released by DOJ   (theglobeandmail.com) divider line
    More: Followup, President of the United States, United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Roger Stone, Washington, D.C., United States, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, confidant of U.S. President Donald Trump  
•       •       •

3755 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Apr 2020 at 3:25 AM (14 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



44 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-04-28 11:16:38 PM  
His protege beat him to it

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-04-28 11:39:42 PM  
You say you never compromise
with the mystery tramp
and now you realize
He's not selling any alibis
as you stare into the vacuum of his eyes
and say do you want to
make a deal
how does it feel?
how does it feel?
To be on your own
with no direction home
a complete unknown
like a rolling Stone?
Bob Dylan - Like a Rolling Stone (Audio)
Youtube IwOfCgkyEj0
 
2020-04-29 12:49:29 AM  
They finally decided to stop using stone and upgrade to papyrus scrolls, eh? About goddamned time those neolithic turds decided to join the rest of post-agricultural society.

Although I can't help but wonder when they'll figure out how movable printed type works.
 
2020-04-29 1:06:29 AM  

King Something: They finally decided to stop using stone and upgrade to papyrus scrolls, eh? About goddamned time those neolithic turds decided to join the rest of post-agricultural society.

Although I can't help but wonder when they'll figure out how movable printed type works.


If it was good enough enough for great Granddaddy 1397 X removed, why change it.
 
2020-04-29 2:10:56 AM  
In a statement Tuesday, Stone acknowledged that the search warrant affidavits contain private communication, but insisted that they "prove no crimes."

Your crimes have already been proven.
 
2020-04-29 3:31:02 AM  
Stone was among six associates of Trump charged in Mueller's investigation. He was convicted last year of lying to House lawmakers, tampering with a witness and obstructing Congress' own Russia probe.

Let's not forget this.
 
2020-04-29 3:33:19 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-04-29 3:37:50 AM  
foo monkey:  Let's not forget this.

Demonstratives with antecedents?
They're are category of determiners, but that's not important right now.
 
2020-04-29 3:57:09 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-04-29 4:45:36 AM  
Sounds like Chinese propoganda. Wake up sheeple
 
2020-04-29 5:13:23 AM  

LewDux: Sounds like Chinese propoganda. Wake up sheeple


Don't look now but I think there's an evil Chinese right behind you, and he's about to do unspeakable things to your nether regions.
 
2020-04-29 5:14:07 AM  

LewDux: Sounds like Chinese propoganda. Wake up sheeple


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-04-29 5:19:25 AM  

duenor: LewDux: Sounds like Chinese propoganda. Wake up sheeple

Don't look now but I think there's an evil Chinese right behind you, and he's about to do unspeakable things to your nether regions.


Don't worry, I have bleach ready
 
2020-04-29 5:33:15 AM  

LewDux: Sounds like Chinese propoganda. Wake up sheeple


Ugh, great, thanks for saying that.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-04-29 5:41:33 AM  
Good thread by Eric Garland. TL;DR is warrants were obtained by FBI counterintelligence and Stone used Twitter and Hotmail to communicate with Russian military intelligence.

https://twitter.com/ericgarland/statu​s​/1255317648273006594?s=19
 
2020-04-29 6:07:50 AM  

mtrac: Good thread by Eric Garland. TL;DR is warrants were obtained by FBI counterintelligence and Stone used Twitter and Hotmail to communicate with Russian military intelligence.

https://twitter.com/ericgarland/status​/1255317648273006594?s=19


By which you mean he exchanged a total of four (?) twits, counting both directions, with the Guccifer 2.0 account of no real substance?

That microblog sucks.
 
2020-04-29 6:12:53 AM  
"as a journalist it doesn't matter where you get information only that it is accurate and authentic."


Well, no. Not if it's accurate and authentic information from Russia that snitches on Democrats.
If you're a journalist then the target of your story matters more than the contents of your story.
 
2020-04-29 6:48:43 AM  
Is it just me, or did Roger Stone just have an affinity to befriend people who had "trumped-up sexual assault charges"? Because it kinda seems that way...
 
2020-04-29 6:54:26 AM  

way south: "as a journalist it doesn't matter where you get information only that it is accurate and authentic."


Well, no. Not if it's accurate and authentic information from Russia that snitches on Democrats.
If you're a journalist then the target of your story matters more than the contents of your story.


What if it snitches on Republicans?
Either way, as a journalist, wouldn't you rather the public know?
If, as a journalist, you get "anonymous" but corroborated information that is really incriminating and affects the public, but realize your source has something to gain, would you not publish?
 
2020-04-29 7:03:31 AM  

Resident Muslim: What if it snitches on Republicans?
Either way, as a journalist, wouldn't you rather the public know?
If, as a journalist, you get "anonymous" but corroborated information that is really incriminating and affects the public, but realize your source has something to gain, would you not publish?


If it snitches on Republicans, "journalists" run it even if they have to walk it all back within days.
 
2020-04-29 7:13:00 AM  

Dork Gently: mtrac: Good thread by Eric Garland. TL;DR is warrants were obtained by FBI counterintelligence and Stone used Twitter and Hotmail to communicate with Russian military intelligence.

https://twitter.com/ericgarland/status​/1255317648273006594?s=19

By which you mean he exchanged a total of four (?) twits, counting both directions, with the Guccifer 2.0 account of no real substance?

That microblog sucks.


Weird that you glossed over the hotmail contacts...
 
2020-04-29 7:14:40 AM  

Dork Gently: Resident Muslim: What if it snitches on Republicans?
Either way, as a journalist, wouldn't you rather the public know?
If, as a journalist, you get "anonymous" but corroborated information that is really incriminating and affects the public, but realize your source has something to gain, would you not publish?

If it snitches on Republicans, "journalists" run it even if they have to walk it all back within days.


I'm not seeing a walkback; that story mentions that there is a 2017 filing that still lists Bank of China USA as a creditor.
 
2020-04-29 7:22:12 AM  
Weird to see "Republicans" defending the rights of the accused even as they chip away at the republic...
 
2020-04-29 7:28:40 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Weird that you glossed over the hotmail contacts...


Which Hotmail contacts?  If any were mentioned in the warrants, that Twitter thread didn't mention them.

cameroncrazy1984: I'm not seeing a walkback; that story mentions that there is a 2017 filing that still lists Bank of China USA as a creditor.


"POLITICO published an article Friday morning on President Donald Trump's business dealings with China. ("Trump owes tens of millions to the Bank of China - and the loan is due soon.") Since then, new reporting and information have led us to update and correct the article after publication. "

...

"On Friday evening, POLITICO received a statement from a representative for Bank of China USA, which had not been contacted beforehand, that the bank had sold off, or securitized, its debt shortly after the 2012 deal.  A spokeswoman said the bank has no current financial interest in any Trump Organization properties. The original headline was changed to "Trump owed tens of millions to the Bank of China.""

...

"Our commitment at POLITICO is to journalism that gets its facts straight. We regret we fell short in this case."
 
2020-04-29 7:33:32 AM  
Really -- how does someone dig a reference to a single, erroneous, 2017 filing out of a correction and then claim that the existence of the filing means the rest of the correction never happened?

Especially when the correction says that the bank that made the filing confirmed another bank's statement that the filing was wrong?
 
2020-04-29 7:44:17 AM  
Assange confident in paper defense.
 
2020-04-29 7:46:23 AM  

Resident Muslim: way south: "as a journalist it doesn't matter where you get information only that it is accurate and authentic."


Well, no. Not if it's accurate and authentic information from Russia that snitches on Democrats.
If you're a journalist then the target of your story matters more than the contents of your story.

What if it snitches on Republicans?
Either way, as a journalist, wouldn't you rather the public know?
If, as a journalist, you get "anonymous" but corroborated information that is really incriminating and affects the public, but realize your source has something to gain, would you not publish?


Well, it's not like some a lot of journalists have an agenda.
 
2020-04-29 8:03:30 AM  

Dork Gently: Really -- how does someone dig a reference to a single, erroneous, 2017 filing out of a correction and then claim that the existence of the filing means the rest of the correction never happened?

Especially when the correction says that the bank that made the filing confirmed another bank's statement that the filing was wrong?


Erroneous?
 
2020-04-29 8:09:17 AM  

bobobolinskii: King Something: They finally decided to stop using stone and upgrade to papyrus scrolls, eh? About goddamned time those neolithic turds decided to join the rest of post-agricultural society.

Although I can't help but wonder when they'll figure out how movable printed type works.

If it was good enough enough for great Granddaddy 1397 X removed, why change it.


Papyrus doesn't have the same impact when you hit someone with a stone warrant.
 
2020-04-29 8:16:08 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Dork Gently: Really -- how does someone dig a reference to a single, erroneous, 2017 filing out of a correction and then claim that the existence of the filing means the rest of the correction never happened?

Especially when the correction says that the bank that made the filing confirmed another bank's statement that the filing was wrong?

Erroneous?


"Wells Fargo on Monday confirmed the Bank of China's statement that it had been listed as a creditor on the building in error. Bank of China said Wells Fargo is taking steps to correct the record with an updated filing."

This would be easier if you just read Politico's retraction directly.
 
2020-04-29 8:24:24 AM  

Resident Muslim: way south: "as a journalist it doesn't matter where you get information only that it is accurate and authentic."


Well, no. Not if it's accurate and authentic information from Russia that snitches on Democrats.
If you're a journalist then the target of your story matters more than the contents of your story.

What if it snitches on Republicans?
Either way, as a journalist, wouldn't you rather the public know?
If, as a journalist, you get "anonymous" but corroborated information that is really incriminating and affects the public, but realize your source has something to gain, would you not publish?


Depends on what your goals are.
Very few stories on the GOP are being withheld. True, false, if it can be framed to make them look bad then it will be released. You can write a retraction later, assured no one would read it.
Quite a few stories on the DNC are being withheld.  Tara Reed barely gets a mention, old lary king episodes are disappearing, and no one seems to know the whereabouts of Joe Biden.
It's obvious what's happening. They push stories bout Trump's Lysol to the front to cover for the fact that Joe Biden can't finish a sentence without garbling his words together.


If you have someone who says they have a story that can upend the entire political system in the US, and it's possible that a guy already known for releasing heavy and valid dirt on our political system might be able to back that threat up...  I mean, the possibility should tickle the scrotum of any reporter.
Yet there seems to be little interest in that. Just as there was no interest in "collateral murder" or "the panama papers".     If it makes the wrong people look bad then it's not 'news'.
You would not publish because the men behind the curtain don't want you to publish. It doesn't serve their interest. News like the Epstein and Weinstein stories can remain buried for literal decades because the money is going against it.

It's no longer enough to have a solid story. It's not even relevant if the story is true.   It matters who the target is and whether the corporation you're working for or with agrees with that story. If they don't then you don't publish, and if you try to publish then you get censored or shamed for taking information from the wrong source.
Even if the truth can be verified it is not acceptable if it's truth about the wrong people.
 
2020-04-29 8:32:43 AM  

Dork Gently: mtrac: Good thread by Eric Garland. TL;DR is warrants were obtained by FBI counterintelligence and Stone used Twitter and Hotmail to communicate with Russian military intelligence.

https://twitter.com/ericgarland/status​/1255317648273006594?s=19


By which you mean he exchanged a total of four (?) twits, counting both directions, with the Guccifer 2.0 account of no real substance?


The Trumpanzee who handwaves away all criticism of Republican President Donald Trump with an airy, dismissive "orange man bad" eyeroll seems very forgiving of the FACT that Roger Stone lied about communicating with Russian military intelligence.

In your opinion, 4 times is an acceptable number of times for President Trump's senior campaign advisor to be caught communicating with Russian military intelligence during the presidential campaign. How many times would he have to communicate with Russian military intelligence for it to sound any alarms for you?

And if Roger Stone communicating with Russian military intelligence is really as much of a nothingburger as you're so desperate to characterize it, why has Stone been lying about it for years?
 
2020-04-29 8:35:41 AM  

way south: Very few stories on the GOP are being withheld.


Citation needed.
 
2020-04-29 8:39:42 AM  

The Envoy: way south: Very few stories on the GOP are being withheld.

Citation needed.


No, rushed it, said the wrong thing:

Are there?  Or is it that they really are just very sh*tty people who keep doing stupid and/or evil sh*t way more than others so they earn the column inches?

It sounds like you have evidence of this grand withholding of information.  I'd like to see it.
 
2020-04-29 9:04:02 AM  

WithinReason: LewDux: Sounds like Chinese propoganda. Wake up sheeple

Ugh, great, thanks for saying that.

[Fark user image image 425x126]


That's twice! A third time of posting that in any one thread really wakes them up for real! Please no more!
 
2020-04-29 9:17:51 AM  

MythDragon: WithinReason: LewDux: Sounds like Chinese propoganda. Wake up sheeple

Ugh, great, thanks for saying that.

[Fark user image image 425x126]

That's twice! A third time of posting that in any one thread really wakes them up for real! Please no more!


Candyman
Candyman
..........
 
2020-04-29 9:24:10 AM  
The dems were scheming to screw one of their own in a political sense, honestly something that political groups do to get who they perceive is stronger.  Don and his buds were scheming to coordinate with a foreign power to co-opt an election.

And they lied and lied and lied about it.

Trump and his buds broke so many rules and norms that I worry there's no going back to before. The new norm is change the subject, deny (even with video showing the act), and blame someone else. Anyone.

One outcome of this is that the Tara Reade allegations now, sadly, are not as shocking as they would have been in 2012 for example. Trump's been there, done that, ignored it, denied it, and won.

When will the old political party shiats just die so we can move to a new generation? I don't know if it will be better but I suspect it will be a lot less rape-y.
 
2020-04-29 9:27:19 AM  

Barricaded Gunman: Dork Gently: mtrac: Good thread by Eric Garland. TL;DR is warrants were obtained by FBI counterintelligence and Stone used Twitter and Hotmail to communicate with Russian military intelligence.

https://twitter.com/ericgarland/status​/1255317648273006594?s=19

By which you mean he exchanged a total of four (?) twits, counting both directions, with the Guccifer 2.0 account of no real substance?


The Trumpanzee who handwaves away all criticism of Republican President Donald Trump with an airy, dismissive "orange man bad" eyeroll seems very forgiving of the FACT that Roger Stone lied about communicating with Russian military intelligence.

In your opinion, 4 times is an acceptable number of times for President Trump's senior campaign advisor to be caught communicating with Russian military intelligence during the presidential campaign. How many times would he have to communicate with Russian military intelligence for it to sound any alarms for you?

And if Roger Stone communicating with Russian military intelligence is really as much of a nothingburger as you're so desperate to characterize it, why has Stone been lying about it for years?


Put down the crack pipe and join reality.

At the time, nobody knew that Guccifer 2.0 was being run by Russian military intelligence, and the tweet in question -- they're quoted in the search warrants -- are extremely bland.  No promises of favors, no requests for access, only mutual "attaboy, you so great, plz link to this" type exchanges.

And when did Stone lie about that?  I don't think any court heard evidence that he ever lied about those communications.
 
2020-04-29 9:28:42 AM  

buckwebb: When will the old political party shiats just die so we can move to a new generation? I don't know if it will be better but I suspect it will be a lot less rape-y.


The new generation of politicians will apparently be a lot more marry-your-brother-y.
 
2020-04-29 10:08:53 AM  

Dork Gently: cameroncrazy1984: Weird that you glossed over the hotmail contacts...

Which Hotmail contacts?  If any were mentioned in the warrants, that Twitter thread didn't mention them.

cameroncrazy1984: I'm not seeing a walkback; that story mentions that there is a 2017 filing that still lists Bank of China USA as a creditor.

"POLITICO published an article Friday morning on President Donald Trump's business dealings with China. ("Trump owes tens of millions to the Bank of China - and the loan is due soon.") Since then, new reporting and information have led us to update and correct the article after publication. "

...

"On Friday evening, POLITICO received a statement from a representative for Bank of China USA, which had not been contacted beforehand, that the bank had sold off, or securitized, its debt shortly after the 2012 deal.  A spokeswoman said the bank has no current financial interest in any Trump Organization properties. The original headline was changed to "Trump owed tens of millions to the Bank of China.""

...

"Our commitment at POLITICO is to journalism that gets its facts straight. We regret we fell short in this case."


You are wasting your breath. Fark leftists will gladly throw their rights away if it does even a hint of political damage to their opponent all fpr their "Orange man bad!" Mantra.
 
2020-04-29 10:27:20 AM  

HumanSVD: Dork Gently: cameroncrazy1984: Weird that you glossed over the hotmail contacts...

Which Hotmail contacts?  If any were mentioned in the warrants, that Twitter thread didn't mention them.

cameroncrazy1984: I'm not seeing a walkback; that story mentions that there is a 2017 filing that still lists Bank of China USA as a creditor.

"POLITICO published an article Friday morning on President Donald Trump's business dealings with China. ("Trump owes tens of millions to the Bank of China - and the loan is due soon.") Since then, new reporting and information have led us to update and correct the article after publication. "

...

"On Friday evening, POLITICO received a statement from a representative for Bank of China USA, which had not been contacted beforehand, that the bank had sold off, or securitized, its debt shortly after the 2012 deal.  A spokeswoman said the bank has no current financial interest in any Trump Organization properties. The original headline was changed to "Trump owed tens of millions to the Bank of China.""

...

"Our commitment at POLITICO is to journalism that gets its facts straight. We regret we fell short in this case."

You are wasting your breath. Fark leftists will gladly throw their rights away if it does even a hint of political damage to their opponent all fpr their "Orange man bad!" Mantra.


Authoritarians projecting would be adorable if it wasn't so f*cking stupid.
 
2020-04-29 10:29:25 AM  

The Envoy: HumanSVD: Dork Gently: cameroncrazy1984: Weird that you glossed over the hotmail contacts...

Which Hotmail contacts?  If any were mentioned in the warrants, that Twitter thread didn't mention them.

cameroncrazy1984: I'm not seeing a walkback; that story mentions that there is a 2017 filing that still lists Bank of China USA as a creditor.

"POLITICO published an article Friday morning on President Donald Trump's business dealings with China. ("Trump owes tens of millions to the Bank of China - and the loan is due soon.") Since then, new reporting and information have led us to update and correct the article after publication. "

...

"On Friday evening, POLITICO received a statement from a representative for Bank of China USA, which had not been contacted beforehand, that the bank had sold off, or securitized, its debt shortly after the 2012 deal.  A spokeswoman said the bank has no current financial interest in any Trump Organization properties. The original headline was changed to "Trump owed tens of millions to the Bank of China.""

...

"Our commitment at POLITICO is to journalism that gets its facts straight. We regret we fell short in this case."

You are wasting your breath. Fark leftists will gladly throw their rights away if it does even a hint of political damage to their opponent all fpr their "Orange man bad!" Mantra.

Authoritarians projecting would be adorable if it wasn't so f*cking stupid.


"Orange man bad" burble burble.
 
2020-04-29 10:50:30 AM  

way south: Not if it's accurate and authentic information from Russia that snitches on Democrats.


What is the problem with that? The same rules that apply to the government (you are entitled to your secrets, but you have to protect them) apply to political parties.
 
2020-04-29 12:33:44 PM  

way south: "as a journalist it doesn't matter where you get information only that it is accurate and authentic."


Well, no. Not if it's accurate and authentic information from Russia that snitches on Democrats.
If you're a journalist then the target of your story matters more than the contents of your story.


I don't care who it is, what color they are, what party they are from, if they are doing bad deeds, I want to know about it and I want that person to be kicked to the curb at the very least. "Snitches" are heroes in my book.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.