If this is not collusion, what is?

Avoiding it? I am right here...

He (is alledged to have) colluded with wiki and with members of the campaign to get stolen emails distributed to the public.

Are you stupid enough to deny this?

It does not allege Stone conspired with anyone but suggests his mission was to find out how the stolen material would be made public — something that, on its own, would not necessarily constitute a crime.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7799885b4e0d

Appears you are wrong, as usual.
 
I dont know why, based on the facts in the indictment, he was not charged with conspiracy to distribute stolen documents.

I’m sure if Mullet could have wrung a collusion-crime out of it, he would have lol.

But the feds went in, guns a slinging at 4 am, to nab an alleged 66 year old liar. What do they do with drug lords? Send the Third Armored Division?
 
I see the Trump apologists are avoiding this..

To be expected. They would just rather just type "no collusion" and run.
make your case for collusion.

Stone did not contact WIKI -so that's out and the info he gave to the "Trump campaign" was public knowledge
 
make your case for collusion.

Stone did not contact WIKI -so that's out and the info he gave to the "Trump campaign" was public knowledge

Even if Stone did contact Wiki, so what?

This is still yet more of Mullet charging people with lying about non-crimes. Someone needs to put a stop to it.
 
I’m sure if Mullet could have wrung a collusion-crime out of it, he would have lol.

But the feds went in, guns a slinging at 4 am, to nab an alleged 66 year old liar. What do they do with drug lords? Send the Third Armored Division?

Have you heard of a superseding indictment, like Mueller used with Manafort?
 
Last edited:
make your case for collusion.

Stone did not contact WIKI -so that's out and the info he gave to the "Trump campaign" was public knowledge

According to the indictment he worked with members of the campaign to coordinate release of stolen information and present an untrue story to Congress.
 
So, simply talking with Assange about the emails *he stole* is collusion?

I’m pretty sure that’s not even a crime—much less, the kind of crime you’re desperately looking for.

I did not say it was a crime, I said it was collusion.
 
Speaking of Assange: since Julian Assange is such a critical piece of the collusion puzzle, why isn’t Mullet falling all over himself to get him interviewed?

Afraid he’ll ‘say the wrong things’?
 
Even if Stone did contact Wiki, so what?

This is still yet more of Mullet charging people with lying about non-crimes. Someone needs to put a stop to it...

So why are they all being convicted? Why won't they admit non crimes? Shouldn't their lawyers put a stop to it?

:cool:
 
Speaking of Assange: since Julian Assange is such a critical piece of the collusion puzzle, why isn’t Mullet falling all over himself to get him interviewed?

Afraid he’ll ‘say the wrong things’?

Off topic, but he might have interviewed him? How would we know?
 
Back
Top