(03-19-2019 09:36 AM)UofMstateU Wrote: I already gave you the link. Last week. Its in the thread, just keep reading. I'm not going back to last week to dig up what I already found for you, especially since you seem to do a good job of disappearing from the thread when you are handed the link. (as usual)
Here's a summary of what your google search should have shown you:
1. Reports from in the courtroom says that Stone CAN discuss the case, just not the evidence.
2. Jeannie Rhea tried to get the judge to rule Stone in contempt for the gag order by releasing a book, but she wouldnt touch it. You dont just violate a court order and the judge is ok with not dealing with it. Especially when determining whether or not she is going to hold Stone in jail until his court date.
bull****. What a ******* coward. As if I expected something different. You're so damn giddy to cite any instance of when I'm wrong, but here, when I state that you didn't provide any link, because there is none, you claim you don't have the time to prove me wrong when it would be so so easy? Sad.
And there is NOTHING on google about Jeannie Rhea and what was discussed in court. My guess is that you heard some fox talking head or other fringe right-wing nut-job like Joe DiGenova rambling on and you just took it as fact. But I'm sure you'll correct me with a link to your assertions, right?
How did I know it was Jeannie Rhea that brought it up then?
You will find its hard to search for anything with your head up your ass.
Just keep moving the goal posts around dude. Again, you claimed the order was modified. It wasn't. You're the one with your head up your ass here.
Again, no link on this thread, nothing on google. But just keep lying and deflecting and distorting. Sad.
What I claimed was what was reported out of the courtroom by a person in the courtroom. The link to this has already been provided, and is in this thread. I'm not going to hold your hand.
1. Stone is allowed to talk about the case, just not the evidence. That was reported out of the courtroom, and is completely different than the attitude the judge had prior in the courtroom. She was ripped a new one leading up to this over going overboard on her in-courtroom antics on the gag order, and it appears she has backed off of those antics.
2. Jeannie Rhea tried to push contempt on the gag order at the last hearing, and the judge wouldnt touch it. (She was trying to get Stone thrown in jail until the court date.) Again, looking like the judge is backing off of the gustapo gag order path she was heading down.
The judge had a bad week leading up to it, when she was ridiculed, mocked, and was downright admonished for her "non-sequitur" speech to the Manafort team, when, by doing so, she was making their exact case. That showed bias, and she was rightly called out on it.
(03-19-2019 09:36 AM)UofMstateU Wrote: I already gave you the link. Last week. Its in the thread, just keep reading. I'm not going back to last week to dig up what I already found for you, especially since you seem to do a good job of disappearing from the thread when you are handed the link. (as usual)
Here's a summary of what your google search should have shown you:
1. Reports from in the courtroom says that Stone CAN discuss the case, just not the evidence.
2. Jeannie Rhea tried to get the judge to rule Stone in contempt for the gag order by releasing a book, but she wouldnt touch it. You dont just violate a court order and the judge is ok with not dealing with it. Especially when determining whether or not she is going to hold Stone in jail until his court date.
bull****. What a ******* coward. As if I expected something different. You're so damn giddy to cite any instance of when I'm wrong, but here, when I state that you didn't provide any link, because there is none, you claim you don't have the time to prove me wrong when it would be so so easy? Sad.
And there is NOTHING on google about Jeannie Rhea and what was discussed in court. My guess is that you heard some fox talking head or other fringe right-wing nut-job like Joe DiGenova rambling on and you just took it as fact. But I'm sure you'll correct me with a link to your assertions, right?
How did I know it was Jeannie Rhea that brought it up then?
You will find its hard to search for anything with your head up your ass.
Just keep moving the goal posts around dude. Again, you claimed the order was modified. It wasn't. You're the one with your head up your ass here.
Again, no link on this thread, nothing on google. But just keep lying and deflecting and distorting. Sad.
What I claimed was what was reported out of the courtroom by a person in the courtroom. The link to this has already been provided, and is in this thread. I'm not going to hold your hand.
1. Stone is allowed to talk about the case, just not the evidence. That was reported out of the courtroom, and is completely different than the attitude the judge had prior in the courtroom. She was ripped a new one leading up to this over going overboard on her in-courtroom antics on the gag order, and it appears she has backed off of those antics.
Ripped by whom? You've posted nothing anywhere to back up this claim. NOTHING.
And no, you didn't post any link claiming this. If you had, you would have told me the post # already. Just ******* admit you didn't post it. Is it really that hard? There is no link to any story about what you said about the judge:
Quote:"she modified it to say Stone wasnt allowed to talk about the evidence in the case. He is allowed to talk about the case"
There has been no modification to the gag order. NONE. Again, the only thing the judge did was tell the prosecutor that she was not going to pursue anything more on the gag order as it relates to the book that team Stone left out of their disclosure. And that's a perfectly reasonable stance to take as she made her point and Stone has finally shut his pie hole.
Stone is still not allowed to talk about the case. You're just plain wrong...and you know it.
(03-19-2019 11:18 AM)UofMstateU Wrote: 2. Jeannie Rhea tried to push contempt on the gag order at the last hearing, and the judge wouldnt touch it. (She was trying to get Stone thrown in jail until the court date.) Again, looking like the judge is backing off of the gustapo gag order path she was heading down.
The judge had a bad week leading up to it, when she was ridiculed, mocked, and was downright admonished for her "non-sequitur" speech to the Manafort team, when, by doing so, she was making their exact case. That showed bias, and she was rightly called out on it.
Ridiculed and mocked by whom? Sean Hannity? Rush Limbaugh? Joe DiGenova? Glenn Beck, Alex Jones? Mark Levine? Who? And what evidence do you have that any such ridiculing or mocking by these nobodies has had any effect on the judge, if she is even aware of any of it. I can't find any public comments on it on google and neither can you, or you would have posted them already. Unless you're banking on the judge watching fox news, you got nada.
BTW - Here's video of Stone leaving the courtroom after the judge altered the gag order allowing him to speak.
(03-19-2019 10:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: bull****. What a ******* coward. As if I expected something different. You're so damn giddy to cite any instance of when I'm wrong, but here, when I state that you didn't provide any link, because there is none, you claim you don't have the time to prove me wrong when it would be so so easy? Sad.
And there is NOTHING on google about Jeannie Rhea and what was discussed in court. My guess is that you heard some fox talking head or other fringe right-wing nut-job like Joe DiGenova rambling on and you just took it as fact. But I'm sure you'll correct me with a link to your assertions, right?
How did I know it was Jeannie Rhea that brought it up then?
You will find its hard to search for anything with your head up your ass.
Just keep moving the goal posts around dude. Again, you claimed the order was modified. It wasn't. You're the one with your head up your ass here.
Again, no link on this thread, nothing on google. But just keep lying and deflecting and distorting. Sad.
What I claimed was what was reported out of the courtroom by a person in the courtroom. The link to this has already been provided, and is in this thread. I'm not going to hold your hand.
1. Stone is allowed to talk about the case, just not the evidence. That was reported out of the courtroom, and is completely different than the attitude the judge had prior in the courtroom. She was ripped a new one leading up to this over going overboard on her in-courtroom antics on the gag order, and it appears she has backed off of those antics.
Ripped by whom? You've posted nothing anywhere to back up this claim. NOTHING.
And no, you didn't post any link claiming this. If you had, you would have told me the post # already. Just ******* admit you didn't post it. Is it really that hard? There is no link to any story about what you said about the judge:
Quote:"she modified it to say Stone wasnt allowed to talk about the evidence in the case. He is allowed to talk about the case"
There has been no modification to the gag order. NONE. Again, the only thing the judge did was tell the prosecutor that she was not going to pursue anything more on the gag order as it relates to the book that team Stone left out of their disclosure. And that's a perfectly reasonable stance to take as she made her point and Stone has finally shut his pie hole.
Stone is still not allowed to talk about the case. You're just plain wrong...and you know it.
(03-19-2019 11:18 AM)UofMstateU Wrote: 2. Jeannie Rhea tried to push contempt on the gag order at the last hearing, and the judge wouldnt touch it. (She was trying to get Stone thrown in jail until the court date.) Again, looking like the judge is backing off of the gustapo gag order path she was heading down.
The judge had a bad week leading up to it, when she was ridiculed, mocked, and was downright admonished for her "non-sequitur" speech to the Manafort team, when, by doing so, she was making their exact case. That showed bias, and she was rightly called out on it.
Ridiculed and mocked by whom? Sean Hannity? Rush Limbaugh? Joe DiGenova? Glenn Beck, Alex Jones? Mark Levine? Who? And what evidence do you have that any such ridiculing or mocking by these nobodies has had any effect on the judge, if she is even aware of any of it. I can't find any public comments on it on google and neither can you, or you would have posted them already. Unless you're banking on the judge watching fox news, you got nada.
BTW - Here's video of Stone leaving the courtroom after the judge altered the gag order allowing him to speak.
I'll wait for you to pull your head out of your ass before telling you this for the last time;
(03-19-2019 10:50 AM)UofMstateU Wrote: How did I know it was Jeannie Rhea that brought it up then?
You will find its hard to search for anything with your head up your ass.
Just keep moving the goal posts around dude. Again, you claimed the order was modified. It wasn't. You're the one with your head up your ass here.
Again, no link on this thread, nothing on google. But just keep lying and deflecting and distorting. Sad.
What I claimed was what was reported out of the courtroom by a person in the courtroom. The link to this has already been provided, and is in this thread. I'm not going to hold your hand.
1. Stone is allowed to talk about the case, just not the evidence. That was reported out of the courtroom, and is completely different than the attitude the judge had prior in the courtroom. She was ripped a new one leading up to this over going overboard on her in-courtroom antics on the gag order, and it appears she has backed off of those antics.
Ripped by whom? You've posted nothing anywhere to back up this claim. NOTHING.
And no, you didn't post any link claiming this. If you had, you would have told me the post # already. Just ******* admit you didn't post it. Is it really that hard? There is no link to any story about what you said about the judge:
Quote:"she modified it to say Stone wasnt allowed to talk about the evidence in the case. He is allowed to talk about the case"
There has been no modification to the gag order. NONE. Again, the only thing the judge did was tell the prosecutor that she was not going to pursue anything more on the gag order as it relates to the book that team Stone left out of their disclosure. And that's a perfectly reasonable stance to take as she made her point and Stone has finally shut his pie hole.
Stone is still not allowed to talk about the case. You're just plain wrong...and you know it.
(03-19-2019 11:18 AM)UofMstateU Wrote: 2. Jeannie Rhea tried to push contempt on the gag order at the last hearing, and the judge wouldnt touch it. (She was trying to get Stone thrown in jail until the court date.) Again, looking like the judge is backing off of the gustapo gag order path she was heading down.
The judge had a bad week leading up to it, when she was ridiculed, mocked, and was downright admonished for her "non-sequitur" speech to the Manafort team, when, by doing so, she was making their exact case. That showed bias, and she was rightly called out on it.
Ridiculed and mocked by whom? Sean Hannity? Rush Limbaugh? Joe DiGenova? Glenn Beck, Alex Jones? Mark Levine? Who? And what evidence do you have that any such ridiculing or mocking by these nobodies has had any effect on the judge, if she is even aware of any of it. I can't find any public comments on it on google and neither can you, or you would have posted them already. Unless you're banking on the judge watching fox news, you got nada.
BTW - Here's video of Stone leaving the courtroom after the judge altered the gag order allowing him to speak.
I'll wait for you to pull your head out of your ass before telling you this for the last time;
A PERSON WHO WAS IN THE COURTROOM REPORTED THIS.
The link is in this thread.
What post #? I've gone through this thread 3 or 4 times now and can't find it. Sorta strange that this supposed "modification" of the gag order by the judge in a huge case tangentially involving trump has not been reported in any other article so as to appear in a basic google search. Translation, you're not being truthful. As I said before, if you were so confident you had me in a gotcha, you would have mentioned the post # days ago. Instead, you just insult me rather then manning up. Sad. You should take your own advice and quit this thread while you're behind.
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2019 10:49 AM by Redwingtom.)
Post #34 - Another link to Jack Posobiec twitter account However, this time there are three tweets referenced. But these tweets only deal with Barr, Mueller, Rosenstein, Flynn and Weissman. No mention of Roger Stone or the gag order in the tweets.
Post #34 - Another link to Jack Posobiec twitter account However, this time there are three tweets referenced. But these tweets only deal with Barr, Mueller, Rosenstein, Flynn and Weissman. No mention of Roger Stone or the gag order in the tweets.
So clearly, you didn't post the link. But I'll give you another chance. What's the name of the reporter in the court room who you say reported it?
What are you so triggered for? Roger’s not going to get Trump impeached. Settle down a bit. This dog and Weissmann show is like all the others....a nothingburger.
Post #34 - Another link to Jack Posobiec twitter account However, this time there are three tweets referenced. But these tweets only deal with Barr, Mueller, Rosenstein, Flynn and Weissman. No mention of Roger Stone or the gag order in the tweets.
So clearly, you didn't post the link. But I'll give you another chance. What's the name of the reporter in the court room who you say reported it?
What are you so triggered for? Roger’s not going to get Trump impeached. Settle down a bit. This dog and Weissmann show is like all the others....a nothingburger.
Triggered? Hardly. I'm not okay with someone blatantly lying. Are you?
And as I've said numerous times, I don't want trump impeached...and based on what we've seen so far, I don't think anything Stone did would lead to that anyway.
Post #34 - Another link to Jack Posobiec twitter account However, this time there are three tweets referenced. But these tweets only deal with Barr, Mueller, Rosenstein, Flynn and Weissman. No mention of Roger Stone or the gag order in the tweets.
So clearly, you didn't post the link. But I'll give you another chance. What's the name of the reporter in the court room who you say reported it?
What are you so triggered for? Roger’s not going to get Trump impeached. Settle down a bit. This dog and Weissmann show is like all the others....a nothingburger.
Triggered? Hardly. I'm not okay with someone blatantly lying. Are you?
And as I've said numerous times, I don't want trump impeached...and based on what we've seen so far, I don't think anything Stone did would lead to that anyway.
Noones lying. It was all posted last week while we were actively talking about it. I'm not going to go back and hold your hand like I always have to do just because you get butthurt and leave the thread for a week.
Post #34 - Another link to Jack Posobiec twitter account However, this time there are three tweets referenced. But these tweets only deal with Barr, Mueller, Rosenstein, Flynn and Weissman. No mention of Roger Stone or the gag order in the tweets.
So clearly, you didn't post the link. But I'll give you another chance. What's the name of the reporter in the court room who you say reported it?
What are you so triggered for? Roger’s not going to get Trump impeached. Settle down a bit. This dog and Weissmann show is like all the others....a nothingburger.
Triggered? Hardly. I'm not okay with someone blatantly lying. Are you?
And as I've said numerous times, I don't want trump impeached...and based on what we've seen so far, I don't think anything Stone did would lead to that anyway.
Noones lying. It was all posted last week while we were actively talking about it. I'm not going to go back and hold your hand like I always have to do just because you get butthurt and leave the thread for a week.
Translation: I lost.
I posted every link in this thread. You didn't post anything, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO POST because it didn't happen. The judge did not modify the gag order. Nobody shamed the judge into anything.
If you truly had anything, you would have already posted it by now and gleefully ridiculed me. You haven't. Now you cowardly hide behind this "I'm going to hold your hand" crap when you've NEVER taken that approach before. As I've been telling you...this is what supporting trump turns you into. Sad.
Oh and again...show me one thread I ran away from?
(This post was last modified: 03-21-2019 11:04 AM by Redwingtom.)
Post #34 - Another link to Jack Posobiec twitter account However, this time there are three tweets referenced. But these tweets only deal with Barr, Mueller, Rosenstein, Flynn and Weissman. No mention of Roger Stone or the gag order in the tweets.
So clearly, you didn't post the link. But I'll give you another chance. What's the name of the reporter in the court room who you say reported it?
What are you so triggered for? Roger’s not going to get Trump impeached. Settle down a bit. This dog and Weissmann show is like all the others....a nothingburger.
Triggered? Hardly. I'm not okay with someone blatantly lying. Are you?
And as I've said numerous times, I don't want trump impeached...and based on what we've seen so far, I don't think anything Stone did would lead to that anyway.
Noones lying. It was all posted last week while we were actively talking about it. I'm not going to go back and hold your hand like I always have to do just because you get butthurt and leave the thread for a week.
Translation: I lost.
I posted every link in this thread. You didn't post anything, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO POST because it didn't happen. The judge did not modify the gag order. Nobody shamed the judge into anything.
If you truly had anything, you would have already posted it by now and gleefully ridiculed me. You haven't. Now you cowardly hide behind this "I'm going to hold your hand" crap when you've NEVER taken that approach before. As I've been telling you...this is what supporting trump turns you into. Sad.
Oh and again...show me one thread I ran away from?
The guy who I linked who was in the courtroom who said tht Stone could talk about the case, just not the evidence of the case, also said this last week:
(03-23-2019 09:00 AM)UofMstateU Wrote: Just for Tom;
The guy who I linked who was in the courtroom who said tht Stone could talk about the case, just not the evidence of the case, also said this last week:
Tell me how bad OANN is again.
And?
Where he did he say that?
Nothing you posted says what you claim, that the judge modified the gag order or that Stone is allowed to now talk about the case just not the evidence.
I already linked those two posts above. Post #6 and Post #34. Neither of which mention a single world about any modification. Just as there is NOTHING on google to indicate any change.
Further, even a search on the OANN site reveals no mention of a gag order modification!
Is it really that hard to adjust admit you're wrong? Everyone else here knows already since not a one has stuck up for you.
And incidentally, I saw reported late last week that Weismann was still on the payroll even after Mueller issued his final report.
(03-23-2019 09:00 AM)UofMstateU Wrote: Just for Tom;
The guy who I linked who was in the courtroom who said tht Stone could talk about the case, just not the evidence of the case, also said this last week:
Tell me how bad OANN is again.
And?
Where he did he say that?
Nothing you posted says what you claim, that the judge modified the gag order or that Stone is allowed to now talk about the case just not the evidence.
I already linked those two posts above. Post #6 and Post #34. Neither of which mention a single world about any modification. Just as there is NOTHING on google to indicate any change.
Further, even a search on the OANN site reveals no mention of a gag order modification!
Is it really that hard to adjust admit you're wrong? Everyone else here knows already since not a one has stuck up for you.
And incidentally, I saw reported late last week that Weismann was still on the payroll even after Mueller issued his final report.
(03-23-2019 09:00 AM)UofMstateU Wrote: Just for Tom;
The guy who I linked who was in the courtroom who said tht Stone could talk about the case, just not the evidence of the case, also said this last week:
Tell me how bad OANN is again.
And?
Where he did he say that?
Nothing you posted says what you claim, that the judge modified the gag order or that Stone is allowed to now talk about the case just not the evidence.
I already linked those two posts above. Post #6 and Post #34. Neither of which mention a single world about any modification. Just as there is NOTHING on google to indicate any change.
Further, even a search on the OANN site reveals no mention of a gag order modification!
Is it really that hard to adjust admit you're wrong? Everyone else here knows already since not a one has stuck up for you.
And incidentally, I saw reported late last week that Weismann was still on the payroll even after Mueller issued his final report.
Its Mueller Time!
Translation: "I'm now running away from this thread, thoroughly defeated and too much of a coward to own up to even the slightest little mistake." ~ UofMstateU
What a pathetic person. Sad.
And finally, this will be my last post on this thread unless you man up, so don't even bother making another meaningless post just to act like I'm the one who ran away.
(This post was last modified: 03-28-2019 02:54 PM by Redwingtom.)