Channel: Trey Smith

Category: News & Politics

Tags: roger stone caseroger stonetrump pardonpardonstone pardonstoneassangejulian assangestone prophecywikileaksroger stone prophecytrey smithpresidential pardonroger stone 2020roger stone pardonpardoned

Description: Roger Stone was pardoned of seven felony counts of lying to Congress on July 10th 2020. The allegations against Roger Stone revolved around possible dialogs with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange; and the release of the Hillary Clinton emails. One of the allegations against Stone (in fact all of them) was that Roger Stone "met with Julian Assange" or "Spoke with Julian Assange." Well, in a legal sense ~ if one retweets a message by Assange or vise versa does this equal "meeting with" or speaking with Assange?" Or, moreover, if information from Assange (also used by the rock in roll band Pink Floyd in their conscerts performances at the same time, notably democrats); does that equal "meeting with or speaking with Julian Assange? There is no question that Roger Stone, just as the Washington Post during the same time period per the very post beneath, used data provided by Assange through Wikileaks. In fact, many journalists during that time were literally competing for such interviews with Assange if possible. So, if indeed Roger Stone lied to Congress, then all we know for certain ~ is that per that particular charge and question ~ "were you talking to Assange" ~ if Stone's conviction per that question be true; it would thereby only mean that Roger Stone was single handedly more trustworthy and favored in that hour than any news source on the planet by the largest news story and leak agency on earth, and perhaps in history. That is powerful statement no matter who is angry of it. Conversely, if Roger Stone's account be true ~ that he certainly used data from Assange and was willing to talk to Assange (as every journalist on the planet at that time was competing to do); yet meant by his words that though they had used data; then indeed if he (Stone) said "I have not (yet) met with Assange" not "talked (personally) with Assange" by said date ~ then Stone would be innocent the charge of lying to Congress per that single question in his several grilling days of Congress questioning by house democrats. Either way, it appears Roger Stone is a crossroads in both media and politics. Perhaps truth lies in the middle, who knows? But: On one end, presidential pardons are required at the highest level. On the other, Roger Stone's words are combed so carefully and considered dangerous enough even a one sentence answer could be paramount to felony. A enigmatic criss-cross of worlds indeed. This Roger Stone pardon comes in the wake of worldwide protests, the arrest of Jeff Epstein's black book partner Ghislaine Maxwell, and a heated travel towards the 2020 presidential elections. The pardon in the Roger Stone case came following president Donald Trump's statements that their had, by his opinion, been bias on Stone's jury. It was reported by the Washington Post on the Roger Stone case, in short, that: Weeks after Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel in the Russia investigation, Roger Stone, a confidant of President Donald Trump, reassured WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a Twitter message that if prosecutors came after him, “I will bring down the entire house of cards,” according to FBI documents made public Tuesday. The records reveal the extent of communications between Stone and Assange, whose anti-secrecy website published Democratic emails hacked by Russians during the 2016 presidential election, and underscore efforts by Trump allies to gain insight about the release of information they expected would embarrass Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. The documents — FBI affidavits submitted to obtain search warrants in the criminal investigation into Stone — were released following a court case brought by The Associated Press and other media organizations. In a June 2017 Twitter direct message cited in the records, Stone reassured Assange that the issue was “still nonsense” and said “as a journalist it doesn’t matter where you get information only that it is accurate and authentic.” He cited as an example the 1971 Supreme Court ruling that facilitated the publishing by newspapers of the Pentagon Papers, classified government documents about the Vietnam War. The video you just watched is simply a short talk by Trey Smith. You can follow Trey Smith on Facebook here: facebook.com/treysmithbooks Or, most preferably, just visit God in a Nutshell: godinanutshell.com Our servers have been up and down as we are improving some things over the next few days. So, keep trying even if you get an error. AND PRAY OVER US. Also, if the Lord puts it on your heart, you are welcome to donate to us. We can use it and put it to good use: godinanutshell.com/product/donate-god-nutshell God bless all of you. Our prayers are with the country, the president and tonight the life-long political rebel, Roger Stone. godinanutshell.com ~trey