What conspiracy theory?

Muellers team invited CNN to be there with 99% certainty and, in the event that they figured it out themselves with reporter ESP, Muellers team violated normal FBI protocol by allowing CNN to mingle with them and providing them a front row taping spot with 100% certainty.

This document has nothing to do with that arrangement. Who said anything about CNN getting this document before it went out? Not me. That would be extraordinarily dumb for it to happen that way........because there could be a paper or electronic device  trail that could bust them. 

We already knew about this particular document, when it went out and who it went out to(media). 

Some of us also know with extremely high confidence, based on the reality/facts that Muellers team invited CNN to record this arrest so that it would be played with a pro Mueller spin on the 24 hour anti Trump station. 

Here is the last time that I reviewed the details:

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/24648/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                Re: Re: outcome determinative bias            

                By metmike - Feb. 24, 2019, 1:18 p.m.            

Just to review the last time that this latest incident was discussed:        

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/24432/

        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. hate groups on the rise            

                By metmike - Feb. 21, 2019, 10:04 p.m.            

"Mike, as written, that statement implies that Mueller personally leaked. or had a staff member, leak the arrest. You have not a shred  of proof that Mueller was involved. 

Why for heaven sake would anyone pick CNN, when CBS, NBC, and ABC all have a much bigger audience?"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Carl,

I guess you forgot or did not see my response to you the first time you said this:

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/22822/

                Re: Re: Re: Well Mcfarm the simple fact            

                            By carlberky - Feb. 1, 2019, 1:50 p.m.            

IMHO, if they wanted to tip off someone about the raid, they would have picked NBC, CBS, or ABC for much greater coverage.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Well Mcfarm the simple fact            

                By metmike - Feb. 1, 2019, 2:18 p.m.            

"I was thinking the exact opposite carl but its just my opinion.

I watch 3 stations for news.

Mainly CNN and FOX in the evenings, flipping back and forth and ABC nightly news at 5:30-6pm.  I bash CNN here all the time and its because I actually watch them to hear what they are saying/showing(I dont just go to the station that tells me what I want to hear, which Fox would be more likely to do)

Obviously they would never pick Fox. If they picked one of the other networks, it would show up in their nightly news with maybe a 2 minute story and follow up. Other stations would likely cover it too, like they have.

CNN already does wall to wall, around the clock anti Trump news, every day of the year. By a wide margin, getting CNN the scoup maximized the coverage. Now it can be on  the station most likely to put the right spin on it and will broadcast it frequently as part of their anti Trump stuff 24 hours a day."

With regards to not having a shred of proof, I laid out the facts here around half a dozen times.

I don't have a taped phone conversation, no but the facts as outlined previously say with 100% certainty that normal protocol was violated.

I'll review again for you.

1. It can't be disputed that CNN was right there with the FBI or they wouldn't have the video footage from that vantage point.

2. The court order against Stone has apparently taken the Stone house camera footage of CNN and the FBI interacting before hand off the air but that doesn't matter because of #1.

3. The chances of CNN having this powerful reporter "instinct" as their guy described it,  that caused them(and nobody else) to know to travel to this location from out of town and be there 1 hour before the bust is not zero. I can guess it's something like a 1% chance of being true........being generous.

4. The chance of them being there and not having Muellers team give them special permission that made a huge exception and violated protocol of every other case in history like this that I know about is exactly zero. 

5. Every resident on the street was told they could not even be outside of their houses. The entire street was blocked off and nobody but the FBI  and others connected to the arrest were allowed there.........as is always the case when you have 2 dozen heavily armed agents arresting some body. Everybody that is, except for CNN that was right there mingling with the heavily armed FBI agents.

6. I worked in broadcast television for 11 years and  we met every year with different police agencies,  state, county and city and from 2 different states to discuss protocol.  They weren't the FBI or federal law enforcement of course but no way, no how would CNN have been allowed to be there unless the Mueller team wanted them to be there and made a huge exception to any protocol or situation that I've ever heard about or seen. 

"The special counsel’s office updated its Justice Department website to add a copy of the indictment at 6:11:45 a.m., according to the filing, which included a log of the website edits. A spokesperson emailed the press with a link to the website and an announcement of Stone’s arrest at 6:16 a.m., according to the filing. The email went out to 500 journalists from 127 news organizations — outlets that are listed in an exhibit of the filing."

CNN's big scoop was the video, which you were able to use to show the car which stopped for a few  seconds by the van.

Let's face it, Mike … your theory is busted.

Thanks macfarmer,  Carl.

Let's face it, Mike … your theory is busted.

Very funny.

Wait............I think there's a chance that you might have been serious.

If so, please read the post above:

"This document has nothing to do with that arrangement. Who said anything about CNN getting this document before it went out? Not me. That would be extraordinarily dumb for it to happen that way........because there could be a paper or electronic device  trail that could bust them. 

We already knew about this particular document, when it went out and who it went out to(media)." 

This document shows when the rest of the media found out by the conventional method. As evidenced by CNN getting the front row seat to be there with the FBI, they were invited. 

Show me another big FBI arrest like this that featured a major media station WITH the FBI during the arrest WITHOUT it being arranged or authorized by the FBI BEFORE HAND and I'll send you $100. 

So, serious question. Has any conspiracy therory ever ended with a :

“Oh, well, I guess that settles that.” I can’t think of one.

And are these things solely an American  institution ? I’ve asked acquaintances of mine from Great Britain and they seem to have no knowledge of such things. Why just us ? Do we have such a long past of distrust that it’s second nature to us ?

And they seem to be largely concentrated at the far right. Why is that ?

I’m curious.

"As evidenced by CNN getting the front row seat to be there with the FBI, they were invited."

Mike, if they were invited, they had to wait for the event, and had just a few minutes head start, and got the video.

What was Mueller's advantage in having a video of a large number of armed FBI agents making an arrest of an old man? That's something that generated a number of posts here.

Granted, there was an error in procedure and somebody from the FBI should be disciplined. Anything else?

"The special counsel’s office updated its Justice Department website to add a copy of the indictment at 6:11:45 a.m., according to the filing, which included a log of the website edits. A spokesperson emailed the press with a link to the website and an announcement of Stone’s arrest at 6:16 a.m., according to the filing. The email went out to 500 journalists from 127 news organizations — outlets that are listed in an exhibit of the filing."

Oh, I think I see -- the fact that a Justice Department spokesperson didn't email the press a link to a copy of the Stone indictment and the announcement of Stone's arrest until 06:16 a.m. (after it happened), means CNN couldn't possibly have been there before the time Stone was arrested. Got it!

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/01/25/roger-stone-arrest-play-by-play-shortell-vpx.cnn

So, does this prove that CNN really is fake news?

Note, I see that there was a follow-up message by Carl that hit the board while I was still writing and editing my tongue-in-cheek reply (in this post), rendering it obsolete. But it still doesn't prove anything about the nature of the tip-off to CNN -- we don't know if this leak was that of a loose canon or a deliberate "leak" orchestrated by Department of Justice higher-ups for unknown political or psychological purposes.

" ... we still don't know if this leak was that of a loose canon or a deliberate "leak" directed by higher ups."

John, since 127 news organizations were notified minutes after confirmation of the arrest, there was no advantage for higher ups to leak.

"John, since 127 news organizations were notified minutes after confirmation of the arrest, there was no advantage for higher ups to leak."

I respectfully disagree. Higher-ups might have intended to send a message to others who might suspect they, too, are being investigated, and would prefer not to be featured in CNN "bust" videos. We'll probably never know.

"What was Mueller's advantage in having a video of a large number of armed FBI agents making an arrest of an old man?"

This was answered a ton of times but I'm glad to do it again. It resulted in the story being reported on the anti Trump station/CNN numerous times on numerous days with the pro Mueller spin.

You do know that happened, correct?

"Granted, there was an error in procedure and somebody from the FBI should be disciplined."

Wonderful Carl. We are making progress. You are at least recognizing that protocol for every situation like this was not followed/was violated by letting a major tv network accompany them and record them. 

But an error in procedure?  Mueller used overkill with the procedure (using 10 times the needed force and support) and had over 2 dozen men there, and somehow......they all overlooked a major tv station being there that shouldn't be?

 "Anything else?"

Not really.  My explanation of what happened has remained exactly the same from square one. There has been zero changing because the facts are the facts.

You guys have come up with several reasons for why you don't want to believe the facts............and I can bust all of them because the facts are the facts.

So if you have another reason for why, what happened, didn't really happen, I'll be glad to apply the facts again to explain why it really did happen.

"But an error in procedure?  Mueller used overkill with the procedure (using 10 times the needed force and support) and had over 2 dozen men there, and somehow......they all overlooked a major tv station being there that shouldn't be?"

Exactly -- it seems to me that Muller wanted to send a message to somebody and he wanted it on video -- maybe it was Roger Stone himself. But yeah -- there's no way Muller needed that kind of force -- to think he was at all concerned that Stone might come flying out the door, guns a-blazing, beggars belief.

I was among the first to post about this Mueller farce and not on thing has changed since day 1. Not one person involved has been called to question by the authorities. Just like a banana republic the special council is a joke with no supervision

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Facts over ride supposition.