Roger Stone connected to matters still under investigation, Justice Dept. says
roger stone gag order trump
Washington (CNN) — Longtime Donald Trump ally Roger Stone is connected to investigations Robert Mueller sent to other prosecutors and that continue despite the special counsel having finished his work, the Justice Department said Friday in a new court filing.
The Justice Department told the federal court in Washington, DC, on Friday afternoon that it shouldn't allow the public release of search warrants being used in Stone's criminal case in DC federal court. The warrants "concern investigations that remain ongoing," the filing says. There's so much sensitive information still in the search warrants that they should not even be released with redactions, the Justice Department argues.
"Because of the interconnected nature of the Special Counsel's investigations, the category of materials here sweeps more broadly than Stone and the specific crimes with which he has been charged," the prosecutors wrote.
"Although the Special Counsel has concluded his investigation, the requested materials concern investigations that remain ongoing, a trial in (Stone's case) that is scheduled for later this year, and the privacy interests of uncharged third parties. No right of public access applies to such materials," the prosecutors said. A media coalition, including CNN, had asked to unseal the Stone warrants.
Prosecutors even gave a hypothetical about ongoing investigations, saying it's possible a defendant gets charged with a crime but still has other conduct and communication with others under investigation.
"The Special Counsel's investigation has involved multiple lines of inquiry. Many have been handled in the Special Counsel's Office. But the Special Counsel has also referred a number of matters to other offices in the government for investigation," the prosecutors added.
Stone was charged with lying, obstruction and witness intimidation related to his statements to Congress about his attempts to interact with WikiLeaks about stolen documents in 2016. Russian military agents were separately charged by Mueller for the alleged hack of the Democrats.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested in London on Thursday and charged with a conspiracy computer crime, but it did not touch on the 2016 hack or WikiLeaks' publication of those documents.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/12/politics ... index.html
Roger Stone wants to put Assange on the stand
BEN SCHRECKINGER04/12/2019 02:15 PM EDT
WikiLeaks has denied having contact with Roger Stone. | Andrew Caballero-Reynolds
Roger Stone hopes to put WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on the stand at his upcoming trial for alleged obstruction and witness intimidation, according to a person familiar with the thinking of Stone’s legal team.
The prospect of obtaining Assange’s testimony has grown somewhat likelier with his Thursday arrest in London, which paves the way for his possible extradition to the United States.
Stone expects Assange, under oath, would reiterate WikiLeaks’ denials that it was in contact with Stone in 2016 as it prepared to release hacked emails stolen from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta, according to the person.
It’s unclear whether Assange would make it to U.S. soil by the time of Stone’s trial in November. But for the longtime Trump confidant, a connoisseur of political theater, putting the iconic, white-haired hacker on the stand would have the added benefit of producing a pure media spectacle.
Stone and his legal team are under a gag order, which bars them from speaking publicly about the case, other than to raise money for Stone’s legal defense fund or say that he has pleaded not guilty. A lawyer for Stone, Grant Smith, declined to comment, as did Marc Raimondi, a national security spokesman for the Justice Department.
Even with Assange’s arrest, several hurdles could prevent his testimony. A hearing on the U.S. extradition request is scheduled for May, but it could be denied, or Assange could appeal an extradition, dragging out the process past the conclusion of Stone’s trial. And if Stone’s team formally seeks Assange’s testimony, a judge could rule it irrelevant or Assange could refuse to cooperate, especially given that he faces unrelated criminal charges of his own and testimony would open him up to cross-examination by prosecutors.
WikiLeaks has denied having contact with Stone. “No communications, no channel,” the group told CNN in 2017. In February 2019, the group tweeted, “WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange has never had a telephone call with Roger Stone” in response to congressional testimony from former Trump attorney Michael Cohen that suggested Stone was in touch with the group during the presidential campaign.
Stone called Assange “my hero” during the presidential race. Following leaks of material from Democratic National Committee servers, repeatedly predicted that WikiLeaks would produce more material related to the election, which it did.
In August 2016, he emailed an associate, former Trump adviser Sam Nunberg, “I dined with my new pal Julian Assange last nite” according to The Wall Street Journal. But no evidence has emerged that Stone actually entered the heavily surveilled Ecuadorian embassy, and Stone has said the email was a joke.
Stone, a Donald Trump adviser in formal and informal capacities going back to the 1980s, pleaded not guilty in January to charges that he misled Congress about his efforts to communicate with WikiLeaks and attempted to intimidate Randy Credico, a witness in Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian election meddling who communicated with both WikiLeaks and Stone in 2016.
In April 2018, Stone allegedly threatened Credico’s pet Bianca in a text message, writing that he would “take that dog away from you,” and adding later, “I am so ready. Let’s get it on. Prepare to die [expletive].” He also allegedly urged Credico to “do a ‘Frank Pentangeli’” a reference to a character in the “Godfather Part II” who lies under oath to Congress about organized crime activities. (Stone has said the messages were intended to be “light-hearted.”)
Stone has not been charged with any involvement in hacking or conspiracy related to the WikiLeaks releases.
Until Thursday, Assange had been living under asylum protection in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, an arrangement that would have made it difficult to obtain his testimony in a U.S. court proceeding. After Assange’s arrest, the U.S. requested his extradition to face unrelated hacking charges stemming from WikiLeaks’ 2010 publication of a cache of secret U.S. government documents
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/ ... ge-1272933
After so much speculation on what Rick Gates knew about Trumpland, his usefulness is coming to an end.
The former Trump deputy campaign chair/top Mueller cooperator will be ready for sentencing after Roger Stone, Greg Craig federal trials, per filing tonight
At Stone’s trial, Gates could fill-in-(some of)the-blanks about what Donald Trump and Roger Stone said during the campaign about WikiLeaks and the Russian hacks.
Two key redacted pages of Mueller report:
Judge won't dismiss Roger Stone case, but allows him to see unredacted Mueller docs
Washington (CNN) — Roger Stone has lost his attempts to get rid of his criminal charges, but will get access to some unredacted parts of the Mueller report as he prepares for his trial.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the US District Court in Washington, DC, declined on Thursday to throw out any part of Stone's indictment after he filed various motions to dismiss attacking the criminal charges and the broader appointment and work of special counsel Robert Mueller.
Stone was indicted in January on seven counts of obstruction, lying to Congress during September 2017 testimony and witness tampering. The charges all relate to his efforts to reach WikiLeaks in 2016 over the publication of hacked emails that could hurt then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and help candidate Donald Trump, a friend of his. He pleaded not guilty and his trial is set for November.
Jackson's opinion Thursday was yet another opportunity for a federal judge to endorse Mueller's prosecutorial decisions -- after three other federal trial-level judges also upheld Mueller's work. The ruling was not a surprise, because Stone's team had conceded at a previous court hearing that some of his key legal arguments went against past Supreme Court and other appeals court decisions.
Stone had taken issue with Mueller investigating the President, receiving funding for his work, and charging Stone with lying to Congress. The House Intelligence Committee made no formal referral for prosecution after Stone testified to them, Stone had pointed out.
Prosecutors want to use clip from 'The Godfather: Part II' at Roger Stone's criminal trial
But Stone himself had drawn attention to what he said during his testimony by publicly saying afterward the committee doubted him, Jackson said.
"He can hardly claim that the special counsel reached out and grabbed this issue without congressional participation or assent," Jackson wrote. As for Mueller investigating the President, "Roger Stone is not the President of the United States."
Jackson also told Stone he couldn't seek more details about prosecutors' charging decisions. His legal team had accused Mueller's of targeting him for political purposes, because he had "exercised his First Amendment right to associate with" President Donald Trump, they had written.
Jackson roundly shot down this accusation. Stone was one of 11 people charged with making false statements, obstructing justice or witness tampering in connection with the Russia investigation, she noted -- and the others included former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former Obama White House counsel Greg Craig.
"There were numerous supporters, associates, and family members of the President who have provided testimony or information and were not charged with making false statements," Jackson wrote on Thursday. "The mere fact that an individual who was at one time associated with the campaign became a focus of the special counsel's attention is not remarkable, and standing alone, it is not sign of improper motivation."
Can view redacted Mueller report pages
Separately, Jackson agreed to let Stone see redacted portions on about 20 pages of the Mueller report as well. Those pages are mostly in the report's first volume on the Russian conspiracy to influence the election.
Yet even this is a narrow win for Stone. His legal defense team already has access to evidence in his case, and they'll only be able to see the redacted portions that pertain to him. Those redacted portions could summarize what his team already knows, according to the court record.
When the 448-page report came out, about 36 pages of it was redacted for various reasons. "Harm to an ongoing matter" was a major reason for many of the redactions -- and prosecutors have said in some cases, that meant the Stone case.
Both Stone and the Justice Department have been under a strict gag order set by Jackson not to reveal information about the case that could harm his ability to have a fair trial. The gag order, a previously court filing said, contributed to some of the redactions.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/01/politics ... index.html
Nadler: Judiciary panel could recommend articles of impeachment by late fall
KYLE CHENEY08/05/2019 10:19 AM EDT
Judiciary chairman Jerry Nadler proposed an ambitious impeachment timeframe for a committee that has so far been nearly totally stymied in its effort to force Robert Mueller's central witnesses to provide information to Congress. | Win McNamee/Getty Images
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said Monday that his panel could recommend articles of impeachment by late fall, sketching a rough timeline for potential efforts to remove President Donald Trump just days after a majority of House Democrats signaled their willingness to support an impeachment inquiry.
"If we decide to report articles of impeachment, we could get to that late in the fall, in the latter part of the year," Nadler said on MSNBC.
Nadler is petitioning a federal judge to get lawmakers access to grand jury evidence collected by former special counsel Robert Mueller, and his committee is preparing to sue former White House counsel Don McGahn to compel his testimony in the committee's ongoing investigation into potential abuses of power by Trump.
"I think that we will probably get court decisions by the end of October, maybe shortly thereafter. We'll have hearings in September and October with people we don't -- witnesses who are not dependent on the court proceedings," Nadler said.
But that's an ambitious timeframe for a committee that has so far been nearly totally stymied in its effort to force Mueller's central witnesses to provide information to Congress. McGahn, his deputy Annie Donaldson and former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks have all refused to testify about the events that they freely discussed with Mueller, forming the basis of Mueller's damaging evidence of Trump's efforts to thwart the investigation of his campaign's numerous contacts with Russians.
Democrats say they need to speak to these witnesses to build their own body of evidence as they consider measures -- including impeachment -- to hold Trump accountable for the actions described in Mueller's report. But even with court victories, appeals and other legal processes and delays could stretch the process out for months or years, entangling legal efforts with the 2020 presidential campaign. Nadler emphasized during his MSNBC interview that his committee's efforts should continue irrespective of the political calendar.
But others on the committee have viewed the start of the presidential primaries as an unofficial deadline for potential impeachment. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has continued to resist calls for a formal impeachment inquiry and argued that methodical investigations and legal action is the proper course for now.
Pelosi emphasized her position Friday even as Democrats agitating for an impeachment inquiry eclipsed half of the voting members of her caucus. About 120 Democrats have said publicly that they would vote to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump. Nadler, of late, has argued that such a vote would be unnecessary because his committee is already engaged in an "impeachment investigation," but Republicans have rejected that position and argued only a formal vote can launch proceedings.
That determination is now in the hands of Beryl Howell, the chief judge of Washington’s federal district court, who is weighing Democrats' petition to access Mueller's grand jury information. In their filing, committee Democrats argued that they should be treated as actively investigating impeachment, given that the House referred articles of impeachment to the panel in January and the fact that they've repeatedly referenced the prospect of recommending articles over the course of their investigations.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/ ... er-1448024
Judge rejects Stone's request to dismiss charges
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Thursday denied longtime GOP operative Roger Stone’s request to dismiss the charges against him, finding that Stone “has not identified any legal ground” to do so.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson refused to dismiss charges of lying to Congress, interfering with a congressional investigation and witness tampering. She also rejected an attempt by Stone to investigate “selective prosecution” by former special counsel Robert Mueller’s team.
Jackson noted in her ruling that Stone’s own legal team had conceded that their arguments did not hold up against past precedent that the judge is bound to follow in overseeing the case.
“Based on the allegations in the indictment which are assumed to be rue for the purposes of these motions, it is fair to say that Stone has no one but himself to blame for the fact that he was investigated by the Department of Justice,” Jackson wrote.
However, Jackson did hand Stone a small victory by ruling that he can view some of the redacted portions of the Mueller report relating to his case.
The judge said that Stone cannot view parts of the report that are redacted due to grand jury information, an ongoing investigation, national security matters or information that would expose intelligence-gathering techniques.
But she ordered that Stone be given access to some materials “withheld solely on the basis that its release could affect the ongoing prosecution of this case.”
The opinion notes that the material is subject to the gag order in Stone’s case, making it unlikely that it’s made available publicly — at least for now.
Jackson’s order refusing to dismiss charges is another blow to Stone ahead of his November trial in a case stemming from Mueller’s now-defunct probe.
Stone had argued that the charges violated constitutional separation of powers, as he was being prosecuted by the Justice Department without the House Intelligence Committee referring him for prosecution. Stone was charged with lying to the panel of lawmakers in relation to his contacts with WikiLeaks.
But Jackson said that Stone “ignores clear precedent that recognizes the Executive’s unfettered responsibility for law enforcement.”
“Defendant misunderstands the law of materiality and the fundamental nature of a motion to dismiss an indictment,” she added.
The judge also rejected Stone’s argument that Mueller’s appointment violated the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, saying that it “ignores the context and legislative history of the appropriation as well as its text.”
And she took aim at the GOP operative’s claims that investigating him would “unconstitutionally impinge on the President’s ability to carry out his duties as the chief executive.”
“First of all, Roger Stone is not the President of the United States,” Jackson wrote. “So it is not clear how any prohibition against investigating the chief executive would apply to him.”
This is the most recent setback Stone has faced in Jackson’s court: His gag order was expanded last month to block him from making any posts on Instagram, Facebook or Twitter after Jackson ruled that he had violated the existing order with Instagram posts.
She had slapped the onetime Trump campaign adviser with a gag order earlier this year, after he posted an image on Instagram of her with a crosshairs in the corner.
Stone’s legal team has generally struggled in Jackson’s court. They have also asked multiple times for the case to be reassigned, but have been rejected each time.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... ss-charges
Judge: No evidence Roger Stone was indicted for political reasons
By JOSH GERSTEIN08/01/2019 02:41 PM EDT
The judge suggested that if special counsel Robert Mueller was engaged in a political vendetta, charges might have been filed against people who were closer to Donald Trump than Roger Stone. | Mark Wilson/Getty Images
A federal judge has rejected arguments from political consultant Roger Stone that he was indicted on charges of obstructing a Congressional investigation and witness tampering because of his role as a longtime adviser to President Donald Trump.
U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson said motions filed by Stone’s defense were entirely devoid of evidence that Stone was singled out as an act of political retribution because of his support for Trump.
Stone’s “supposition is made up out of whole cloth,” Jackson wrote in a 56-page ruling issued Thursday morning. “To support this proposition, he marshals no facts….Stone points to nothing that would substantiate his attribution of his indictment to his political views. ”
A grand jury in Washington indicted Stone in January at the request of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
The seven-count indictment accused Stone of obstruction of justice, false statements and witness tampering for allegedly trying to deceive the House Intelligence Committee and the FBI about his actions related WikiLeaks during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Jackson said Stone’s claims that he was picked out for special or unusual scrutiny overlook the way in which the publicity-loving consultant and provocateur drew attention to himself in connection with WikiLeaks’ disclosures of politically-damaging emails in the lead-up to the 2016 election.
“Based on the allegations in the indictment which are assumed to be true for purposes of these motions, it is fair to say that Roger Stone has no one but himself to blame for the fact that he was investigated by the Department of Justice,” the judge wrote in a footnote to her ruling.
Jackson noted that in August 2016 Stone claimed to be in touch with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, sent text messages to get details about planned releases and allegedly commented to Trump campaign officials about those plans.
“It may well be that the defendant was being more truthful in his later disavowal of those statements than in his original braggadocio,” the judge wrote. “But there is no question that when he chose to take credit for the Wikileaks release and to tantalize the public with hints that he had inside information about more to come, he chose to place himself directly in the vortex of the issues that became the focus of multiple law enforcement, counterintelligence, and congressional investigations.”
“He can hardly complain that under those circumstances, once he appeared before the Committee, his veracity, along with the veracity of other witnesses, was subject to scrutiny,” she added.
Jackson also suggested that if Mueller was engaged in a political vendetta, charges might have been filed against people caught up in the investigations who were closer to Trump than Stone, including Trump’s relatives.
“The defendant’s assertion is inconsistent with the fact that there were numerous supporters, associates, and family members of the President who have provided testimony or information and were not charged with making false statements,” she wrote.
Jackson, an appointee of President Barack Obama, also rejected arguments that Mueller’s bias was displayed by his decision not to indict two specific Stone associates: conservative writer Jerome Corsi and liberal radio host Randy Credico. She said their cases were not analogous to Stone’s. She also said it was hard to see political bias in Mueller’s decision not to charge Corsi, given that his Twitter account, Facebook page and website all indicated he is an ardent Trump supporter.
Stone’s defense leveled a series of legal attacks on his indictment, including claims that Mueller was illegally appointed and that his office was never legally funded by Congress.
Stone’s lawyers acknowledged that several of their arguments were effectively foreclosed by Supreme Court or appeals court precedent that Jackson is bound to follow. They may have raised those arguments to bring them up with higher courts if Stone is convicted, or to re-air grievances Trump supporters hold about Mueller’s conduct.
The judge noted that in February, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a series of challenges to Mueller’s appointment and authority brought by Andrew Miller, a former aide to Stone who’d been subpoenaed to the grand jury.
Stone’s lawyers also put forward some long-shot arguments against Muller, like a claim that the Justice Department can’t even investigate the president.
That prompted a pithy retort from the judge: “There are several problems with this attack on the prosecution. First of all, Roger Stone is not the President of the United States. So it is not clear how any prohibition against investigating the chief executive would apply him [sic].”
The judge also said the Supreme Court’s decision upholding a special counsel’s subpoena for President Richard Nixon’s tapes in Watergate indicated that the Justice Department does have power to probe the president.
Stone’s team did score one small victory in the new court decision. While Jackson denied the defense the right to obtain documents or take testimony exploring the prosecutors’ motivations, she did rule that Stone’s lawyers should be permitted to see some portions of Mueller’s final report that have not been made public.
Bruce Rogow, one of Stone's lawyers, said, “The order addressed the serious constitutional issues we raised, which are now preserved, if need be, for appeal. We look forward to receiving the unredacted portions of the report of the special counsel.“
The indictment against Stone was the last brought by Mueller’s office before it shut down in May. The case is now being handled by prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington. Stone’s trial is set to open Nov. 5.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/ ... mp-1444412
Prosecutors Want to Use ‘Godfather II’ Clip in Case Against Roger Stone
Prosecutors have asked to use a clip of a deceitful Mafia underling named Pentangeli from “The Godfather Part II” during Roger Stone’s upcoming trial on perjury and obstruction charges.
In a court filing on Friday, government prosecutors are seeking permission to use a four-minute clip of the Mafia minion from the classic film, which they say Stone referenced in conversations that “are alleged to have constituted witness tampering.”
“Start practicing your Pantagele [sic],” Stone texted radio host Randy Credico, according to CNN, while discussing his potential House Intelligence Committee testimony. Prosecutors believe Stone crafted a cover story to mask Credico’s outreach to WikiLeaks during the 2016 election.
Also Read: Roger Stone Arrested in Mueller Investigation, Faces Obstruction Charges
In the “Godfather II” snippet, mobster Frank Pentangeli heads to Washington, D.C. to testify before a Senate committee about his involvement in organized crime. Pentangeli then changes his mind and denies knowing anything about the crime family after mob boss Michael Corleone enters the hearing.
You can check the scene out here.
“The relevant scene is important context for understanding Stone’s references — including what Stone intended to communicate to the witness and how Stone would have understood the witness’s likely understanding of those messages,” the motion, which you can see in full below, said.
https://www.thewrap.com/prosecutors-wan ... one-trial/
Voluble Roger Stone Asks Appeals Court To Save Him From Pre-Trial Gag Order
Joe Raedle/Getty Images North America
Roger Stone on Monday asked an appeals court to overturn what he described as a “total speech ban” imposed by the trial judge on him and his family ahead of his November trial.
Stone, who is facing charges of obstruction and of false statements to Congress, was last month prohibited from using social media after repeatedly posting content that ran afoul of the judge’s initial gag order in the case.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson also banned Stone from “having statements made publicly on his behalf by surrogates, family members, spokespersons, representatives or volunteers.”
Stone alleged Monday that the orders violate both his and his family’s First Amendment rights. Joining him in the petition to the appeals court is his wife, his stepdaughter and two of his wife’s cousins.
“[F]amily members could put Roger Stone at risk of his liberty should they voice an opinion as to his innocence, the arrest, the investigation, the case, or the witnesses who the government may offer,” the appeals court filing said, while noting that Berman Jackson fashioned the gag order as part of Stone’s conditions for release on bail.
“At the least, they and Stone would be subject to an inquiry by the court as to whether they were ‘surrogates.’ The family members’ speech is chilled,” Stone said in the petition.
He argued that there was “no evidence, or suggestions of evidence, that there is any likelihood of material prejudice to this case, or any threat to the integrity of the jury pool or a fair trial.”
Stone complained that the gag order comes as he has “been the subject of thousands of articles relating to his prosecution” and that there “have been tens of thousands of hostile-to-Stone articles”
He cited traditional news articles and special counsel Robert Mueller’s recent congressional testimony, as well as a Saturday Night Live skit and an oddsmakers website predicting the chances he’ll be convicted.
Judge Berman Jackson imposed the order restricting Stone’s social media use after, on several occasions, Stone appeared to violate her original gag order with posts to his accounts. He first got in trouble for posting to his Instagram account a photo of the judge herself, with a crosshairs symbol in the background of the image alongside and incendiary caption. She then banned him from commenting on the case or on the Mueller investigation, besides proclamations of his innocence and promotion of his legal defense fund. But Stone continued to post Instagram images that seemed to ignore her repeated warnings.
The current petition to the appeals court asks thats “All the speech restraints placed on Stone and his family” be undone.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker ... t-petition
Stone aide who battled Mueller will testify at former boss’ trial
Andrew Miller, who Roger Stone has described as his “wingman,” will appear at Stone’s November trial for lying to Congress and the FBI.
NATASHA BERTRAND09/04/2019 05:11 PM EDT
Andrew Miller, a former aide to Roger Stone, had fought federal prosecutors‘ attempts to subpoena him to testify as a prosecution witness in Stone‘s trial for allegedly lying to the FBI about his ties to WikiLeaks. | Andrew Harnik/AP Photo
Roger Stone’s “wingman,” who spent a year fighting a subpoena from special counsel Robert Mueller, has now been subpoenaed to testify at his former boss’ trial.
Andrew Miller, a longtime aide to Stone, received a subpoena in early August to appear as a government witness, said Miller’s lawyer, Paul Kamenar. Kamenar said he was “puzzled” as to why prosecutors wanted Miller as a government witness — he said earlier this year that he did not think Miller would be called — but confirmed that Miller plans to comply.
The result is that one of Stone’s closest aides will be testifying about him at his trial in November for lying to Congress and the FBI about his dealings with WikiLeaks during the 2016 election. He has pleaded not guilty.
Miller worked with Stone for over a decade, managing his schedule and travel. Miller accompanied Stone to the Republican National Convention in 2016, meaning he might have insight into Stone’s activity around this time.
The subpoena offers further evidence that the government considers Miller a key part of its prosecution strategy and marks just the latest legal setback for Stone. U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson in July banned the one-time Trump political adviser from social media after ruling that he ran afoul of a court-imposed gag order.
Prosecutors have long had Miller on their radar and subpoenaed him in 2018 to testify before Mueller’s grand jury. Miller vigorously fought the move, arguing that Mueller’s appointment was invalid because his level of authority should have required Senate confirmation. He also contended that the deputy attorney general did not have the power to appoint Mueller, even though then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions had recused himself from the matter.
Although the fight dragged past Stone’s indictment, Mueller’s attorneys refused to drop their subpoena push. The move raised some eyebrows, since grand juries are not supposed to be used to investigate a criminal case that’s already been filed. But grand juries can be used to add new charges or to charge new defendants.
U.S. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell appeared satisfied during a hearing earlier this summer with prosecutors’ explanations of why they still needed Miller to testify before the grand jury, and ordered him to appear in early June. Miller then abandoned his fight, as his only remaining option was to appeal to the Supreme Court, and turned over all of his text messages with Stone from October 2016 to March 2017, as well as the written agenda for Stone while he was at the Republican National Convention in 2016.
Another government witness at Stone’s trial will be Randy Credico, a colorful New York radio host and Stone acquaintance who was subpoenaed by the Washington, D.C., U.S. attorney’s office on April 18. That subpoena, obtained by POLITICO, orders Credico to appear in court the day the trial opens.
Credico is expected to shed light not only on Stone’s efforts to connect with WikiLeaks during the 2016 election as he sought Hillary Clinton’s emails, but also on Stone’s alleged attempts to intimidate Credico into parroting his version of events.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/ ... er-1481320
DONALD TRUMP WAS “COLLUDING” WITH ROGER STONE ON FOUR DIFFERENT DIRECT LINES
September 6, 2019/5 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, Mueller Probe /by emptywheel
The parties in the Roger Stone trial just released some pre-trial documents that include a stipulation for a bunch of emails and phone numbers that will be discussed at trial. (I’m not linking them because they’re not redacted.)
The big surprise — though I guess we should have expected this — is that Erik Prince is on there, which means he’s probably the Trump supporter eagerly awaiting the drop of John Podesta’s emails.On or about October 3, 2016, STONE wrote to a supporter involved with the Trump Campaign, “Spoke to my friend in London last night. The payload is still coming.”
Later that day, on or about October 4, 2016, the supporter involved with the Trump Campaign asked STONE via text message if he had “hear[d] anymore from London.” STONE replied, “Yes – want to talk on a secure line – got Whatsapp?” STONE subsequently told the supporter that more material would be released and that it would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign
But far more damning is that there are four Donald Trump phone numbers there, as well as numbers for his two assistants and his bodyguard, Keith Schiller.
Trump told Robert Mueller, under oath, that he didn’t remember being in the loop on Roger Stone’s efforts, clear lies.Response to Question II, Part (e)
I was in Trump Tower in New York City on October 7, 2016.
I have no recollection of being told that WikiLeaks possessed or might possess emails related to John Podesta before the release of Mr. Podesta’s emails was reported by the media. Likewise, I have no recollection of being told that Roger Stone, anyone acting as an intermediary for Roger Stone, or anyone associated with my campaign had communicated with WikiLeaks on October 7, 2016.
Response to Question II, Part (f)
I do not recall being told during the campaign that Roger Stone or anyone associated with my campaign had discussions with any of the entities named in the question regarding the content or timing of release of hacked emails.
Response to Question ll, Part (g)
I spoke by telephone with Roger Stone from time to time during the campaign. I have no recollection of the specifics of any conversations I had with Mr. Stone between June 1.2016 and November 8, 2016. I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with him, nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign, although I was aware that WikiLeaks was the subject of media reporting and campaign-related discussion at the time.
Now we know that Trump spoke to Stone a lot. So much so it’s going to make clear all these claims are lies.
In the George Papadopoulos’ testimony to Congress, Mark Meadows defined “collusion” to mean “benefitting from Hillary Clinton emails.”Mr. Papadopoulos. And after he was throwing these allegations at me, I —
Mr. Meadows. And by allegations, allegations that the Trump campaign was benefiting from Hillary Clinton emails?
Mr. Papadopoulos. Something along those lines, sir. And I think I pushed back and I told him, I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. What you’re talking about is something along the lines of treason. I’m not involved. I don’t know anyone in the campaign who’s involved. And, you know, I really have nothing to do with Russia. That’s — something along those lines is how I think I responded to this person.
Mr. Meadows. So essentially at this point, he was suggesting that there was collusion and you pushed back very firmly is what it sounds like.
It turns out Donald Trump was “colluding” with Roger Stone on four different direct lines!
https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/09/06/f ... nes-trial/
Roger Stone just stabbed Donald Trump in the back
Isabel Stamm | 7:07 pm EDT September 8, 2019
The walls are closing in on Donald Trump as various threads of investigations into his wrongdoings unfold. It is only a matter of time now before Deutsche Bank will submit Donald Trump’s tax returns and other documents that might provide evidence of his financial crimes. The House Oversight Committee is breathing down his neck, investigating whether U.S. military expenditures have been propping up Trump’s ailing Turnberry property after a U.S. Air Force crewman had tipped them off about a highly unusual refueling stop in Glasgow that included a stay at Trump’s ritzy resort.
And then there is the long-awaited Roger Stone trial, which is set to begin in early November, and preparations are well under way. According to a Politico report from September 4, Andrew Miller – a longtime aide to Roger Stone – has lost a year-long subpoena battle that started when Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation was still ongoing. Now, Miller – who was in charge of Stone’s travel schedules and accompanied him to the 2016 Republican National Convention – will be testifying as a state witness at the trial in which Trump’s old confidant stands accused of lying to Congress about his dealings with WikiLeaks during the 2016 election campaign.
On Friday, some interesting new information came to light, suggesting that – despite the denials he made under oath to the Mueller investigation – Donald Trump may have been one of the people in the loop regarding Stone’s efforts to optimize the WikiLeaks releases after all. According to national security blogger Marcy Wheeler, a new filing was loaded to the Stone docket in which the parties in the trial released some pre-trial documents that include a stipulation for various emails and telephone numbers that will be discussed during the proceedings. The newly-released list includes the phone numbers of Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Steve Bannon, Erik Prince, Jerome Corsi, Randy Credico and – here’s the kicker – four direct lines to Donald Trump plus two phone numbers belonging to Trump assistants as well as one for his loyal and trusted aide Keith Schiller.
Because this is 2019 and not the world as it used to be, all these telephone numbers appeared on the docket in unredacted form, which means that Roger Stone’s legal team effectively doxxed all the people mentioned above, including Donald Trump who is present on the list with a cell phone number, two work numbers and the number of his NYC residence. (Those numbers are not included in Marcy Wheeler’s tweet in which she reveals her findings. You can only find the list of names on her Twitter account, @emptywheel.)
We heard Michael Cohen claim earlier this year that he was present when then-candidate Trump took a call from Roger Stone that most likely had WikiLeaks as a subject, but this felt like rather flimsy proof of Trump’s involvement in the coordination attempt around the release of the hacked emails. The fact that all those phone numbers connected directly or indirectly to Donald Trump will be a matter of close scrutiny during Roger Stone’s trial suggests that there was a lot more contact between the two men and that evidence of Trump’s knowledge of the impending document dump may yet come to light.
https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/r ... ack/20680/
Isabel Stamm wrote:
The walls are closing in on Donald Trump
Isabel Stamm wrote:
The walls are closing in on Donald Trump
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest