Roger Stone

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Roger Stone

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:54 am

Stonewalling

AKA he's trying to avoid perjuring himself.

House Judiciary Committee will subpoena Stone.

Image
Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Roger Stone

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:09 pm

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
Roger Stone
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
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Roger Stone

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:55 am

Katelyn Polantz


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

Image

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:

Image
Image
https://twitter.com/kpolantz/status/1157118034416492544


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
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Roger Stone

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:14 am

thank you so much for the reminder RocketMan :wave:


I needed to add some news about the scum man Stone


This times up in interesting ways with Roger Stone's scheduled trial

Nadler: Judiciary panel could recommend articles of impeachment by late fall
KYLE CHENEY08/05/2019 10:19 AM EDT
Jerry Nadler
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
Roger Stone
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
Sean Burch
roger stone
Getty Images
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
Tierney Sneed

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
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Roger Stone

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Sep 04, 2019 5:34 pm

poor Roger can't even tweet about it :P

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
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
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Roger Stone

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Sep 07, 2019 8:29 am

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.”

[snip]

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.

Image

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/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Roger Stone

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:22 pm

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/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Roger Stone

Postby Elvis » Sun Sep 08, 2019 11:03 pm

Isabel Stamm wrote:
The walls are closing in on Donald Trump


Sorry, can't resist the humor, and surely the writer of this unfortunately worded bit of wishful-thinking reportage must have known better?

the Walls Are Closing in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLEchPZm318



Has no one posted Stone's early-morning underwear perpwalk? Enjoy!

Watch Mueller Team Arrest Roger Stone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L-d4lJkjZE
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 6651
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Roger Stone

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Sep 09, 2019 10:56 am

Isabel Stamm wrote:

The walls are closing in on Donald Trump



sorry about that I was feeling very giddy last night :D

Stone doxxed all those phone numbers :yay

and Andrew Miller, who is Roger Stone wingman is going to testify :yay

Impeachment officially starts today ...and I feel fine :partydance: :partydance:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrAV5EVI4tU
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Roger Stone

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:29 am

Kyle Cheney

Verified account

@kyledcheney
Follow Follow @kyledcheney
More
NEW: Judge denies prosecutors' request to play a clip from Godfather II in Roger Stone's trial. She says it would have a "predjudicial effect." She say prosecutors can introduce a transcript of the scene instead.

[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHZ_v5qWsAILacc.jpg
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/ ... 1334434817[/img]
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Roger Stone

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Oct 22, 2019 12:33 pm

Appeals court throws out Roger Stone's effort to fight gag order
Harper Neidig10/22/19 11:16 AM EDT
A panel of federal appeals court judges dismissed Roger Stone's effort to free himself of a gag order imposing a blanket ban on using social media during his criminal trial over charges of obstructing and lying to Special Counsel investigators.
The three-judge panel for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that Stone did not have standing to petition the court because he had not exhausted other avenues of appealing the gag order.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the D.C. District Court, an Obama appointee, had repeatedly revised her order that Stone not discuss his case or Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation while his case was ongoing.
Jackson broadened the gag order in February after Stone posted an Instagram picture of her face next to what looked like crosshairs and accused her of being political biased against him.

Stone later apologized and said it was not his intention to threaten her.

The judge ordered Stone not to discuss the case in any medium, including on social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

But after he repeatedly defied the gag order with social media posts and in interviews with reporters, Jackson again expanded her order in July to include a blanket ban against using any social media whatsoever.
https://thehill.com/regulation/technolo ... ssion=true
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Roger Stone

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Nov 01, 2019 8:11 pm

How Roger Stone’s Trial Could Be a Nightmare for Donald Trump
Will the proceedings reveal the president lied to Robert Mueller?


Roger Stone arrives at federal court in Washington on April 30, 2019.Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Impeachment is in the air, as House Democrats focus on the still-growing Ukraine scandal as the reason to move forward with the ultimate political punishment. But the Trump-Russia scandal is about to make its own comeback. On November 5, Donald Trump’s longtime political adviser Roger Stone—the dirty trickster who had for years encouraged Trump to run for president—will go on trial in a federal court in Washington, DC, facing charges that he lied to Congress about his interactions with WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign, as the organization was publicly disseminating Democratic material stolen by Russian hackers. Stone also was indicted for allegedly obstructing justice and witness-tampering. Though the trial will determine whether Stone tried to bamboozle a congressional investigation, it could answer two bigger questions about the president: Did Trump use (or try to use) Stone as a conduit to WikiLeaks, and did Trump lie to special counsel Robert Mueller? The former might not be illegal; the latter could be a crime.

In the publicly released version of Mueller’s final report, Stone, the flamboyant provocateur and conspiracy theorist, is conspicuously absent. The Justice Department redacted most of the portions of the report that referenced Stone because his trial was pending. So it’s unclear what Mueller had on Stone. But the report contains clues suggesting that the full story of Stone’s involvement in the Trump-Russia scandal goes beyond what’s publicly known—and that it implicates Trump.

As has been already documented, Stone, during the Russian attack on the 2016 election, repeatedly declared he was in contact with WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange. Throughout that stretch, he sent out tweets predicting WikiLeaks would release material that would torpedo Hillary Clinton’s campaign—tweets that reinforced the impression he was in communication with WikiLeaks while it was part of the Russian operation. Stone—who remained in contact with Trump and his campaign after he was ousted from his official role in the Trump 2016 effort—also privately communicated with Guccifer 2.0, an online persona created by the Russian hackers. And Stone repeatedly claimed in public that Moscow had nothing to do with the hack of the Democratic National Committee servers, echoing Moscow’s propaganda. After the Russia scandal exploded, Stone changed his story and insisted that he had not been in direct touch with WikiLeaks and Assange. That is, he has essentially said he was lying and exaggerating during the 2016 campaign. He maintained it had all been “posture, bluff, hype.”

Yet Mueller’s report tantalizingly suggests that, in 2016, Stone directly interacted with Trump about WikiLeaks and its plans to release the documents pilfered by the Russian cyberthieves. The report includes this highly redacted section:


This shows that Trump sought inside information on what material WikiLeaks had and what it intended to do with the stuff. And it’s clear that in this tight campaign circle of Paul Manafort, the campaign manager, Rick Gates, the deputy campaign manager, and Trump, there was at least one other player—whose name was redacted—whom the campaign was relying on to find out what Assange was up to. At one point, according to the report, Trump apparently spoke to this person or someone else about what WikiLeaks had coming.

Beyond the Mueller report, the New York Times reported that Stone in 2016 traded emails with Steve Bannon, Trump’s campaign CEO after Manafort departed. In those emails, Stone purported to have inside information on Assange’s plans for releasing the hacked Democratic emails. WikiLeaks would release “a load every week going forward,” Stone told Bannon on October 4, 2016.

Stone’s trial could yield evidence that indicates whether Stone was talking to Trump or anyone else in the campaign about WikiLeaks—and whether he was viewed within Trump’s inner circle as a conduit to Assange.
Both Bannon and Gates are expected to testify as prosecution witnesses in Stone’s trial—an indication the proceeding will confirm that Stone was in contact with Trump campaign higher-ups about WikiLeaks during the election. Part of the federal case against Stone is that he lied to lawmakers when he said he had not communicated with the Trump campaign about what he knew (or claimed to know) about WikiLeaks’ plans. Stone’s and Gates’ testimony could address that and show whether the Trump campaign—and Trump himself—saw Stone as a go-between with WikiLeaks or a source of inside skinny on the Russia-WikiLeaks operation against Hillary Clinton. A person familiar with Bannon’s role in the trial says Bannon expects to testify that he communicated with Stone and that Stone “was portraying himself to Bannon as someone who was in touch with Assange.”

Back to the mystery man in the redacted paragraph from the Mueller report. It’s tough to think of anyone else in the Trump-Russia saga who would fit this bill other than Stone. The reason provided for the redactions in this section—the information could harm an “ongoing matter”—is a strong hint that Stone’s name appears under those blacked-out stretches. If so, that would mean Stone had been passing information to Trump and the campaign about WikiLeaks. In that case, one question would be if that information came from WikiLeaks itself—or if Stone had received it from another source or was just pretending to know more than he did.

Why does this matter? There are several reasons. First, if Trump or his senior campaign aides thought Stone was communicating with WikiLeaks—whether or not he actually was—and they were receiving information from him related to WikiLeaks, that would mean they believed then that the Trump campaign had a back-channel contact to WikiLeaks as it participated in the Russian operation. Trump has long shouted there was “no collusion.” But perhaps Trump thought at the time that he and his campaign were colluding. After all, a significant Trump adviser consorting with WikiLeaks at this point could be construed as some sort of collusion.

Stone’s trial could yield evidence (beyond his emails with Bannon) indicating whether Stone was talking to Trump or anyone else in the campaign about WikiLeaks—and whether he was viewed within Trump’s inner circle as a conduit to Assange. If Trump and the campaign in any way had tried to reach out to WikiLeaks through Stone while WikiLeaks was facilitating a Russian assault on an American election, that would be a big deal.

The Stone trial could also produce material that challenges what Trump told the special counsel. The president refused to be interviewed by Mueller, but Trump agreed to answer a set of written questions—as long as the queries only covered what happened during the campaign, not any activity that occurred after he became president (meaning actions related to the allegations that Trump obstructed justice). In the questions Mueller submitted to Trump, he asked several times about Stone, including these three:

Were you told of anyone associated with you or your campaign, including Roger Stone, having any discussions, directly or indirectly with WikiLeaks…regarding the content or timing of released of hacked emails?

Did Mr. Stone ever discuss WikiLeaks with you, or, as far as you were aware, with anyone else associated with the campaign?

Did Mr. Stone at any time inform you about contacts he had with WikiLeaks or any intermediary of WikiLeaks, or about forthcoming release of information?

In his written responses, Trump made these two statements:

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.

I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with [Stone], nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign.

Trump acknowledged that he had spoken with Stone “from time to time during the campaign,” but the man who has often boasted he has a great memory added that he had “no recollection of the specifics of any conversations he with Stone between June 1, 2016, and Election Day.”

Go back and read the paragraph from the Mueller report above. Who did Trump speak to on the phone during the ride to the airport? And when Manafort was under pressure to get information on WikiLeaks, who did he turn to? Who was pressing Manafort to find out WikiLeaks’ plans? Could it be someone other than Trump? Unless there’s a character in the story who has yet to be revealed, it seems probable that Stone was the guy trying to gather information from WikiLeaks for the Trump campaign—and that Trump knew about this.

Will the Stone trial provide answers? A lawyer for Stone did not respond to questions from Mother Jones. But any material presented in the courtroom that fills in the redactions would go far toward resolving all this. The evidence could also reveal whether Trump lied to the special counsel—which would be obstruction of justice and a crime. (Mueller’s final report, however, noted that Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president.) Throughout the Russia scandal, Trump has been caught in assorted lies, as he has continuously denied or dismissed the Russian attack that helped him become president. That scandal may be taking a back seat to the Ukraine controversy fueling the ongoing impeachment inquiry (though, in a way, the Russia affair led to the Ukraine scandal, with Trump pressing the Ukrainian president to investigate—and prove—a nutty conspiracy theory that claimed Moscow did not hack the 2016 election). This trial of a conniving Trump confidante who specializes in the political dark arts will be a reminder of the original scandal of the Trump administration that has tainted and undermined his presidency, and it could add another big lie—and a possible crime—to Trump’s long record of wrongdoing.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... ald-trump/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Roger Stone

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:40 pm

Witness list in Stone trial.
E0AE9CC8-6EA5-418B-B088-1DA756917BF4.png

How Roger Stone’s Trial Could Be a Nightmare for Donald Trump
Will the proceedings reveal the president lied to Robert Mueller?


Roger Stone arrives at federal court in Washington on April 30, 2019.Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Impeachment is in the air, as House Democrats focus on the still-growing Ukraine scandal as the reason to move forward with the ultimate political punishment. But the Trump-Russia scandal is about to make its own comeback. On November 5, Donald Trump’s longtime political adviser Roger Stone—the dirty trickster who had for years encouraged Trump to run for president—will go on trial in a federal court in Washington, DC, facing charges that he lied to Congress about his interactions with WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign, as the organization was publicly disseminating Democratic material stolen by Russian hackers. Stone also was indicted for allegedly obstructing justice and witness-tampering. Though the trial will determine whether Stone tried to bamboozle a congressional investigation, it could answer two bigger questions about the president: Did Trump use (or try to use) Stone as a conduit to WikiLeaks, and did Trump lie to special counsel Robert Mueller? The former might not be illegal; the latter could be a crime.

In the publicly released version of Mueller’s final report, Stone, the flamboyant provocateur and conspiracy theorist, is conspicuously absent. The Justice Department redacted most of the portions of the report that referenced Stone because his trial was pending. So it’s unclear what Mueller had on Stone. But the report contains clues suggesting that the full story of Stone’s involvement in the Trump-Russia scandal goes beyond what’s publicly known—and that it implicates Trump.

As has been already documented, Stone, during the Russian attack on the 2016 election, repeatedly declared he was in contact with WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange. Throughout that stretch, he sent out tweets predicting WikiLeaks would release material that would torpedo Hillary Clinton’s campaign—tweets that reinforced the impression he was in communication with WikiLeaks while it was part of the Russian operation. Stone—who remained in contact with Trump and his campaign after he was ousted from his official role in the Trump 2016 effort—also privately communicated with Guccifer 2.0, an online persona created by the Russian hackers. And Stone repeatedly claimed in public that Moscow had nothing to do with the hack of the Democratic National Committee servers, echoing Moscow’s propaganda. After the Russia scandal exploded, Stone changed his story and insisted that he had not been in direct touch with WikiLeaks and Assange. That is, he has essentially said he was lying and exaggerating during the 2016 campaign. He maintained it had all been “posture, bluff, hype.”

Yet Mueller’s report tantalizingly suggests that, in 2016, Stone directly interacted with Trump about WikiLeaks and its plans to release the documents pilfered by the Russian cyberthieves. The report includes this highly redacted section:


This shows that Trump sought inside information on what material WikiLeaks had and what it intended to do with the stuff. And it’s clear that in this tight campaign circle of Paul Manafort, the campaign manager, Rick Gates, the deputy campaign manager, and Trump, there was at least one other player—whose name was redacted—whom the campaign was relying on to find out what Assange was up to. At one point, according to the report, Trump apparently spoke to this person or someone else about what WikiLeaks had coming.

Beyond the Mueller report, the New York Times reported that Stone in 2016 traded emails with Steve Bannon, Trump’s campaign CEO after Manafort departed. In those emails, Stone purported to have inside information on Assange’s plans for releasing the hacked Democratic emails. WikiLeaks would release “a load every week going forward,” Stone told Bannon on October 4, 2016.

Stone’s trial could yield evidence that indicates whether Stone was talking to Trump or anyone else in the campaign about WikiLeaks—and whether he was viewed within Trump’s inner circle as a conduit to Assange.
Both Bannon and Gates are expected to testify as prosecution witnesses in Stone’s trial—an indication the proceeding will confirm that Stone was in contact with Trump campaign higher-ups about WikiLeaks during the election. Part of the federal case against Stone is that he lied to lawmakers when he said he had not communicated with the Trump campaign about what he knew (or claimed to know) about WikiLeaks’ plans. Stone’s and Gates’ testimony could address that and show whether the Trump campaign—and Trump himself—saw Stone as a go-between with WikiLeaks or a source of inside skinny on the Russia-WikiLeaks operation against Hillary Clinton. A person familiar with Bannon’s role in the trial says Bannon expects to testify that he communicated with Stone and that Stone “was portraying himself to Bannon as someone who was in touch with Assange.”

Back to the mystery man in the redacted paragraph from the Mueller report. It’s tough to think of anyone else in the Trump-Russia saga who would fit this bill other than Stone. The reason provided for the redactions in this section—the information could harm an “ongoing matter”—is a strong hint that Stone’s name appears under those blacked-out stretches. If so, that would mean Stone had been passing information to Trump and the campaign about WikiLeaks. In that case, one question would be if that information came from WikiLeaks itself—or if Stone had received it from another source or was just pretending to know more than he did.

Why does this matter? There are several reasons. First, if Trump or his senior campaign aides thought Stone was communicating with WikiLeaks—whether or not he actually was—and they were receiving information from him related to WikiLeaks, that would mean they believed then that the Trump campaign had a back-channel contact to WikiLeaks as it participated in the Russian operation. Trump has long shouted there was “no collusion.” But perhaps Trump thought at the time that he and his campaign were colluding. After all, a significant Trump adviser consorting with WikiLeaks at this point could be construed as some sort of collusion.

Stone’s trial could yield evidence (beyond his emails with Bannon) indicating whether Stone was talking to Trump or anyone else in the campaign about WikiLeaks—and whether he was viewed within Trump’s inner circle as a conduit to Assange. If Trump and the campaign in any way had tried to reach out to WikiLeaks through Stone while WikiLeaks was facilitating a Russian assault on an American election, that would be a big deal.

The Stone trial could also produce material that challenges what Trump told the special counsel. The president refused to be interviewed by Mueller, but Trump agreed to answer a set of written questions—as long as the queries only covered what happened during the campaign, not any activity that occurred after he became president (meaning actions related to the allegations that Trump obstructed justice). In the questions Mueller submitted to Trump, he asked several times about Stone, including these three:

Were you told of anyone associated with you or your campaign, including Roger Stone, having any discussions, directly or indirectly with WikiLeaks…regarding the content or timing of released of hacked emails?

Did Mr. Stone ever discuss WikiLeaks with you, or, as far as you were aware, with anyone else associated with the campaign?

Did Mr. Stone at any time inform you about contacts he had with WikiLeaks or any intermediary of WikiLeaks, or about forthcoming release of information?

In his written responses, Trump made these two statements:

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.

I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with [Stone], nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign.

Trump acknowledged that he had spoken with Stone “from time to time during the campaign,” but the man who has often boasted he has a great memory added that he had “no recollection of the specifics of any conversations he with Stone between June 1, 2016, and Election Day.”

Go back and read the paragraph from the Mueller report above. Who did Trump speak to on the phone during the ride to the airport? And when Manafort was under pressure to get information on WikiLeaks, who did he turn to? Who was pressing Manafort to find out WikiLeaks’ plans? Could it be someone other than Trump? Unless there’s a character in the story who has yet to be revealed, it seems probable that Stone was the guy trying to gather information from WikiLeaks for the Trump campaign—and that Trump knew about this.

Will the Stone trial provide answers? A lawyer for Stone did not respond to questions from Mother Jones. But any material presented in the courtroom that fills in the redactions would go far toward resolving all this. The evidence could also reveal whether Trump lied to the special counsel—which would be obstruction of justice and a crime. (Mueller’s final report, however, noted that Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president.) Throughout the Russia scandal, Trump has been caught in assorted lies, as he has continuously denied or dismissed the Russian attack that helped him become president. That scandal may be taking a back seat to the Ukraine controversy fueling the ongoing impeachment inquiry (though, in a way, the Russia affair led to the Ukraine scandal, with Trump pressing the Ukrainian president to investigate—and prove—a nutty conspiracy theory that claimed Moscow did not hack the 2016 election). This trial of a conniving Trump confidante who specializes in the political dark arts will be a reminder of the original scandal of the Trump administration that has tainted and undermined his presidency, and it could add another big lie—and a possible crime—to Trump’s long record of wrongdoing.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... ald-trump/
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Roger Stone

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Nov 07, 2019 8:08 am

Karol Cummins

Wowza

Prosecutor says Roger Stone lied ‘because the truth looked bad for Trump’

“At a critical moment in this nation’s history,” as Congress sought to “find out the truth of what happened (2016 elex),” Zelinsky said, Stone “was doing his best to stop them.”
https://twitter.com/karolcummins/status ... 1076678657


The jury sees a 10/2/16 message that Jerome Corsi sent Stone saying, "word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps ... Impact planned to be very damaging." The next day is when Stone sends the email to Manafort with subject line "I have an idea" and body "To save Trump's ass"

Zoe Tillman
@ZoeTillman
Profile picture
4 hours ago, 23 tweets, 4 min read

Hello from the DC federal courthouse, where jury selection continues for Roger Stone's trial (it's not being piped into the media room, so no live updates). The scene outside the courthouse is quiet right now, but there is ~ this ~:
Image
Next up: opening statements

Ryan J. Reilly

@ryanjreilly
Jury has been seated in the Roger Stone trial.

239
9:57 AM - Nov 6, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

70 people are talking about this

The video feed for Stone's trial is up in the media room, so stay tuned for updates. Right now we can see prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky walking around in the well of the courtroom and appearing to quietly practice his opening statement. Judge Amy Berman Jackson isn't on the bench.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson is back on the bench. The jury will now be sworn in and given preliminary instructions about how the trial will proceed. Then we'll go into opening statements from the government and Stone's defense team.
Okay the judge is done giving instructions to the jury about trial procedures and warnings not to do any research about the case and not to talk to anyone about it.

Now: Opening statements. First up: Prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky, who had served in special counsel Mueller's office
Zelinsky: "We are here today because one man obstructed Congress' investigation into interference in the 2016 election" (spoiler: He's referring to Roger Stone)
Zelinsky: Why did Stone lie to House Intel about contacts with WikiLeaks through intermediaries about the DNC hack? "The truth looked bad for the Trump campaign and the truth looked bad for Donald Trump."
Zelinsky: "This case is not about who hacked the [DNC]’s servers. This case is not about whether Roger Stone had any communications with any Russians. And this case is not about politics. This case is about Roger Stone’s false testimony ... and his efforts to obstruct"
Zelinsky is going through the govt's evidence. He says that on 6/14/16, after the DNC announced that it had been hacked, there is a record that Stone called Trump and the two spoke on the phone. A month later in July 2016, Zelinsky says, WikiLeaks released emails from the DNC
Zelinsky makes clear they don't know what Stone and Trump talked about, just that the call happened. There was another call between Stone and Trump on July 31, 2016, while Stone was in touch with intermediaries about trying to reach Julian Assange about the hacked emails
The jury just saw an email that Stone sent to then-campaign chair Paul Manafort on 8/3/16. Subject line: "I have an idea." Body: "To save Trump's ass", and Stone asked Manafort to call him
Zelinsky showed the jury an 8/18/16 email from Stone to Steve Bannon that included the line: "I do know how to win this but it ain't pretty"
On Oct. 4, 2016, after Assange held a press conf but didn't release any new info (Zelinsky called it a "dud"), Bannon emailed Stone: “What was that this morning???” Stone replied it was "fear" and "security" concerns, but ended with: "However --a load every week going forward"
Also on 10/3/16 and 10/4/16, Zelinsky shows messages between Stone and Erik Prince. Stone refers to another "payload" coming, and when Prince asks if Stone has heard "from London" (Assange was at the Ecuadorian embassy in London), Stone says "Yes" and asks to move to Whatsapp
For those playing along at home, Zelinsky just made the first reference to much fought-over "Godfather: Part II" scene, telling the jury that Stone told Randy Credico to do a Frank Pentangeli, a nod to a scene where Pentangeli lies to a congressional committee
Zelinsky notes that Robert Mueller was also interested in Roger Stone. He shows the jury an excerpt of messages in January 2018 between Stone and Randy Credico:
Stone: "Waste of your time - tell him to go fuck himself"
Credico: "Who"
Stone: "Mueller"
Zelinsky tells the jury that they'll hear from Steve Bannon and Rick Gates, and notes that Gates pleaded guilty to financial crimes and lying to the FBI and is testifying as part of a cooperation agreement. But Zelinsky says the testimony will be back up by docs.
Earlier in his opening, Zelinsky also warned the jury that Randy Credico may not seem like the strongest witness - anticipating likely attacks from Stone's team. He noted that Credico struggled with alcohol issues and is "excitable," but that Stone knew this
Zelinsky has finished his opening statement. The jury is going to take a lunch break before hearing from Stone's counsel. They'll resume at 2pm.
Dispatch from the courthouse cafeteria (no pictures allowed inside I'm afraid):
- Roger Stone's lunch companions include Milo Yiannopoulos
- I cannot see what they are eating
- Someone is positioning the Trump rat inflatable thing so that it's looking inside the cafeteria windows
Stone is also dining with Gavin McGinnes and Jack Posobiec
Judge Amy Berman Jackson is back on the bench for Roger Stone's trial after a lunch break. The govt finished its opening statement, the jury will now hear from Stone's lawyer Bruce Rogow
Rogow begins by saying that the prosecutor was right to say that the texts, emails, and statements are all there for the jury to see, but "what isn’t there for you to see is Mr. Stone’s state of mind." Stone's state of mind is important in this case, Rogow says.

Rogow says Stone's state of mind going into his testimony was formed by what Congress said it was investigating, which was Russian interference in the 2016 election - Rogow says no mention of WikiLeaks/Julian Assange in committee letter about cooperation

Rogow is drawing a distinction between the subject of Russian interference in the 2016 election and the subject of WikiLeaks/Julian Assange's role in releasing emails in 2016 stolen from the DNC (which the US Intel Committee said Russian intelligence was directly involved in)

Rogow: "If you have in your mind the picture of what the questions are directed to because the questioner has said, set forth the identifying factors of what they want, then that certainly colors and tailors the way you’re going to be answering."

Rogow says there were no actual intermediaries between Stone and WikiLeaks — he says Randy Credico and Jerome Corsi were "playing" Stone and Stone took the bait and that's why he thought there were intermediaries (re: Stone's bragging about knowing what was coming from WikiLeaks)

Rogow starts to pose the hypothetical about what the committee does it if thinks someone is _____, but prosecutor Zelinsky objects before Rogow finishes the thought. Jackson calls them up to the bench and they are talking (convos at the bench are not public)

After they leave the bench, Rogow moves on and doesn't go back to finishing the question.

As for Randy Credico, Rogow says the jury will hear from Credico firsthand and can decide if he's telling the truth. Rogow says that Credico will admit he was playing himself up to Stone and making himself out to be a bigger deal than he was

Rogow says Credico didn't really feel threatened, that the messages he and Stone exchanged were just how they talked. He also says Credico is an impressionist and does an impression of Frank Pentangeli, seeming to suggest that's what Stone could have meant in referring to that

As for Stone's communications with Bannon, Gates, and Prince, Rogow says the evidence show there was no "corrupt intent." Those communications reflect an effort to get Trump elected, and "that is not a crime — that's a First Amendment right that people have," Rogow says.

And that's a wrap on Rogow's opening statement. The govt will now start calling witnesses. First up: Michelle Taylor, she's a former FBI agent who was involved in the Stone investigation

Taylor is going over calls between Stone and Trump on 6/14/16, the day the DNC announced it had been hacked. There were three calls, all in the 9pm ET hour — Stone calls Trump's home phone, call lasts zero seconds. Trump then calls Stone twice, they talk for roughly 4.5 minutes

Zelinsky makes clear they don't know what Stone and Trump talked about, just that the call happened. There was another call between Stone and Trump on July 31, 2016, while Stone was in touch with intermediaries about trying to reach Julian Assange about the hacked emails

The jury just saw an email that Stone sent to then-campaign chair Paul Manafort on 8/3/16. Subject line: "I have an idea." Body: "To save Trump's ass", and Stone asked Manafort to call him

Zelinsky showed the jury an 8/18/16 email from Stone to Steve Bannon that included the line: "I do know how to win this but it ain't pretty"

On Oct. 4, 2016, after Assange held a press conf but didn't release any new info (Zelinsky called it a "dud"), Bannon emailed Stone: “What was that this morning???” Stone replied it was "fear" and "security" concerns, but ended with: "However --a load every week going forward"

Also on 10/3/16 and 10/4/16, Zelinsky shows messages between Stone and Erik Prince. Stone refers to another "payload" coming, and when Prince asks if Stone has heard "from London" (Assange was at the Ecuadorian embassy in London), Stone says "Yes" and asks to move to Whatsapp

For those playing along at home, Zelinsky just made the first reference to much fought-over "Godfather: Part II" scene, telling the jury that Stone told Randy Credico to do a Frank Pentangeli, a nod to a scene where Pentangeli lies to a congressional committee

Zelinsky notes that Robert Mueller was also interested in Roger Stone. He shows the jury an excerpt of messages in January 2018 between Stone and Randy Credico:
Stone: "Waste of your time - tell him to go fuck himself"
Credico: "Who"
Stone: "Mueller"

Zelinsky tells the jury that they'll hear from Steve Bannon and Rick Gates, and notes that Gates pleaded guilty to financial crimes and lying to the FBI and is testifying as part of a cooperation agreement. But Zelinsky says the testimony will be back up by docs.

Earlier in his opening, Zelinsky also warned the jury that Randy Credico may not seem like the strongest witness - anticipating likely attacks from Stone's team. He noted that Credico struggled with alcohol issues and is "excitable," but that Stone knew this

Zelinsky has finished his opening statement. The jury is going to take a lunch break before hearing from Stone's counsel. They'll resume at 2pm.

Dispatch from the courthouse cafeteria (no pictures allowed inside I'm afraid):
- Roger Stone's lunch companions include Milo Yiannopoulos
- I cannot see what they are eating
- Someone is positioning the Trump rat inflatable thing so that it's looking inside the cafeteria windows

Stone is also dining with Gavin McGinnes and Jack Posobiec

Judge Amy Berman Jackson is back on the bench for Roger Stone's trial after a lunch break. The govt finished its opening statement, the jury will now hear from Stone's lawyer Bruce Rogow

Rogow begins by saying that the prosecutor was right to say that the texts, emails, and statements are all there for the jury to see, but "what isn’t there for you to see is Mr. Stone’s state of mind." Stone's state of mind is important in this case, Rogow says.

Rogow says Stone's state of mind going into his testimony was formed by what Congress said it was investigating, which was Russian interference in the 2016 election - Rogow says no mention of WikiLeaks/Julian Assange in committee letter about cooperation

Rogow is drawing a distinction between the subject of Russian interference in the 2016 election and the subject of WikiLeaks/Julian Assange's role in releasing emails in 2016 stolen from the DNC (which the US Intel Committee said Russian intelligence was directly involved in)

Rogow: "If you have in your mind the picture of what the questions are directed to because the questioner has said, set forth the identifying factors of what they want, then that certainly colors and tailors the way you’re going to be answering."

Rogow says there were no actual intermediaries between Stone and WikiLeaks — he says Randy Credico and Jerome Corsi were "playing" Stone and Stone took the bait and that's why he thought there were intermediaries (re: Stone's bragging about knowing what was coming from WikiLeaks)

Rogow starts to pose the hypothetical about what the committee does it if thinks someone is _____, but prosecutor Zelinsky objects before Rogow finishes the thought. Jackson calls them up to the bench and they are talking (convos at the bench are not public)

After they leave the bench, Rogow moves on and doesn't go back to finishing the question.

As for Randy Credico, Rogow says the jury will hear from Credico firsthand and can decide if he's telling the truth. Rogow says that Credico will admit he was playing himself up to Stone and making himself out to be a bigger deal than he was

Rogow says Credico didn't really feel threatened, that the messages he and Stone exchanged were just how they talked. He also says Credico is an impressionist and does an impression of Frank Pentangeli, seeming to suggest that's what Stone could have meant in referring to that

As for Stone's communications with Bannon, Gates, and Prince, Rogow says the evidence show there was no "corrupt intent." Those communications reflect an effort to get Trump elected, and "that is not a crime — that's a First Amendment right that people have," Rogow says.

And that's a wrap on Rogow's opening statement. The govt will now start calling witnesses. First up: Michelle Taylor, she's a former FBI agent who was involved in the Stone investigation

Taylor is going over calls between Stone and Trump on 6/14/16, the day the DNC announced it had been hacked. There were three calls, all in the 9pm ET hour — Stone calls Trump's home phone, call lasts zero seconds. Trump then calls Stone twice, they talk for roughly 4.5 minutes

The jury also sees a record of a call between Stone and Trump on 6/30/16 that lasted two minutes and 27 seconds, as the govt is walking through the timeline of announcements about the DNC hack around that time

Govt shows an email from Stone to Jerome Corsi on 7/25/16 telling him, "Get to Assange." Four days later, on 7/29/16, the jury sees a message from Stone to Paul Manafort that's about finding a time for the two of them to communicate. Stone writes: "good shit happening"

On 7/31/16, Stone sends an email to Corsi telling him that "Malloch" — believed to be a reference to Ted Malloch — should see Assange, among others. That evening, Stone had a call with Rick Gates and two calls with Trump

The jury sees a 10/2/16 message that Jerome Corsi sent Stone saying, "word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps ... Impact planned to be very damaging." The next day is when Stone sends the email to Manafort with subject line "I have an idea" and body "To save Trump's ass"

Rogow starts to pose the hypothetical about what the committee does it if thinks someone is _____, but prosecutor Zelinsky objects before Rogow finishes the thought. Jackson calls them up to the bench and they are talking (convos at the bench are not public)

After they leave the bench, Rogow moves on and doesn't go back to finishing the question.

As for Randy Credico, Rogow says the jury will hear from Credico firsthand and can decide if he's telling the truth. Rogow says that Credico will admit he was playing himself up to Stone and making himself out to be a bigger deal than he was

Rogow says Credico didn't really feel threatened, that the messages he and Stone exchanged were just how they talked. He also says Credico is an impressionist and does an impression of Frank Pentangeli, seeming to suggest that's what Stone could have meant in referring to that

As for Stone's communications with Bannon, Gates, and Prince, Rogow says the evidence show there was no "corrupt intent." Those communications reflect an effort to get Trump elected, and "that is not a crime — that's a First Amendment right that people have," Rogow says.

And that's a wrap on Rogow's opening statement. The govt will now start calling witnesses. First up: Michelle Taylor, she's a former FBI agent who was involved in the Stone investigation

Taylor is going over calls between Stone and Trump on 6/14/16, the day the DNC announced it had been hacked. There were three calls, all in the 9pm ET hour — Stone calls Trump's home phone, call lasts zero seconds. Trump then calls Stone twice, they talk for roughly 4.5 minutes

The jury also sees a record of a call between Stone and Trump on 6/30/16 that lasted two minutes and 27 seconds, as the govt is walking through the timeline of announcements about the DNC hack around that time

Govt shows an email from Stone to Jerome Corsi on 7/25/16 telling him, "Get to Assange." Four days later, on 7/29/16, the jury sees a message from Stone to Paul Manafort that's about finding a time for the two of them to communicate. Stone writes: "good shit happening"

On 7/31/16, Stone sends an email to Corsi telling him that "Malloch" — believed to be a reference to Ted Malloch — should see Assange, among others. That evening, Stone had a call with Rick Gates and two calls with Trump

The jury sees a 10/2/16 message that Jerome Corsi sent Stone saying, "word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps ... Impact planned to be very damaging." The next day is when Stone sends the email to Manafort with subject line "I have an idea" and body "To save Trump's ass"

They're taking a quick break now. After the jury leaves the room, the judge says they'll go until around 4:30/4:45pm with this witness and then let the jury go for the day (noting they just got seated and probably need time to let family/employers know they're on the jury)

The govt does not expect to finish with the former FBI case agent today, AUSA Jonathan Kravis estimated needing three hours for her testimony and she's only been up for about an hour

Judge Amy Berman Jackson is back on the bench. The jury will now be sworn in and given preliminary instructions about how the trial will proceed. Then we'll go into opening statements from the government and Stone's defense team.

Okay the judge is done giving instructions to the jury about trial procedures and warnings not to do any research about the case and not to talk to anyone about it.

Now: Opening statements. First up: Prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky, who had served in special counsel Mueller's office

Zelinsky: "We are here today because one man obstructed Congress' investigation into interference in the 2016 election" (spoiler: He's referring to Roger Stone)

Zelinsky: Why did Stone lie to House Intel about contacts with WikiLeaks through intermediaries about the DNC hack? "The truth looked bad for the Trump campaign and the truth looked bad for Donald Trump."

Zelinsky: "This case is not about who hacked the [DNC]’s servers. This case is not about whether Roger Stone had any communications with any Russians. And this case is not about politics. This case is about Roger Stone’s false testimony ... and his efforts to obstruct"

Zelinsky is going through the govt's evidence. He says that on 6/14/16, after the DNC announced that it had been hacked, there is a record that Stone called Trump and the two spoke on the phone. A month later in July 2016, Zelinsky says, WikiLeaks released emails from the DNC

Zelinsky makes clear they don't know what Stone and Trump talked about, just that the call happened. There was another call between Stone and Trump on July 31, 2016, while Stone was in touch with intermediaries about trying to reach Julian Assange about the hacked emails

The jury just saw an email that Stone sent to then-campaign chair Paul Manafort on 8/3/16. Subject line: "I have an idea." Body: "To save Trump's ass", and Stone asked Manafort to call him

Zelinsky showed the jury an 8/18/16 email from Stone to Steve Bannon that included the line: "I do know how to win this but it ain't pretty"

On Oct. 4, 2016, after Assange held a press conf but didn't release any new info (Zelinsky called it a "dud"), Bannon emailed Stone: “What was that this morning???” Stone replied it was "fear" and "security" concerns, but ended with: "However --a load every week going forward"

Erik Princes WhatsApp is a treasure trove of information... we need to get it

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1192 ... 89632.html
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Roger Stone

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:06 pm

Darren Samuelsohn

Good morning from federal court in DC for Roger Stone trial Day 2/3 (depending on if you county jury selection as a trial day). Here’s a selfie w/ my colleague @joshgerstein as we venture into the building for another busy day.


Things will get moving at 9:30 am with Michelle Taylor, the former FBI agent who was the Stone case agent before leaving the bureau, on the witness stand to continue her testimony. She should be up there for another 2 or so hours.

I’m told Randy Credico is a possible witness for the government later this PM.

"All rise" - We are underway.

Former FBI agent Michelle Taylor is back on the witness stand. And the jury is coming back in.

Government having Taylor read aloud a HPSCI (House Intel) press release from Jan. 25, 2017 joint statement announcing their Russia probe. This one:


Now DOJ's Jonathan Kravis having Taylor read aloud the House rules for 115th Congress about HPSCI's responsibilities and being able to "make regular and periodic reports" when dealing with intelligence and intelligence-related activities.

Brief thank you note to @brespolitico for previously shaming me into learning how to thread my tweets.

Taylor reads aloud HPSCI rules for 115th Congress, and then the Senate Intel press release announcing a bipartisan probe on Russia. This one: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/pre ... activities

DOJ intros Credico email to Stone dating 1/6/17: "I have never had a conversation with Julian Assange other than my radio show...i have pieced it all together.. So you may as well tell the truth that you had no back-channel or there’s the guy you were talking about early August.”

Gov has introduced a couple more emails, including Stone lawyer's letter to HPSCI from 3/4/17 explaining his willingness to testify. Then it shows Stone sharing the letter from his lawyer w/ Corsi & cc'ing CNN's Gloria Borger on 3/24/17


Now DOJ sharing HPSCI letter back to Stone w/ details of what they wanted him to talk about covering cross-section of info about Russian cyber activities in 2016, Russian contacts with various individuals, US government response, possible leaks of classified info.

Now DOJ shows Buschel letter to HPSCI where he says Stone doesn't have documents, records, etc. related to what the panel asked. Asked by Kravis if Stone attached any of the emails or texts from 2016 that were shared in court yesterday, Taylor says "no."

We are now hearing audio of Stone taking the oath when he sits before HPSCI on 9/26/17. He's sworn in by top HPSCI staffer Kashyap Patel.

Now DOJ playing audio of Stone exchange w/ Rep. Mike Quigley being asked about his comments to the Broward GOP group and in interviews w/ InfoWars - re. him saying he had back-channel to Assange.

Now hearing an exchange between Stone and Rep. Trey Gowdy who is asking for the name of the intermediary. "If he released me I would be more than happy to tell you his name," Stone replies. Gowdy asks if Stone would ask this person.

Gowdy replied, "It'd be better for everyone."

Stone replied to Gowdy, “I don't want to be violating a commitment to be off the record but I'm interested in helping the committee get to the conclusions you need to reach and produce a report.”

Now DOJ having Taylor read aloud Stone counsel letter from 10/13/17 to HPSCI where Stone IDs his intermediary to Assange is Credico.

Taylor says no exchanges were found of Stone asking Credico to get release from OTR commitment.

Now DOJ again back to Sept 17 audio from HPSCI-Stone interview, playing exchanges between Stone and Reps. Schiff and Quigley where they ask how he communicating with his intermediary. Stone says he has no texts, docs w/ person. Stone at one point replies, "He's not an email guy."

DOJ plays audio of Schiff reminding Stone he's under oath as he's answering these questions about his ways of communicating with his intermediary.

DOJ plays audio exchange between Rep. Speier and Stone where she asks Stone generally how he communicates. He lists texts, emails, all manner of social media. Then she asks again if he had indeed found nothing.

"That is correct. As I said earlier if you want to make more specific requests I'm happy to go back and look again but I believe we have fully complied with your request," Stone replied to Speier.

DOJ now showing a chart of Stone written communications w/ Credico in Sept. 2017: 151, including 72 on Sept. 26, the day he testified to HPSCI. This data came when FBI executed search warrant on Stone in Aug 2018.

The written comms between Stone-Credico that DOJ just showed include text, Twitter DMs, Facebook DMs, Signal and email

Now Taylor reading aloud follow-up email from HPSC staffer Patel to Stone lawyers asking for ID of his intermediary and again any communications, docs or other materials related to his exchanges w/ Assange, WikiLeaks, Guccifer or others related to the DNC hack, etc.

DOJ plays audio of Rep. Quigley asking Stone in Sept. 2017 whether he had asked his intermediary if Assange had any Clinton emails and if they would release them. Stone replied he did not.

Then they get Taylor to again reiterate there was a Sept. 2016 email from Stone to Credico where he asks Credico to ask Assange for any State or HRC emails.

DOJ also then shows again the Stone to Eric Prince email from Oct. 3, 2016, discussing the WikiLeaks doc dumps, the one where Stone replied, "You are a great American."

DOJ just showed a chart with # Stone calls & various Trump campaign officials in various months of 2016. It includes 35 w/ Manafort that March & 51 that April. Fast forward later in year, there are 2 w/ Trump himself in Aug 16; 20 w/ Gates that Aug and 9 w/ Gates that Sept.

DOJ now showing an email from Stone to Credico from Oct. 19, 2017 (after his HPSCI testimony) forwarding along a letter from his lawyer to HPSCI. There's a but here...

The but is that the letter Stone forwarded to Credico includes lines that aren't actually in the letter Stone's lawyers sent to HPSCI.

Not in the letter to HPSCI is language re. Credico being an "accomplished entertainer and impressionist" and then later on a line about how "Stone noticed Credico had travelled to London on at least two occasions and conducted two landmark interviews with Julian Assange on WBAL."

And now we see a 11/9/17 letter from HPSCI seeking a voluntary transcribed interview w/ Credico.

And now we are being shown a bunch of Stone-Credico texts from Nov. 19, 2017. Godfather references TK.

Credico to Stone texts on 11/19/17: “I flew back from london i saw godfather 2" and then "frankie five angels" which refers to Frank Pentangeli

Another exchange from 11/29/17: Credico texts, "My lawyer wants to see me today" Stone replies, "Stonewall it plead the fifth anything to save the plan... Richard Nixon" - Credico replies, "Ha ha"

And then DOJ shows Credico lawyer's letter to HPSCI from that mid-November where Credico declines invitation to testify.

And now seeing Nov. 21 texts where Credico tells Stone he got a subpoena. Stone tells Credico this is when his lawyer "should have told them you would your assert your 5th amendment rights if compelled to appear.”

And more from Nov. 21, 2017 where Credico continue to exchange texts about how subpoenas work. Kravis asks Taylor if Credico is now saying 'ha ha' and she replies, 'No.'

Now we're seeing a Nov. 28, 2017 email from Credico where he shares his subpoena with a large group of people BCC, including Stone.

And then a text exchange that same day 11/28/17 between Stone-Credico where we get another Frank Pentangeli reference.

Stone writes Corsi as they're talking about testifying to HPSCI: "This whole thing will be worthless unless you find a place to do your Frank Cannon July 10 imitation ‘sure sure Roger Stone this Roger Stone that” - that 'Frank Cannon July 10' appears to be a spell check mishap.

Because 17 seconds later Stone texts again "Frank Pantsgele” -- still not quite getting it right. We've all been there, right?

The former FBI agent then energetically walks the court through the whole scene from Godfather II where Frankie Five Fingers forgets a bunch of stuff to Congress rather than implicate the Corleone family. She says she recently saw the movie again.

We have reached the AM breaking point. Everyone, including this live tweeter, will be taking a pause.
https://twitter.com/dsamuelsohn/status/ ... 0198801409




Charlie Gile

We're at the lunch break. Defense will cross-examine Taylor when court resumes.

Charlie Gile

Stone is deep in discussion with Milo Yiannopoulos in the court cafeteria.

Charlie Gile

We're back from lunch at 1:42pmET. Bruce Rogow will be cross-examining Taylor for the defense.

Rogow says he won’t refer to exhibit numbers to save time, and Judge Jackson reminds him he needs to for transcript purposes.

Rogow asks if Taylor knows Corsi wrote a book that said that Hitler... and then he was cut off by an objection. Bench conference now.

After the bench conference, Rogow drops that line of questioning. Anyone have Hitler on their Stone Trial bingo
Rogow shows Taylor the email where Stone asks Corsi to see Assange.

"Do you know if Corsi ever saw Assange?" Rogow asks.
"I do not."

Rogow shows Taylor the email from Bannon to Stone where he asks if Stone could talk.

"You don’t know if they talked do you?" Rogow asks.

“I’ve looked at phone records, I believe they talked but I don’t know if it was right after this email," Taylor says.

Now Rogow is questioning Taylor about the request that Credico sent to Assange's lawyer on behalf of Stone.

Rogow: Do you know if it was sent to an email that she used?
Taylor: Yes.
Rogow: How do you know?
Taylor: We spoke with her.

Now there's a bench conference because Rogow asked what Assange's lawyer told her about the receipt of the email. Judge Jackson said it was hearsay and now both sides are at the bench.

Rogow moves on after the bench conference to a picture of Randy Credico outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

"Did Mr. Credico go inside?" Rogow asks.
"I don't believe he did," Taylor says.

Now he's showing her emails between Stone and Erik Prince.

"Was Erik Prince working for Trump campaign at the time?" "No he was not."

Rogow asks Taylor if a committee gets to decide its own perameters and Judge Jackson steps in to ask if she has a basis of knowledge to answer questions about House rules. She said she did not.

"Do you know if Mr. Stone's counsel inspected the transcript of the hearing?" (His testimony.)

"I do not," Taylor says.

I mean, the jury has already heard audio tapes from his testimony.

"Do you know whether or not the committee subpoenaed Mr Stone?" Rogow asks.

"I don’t believe they did.” Taylor says.

The defense is really drilling down on the part of the testimony where Stone told the committee that he'd be happy to comply with a more specific request for records.

Now he's showing her the chart of written communications between Stone and Credico.

He has her read a footnote that says that all communications between Stone and Credico on the day of Stone's testimony happened after the interview was over.

Now he shows Taylor the chart of Stone's communications with the Trump campaign in 2016.

"It does not reflect the content of any of those communications, does it?" Rogow asks.

"It does not," Taylor says.

Rogow is having Taylor read all the names that Credico emailed his HPSCI subpoena to. There's a lot of them.

Rogow keeps mixing up tabs and exhibits. He's done it like three times so far.

The defense said in their opening argument that Wikileaks was not part of HPSCI's publicly-announced mandates. Rogow is having Taylor read public statements saying one of the mandates was to investigate hacked material. Not sure where this is going.

Rogow is done with his cross. Redirect will take about three minutes, the prosecution says.

Mid afternoon break. Back at 3:15pm.

Prosecution's redirect was short but direct...

Taylor said they have the chart showing Stone and Credico's written messages because they couldn't obtain the content of those messages.

Judge Jackson is confused about jury instructions re: obstruction of justice.

Mr. Stone's failure to turn over docs isn’t sufficient to convict of obstruction of justice, the prosecution says. They need to prove that he was lying about documents he had in his possession.

The defense wants to play the entire audio tape of Stone's testimony before the committee. Judge Jackson says she eventually wants to hear from them about why they think that's a good use of the jury's time.

After the jury left, Judge Jackson reprimanded the defense team. "The pacing of the cross was extremely slow," she said. "I think it tested the patience of the jurors."

"Pick up the pace a little bit," she said.

Judge Jackson also told the defense that she didn't think it was helpful for them to choose not to show the jury the exhibits they were talking about

We're back.

“Mr. Stone, are you fully recovered?” Judge Jackson asks. Stone nods.

I don't know what that's in reference to. Not sure if he got sick again or if she was talking about his food poisoning the other day.

FLAG: The US calls Randy Credico to the stand.

"What do you do for work?"

"Seems like I'm a professional witness," Credico jokes. No laughter that I heard.

He then gets into his comedy work, voiceover work, etc.

In case anybody was wondering, Randy's dog Bianca, is not in the courtroom.

"Since 2002, has your relationship with Roger Stone been on a steady even keel?"

"No," Credico says.

Credico testifies that he and Roger Stone did not talk about Wikileaks until after he saw Stone brag about having contact with Assange in a speech.

Why did you tell Stone you were going to have Assange on the radio show?

"Kind of bragging," Credico said. "I was trying to one-up him." Says he was trying to do so after he saw Stone's speech.

Credico testifies that he and Stone never talked about what Assange had until Aug 23 2016, when Stone was on his radio show. Assange was on the show two days later.

In the Stone interview, Credico asks about Stone's claim that he had been in contact with Assange.

"Were you referring to yourself as the indirect contact?" the prosecution asks.

"No," Credico says.

Before the radio interview... "Did you ever tell Mr. Stone that Assange had information about the Clinton foundation?" the prosecution asks.

"No," Credico says.

Also:

"I'm going to take that dog away from you."

"Prepare to die, cocksucker."

Taylor shows the jury an letter, dated June 15, 2018, from Stone's lawyers to HPSCI saying that Stone's testimony was entirely truthful.
"Does that letter mention Jerome Corsi?"
"No."
"No further questions, your honor."

Taylor's testimony for the prosecution was more than 3 hrs

We're at the lunch break. Defense will cross-examine Taylor when court resumes.

Stone is deep in discussion with Milo Yiannopoulos in the court cafeteria.

We're back from lunch at 1:42pmET. Bruce Rogow will be cross-examining Taylor for the defense.

Rogow says he won’t refer to exhibit numbers to save time, and Judge Jackson reminds him he needs to for transcript purposes.

Rogow asks if Taylor knows Corsi wrote a book that said that Hitler... and then he was cut off by an objection. Bench conference now.

After the bench conference, Rogow drops that line of questioning. Anyone have Hitler on their Stone Trial bingo card?

Rogow shows Taylor the email where Stone asks Corsi to see Assange.

"Do you know if Corsi ever saw Assange?" Rogow asks.
"I do not."

Rogow shows Taylor the email from Bannon to Stone where he asks if Stone could talk.

"You don’t know if they talked do you?" Rogow asks.

“I’ve looked at phone records, I believe they talked but I don’t know if it was right after this email," Taylor says.
https://twitter.com/CharlieGileNBC/stat ... 1468479488
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

PreviousNext

Return to Data & Research Compilations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests