Roger Stone has been Arrested

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Roger Stone has been Arrested

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:06 pm

What the Roger Stone Indictment Left Out: How He Helped Russia Attack the 2016 Election

His greatest act of villainy isn’t included in Robert Mueller’s charging document.

David Corn
January 25, 2019 4:02 PM

Lynne Sladky/AP

Roger Stone, the conniving conspiracy theorist and self-proclaimed dirty trickster whose motto is “admit nothing, deny everything,” was indicted Friday morning by special counsel Robert Mueller for allegedly lying to the House intelligence committee about his efforts to interact with WikiLeaks during the 2016 presidential campaign. The indictment presents a strong case that Stone, a longtime adviser to President Donald Trump, engineered a post-election coverup, and it maintains that the Republican operative was in contact with the Trump camp regarding WikiLeaks’ actions while the campaign was underway. These charges may undermine Trump’s reported claim that he never talked with Stone about WikiLeaks’ release of Democratic documents purloined by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hackers. But the indictment does leave out a crucial matter: how Stone actively assisted the Russian assault on the 2016 election.

After the cyber-swiped Democratic Party emails were dumped by WikiLeaks in mid-July 2016 at the start of the Democratic National Convention, Stone publicly noted what many others had concluded: that the Russians had probably engineered this attack, with the likely intent of helping Trump. But Stone quickly reversed course, and in early August he became a fierce advocate of Moscow’s cover story that Russia was not involved in this assault on American democracy.

The Democratic National Committee had first disclosed that its computer system was penetrated by suspected Russian hackers in mid-June 2016. Shortly after that, an online persona adopting the name Guccifer 2.0 claimed responsibility for the theft and said he was merely a Romanian hacker who had acted alone—that is, the Russians had nothing to do with the caper. Guccifer 2.0, whose moniker referred to an infamous Romanian hacker then in an American prison, released some of the stolen documents but declared online that “thousands of files and mails” had been given to WikiLeaks. Though Guccifer 2.0 stuck to this claim of being a lone wolf from Romania, cybersecurity researchers soon unearthed clues linking Guccifer 2.0 to Russian hackers and indicating that Guccifer 2.0 was nothing but a front set up by Moscow’s clandestine cyber-warriors. And after the Democratic convention, media reports noted that the US intelligence community had “high confidence” that the Russian government was behind the cyber break-in at the DNC. Former President Barack Obama, not yet prepared to reveal this information, stated publicly that it was “possible” that Russia was the culprit and that “on a regular basis they try to influence elections in Europe.”

That was not Trump’s line. His campaign was denying that Russia was intervening—and asserting that there were no ties between Russia and Trump. Trump even called on Russian hackers to target Hillary Clinton. And Stone, a Trump intimate who had helped organize Trump’s campaign before becoming a pro-Trump freelancer, jumped aboard the no-Russians-here train.

On August 4, Stone did an interview with Infowars’ Alex Jones—a fellow Trump-supporting conspiracy theory champion—and claimed, “We know…that the DNC WikiLeaks absolutely, positively did not come from the Russians. We know that because Guccifer 2 took credit…and initially released them.” The next day, Stone published a piece on the conservative website Breitbart headlined “Dear Hillary: DNC Hack Solved, So Now Stop Blaming Russia,” asserting, “I have some news for Hillary and Democrats—I think I’ve got the real culprit. It doesn’t seem to be the Russians that hacked the DNC, but instead a hacker who goes by the name of Guccifer 2.0.” (Breitbart was then being run by Stephen Bannon, who would soon take over the Trump campaign.) Stone contended that all this talk of Russia was merely Clinton trying “to deflect after the fiasco at the Democrat National Convention” (caused by the release of DNC emails that enraged supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders) and that the mainstream media was falling for her trickery. He tweeted out a link to his piece, declaring, “Roger Stone shows Russians didn’t hack Hillary.” A few days later, Guccifer 2.0 expressed their appreciation, publicly tweeting at Stone, “thanks that u believe in the real #Guccifer2.” In a private Twitter message to Stone, Guccifer 2.0 wrote, “thank u for an article about me!!!”

Stone was not bringing any new evidence to the conversation. He was merely accepting the debunked story of Guccifer 2.0 at face value. Nevertheless, other conservative sites picked up Stone’s contention and spread it. And this matched the Trump camp’s assertion—which Trump would soon be making directly—that there was nothing to the Russian story. It also matched statements from the Kremlin insisting it had nothing to do with the hack-and-dump attack against Clinton and the Democrats. Stone was echoing and amplifying the disinformation spread by a foreign adversary to hide its information warfare attack against the United States.

Stone went further than spouting Moscow’s line: He collaborated with the Russians. On Twitter, he hailed Guccifer 2.0 as a “HERO.” (He also called WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange a “hero.”) And in mid-August, in a private Twitter message, Stone asked Guccifer 2.0 to promote a column he had written. Guccifer 2.0 replied: “i’m pleased to say that u r great man. Please tell me if I can help u anyhow. It would be a great pleasure to me.”

In the time since then, the US intelligence community and Mueller have definitively pegged Guccifer 2.0 as a Russian front. That means Stone was promoting and privately communicating with Putin’s operators as they mounted their clandestine operation against the United States. He was doing what he could to legitimize Guccifer 2.0 and spare Russia blame for its cyberwarfare aimed to hurt Clinton and boost Trump. Consequently, Stone was aiding and abetting Putin’s plot against America. (Trump, Paul Manafort, and others similarly assisted Moscow.) By denying Russia’s involvement, Stone and other Trumpsters turned this issue into a partisan controversy and made it tougher for the United States to forge a unified and vigorous response to Putin’s attack. They helped the Kremlin get away with it.

Lying to Congress is a serious crime. But helping a foe as it endeavors to undermine an American election is treacherous wrongdoing. Perhaps it was not illegal for Stone to hype the disinformation of Guccifer 2.0 to distract from the truth in order to protect Trump. It was, though, certainly an act of betrayal—and an act of villainy far greater than anything alleged in the indictment. ... -election/
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
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Roger Stone has been Arrested

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:48 pm

last night Jerome Corsi admitted to Ari Melber that Stone urged WikiLeaks to release a tranche of hacked emails the SAME DAY as the damaging Access Hollywood tape. More evidence the trump campaign & WikiLeaks coordinated. Criminal exposure grows for Individual-1 ...that would be trump

Mueller team signals to Stone associate another indictment may be in the works

Sanders answers questions on possible Roger Stone pardon
Washington (CNN)A defense attorney for Andrew Miller, who's fighting a subpoena from Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, learned Monday afternoon that the special counsel still wants witness testimony for a federal grand jury.

Paul Kamenar, the defense attorney, says the assertion from Mueller's team made clear to him that Mueller and the Justice Department are considering an additional indictment of Roger Stone or have plans to charge others.

RELATED: Acting AG Whitaker: Mueller investigation 'close to being completed'
The development sets up the potential for another twist in the Russia probe. It comes hours after acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said that Mueller's investigation was "close to being completed."

Kamenar's client is Miller, a former employee of Stone's whom Mueller subpoenaed in mid-2018 to testify to the grand jury. In a court hearing about Miller's testimony, a judge made clear that Mueller sought information Miller had about Stone's communications regarding Wikileaks and Russian hackers around the time they disseminated damaging hacked Democratic emails.

"The special counsel has advised me the grand jury is still interested in Andrew Miller, and they consider the case still a live case," Kamenar told CNN late Monday afternoon.

Miller faces no criminal charges.

Stone was indicted by the grand jury on Thursday for lying to Congress, witness tampering and obstruction of justice -- but the court papers against him alleged no crimes regarding actual contact between Americans and Julian Assange and the Russians. Stone will be arraigned in Washington Tuesday morning.

A separate but related criminal case against Russian intelligence officers alleges Stone was in contact with them about the hacked documents in 2016, but Stone was not named in that case.

Related: Track the publicly known developments of the sprawling investigations into Trump and Russia.
Months ago, Miller spoke to the FBI and turned over digital records to Mueller that he had related to Stone, Wikileaks, Assange, the Democratic National Committee and the online monikers the Russians used after they hacked the Democrats.

When Miller received the subpoena for testimony, he refused to visit the grand jury, and a federal judge held him in contempt of court. The punishment was imprisonment. But Miller hasn't yet been jailed or given the testimony.

Instead, he challenged the subpoena on the grounds that Mueller's appointment as special prosecutor was against the law.

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit heard arguments in the case in early November and has not yet ruled.

Kamenar said Mueller's response to him makes clear the grand jury is still active and at work.

"I can only speculate on why they need my client," Kamenar said.

Kamenar reached out to the special counsel on Friday following Stone's indictment about whether Miller would still be needed.

Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel's office, declined to comment on Monday in response to Kamenar. Attorneys for Stone did not immediately provide a comment.

Justice Department guidelines say that a grand jury can only hear evidence after a person is indicted only if the grand jury continues to work on new charges -- either against that person or against additional planned defendants.

In short, when a defendant like Stone is indicted, prosecutors must already have the evidence needed to take the case they open to trial. So Miller's testimony may relate to a still-unknown criminal case.

In recent months, Mueller's team has brought in other parts of the Justice Department to work on the special counsel's cases, including the National Security Division and the US Attorney's Office in DC. It's possible that if Mueller were to conclude his work, those divisions or others within the Justice Department could take the lead on cases Mueller initially pursued. ... index.html

Mueller witness suggests Roger Stone coordinated with WikiLeaks in order to help the Trump campaign

Is this more evidence Stone had intimate inside knowledge of the stolen emails from Hillary Clinton's campaign?

Joseph Neese
With special counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of President Donald Trump’s former campaign adviser Roger Stone on charges of obstruction, false statements, and witness tampering for his role in allegedly facilitating communications between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks, some of the focus shifts to Jerome Corsi, the Birther conspiracy theorist who worked with Stone and has apparently been under investigation himself.

And although Corsi has been frantically trying to hold off Mueller with a set of ridiculous legal motions, he seems prepared to discuss some of what he knows publicly in the wake of Stone’s indictment — which he did on MSNBC Monday with Ari Melber.

“Do you have evidence of observation that suggests Roger Stone sought WikiLeaks’ help in timing the release of the emails around the ‘Access Hollywood’ tape?” asked Melber.

“I can’t prove that at all,” said Corsi, but added, “I had one call from Roger, as I recall it — Roger disputes this — on the day that WikiLeaks did begin in October, dropping the final emails on John Podesta, and which Roger was essentially saying, we’ve got this timing issue, because the Billy Bush tape is going to be released, and we’d like to have [WikiLeaks founder Julian] Assange begin releasing emails now.”

“He said that to you?” Melber pressed.

“That’s my recollection.”

“Did you tell the Mueller folks that?”

“Oh, yes.”

“And were they interested in that?”


“Because doesn’t that sound like Roger Stone is a confidante of Donald Trump explicitly, not seeking information, which you can make a reporting defense of, but actually trying to collude with WikiLeaks to release things in a way that would explicitly help the campaign and solve one problem?” inquired Melber.

Watch below:

The “Access Hollywood” tape, which featured Trump boasting in lewd detail about how he could sexually assault women with no consequences, had the potential to do massive damage to the campaign. Less than an hour after the tape leaked in October 2016, WikiLeaks began dumping emails Russia stole from Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, which, while they contained no actual new scandals, muddied the waters of the overall reporting climate in Trump’s favor.

While Corsi cannot definitively prove Stone coordinated these leaks, the conversation that the two of them allegedly shared on the matter is yet more evidence that Stone had intimate inside knowledge of the stolen emails — and was a source for the Trump campaign on the matter. ... n_partner/


24m24 minutes ago
If Roger Stone's rat-fucking in 2016 could be said to have victimized all Americans, can we use this line to deport him?

Wonder what these two items are...

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
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Roger Stone has been Arrested

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Feb 21, 2019 5:39 pm

Judge ABJ makes it clear that this is his second chance. "This is not baseball. There will not be a third chance," she says. ABJ is clear that she will detain Stone ahead of trial if he violates the new gag order.

ABJ: Any violation of this order will be a basis for revoking your bond or detaining you pending trial... If you do not comply with today's order, I will find it necessary to "adjust your environment"
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
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Roger Stone has been Arrested

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Feb 22, 2019 12:19 pm


February 22, 2019/18 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, Mueller Probe /by empty wheel

As you no doubt have heard, Amy Berman Jackson imposed a gag on Roger Stone yesterday in response to his posting a picture of her with a cross-hairs on it.

But I’d like to look at how she did so, not just because of the way she crafted it to withstand what may be a legal challenge from Stone’s lawyers, but for how she got Stone on the hook for lies that may get him jailed anyway.

At the beginning of the hearing, she puts Bruce Rogow, Stone’s attorney, on the record about several issues. She gets him to certify that the post in question came from Stone’s Instragram account, as well as the timing of its posting and removal.

THE COURT: And I note that the defendant is present. Who’s going to be handling the argument for the defendant?

MR. ROGOW: I am, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, why don’t you remain there. And you can be seated, Mr. Farkas. Mr. Haley, could you please provide a copy of something that I’ve marked as Exhibit A to Mr. Rogow?

MR. ROGOW: Received, Your Honor. I have a copy.

THE COURT: I would like to know if Exhibit 1 is the Instagram post for which the defendant docketed the notice of apology, found at docket 38, on February 18, 2019?

MR. ROGOW: It is, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So, Roger J. Stone, Jr. is the defendant’s Instagram account?

MR. ROGOW: Yes, sir — yes, ma’am. I’m sorry.

THE COURT: And the post depicted in Exhibit 1 was posted and later removed on that Instagram account on or about February 18?

MR. ROGOW: It was.

THE COURT: Okay. You can return the exhibit to the deputy clerk. And it will be sealed and made a part of the record in this proceeding. I’m not done with you. So what is your position on behalf of the defendant on whether the media contact order in this case should be modified? [my emphasis]

It probably didn’t help matters that Rogow — who has already broken local rules twice in this case — misgenders ABJ. And from the transcript he seemed surprised she was having him — an officer of the court — certify these things from the start.

Rogow tries to deliver his flourish — that he (insanely!!) was going to put Stone on the stand. ABJ lets him, but then proceeds to get him to restate the basis for his objection to a gag. Rogow presents it as a strict prior restraint issue, arguing that as a defendant Stone should have even more right to speak than a member of the press would.

MR. ROGOW: My position is that it should not be modified, that Mr. Stone should have another opportunity to comply. And I want to put Mr. Stone on the witness stand so that he can — you can hear him, Your Honor, and hear him explain what happened, why it happened, and how he apologizes for it, as he did in that filing a couple of days ago. But he would like to have another opportunity to comply with this Court’s original order. And I think that is our position with regard to that.

THE COURT: All right. Well, if you choose to put Mr. Stone on the stand, I’m going to give you that opportunity. I do have a few questions for you first, and then I may save my other questions for Mr. Stone. In docket 28, your submission in response to my solicitation of submissions about the media contact order, you relied heavily on Nebraska Press Association, a case involving prior restraints on the press. Does the — and I don’t know if it’s pronounced Gentile or Gentile or Gentile case — indicate that Nebraska — the Nebraska Press test, the clear and present danger test that you hung your hat on, has to be applied when the restraint is on a participant in a criminal trial?

MR. ROGOW: It does not.

THE COURT: All right. So how does it apply then in this situation?

MR. ROGOW: It applies by analogy. And I think even stronger with regard to a defendant which is on trial for his or her freedom. The Nebraska Press case, of course, deals with restraints upon the press. In a situation with Mr. Stone, we’re talking about a restraint upon the defendant. The Supreme Court has never addressed the restraint upon the defendant in the First Amendment context, as far as I’m aware, which is what I said in my filing to the Court.

That’s when ABJ makes her move. She asks him how this prior restraint issue applies under the Bail Reform Act, which requires a judge to use the least restrictive means to keep a trial and the public safe. Rogow doesn’t understand where she’s going, so concedes that the Bail Reform Act permits her to impose new conditions to keep the community safe.

THE COURT: All right. He’s currently on bond pending trial on an indictment charging multiple felonies, and subject to conditions of pretrial release. How do the principles that you’re talking about operate in connection with the Bail Reform Act?

MR. ROGOW: Well, they operate to the extent that the Bail Reform Act focuses on whether or not there is a risk of flight or a threat to the community, for the most part. And in this situation there is neither a risk of flight nor a threat to the community. The question in this case is whether or not there was a violation of this Court’s order, an order that the Court entered, with warnings. And Mr. Stone will address that. But our position is that the Bail Reform Act is not the issue in this case in terms of revocation of the conditions of his release.

THE COURT: Well, what if I want to modify the conditions of release? What’s the test for what a Court has to find to impose a condition of pretrial release that’s necessary to protect another person or the community? [my emphasis]

Rogow then introduces a standard — clear and present threat — that has no basis in case law, which ABJ calls him on, which he immediately concedes, then tries to reclaim.

MR. ROGOW: Well, if you found that there is a real threat to another person in the community, an actual clear and present threat to that person, then of course you could apply Your Honor’s power to restrain that person, including revocation of the conditions of release, or change of the conditions of release.

THE COURT: Where does the Bail Reform Act require a clear and specific threat to a specific person?

MR. ROGOW: It doesn’t require in those terms, a clear and present threat, Your Honor, but —

THE COURT: Right. You keep using those terms, and now you’ve told me that it hasn’t been applied in this situation to a participant in the trial and it doesn’t apply in the case of the Bail Reform Act. So why do you keep using that test?

MR. ROGOW: Because I think the test is the proper test to use in a situation where a person is about to go on trial, and is a defendant in a case, and has a right to bail, a right to release on conditions that the Court sets. And so it seems to me that at that point, if the Court is going to not allow him or her to be released, that there ought to be very specific facts. I use clear and present because clear and present seems to be a test that gets applied in many situations where important liberty interests are at stake. [my emphasis]

So she asks him again for case law, and he defers by saying he didn’t expect her to raise this issue because it’s not within the basis of his own argument against a gag.

THE COURT: All right. And what is the best legal authority you have for the theory that you’ve just laid out?

MR. ROGOW: Well, I didn’t have any legal authority on that issue because that was not the subject of my response with regard to the gag order. So I really don’t have any authority off the top of my head, Your Honor, to tell you what case or what statute holds with regard to the conditions of release in a situation like this. And I’m focusing on a situation like this, where you have a specific single instance where this occurred.

Having gotten him to admit that — at least as he stood there, not realizing where she was headed — he had no case law to dispute her, ABJ then gets Rogow on the record regarding how much of what he did claim — that Stone was effectively a journalist — really pertained to speech he needed to conduct for his livelihood.

THE COURT: You said the following in your very impassioned submission about the proposed media contact order: You said, “While it is true that most criminal defendants do not wish to be heard, either publicly or in the course of their trial, Mr. Stone is not such a defendant. His work, for more than 40 years, has been talking and writing about matters of public interest. “He’s published half a dozen books, many stating controversial viewpoints. He’s penned many hundreds of articles and has been the subject of many hundreds more, published in myriad publications. Whether it is his pursuit of a posthumous pardon for Marcus Garvey or the style of his clothes or the state of the nation, Roger Stone is a voice. “Given those realities, a prior restraint of Roger Stones’s free speech rights would be an unconstitutional violation of Stone’s right to work, to pursue his livelihood, and be a part of the public discourse.” That raised some questions in my mind, particularly in the wake of the recent events and his explanations for them that may bear on his conditions of release. And so my first question is: How exactly does he pursue his livelihood? [my emphasis]

ABJ gets Rogow to distinguish Stone’s blather from the things he gets paid for — effectively, PR. Rogow then proceeds to certify that his client is an expert of sorts in PR.

MR. ROGOW: He consults with different business and other political persons. That is one of his kinds of work. The other is he comments, obviously, and gets paid for his commentary. He speaks and gets paid for his speaking.

THE COURT: All right. So when he consults, he consults on the subject of communications or public relations? Is that his —

MR. ROGOW: It could be. It could be both.

THE COURT: — field of expertise? All right. Now, he told Pretrial Services Agency he was employed at Drake Ventures, LLC. So what is the nature of the work for which he reported an income of $47,000 a month? Is that the communications consulting?

She establishes a few more details about Stone’s business, then permits Rogow to call Stone to the stand — but not before she warns him that Stone will be sworn (Rogow knows that, but this will be important if and when he gets charged for lying on the stand) , then also warns Rogow she’ll have questions for him again when Stone is done.

THE COURT: All right. So as long as you understand he’s going to be subject to cross-examination. I have a number of questions. If you are saying to me that you would like me to pose them directly to your client, instead of to you, I will do that; he will be sworn.

MR. ROGOW: I am saying that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. You can call Mr. Stone to the stand. I may still have questions for you after, since you entered your appearance in this case.

MR. ROGOW: I understand, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And I expect you to be able to answer my questions. All right. You can call your client to the stand. Understand that the United States will have the right to cross-examine him in the scope of his direct.

MR. ROGOW: I do. I do.

THE COURT: All right.

Remarkably, Rogow seems unprepared when ABJ tells him to go first.

MR. ROGOW: Thank you.

THE COURT: You may proceed.

MR. ROGOW: May I remain? I thought Your Honor was going to ask the questions.

THE COURT: You can start.

What happened next has been the focus of most of the coverage of this. Under Rogow’s direction, Stone tried to appear sorry. ABJ interjects, when Rogow tries to tie Stone’s livelihood to his speech, to challenge that.

Q. How could we be assured, Mr. Stone, if the Judge remains with the order that she had entered allowing you to speak freely, how can we be assured that there will not be a recurrence of something like this, or anything like this?

A. First of all, I’m very grateful to Your Honor for the initial order, because I do have to make a living. And I am sorry that I abused your trust. I —

THE COURT: Is anybody paying you to speak about this case?


THE COURT: Okay. So an order that you couldn’t speak about this case wouldn’t affect your ability to make a living?

THE DEFENDANT: That is correct.

When Rogow finishes, ABJ then gets Stone on the record about several issues: who owns the Instagram account, what he claimed the crosshairs to be. Then she notes that Stone’s public comments about what he had done differed from what his lawyers had gotten him to sign in the apology they submitted to her. She gets Stone on the record trying to square what he had said publicly with what he and his lawyers had represented to her.

THE COURT: Well, according to the apology, the post was improper. What was improper about it?

THE DEFENDANT: My attorneys wrote that and I signed it because it was improper for me to criticize at all; I recognize that.

THE COURT: Well, at the time I imposed the order there were no restrictions on your talking about the case. So, my questions to you are not about the fact that you criticized the office of special counsel, that you criticized me, that you criticized an opinion in the case that I had written earlier. My question to you is what is it that you said was improper when you told me it was improper.

THE DEFENDANT: Again, I did not write that, I signed it on the advice of counsel. I would have —

THE COURT: Well, wait.


THE COURT: You said to me, “I abused your trust.”

It goes on for a bit, leading up to ABJ getting epic rat-fucker Roger Stone to agree, under oath, that his post could have a malicious impact, regardless of what he himself claimed to intend by it.

THE COURT: Why is it consistent with how sorry you were, when you sent the apology, to continue for the next two days to speak publicly about the fact that you’re being treated unfairly in this situation as well, that it’s really this symbol, that it’s really that symbol, it’s the media going after you. How is that consistent with your telling me that you’re deeply and sincerely sorry?

THE DEFENDANT: Because that was a reference to what I believe was a media distortion of my intent. It was — I did not have a malicious intent, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you understand that what you did could have a malicious impact, notwithstanding your intent?

THE DEFENDANT: That’s why I abjectly apologized and I have no rationalization or excuse. I’m not seeking to justify it.

DC prosecutor Jonathan Kravis then gets Stone on the record about a bunch of things I’m sure the FBI is busy at work to prove to be false claims, such as who found the photo of ABJ with the crosshairs, which device was used to post it, which Proud Boy “volunteer” he worked with to make a threat against a judge. This is important, not just because the FBI is likely to find several issues about which Stone lied under oath yesterday (which if they can prove will provide immediate reason to deny Stone bail), but also because much of the eventual case (and much of what Mueller’s team spent a year getting all of Stone’s retinue on the record about) will be about proving what Stone personally tweeted or otherwise communicated, and what someone else did.

ABJ interjects a few times, including to call him on an attempt to use the passive voice to avoid saying something that the FBI will be able to prove is a lie.

THE COURT: When you say, “My phone is used,” who’s the subject of that sentence? The passive voice is not helpful. Who uses your phone to post?

THE DEFENDANT: All of the people who work for me.

She also gets Stone to contradict earlier testimony about who picked the photo. She gets Stone on the record affirming that he stated to InfoWars that the media was making him a target. She calls Stone on a bullshit claim about five people being too many to know who had access to his phone.

Stone really wasn’t prepared to be grilled by ABJ.

Just to be fair to Bruce Rogow, note that when ABJ asks Kravis for what the government wants, he doesn’t realize what she has just done, either. He still believed, at this point, that this was a question about the jury pool.

That conduct amounts to what the Court in United States versus Brown referred to as, quote, a desire to manipulate media coverage to gain favorable attention, unquote, thereby threatening to taint the jury pool. The defendant, even after the Instagram post was taken down, continued to give interviews where he reiterated the statements that appeared in the text of the message. He gave varying accounts of who was responsible for the post, what the symbol meant, where it came from, so on and so forth. And every time the defendant gave another one of those interviews, he continued to amplify the media coverage and increase the risk — increase the risk to the jury pool.

After Kravis argues jury pool jury pool jury pool, ABJ finally guides him to where she’s headed: the the safety of the community. Kravis doesn’t get the hint, and returns to the jury pool, before — lightbulb! — he notes that Stone’s comments might be deemed threatening and therefore appropriate for restrictions under the Bail Reform Act.

THE COURT: All right. Looking at the Bail Reform Act, however, under 18 U.S.C. Section 3142(g), when I’m considering imposing conditions on someone’s release, I’m supposed to consider the available information concerning the nature and circumstances of the charged offenses, the weight of the evidence against the defendant, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or to the community that would be posed by the defendant’s release, or release without certain conditions. Is there anything you would like to bring to my attention in that regard, assuming that I would be considering making any restrictions on speech a condition of his release?

MR. KRAVIS: Your Honor, the facts that I would bring to the Court’s attention are the facts and circumstances surrounding the content of the post, in that whatever the defendant’s testimony about his subjective intentions may have been, the result of his conduct was the wide dissemination of an image that could be construed, could reasonably be construed by people as a threatening image, and that introduces a new threat of — a new threat of taint to the — taint to the jury pool.

And because the conduct we’re talking about now, because the message we’re talking about now are not just messages about proclaiming innocence or articulating a defense, but are messages that could be construed as threatening, the government believes that the restriction on extrajudicial statements would be appropriate under the Bail Reform Act.

ABJ gets Rogow on the record once more to walk him through how Stone’s actions prove his own claims from last week about publicity to be false.

That’s when ABJ takes a break, then comes back and imposes a gag not just to ensure her ability to seat a jury, but to preserve the safety of the community. She presents Stone’s speech, rightly, as an incitement (and neatly blames the wingnuts he hangs out with for any potential violence).

Under Section 3142(g), in determining whether there are conditions that will reasonably assure the safety of other persons or the community, I’m supposed to take into account a number of things, including the nature and circumstances of the charged offenses, the weight of the evidence against the defendant, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person, or to the community, that would be posed by the defendant’s release. In connection with that assessment, you can’t overlook the fact that this indictment does not charge the defendant with financial or regulatory irregularities in connection with some business deal a long time ago. It’s not even limited to the allegations that he lied to the United States Congress. It specifically charges him with threatening witnesses, within the past year. Now, it’s true those allegations have yet to be proven. But for purposes of Section 3142, the evidence detailed in the indictment alone is quite compelling. And the evidence of the past few days indicates that this defendant has not been chastened by the pendency of those charges, and that in connection with this matter, he has decided to pursue a strategy of attacking others.


What concerns me is the fact that he chose to use his public platform, and chose to express himself in a manner that can incite others who may feel less constrained. The approach he chose posed a very real risk that others with extreme views and violent inclinations would be inflamed.

Importantly, ABJ uses Stone’s own testimony to emphasize that he chose to use a threatening image, and he’s an expert so he surely didn’t do it by accident.

The defendant himself told me he had more than one to choose from. And so what he chose, particularly when paired with the sorts of incendiary comments included in the text, the comments that not only can lead to disrespect for the judiciary, but threats on the judiciary, the post had a more sinister message. As a man who, according to his own account, has made communication his forté, his raison d’être, his life’s work, Roger Stone fully understands the power of words and the power of symbols. And there’s nothing ambiguous about crosshairs.

So here’s what she did.

First, in spite of the fact that both the prosecution and the defense were treating this as primarily a jury pool issue (which ABJ did return to and establish in the record), she instead — from the start — laid the ground work to impose a gag because Stone’s public comments pose a threat to the community, giving her the authority to impose the gag under the Bail Reform Act. She makes clear that whether or not he intends violence, those around him might.

In the process, she did a number of things:

Impose a gag that a Twitter account bearing Stone’s name may have violated within an hour

Get Rogow and Stone on the record explaining why the terms of her gag won’t impact Stone’s ability to make a living, undercutting a significant part of the First Amendment claim they’ve been making

Provide a basis for the gag that Rogow did not anticipate, which may be far harder — and politically more difficult — to challenge

Provide an opportunity for both the prosecution and herself to catch Stone in multiple sworn lies (which, again, I’m sure the FBI is busy at work proving now), which if charged as perjury would lead to Stone’s immediate jailing

Here’s why, I think, this was allowed to happen. For Stone’s entire life, the press has coddled Stone, treating him as a nifty character whose toxic speech doesn’t damage society. ABJ was having none of that, and used both Rogow’s position as an officer of the court and Stone’s insane willingness to take the stand to get them to acknowledge that his speech is toxic, that it does pose a threat to society. Stone presumably wasn’t prepared for that because no one has called him on his toxic speech before.

If Stone’s lucky, the now much harder to challenge gag will be the only detrimental outcome from yesterday’s hearing and he’ll avoid perjury charges. ... -it-again/
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
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Roger Stone has been Arrested

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:59 am

Good morning from the federal courthouse in DC, where it’s Day One of the Roger Stone trial. Here’s the defendant entering the building accompanied by his legal team and family to chants of “Roger Stone did nothing wrong!”


Charlie Gile

Today is Day One of the Roger Stone trial.

Welcome to jury selection! Judge Amy Berman Jackson told the court yesterday she expects the process to be finished today or tomorrow morning.

The pool of potential jurors has already been selected, some people didn’t make the cut (hello @JoshNBCNews!) Each juror will be brought into the courtroom and he questioned on the stand by both sides. Judge Jackson will jump in there too, occasionally.

Bottom line: expect a long day without too much news. The trial is expected to last a little more than two weeks, according to a previous filing.

I’m ready with a big ol’ iced coffee which, by the way, is impossible to drink before your paper straw turns to gum.

Stone has arrived to the courthouse with his attorneys. Inside, a man in coveralls and a MAGA hat saluted Stone’s team as they walked down the hall. “God bless you”, the man said. “We love you, Roger.”

There is no media room today, which means no live updates.

I’m today there are roughly 82 potential jurors. No word on how many will be seated for the trial.

The jury pool seems fairly diverse, people of all ages and ethnicities. I even spotted a priest in there somewhere.
6:39 AM - 5 Nov 2019

They called the jurors into the courtroom one-by-one. The priest was the very last juror called. They’re receiving some instructions from Judge Jackson now and then they’ll be led to another room before being called individually for voir dire.

The jury has received their instructions. We’re about to head in the courtroom. See you on the other side!

Scary moment. A member of the public observing jury selection is having a medical emergency. It appears to be a seizure. They cleared the courtroom. Courthouse employees are on it.

They only got to one juror before the court was cleared: A woman who worked in the last administration as a communications director for OMB. Said she had a negative view of Trump but it wouldn’t keep her from being objective. Defense moved to strike her but overruled by judge.

Prosecution and defense has arrived back at the courtroom. After the delay, it appears that we’re getting back into it. One juror down, 80 more to go.

Aaaaand now we’re taking a lunch break until 1pm. Four potential jurors have been questioned. The defense has moved to strike three of them for various reasons but Judge Jackson has denied all so far.

Today is Day One of the Roger Stone trial.

Welcome to jury selection! Judge Amy Berman Jackson told the court yesterday she expects the process to be finished today or tomorrow morning.

The pool of potential jurors has already been selected, some people didn’t make the cut (hello @JoshNBCNews!) Each juror will be brought into the courtroom and he questioned on the stand by both sides. Judge Jackson will jump in there too, occasionally.

Bottom line: expect a long day without too much news. The trial is expected to last a little more than two weeks, according to a previous filing.

I’m ready with a big ol’ iced coffee which, by the way, is impossible to drink before your paper straw turns to gum.

Stone has arrived to the courthouse with his attorneys. Inside, a man in coveralls and a MAGA hat saluted Stone’s team as they walked down the hall. “God bless you”, the man said. “We love you, Roger.”

There is no media room today, which means no live updates.

I’m today there are roughly 82 potential jurors. No word on how many will be seated for the trial. ... 3150654464

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. ... ald-trump/

Witness list in Stone trial.

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
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Roger Stone has been Arrested

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:50 pm

Roger Stone has been found guilty on all 7 felony counts

7 counts:
1) obstruction
2-6) false statements
7) witness tampering

facing 50 years in prison

lying to protect trump

Kravis says Stone was breaking gag order as recent as yesterday when he passed a note to someone in media, presumably Alex Jones who did talk about Stone's note

Michael Caputo, who worked on President Trump's 2016 campaign, turned his back on the jury and was tossed out of court.

Just a reminder that indicted mobster Lev Parnas was involved with John Solomon's article smearing Ambassador Yovanovitch

Darren Samuelsohn
Good morning from federal court in DC where day 2 of jury deliberations in the Roger Stone trial begin at 9:30 am. Here are the two notes the jury sent to Judge Jackson on Thursday.

Heads up court is reconvening in the Stone trial. We don't know if it's another jury ? or a verdict. Stand by.

My colleague @joshgerstein says it appears to be a note from the jury.

Prosectors and Stone lawyers are being given a document to read.

Now both sides are seated back at their respective tables. Courtroom is pretty silent right now while we wait for Judge Jackson.

"All rise!" - Jackson enters courtroom.

Jackson talking to lawyers at the bench. She is about to bring the jury in. She says there's a note but not what the note says.

Jackson is speaking to DOJ's Jonathan Kravis and Stone attorneys Robert Bushcel and Bruce Rogow. The mic is muted so we don' t know what's being said.

and they just broke... Jury coming in.....

Jackson asks audience to be cool. Sounds like a verdict.

She asked all to maintain decorum and not to visibly react. It indeed sounds like we've got a verdict.

Jury entering courtroom.

here's my verdict form. will try to report count by count.


Jury foreman says they have a verdict.

Stone rises.

Count 1: Guilty
Count 2: Guilty
Count 3: Guilty
Count 4: Guilty
Count 5: Guilty
Count 6: Guilty
Count 7: Guilty

They are now polling the jury. Stone watching with one hand in pocket. Glasses on.

Jackson tells Stone and his lawyers to take a seat. She thanks the jury.

Jackson says the jury is free to discuss the case and read about it, etc.

Jury deliberated a bit more than 7 hours over two days.

Jackson says she's going to deny Stone's motion to dismiss the indictment. He'd submitted that a few days ago. She'll do it in writing soon.

Jackson says she's looking at sentencing for Stone in early February. ... 3584911360
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
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Roger Stone has been Arrested

Postby Harvey » Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:06 pm

Is Trump gone or are the Dems ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again?
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"

Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Posts: 2283
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 19 guests