Roger Stone has been Arrested

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Roger Stone has been Arrested

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:35 am

Lincoln's Bible

Btwn Manafort & Roger Stone, it's hard to calculate the damage, bloodshed, & sheer misery they've inflicted on innocent populations for raving maniacs & nihilist regimes.
All for a little coin. For the mastabatory glory to proclaim themselves wizards... /1

2/ Sycophantis, psychotic, mob whores. That is all they were. And all they'll ever be.
Die in jail, traitors.

And here's a tip for all the boys, who gaggled to Roger like panting baby ghouls - desperate to learn his dark secrets for fame: Do you realize what just happened..?

3/ Robert Mueller just did the most remarkable thing I've ever seen - in all the organized crime cases I've studied. He cut off the head without rolling you little fishies up first.
This does not mean you escaped the justice that's coming to you. It means that...

4/ Mueller did not need you to cut off the head. There is nothing for you to proffer. And you are all caught in his net.
Because this was treason. T-R-E-A-S-O-N.
We don't say it enough - in a way that let's us feel the weight of it. The seriousness of it...

5/ All Roger's boys (& 1 very over-worked woman) committed treason. They too will die in prison for it.
Instagram will not save them. Or Gab. Or Breitbart.
You see... real irony is not a meme. It's Bannon screwing every unf*ckable he ever groomed by stabbing Roger in the back.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1088 ... 82240.html



ROGER STONE'S CASE IS RELATED TO THE INDICTMENT OF RUSSIAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE.

SpicyFiles

Assertion Stone’s Case isn’t related to SCO Russian Indictments is BS.
1) see what I underlined in red?
1a) Case no 18cr2015?
2) that’s the July 2018 GRU Indictment case
(see thread below)
cc @ericgarland @lauferlaw @LuluLemew @TrueFactsStated
Image
Image


Also I know some of you are like: “this isn’t a cyber war or information warfare against America”
Then perhaps you should re-read the Feb 2018 indictment, because it’s CLEARLY STATED

Image
https://twitter.com/SpicyFiles/status/9 ... 5807041536




Image


Image






Ted Lieu
Dear @PressSec: It is reported that Steve Bannon was the @realDonaldTrump official who WAS DIRECTED to contact Roger Stone to get Clinton info from Wikileaks. If true, who could have directed Bannon? Wouldn't have been Melania. That doesn't leave too many more suspects, does it?





Rick Wilson

Hey Roger Stone fans:

Bannon ratted him out.

You're welcome.

Fight amongst yourselves.



You forgot "and longtime family friend of a reporter in this byline, who also ran all the Hillary email hit pieces during the campaign" in your headline.


Indicting Roger Stone, Mueller Shows Link Between Trump Campaign and WikiLeaks

Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime Trump adviser, has been charged as part of the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. He was arrested in a pre-dawn F.B.I. raid in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and appeared in court on Friday.CreditCreditJoe Raedle/Getty Images
By Mark Mazzetti, Eileen Sullivan and Maggie Haberman
Jan. 25, 2019


Arthur Finkelstein
The Unbelievable Story Of The Plot Against George Soros
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=41540



Lincoln's Bible

Fun and easy to read graph.
Blue background is American mafia. Red background is Russian Vor.


Image
Image



Image

Image

This morning is a perfect, f*cking morning to remind everyone that Roger Stone was a protege of ROY COHN.
Oh, and Fred Trump used to write him big checks.
Image


ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
Lawyer Roy Cohn and Donald Trump at the opening of Manhattan’s Trump Tower, 1983.
By Sonia Moskowitz.

Image
‘Donald calls me 15 to 20 times a day,” Roy Cohn told me on the day we met. “He is always asking, ‘What is the status of this . . . and that?’ ”

It was 1980. I had been assigned to write a story on Donald Trump, the brash young developer who was then trying to make a name for himself in New York City, and I had come to see the man who, at the time, was in many ways Trump’s alter ego: the wily, menacing lawyer who had gained national renown, and enmity, for his ravenous anti-Communist grandstanding.

Trump was 34 and using the connections of his father, Brooklyn and Queens real-estate developer Fred Trump, as he navigated the rough-and-tumble world of political bosses. He had recently opened the Grand Hyatt Hotel, bringing life back to a dreary area near Grand Central Terminal during a period when the city had yet to fully recover from near bankruptcy. His wife, Ivana, led me through the construction site in a white wool Thierry Mugler jumpsuit. “When will it be finished? When?,” she shouted at workers as she clicked through in stiletto heels.

The tabloids couldn’t get enough of the Trumps’ theatrics. And as Donald Trump’s Hyatt rose, so too did the hidden hand of his attorney Roy Cohn, always there to help with the shady tax abatements, the zoning variances, the sweetheart deals, and the threats to those who might stand in the project’s way.

Cohn was best known as a ruthless prosecutor. During the Red Scare of the 1950s, he and Wisconsin senator Joe McCarthy, the fabulist and virulent nationalist crusader, had hauled dozens of alleged “Communist sympathizers” before a Senate panel. Earlier, the House Un-American Activities Committee had skewered artists and entertainers on similar charges, resulting in a trail of fear, prison sentences, and ruined careers for hundreds, many of whom had found common cause in fighting Fascism. But in the decades since, Cohn had become the premier practitioner of hardball deal-making in New York, having mastered the arcane rules of the city’s Favor Bank (the local cabal of interconnected influence peddlers) and its magical ability to provide inside fixes for its machers and rogues.

“You knew when you were in Cohn’s presence you were in the presence of pure evil,” said lawyer Victor A. Kovner, who had known him for years. Cohn’s power derived largely from his ability to scare potential adversaries with hollow threats and spurious lawsuits. And the fee he demanded for his services? Ironclad loyalty.

Trump—who would remain loyal to Cohn for many years—would be one of the last and most enduring beneficiaries of Cohn’s power. But as Trump would confide in 1980, he already seemed to be trying to distance himself from Cohn’s inevitable taint: “All I can tell you is he’s been vicious to others in his protection of me,” Trump told me, as if to wave away a stench. “He’s a genius. He’s a lousy lawyer, but he’s a genius.”

WATCH: The Long List of Lawsuits Against Donald Trump

Bleak House

On the day I arrived at Cohn’s office, in his imposing limestone town house on East 68th Street, his Rolls-Royce was parked outside. But all elegance stopped at the front door. It was a fetid place, a shambles of dusty bedrooms and office warrens where young male assistants made their way up and down the stairs. Cohn often greeted visitors in a robe. On occasion, I.R.S. agents were said to sit in the hallway and, knowing Cohn’s reputation as a deadbeat, were there to intercept any envelopes with money.

Cohn’s bedroom was crowded with a collection of stuffed frogs that sat on the floor, propped against a large TV. Everything about him suggested a curious combination of an arrested child and a sleaze. I sat on a small sofa covered with dozens of stuffed creatures that exploded with dust as I tried to move them aside. Cohn was compact, with a mirthless smile, the scars from his plastic surgeries visible around his ears. As he spoke, his tongue darted in and out; he twirled his Rolodex, as if to impress me with his network of contacts. The kind of law Cohn practiced, in fact, needed only a telephone. (The New Yorker would later report that his longtime switchboard operator taped his calls and kept notes of conversations.)

Who did not know Roy Cohn’s backstory, even in 1980? Cohn—whose great-uncle had founded Lionel, the toy-train company—grew up as an only child, doted on by an overbearing mother who followed him to summer camp and lived with him until she died. Every night he was seated at his family’s Park Avenue dinner table, which was an unofficial command post of the Favor Bank bosses who’d helped make his father, Al Cohn, a Bronx county judge, and later a State Supreme Court judge. (During the Depression, Roy’s uncle Bernard Marcus had been sent to prison in a bank-fraud case, and Roy’s childhood was marked by visits to Sing Sing.) By high school, Cohn was fixing a parking ticket or two for one of his teachers.

After graduating from Columbia Law School at 20, he became an assistant U.S. attorney and an expert in “subversive activities,” allowing him to segue into his role in the 1951 espionage trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. (Cohn persuaded the star witness, Ethel Rosenberg’s brother, David Greenglass, to change his testimony; in Cohn’s autobiography, written with Sidney Zion, Cohn claimed that he had encouraged the judge, already intent on sending Julius to the electric chair, to also order Ethel’s execution, despite the fact that she was a mother with two children.) Come 1953, this legal prodigy was named McCarthy’s boy-wonder chief counsel, and the news photos told the tale: the sharp-faced, heavy-lidded 26-year-old with cherubic cheeks, whispering intimately into the ear of the bloated McCarthy. Cohn’s special skill as the senator’s henchman was character assassination. Indeed, after testifying in front of him, an engineer with the Voice of America radio news service committed suicide. Cohn never showed a shred of remorse.

Seeing Trump and Cohn enter a room together had a hint of vaudeville. “Donald is my best friend,” Cohn said back then.
Despite McCarthy’s very public demise when the hearings proved to be trumped-up witch hunts, Cohn would emerge largely unscathed, going on to become one of the last great power brokers of New York. His friends and clients came to include New York’s Francis Cardinal Spellman and Yankees owner George Steinbrenner. Cohn would become an occasional guest at the Reagan White House and a constant presence at Studio 54.

By the time I met with Cohn, he had already been indicted four times on charges ranging from extortion and blackmail to bribery, conspiracy, securities fraud, and obstruction of justice. But he had been acquitted in each instance and in the process had begun to behave as if he were somehow a super-patriot who was above the law. At a gay bar in Provincetown, as reported by Cohn biographer Nicholas von Hoffman, a friend described Cohn’s behavior at a local lounge: “Roy sang three choruses of ‘God Bless America,’ got a hard-on and went home to bed.”

Cohn, with his bravado, reckless opportunism, legal pyrotechnics, and serial fabrication, became a fitting mentor for the young real-estate scion. And as Trump’s first major project, the Grand Hyatt, was set to open, he was already involved in multiple controversies. He was warring with the city about tax abatements and other concessions. He had hoodwinked his very own partner, Hyatt chief Jay Pritzker, by changing a term in a deal when Pritzker was unreachable—on a trip to Nepal. In 1980, while erecting what would become Trump Tower, he antagonized a range of arts patrons and city officials when his team demolished the Art Deco friezes decorating the 1929 building. Vilified in the headlines—and by the Establishment—Trump offered a response that was pure Roy Cohn: “Who cares?” he said. “Let’s say that I had given that junk to the Met. They would have just put them in their basement.”

For author Sam Roberts, the essence of Cohn’s influence on Trump was the triad: “Roy was a master of situational immorality . . . . He worked with a three-dimensional strategy, which was: 1. Never settle, never surrender. 2. Counter-attack, counter-sue immediately. 3. No matter what happens, no matter how deeply into the muck you get, claim victory and never admit defeat.” As columnist Liz Smith once observed, “Donald lost his moral compass when he made an alliance with Roy Cohn.”
Image
donald trump parents
HAIR APPARENT
Donald’s parents, Mary and Fred Trump, at a New York City benefit, 1988.

By Marina Garnier.

When Donald Met Roy

Let’s go back further still, to 1973. Trump, 27, was living in a rent-controlled studio, wearing French cuffs, and taking his dates to the Peacock Alley, the bar in the lobby of the Waldorf Astoria. At the time, the lockbox of Establishment New York was tightly closed to the Trumps of Queens, despite their mansion in Jamaica Estates.

Riding around Brooklyn in a Rolls-Royce, Trump’s mother, Mary, collected quarters from laundry rooms in various Trump buildings. Trump’s father, Fred, had already beaten back two scandals in which he was accused of overcharging and profiteering at some of his government-financed apartment complexes, and was now facing an even more explosive charge—systemic discrimination against black and other minority tenants. The Trumps, however, were connected to Favor Bank politicians in the Brooklyn Democratic machine, which, in tandem with the Mob bosses, still influenced who got many of the judgeships and patronage jobs. It was twilight in a Damon Runyon world, before the reformers moved in.

As Donald Trump would later tell the story, he ran into Cohn for the first time at Le Club, a members-only nightspot in Manhattan’s East 50s, where models and fashionistas and Eurotrash went to be seen. “The government has just filed suit against our company,” Trump explained, “saying that we discriminated against blacks . . . . What do you think I should do?”

“Tell them to go to hell and fight the thing in court and let them prove you discriminated,” Cohn shot back. The Trumps would soon retain Cohn to represent them.

The evidence was damning. At 39 Trump-owned properties, according to the Department of Justice lawsuit, widespread practices were used to avoid renting to blacks, including implementing a secret code. When a prospective black renter would apply for an apartment, the paperwork would allegedly be marked with a C—indicating “colored” (a charge that, if true, would constitute a violation of the Fair Housing Act). Nevertheless, the Trumps countersued the government. “It just stunned me,” the lawyer and journalist Steven Brill recently recalled. “They actually got reporters to appear for a press conference where they announced that they were suing [the Justice Department] for defamation for $100 million. You couldn’t get through your second day of law school without knowing it was a totally bogus lawsuit. And, of course, it was thrown out.”

A race-discrimination case of this magnitude might have sunk many a developer, but Cohn persisted. Under his guidance, the Trumps settled by agreeing to stipulations to prevent future discrimination at their properties—but came away without admitting guilt. (With that, a Trump strategy was launched. Decades later, when questioned about the case in one of the presidential debates, Trump would declare, “It was a federal lawsuit—[we] were sued. We settled the suit . . . with no admission of guilt.”)

Cohn continued to go on the attack for the Trumps. “I was a young reporter just starting my first job, at the New York Post [in 1974],” book publisher David Rosenthal told me. “I was working on illegal campaign contributions and I started looking at the records that had come from a group of buildings in Brooklyn, which showed massive donations to [Democrat] Hugh Carey, then running for governor of New York. They had all come from buildings that I had traced to Fred Trump . . . . My story was published and my editors were thrilled.

“The next day, my phone rang and it was Roy Cohn. ‘You piece of shit! We are going to ruin you! You have a lot of fucking nerve!’ ” Shaken, Rosenthal, then 21, went to his editors. “Their jaws dropped. I thought I was finished. I was sure Cohn’s next call would be to Dolly Schiff, the owner of the paper. Of course, the call never came. The story was true. They had skirted the New York finance laws.”

For about a decade, the tax abatements and legal loopholes that Trump was able to finesse came about, in large part, because of Cohn. The time he spent on Trump matters was not reduced to “billable hours,” wrote the late investigative journalist Wayne Barrett in Trump: The Greatest Show on Earth. Instead, Cohn asked for payment only when his cash supply ran low.

Steve Brill again saw Cohn’s stamp when Trump struck back, defending the case against Trump University. It was, Brill asserted, “a scam against the very people who [eventually] voted for Trump—the middle and lower middle class . . . . The first thing Trump does is sue one of the plaintiffs. She wins and the judge awards her $800,000 in legal fees, and Trump appeals, and in that decision he’s compared to Bernie Madoff . . . . This strategy was pure Cohn: ‘Attack your accuser.’ ”

After Brill’s investigation was published, Brill said, he received a call from one of Trump’s lawyers. “I understand you may do a follow-up,” he told Brill, adding a bit of advice: “Just be careful.” “Thanks,” Brill replied. “And let me give you some advice: ‘You better get the check because this guy is never going to pay you.’ Being a deadbeat was also pure Cohn.” (A White House spokesperson says this claim is totally false.)
Image
roy cohn
Cohn approaches his Bentley, 1977.

By Neal Boenzi/The New York Times/Redux.

Boys from the Boroughs

How to explain the symbiosis that existed between Roy Cohn and Donald Trump? Cohn and Trump were twinned by what drove them. They were both sons of powerful fathers, young men who had started their careers clouded by family scandal. Both had been private-school students from the boroughs who’d grown up with their noses pressed against the glass of dazzling Manhattan. Both squired attractive women around town. (Cohn would describe his close friend Barbara Walters, the TV newswoman, as his fiancée. “Of course, it was absurd,” Liz Smith said, “but Barbara put up with it.”)

Sometime during the 2016 presidential campaign, Brill noticed that Donald Trump was using Cohn’s exact phrases. “I began to hear, ‘If you want to know the truth,’ and ‘that I can tell you . . .’ and ‘to be absolutely frank’—a sign that the Big Lie was coming,” Brill said.

Cohn—possessed of a keen intellect, unlike Trump—could keep a jury spellbound. When he was indicted for bribery, in 1969, his lawyer suffered a heart attack near the end of the trial. Cohn deftly stepped in and did a seven-hour closing argument—never once referring to a notepad. He was acquitted. “I don’t want to know what the law is,” he famously said, “I want to know who the judge is.”

When Cohn spoke, he would fix you with a hypnotic stare. His eyes were the palest blue, all the more startling because they appeared to protrude from the sides of his head. While Al Pacino’s version of Cohn (in Mike Nichols’s 2003 HBO adaptation of Tony Kushner’s Angels in America) captured Cohn’s intensity, it failed to convey his child-like yearning to be liked. “He was raised as a miniature adult,” Tom Wolfe once observed.

Cohn liked to throw parties crowded with celebrities, judges, Mob bosses, and politicians—some of whom were either coming from or on their way to prison—causing Cohn’s close friend the comedian Joey Adams to remark, “If you’re indicted, you’re invited.” But it was Cohn’s circle of legal aides and after-hours pals that also held sway. “Roy loved to surround himself with attractive straight men,” said divorce attorney Robert S. Cohen, who, before taking on clients such as Michael Bloomberg—and both of Trump’s ex-wives (Ivana Trump and Marla Maples)—began his career working for Cohn. “[Roy had] a coterie. If he could have had a relationship with any of them, he would have.”

Cohn’s cousin David L. Marcus concurred. Soon after graduating from Brown in the early 80s, Marcus recalled, he sought Cohn out. While they had encountered each other over the years at family gatherings, Marcus’s parents had despised Cohn since his McCarthy days, and a chill had set in. But Cohn, intrigued by the attention of his long-lost cousin, welcomed him. Marcus, a journalist who would later share a Pulitzer Prize, recently said that he was astonished by the atmosphere of creepy intimacy that, in those days, seemed to perfume Cohn’s attitude toward his acolytes, including one in particular. “There was a party in the mid-1980s, where Mailer was, and Andy Warhol, [when] in walked Trump,” recounted Marcus. “Roy dropped everyone else and fussed over him . . . Roy had that ability to focus on you. I felt that Roy was attracted to Trump, more than in a big-brotherly way.

“Donald fit the pattern of the hangers-on and the disciples around Roy. He was tall and blond and . . . frankly, über-Gentile. Something about Roy’s self-hating-Jewish persona drew him to fair-haired boys. And at these parties there was a bevy of blond guys, almost midwestern, and Donald was paying homage to Roy . . . I wondered then if Roy was attracted to him.”

“Thwarted loves obsessed Roy Cohn’s life,” added a lawyer who first met Cohn in the 60s, characterizing some of the men, both gay and straight, in Cohn’s orbit. “He would become sexually obsessed with cock-tease guys who would sense his need and not shun him. These were unrequited relationships. The way he would expiate the sexual energy was possessive mentoring. Introducing them to everyone in town and taking them places.”

Seeing Trump and Cohn enter a room together had a hint of vaudeville. Donald, standing six feet two inches, would typically enter first, with a burlesque macho-man’s gait, walking as if he led from his toes. A few feet behind would be Cohn, skinny, eyes darting, his features slightly caved in from plastic surgery. “Donald is my best friend,” Cohn said back then, shortly after he had thrown a 37th-birthday party for Trump. And over the years, several who knew Cohn would remark on Donald Trump’s resemblance to the most infamous of Roy Cohn’s blond, rich-boy obsessions: David Schine.
Image
roy cohn
Cohn at his East 68th Street town house, with a photo of himself and Trump, 1984.

By Nancy Moran/Sports Illustrated/Getty Images.

Patriot Games

Consider the episode—and the compulsion—that ended Roy Cohn’s time in the capital and Joe McCarthy’s Senate career. In the mid-50s, Cohn was in the headlines for the malicious circus of the hearings. Scores of witnesses were being bullied by Cohn or McCarthy or both. “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?,” Cohn demanded in his nasal honk, a spectacle replayed in the evenings on TV and radio.

It was amid this high drama that a young man had come into Cohn’s life. The heir to a hotel-and-movie franchise, the feckless David Schine had reportedly pulled D’s in his first year at Harvard. But in 1952, he wrote a pamphlet on the evils of Communism and was soon introduced to Cohn. It was, for Cohn, a coup de foudre, and Schine came on the McCarthy committee as an unpaid “research assistant.” Dispatched on a tour of Europe to investigate possible subversion at army bases and American Embassies—which included ridding the consular libraries of “subversive literature” (among them works by Dashiell Hammett and Mark Twain)—the pair were dogged by rumors that they were lovers. (Cohn told friends that they were not.) Whispers also began to swirl about McCarthy’s sexual orientation.

In lavender Washington, Cohn was known as both a closeted homosexual and homophobic, among those leading the charge against supposedly gay witnesses who he and others believed should lose their government jobs because they were “security risks.” When Schine was drafted as a private and not a commissioned officer, Cohn threatened he would “wreck the army.” McCarthy even mentioned to Robert T. Stevens, the secretary of the army, that “Roy thinks Dave ought to be a general and operate from a penthouse in the Waldorf Astoria.” President Dwight Eisenhower, meanwhile, angered by McCarthy’s attacks and fearful that the senator’s zealotry was severely damaging the president’s agenda and the G.O.P. itself, sent word to the army counsel to write a report on Cohn’s harassment tactics. According to historian David A. Nichols, the president secretly ordered the document to be released to key legislators and the press, and the revelations were explosive, resulting in the Army-McCarthy hearings.

Over 36 days, 20 million Americans watched. It was all there: Cohn and Schine’s jaunt to Europe, Cohn’s ultimatums, McCarthy’s smears. The high point came when the army’s sly Boston lawyer, Joseph Welch, shook his head in pained disbelief at McCarthy’s attempt to slander one of Welch’s own assistants, imploring the senator, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last . . . ?” Within weeks, Cohn was banished and McCarthy was soon censured.

Cohn played it as a win. After the debacle, he returned to New York and attended a party thrown in his honor at the Hotel Astor. It would be the first example of his ability to project victory from defeat and induce moral amnesia upon a mesmerized New York—a gambit not dissimilar to those later utilized by his confrère Donald Trump.

Another of Cohn’s tactics was to befriend the town’s top gossip columnists, such as Leonard Lyons and George Sokolsky, who would bring Cohn to the Stork Club. He was irresistible to tabloid writers, always ready with scandal-tinged tales. “Roy would be hired by a divorce client in the morning and be leaking their case in the afternoon,” New Yorker writer Ken Auletta recalled. Columnist Liz Smith said she learned to distrust most items he gave her. A similar reliance on the press would also become a vital component of the young Trump’s playbook.

“[Roy] would call me up and it was always short—‘George, Roy,’ ” said former New York Post political reporter George Arzt, who was later Mayor Ed Koch’s press secretary. “He would drop a dime on someone, hoping I would print it.”

WATCH: The Evolution of Donald Trump’s Presidential Campaign

My initiation to the louche world of Roy Cohn came in 1980—at a lunch with Trump in the room upstairs at the ‘21’ Club, the first time I had been there. “Anybody who is anybody here sits between the columns,” Trump told me. I was expecting our meal to be one-on-one, but a guest joined us that day. “This is Stanley Friedman,” Trump said. “He is Roy Cohn’s law partner.” The lunch agenda, not surprisingly, turned into a sales pitch, with Friedman offering a monologue on what Roy Cohn had already done for Trump. (Friedman, in pure Tammany Hall style, worked for the city while assisting Cohn, and would later go to prison for taking kickbacks in a parking-ticket scandal.)

“Roy could fix anyone in the city,” Friedman told me that day. “He’s a genius . . . . It is a good thing Roy isn’t here today. He would stab all the food off your plate.” A Cohn quirk was to rarely order food and, instead, commandeer the meals of his dining partners. I wrote then about the moment when hotel titan Bob Tisch came by the table. “I beat Bob Tisch on the convention site,” Trump said loudly. “But we’re good friends now, good friends. Isn’t that right, Bob?”

Trump, at the time, was developing a sullen moxie that rivaled Cohn’s. The lawyer Tom Baer, for instance, did not know what to expect when he got a call one day to meet with Trump. Baer had been recently appointed by Mayor Koch to represent the city in all aspects of what was to become its new convention center, and Baer was trying to line up possible partnerships. “Donald said, ‘I would be willing to contribute the land,’ ” Baer would remember. “ ‘I think it is only fair that it be named Trump Center’ ”—after his father.

“I called Ed Koch, and he said, ‘Fuck him! Fuck him.’ I said, ‘I don’t talk that way.’ He said, ‘I don’t care how you talk! Fuck him!’ So, I used my best lawyer-ese, and I called him back and said, ‘The mayor is so grateful for your offer. But he is not inclined to agree.’ ” Some time later Trump went to Deputy Mayor Peter Solomon and reportedly proposed a deal entitling him to a $4.4 million commission. (He eventually got $500,000.) Recalled Baer, “He spoke to the representatives of the governor [too]. He wasn’t going to be deterred because pisher Tom Baer told him he couldn’t do it . . . . Koch [just shook his head and] thought, This guy is ridiculous.”
Image
roy cohn
Left, Cohn with Senator Joseph McCarthy, 1954; Right, Cohn with real-estate doyenne Alice Mason and TV newswoman Barbara Walters at Le Cirque, 1983, photographed by Harry Benson.

Left, from Bettmann/Getty Images.

“You Need to See Donald”

‘Come and make your pitch to me,” Roy Cohn told Roger Stone when they met at a New York dinner party in 1979. Stone, though only 27, had achieved a degree of notoriety as one of Richard Nixon’s political dirty-tricksters. At the time, he was running Ronald Reagan’s presidential-campaign organization in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, and he needed office space.

Stone appeared on East 68th Street to find Cohn, just awakened, in his robe, sitting with one of his clients, Mob boss “Fat Tony” Salerno, of the Genovese crime family. “In front of [Roy] was a slab of cream cheese and three burnt slices of bacon,” Stone remembered. “He ate the cream cheese with his pointing finger. He listened to my pitch and said, ‘You need to see Donald Trump. I will get you in, but then you are on your own.’ ”

“I went to see him,” Stone told me, “and Trump said, ‘How do you get Reagan to 270 electoral votes?’ He was very interested [in the mechanics]—a political junkie. Then he said, ‘O.K., we are in. Go see my father.’ ” Out Stone went to Avenue Z, in Coney Island, and met Fred Trump in his office, which was crowded with cigar-store Indians. “True to his word, I got $200,000. The checks came in $1,000 denominations, the maximum donation you could give. All of these checks were written to ‘Reagan For President.’ It was not illegal—it was bundling. Check trading.” For Reagan’s state headquarters, the Trumps found Stone and the campaign a decrepit town house next to the ‘21’ Club. Stone was now, like Donald Trump, inside the Cohn tent.

And Stone soon seized the moment to cash in. After Reagan was elected, his administration softened the strict rules for corporations seeking government largesse. Soon Stone and Paul Manafort, Trump’s future campaign manager, were lobbyists, reaping the bonanzas that could flow with Favor Bank introductions. Their first client, Stone recalled, was none other than Donald Trump, who retained him, irrespective of any role Manafort might have had in the firm, for help with federal issues such as obtaining a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge the channel to the Atlantic City marina to accommodate his yacht, the Trump Princess.

“We made no bones about it,” Stone recently said. “We wanted money. And it came pouring in.” Stone and Manafort charged hefty fees to introduce blue-chip corporations—such as Ronald Perelman’s MacAndrews & Forbes and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.—to their former campaign colleagues, some of whom were now running the Reagan White House. It was all cozy and connected—and reminiscent of Roy Cohn.

By 2000, Stone had offered his talents to a new candidate: Trump himself. That year Stone traveled the country to help Trump explore the viability of running as a Reform Party candidate. But at a stop in Florida, things halted abruptly. “I’m tired,” Stone recalled Trump telling him. “Cancel the rest of this. I am going to my room to watch TV.” In Stone’s view, “His heart was never in it.” (A White House spokesperson disputes this account.)

“You have to let Donald be Donald,” Stone explained. “We have been friends for 40 years . . . . Look what happened with the ‘birther’ push. You don’t want to hear this, but when he started that campaign 7 out of 10 Republicans at the time believed that Obama was born in Kenya. And, let’s face it, many still question it. Donald still believes it.” (In fact, candidate Trump released an official statement two months before Election Day asserting, unequivocally, that “Barack Obama was born in the United States.”)

Stone’s modus operandi, even to this day, has seemed to be vintage Cohn. Fired by Trump for what one of his spokesmen called Stone’s desire “to use the campaign for his own personal publicity,” Stone went into overdrive, fighting back and scheduling interviews in which he praised candidate Trump. (Stone denied he was fired and says he resigned.) Stone recently expressed concern that Jared Kushner’s inexperience and façade of centrist policies might very well scuttle the already beleaguered Trump presidency. And he fretted about Trump’s daughter Ivanka as well, saying that he found it “disturbing” when Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, in May, pledged $100 million to a World Bank women’s entrepreneurial fund—a project she had promoted.

Yet Stone would not concede that his decades-long relationship with Trump had become strained, even though Stone, along with some members of the administration, are facing allegations that they’ve had questionable contacts with a variety of Russian nationals. (All have denied any wrongdoing.) “There is nothing to any of this,” Stone claimed. “Donald knows he has my loyalty and friendship. I leave a message when I want to speak with him.”

All along there had been something deeper connecting Stone and Trump and Roy Cohn: the climate of suspicion and fear that had helped bring all three to power. Although Stone, like many around Cohn in the 70s and 80s, was too young to have observed how Cohn helped poison America in the McCarthy years, Stone had learned at the feet of Richard Nixon, the ultimate American paranoid. And the politics of paranoia that Cohn and Stone had cynically mastered would eventually make them kindred spirits. Just as the two of them had come to prominence by exploiting a grave national mood (Cohn in the 50s, Stone in the 70s), it was this same sense of American angst, resurgent in 2016, that would ultimately help elect Donald Trump.

“Pro-Americanism,” Stone said, “is a common thread for McCarthy, Goldwater, Nixon, [and] Reagan. The heir to that tradition is Donald Trump. When you combine that with the bare-knuckled tactics of Roy Cohn—or a Roger Stone—that is how you win elections. So Roy has an impact on Donald’s understanding of how to deal with the media—attack, attack, attack, never defend.”

The Long Good-Bye

Roger Stone was there in 1982 when Roy Cohn was at his peak. At the time, Cohn was trying to help Trump realize his dream of opening casinos in Atlantic City. Crucial to his success would be a sympathetic New Jersey governor. And Cohn and Stone were working hard to elect their candidate: Republican Tom Kean. Stone, as it turned out, was Kean’s campaign manager, and after Kean won in a close race, Stone would remain as an unofficial adviser.

Trump began to purchase boardwalk real estate. He built one casino and bought another. His prospects looked bright. But Cohn’s downfall was imminent. Word would soon begin to circulate that Cohn was battling AIDS. He denied it. He was also battling disbarment—under a cloud of fraud and ethical-misconduct charges. (Cohn, along with other misdeeds, had stiffed a client on a loan and altered the terms of a virtually comatose client’s will—in his hospital room—making himself its co-executor.)

Cohn tried to keep up a good face. But Trump, among other clients, began to shift his business elsewhere. “Donald found out about [Cohn’s condition] and just dropped him like a hot potato,” Cohn’s personal secretary, Susan Bell, was quoted as saying. (A White House spokesperson says this claim is totally false.)

Cohn sensed his growing isolation. And for whatever reason, he decided, according to journalist Wayne Barrett, to help the efforts of Trump’s sister Maryanne Trump Barry, who was seeking an appointment to the federal bench. “Maryanne wanted the job,” Stone would recall. “She did not want Roy and Donald to do anything. She was attempting to get it on her own.”

Stone remembered that when it appeared someone else was in line for the job Cohn approached Reagan’s attorney general, Ed Meese, for help. In the end, Barry got the plum post. “Roy can do the impossible,” Trump reportedly said when he heard the news. The next day, Barrett noted, Barry called Cohn to thank him. (According to the Times, Trump, when asked in 2015, said his sister “got the appointment totally on her own merit.” For herself, Barry admitted to Trump-family biographer Gwenda Blair, “There’s no question Donald helped me get on the bench. I was good, but not that good.”)
Image
roy cohn
Cohn at home in Greenwich, Connecticut, 1986, photographed by Mary Ellen Mark.

By 1985, Cohn was seriously ill—“I have liver cancer,” he contended—and he started calling in his last markers. He phoned New York Times columnist William Safire, whom he’d known since Safire’s days as a publicist. And, sure enough, Safire ran a piece attacking the “buzzards of the bar” who had “dredged up” fraud charges to get even with Cohn, “[the] hard-hitting anti-legal-establishment right-winger at a time when he is physically unable to defend himself.” Roger Stone would recall Trump phoning him and asking, “ ‘Have you seen Bill Safire’s column?’ He called me to point it out to me. He said, ‘This is going to be terrific for Roy.’ “

Cohn also had asked a favor of Trump: Could he give him a hotel room for his lover, who was dying of AIDS? A room was found in the Barbizon Plaza Hotel. Months passed. Then Cohn got the bill. Then another. He refused to pay. At some point, according to The New York Times’s Jonathan Mahler and Matt Flegenheimer, Trump would present Cohn with a thank-you gift for a decade of favors: a pair of diamond cuff links. The diamonds turned out to be fakes.

Tensions between the two became progressively strained. And the dying Cohn, as Barrett would describe him in those waning days, would say, “Donald pisses ice water.”

That said, Trump did come out to testify on Cohn’s behalf at his 1986 disbarment hearing, one of 37 character witnesses, including Barbara Walters and William Safire. But none of it mattered. Cohn, after putting up a four-year fight, was kicked out of the New York Bar for “dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.” Cohn’s nefarious practices had finally caught up with him.

Trump, by then a presence in Atlantic City, was setting his sights on a third casino. Roy Cohn, in contrast, would die almost penniless, given how much he owed the I.R.S. And his funeral made it clear what Cohn and his friends and family had felt, in the end, about Trump. The real-estate developer was not one of the speakers. He was not asked to be a pallbearer. Trump, in Barrett’s account, did show up, however, and stood in the back.

Thirty years later, on the day after Donald J. Trump was elected president, Roger Stone was one of the callers who got through to his old friend at Trump Tower. “Mr. President,” said Stone. “Oh please, call me Donald,” Stone remembered Trump saying.

A few moments later, Trump sounded wistful. “Wouldn’t Roy love to see this moment? Boy, do we miss him.”https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/donald-trump-roy-cohn-relationship
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 has been Arrested

Postby Jerky » Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:33 pm

HA! No news there, but you're right... he's like, almost as slimy as Julian Assange's pits after a warm week without a shower under the stairs!

YOPJ

RocketMan » 25 Jan 2019 15:54 wrote:Stone is a sleazy creep.

But can someone remind me again, why I need to be excited about this Mueller freakshow?
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Roger Stone has been Arrested

Postby Jerky » Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:36 pm

Thanks for this wealth of relevant and pertinent information, all assembled in one place, SLAD. I really appreciate your legwork on this, and will be making use of it. Great work.

Jerky
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Roger Stone has been Arrested

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:10 pm

.

We'd be remiss without including JR's astute assessment of Roger Stone's indictment/arrest in this thread as well, as a means to keep things 'centralized', and also to provide an additional perspective on this recent development:

JackRiddler » Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:39 am wrote:.

(Stone indictment: This is post 1 of 2)

In case you haven't noticed, ha ha, original ratfucker and longtime political ax-man Roger Stone got indicted by Mueller. As you may remember, after the DNC leaks in June and July 2016, Stone scammed the Trump campaign -- which was first under Manafort's and then under Bannon's management -- by posing as an inside contact to Wikileaks, which he was not. The campaign apparently directed Stone to get Assange to release more Clinton dirt. Stone dutifully read the press for clues and also pressured poor Randy Credico, who actually knows and met with Assange, to help concoct the impression that Stone did, in fact, have influence with Assange. Which he did not. It was a show for the Trumpsters and also a bragging point in foolish public statements. When the Podesta leaks were first teased by Wikileaks publicly and then released on October 7, Stone played as if he, alone, had predicted it. Which he did not. The next year, he lied about his own earlier deceptions in testimony to a congressional committee, and to other investigators. That last part, finally, is the stuff of the indictment. All the other stuff has been known for many months. The priests and adepts of #Russiagate are all birthing holy burning triplets about this latest long-awaited revelation of their godhead. It's the beginning of the end, Trump is finished!tm

Here is Mueller's indictment, 24 pages:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper ... pdf#page=1

Below is the first section, a very easy read that lays out the story, all of which you would already know if you've been following.

Key:
Company 1 = Crowdstrike
Person 1 = Corsi
Person 2 = Credico
Organization 1 = Wikileaks
Clinton Campaign chairman = Podesta

"senior Trump Campaign officials": Corey "Hapless" Lewandowski was the campaign chair until he was fired on June 20 and Manafort took the helm. Manafort had joined the campaign in March, having been referred by billionaire and long-time Trump friend Thomas Barrack. Manafort was demoted on August 17, immediately after Trump got his first security briefing from the FBI (which presumably included dirt or at least bad claims about Manafort). A couple of days later, he resigned altogether. The same day was fateful because it saw Bannon, apparently on the recommendation of the Mercers, was parachuted in to rescue the by-then moribund campaign. He became the major domo in a duo with Kellyanne Conway, who had been there throughout. Ivanka, Kushner, and Eric were always around, but wouldn't have been "officials of the campaign."

The Grand Jury for the District of Columbia charges:

Introduction

1. By in or around May 2016, the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (“DCCC”) became aware that their computer systems had been compromised by unauthorized intrusions and hired a security company (“Company 1”) to identify the extent of the intrusions.

2. On or about June 14, 2016, the DNC—through Company 1—publicly announced that it
had been hacked by Russian government actors. [That's all you are going to get as evidence backing this central matter: DNC through Crowdstrike publicly announced.]

3. From in or around July 2016 through in or around November 2016, an organization
(“Organization 1”), which had previously posted documents stolen by others from U.S. persons, entities, and the U.S. government, released tens of thousands of documents stolen from the DNC and the personal email account of the chairman of the U.S. presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton (“Clinton Campaign”).

a. On or about July 22, 2016, Organization 1 released documents stolen from the
DNC.

b. Between on or about October 7, 2016 and on or about November 7, 2016,
Organization 1 released approximately 33 tranches of documents that had been
stolen from the personal email account of the Clinton Campaign chairman, totaling
over 50,000 stolen documents. [Remember, regardless of who did this, this one was not done through access to a server, but by a fishing e-mail sent to Podesta, who naively surrendered his Google password to a fake virus message.]

4. ROGER JASON STONE, JR. was a political consultant who worked for decades in U.S.
politics and on U.S. political campaigns. STONE was an official on the U.S. presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign”) until in or around August 2015, and maintained regular contact with and publicly supported the Trump Campaign through the 2016 election.

5. During the summer of 2016, STONE spoke to senior Trump Campaign officials about
Organization 1 and information it might have had that would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign. STONE was contacted by senior Trump Campaign officials to inquire about future releases by Organization 1.

6. By in or around early August 2016, STONE was claiming both publicly and privately to
have communicated with Organization 1. By in or around mid-August 2016, Organization 1 made a public statement denying direct communication with STONE. Thereafter, STONE said that his communication with Organization 1 had occurred through a person STONE described as a “mutual friend,” “go-between,” and “intermediary.” STONE also continued to communicate with members
of the Trump Campaign about Organization 1 and its intended future releases.

7. After the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (“HPSCI”), the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (“SSCI”), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) opened or announced their respective investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, which included investigating STONE’s claims of contact with Organization 1.

8. In response, STONE took steps to obstruct these investigations. Among other steps to
obstruct the investigations, STONE:

a. Made multiple false statements to HPSCI about his interactions regarding
Organization 1, and falsely denied possessing records that contained evidence of
these interactions; and

b. Attempted to persuade a witness to provide false testimony to and withhold
pertinent information from the investigations.


Note that in the English language, "his interactions regarding" is not synonymous with "his interactions with."

The witness in 8b would be Credico, Person 2. It is the story about Stone threatening him and his dog, which is covered in the indictment, Point 39.

Points 11-17 detail what would be the heart of the "collusion" action on the Stone side and has nothing that has not already been released here or there. It is basically a review of Stone's contacts with Credico in the run-up to the Oct. 7 Wikileaks release of the Podesta e-mails. Remember, Wikileaks teased this release repeatedly in the press before finally sending it out. According to Points 11-17, Stone never talks to Assange. Credico updates him occasionally about his contacts with Assange, even as Stone pretends to the Trumpsters that he "predicted" the Podesta release. None of these details are cited as actionable crimes in the indictment. Many of them are repeated in further sections so as to demonstrate that Stone lied about these details. i.e., Stone lied before Congress under oath about his attempts to contact Wikileaks. This does not change his apparent failure to actually sway Assange, or even talk to him.

So, finally, "the Trump campaign officials" who may have directed Stone to try getting Wikileaks to release more dirt on Clinton could be Manafort (suggested in Point 5) or, if it was after August 17, likely Bannon or Conway. Would such a request to Stone be illegal? Possibly, it's at least as bad as hiring non-US citizens who is not registered as a lobbyist to do the opposition research. It would be a lot worse, legally speaking, if Wikileaks actually were an unofficial "hostile foreign intelligence service" working wittingly for the Russian state, as Pompeo would have it, or for that matter as Clinton and the DNC allege. That, in turn, depends on the Crowdstrike claims (i.e., that it was "Russia" that "hacked" the DNC servers back in May 2016, so as to coordinate a release of the contents through Wikileaks as a witting co-conspirator).

Apropos of nothing, but worth a laugh, here is Hollywood executive producer Steve Bannon's IMDB page.
https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0052442/filmotype/producer


JackRiddler » Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:08 am wrote:(Stone indictment: This is post 2 of 2 - read the above first, thank you)

.

Wikileaks statements of January 25:

@wikileaks
Statement from Julian Assange's US lawyer Barry Pollack on Roger J. Stone: "The dawn military-style arrest of Mr. Stone, a 66 year old political consultant, was wholly unnecessary and served no purpose other than intimidation.” (1/3)

“The charges against Mr. Stone do not allege that Mr. Stone lied about his [lack of] contacts with Julian Assange, but rather about his contacts with others and about documents reflecting those communications.” (2/3)

@wikileaks
"The Office of Special Counsel has never spoken with Mr. Assange." (3/3)


And the indictment doesn't need any of that. They're just nailing Stone for lying to Congress by denying his earlier lying to the Trumpsters. O, what a tangled web we weave.

Aaron Maté 25 January:

@aaronjmate
As I’ve said before, Stone had no actual link to Wikileaks, he just trolled everyone into thinking that he did. He’s now being indicted for lying to Congress — not to Mueller btw — about his efforts to find out what Wikileaks had from two people who also had no real link either.

[citing]

@aaronjmate (1 November 2018)
The reason Mueller (or anyone) has not been able to find an "actual link to Wikileaks" yet is because Roger Stone has pulled off one of most successful trollings in recent memory. 2 years in, it still hasn't sunk in that Stone's "link" to WL is a combo of b.s. & reading the news:

[citing NYT reporter]

Maggie Haberman

Verified account

@maggieNYT
Follow Follow @maggieNYT
More
NEW: Mueller zeroing in on emails, other interactions between Stone and campaign officials in 2016 as he tries to find an actual link to Wikileaks, and to determine whether it's just puffery from the self-described dirty trickster.



NYT coverage of Stone raid and indictment.

Transcript of Stone press con after court.

Additionally:

Wikileaks filing in Democratic National Committee vs. Russian Federation et al.

I don't have time for this but: Wikileaks files motion with Inter-American Commission of Human Rights in attempt to get a ruling that the Trump administration must unseal or dismiss the indictments against Assange. (Sorry, Grauniad coverage). Apparently 1172 pages. The big surprise for me: The international coordinator of Assange’s legal team is none other than Baltasar Garzón.



And, for those that continue to fawn over Mueller and his machinations, I direct you to this fine thread initiated by conniption:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=41194&hilit=mueller

What Mueller won't find
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Roger Stone has been Arrested

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:20 pm

I guess I will be cross posting this whole thread into Jack's now .....thanks for the idea


but am I going to post my whole Manafort thread into Jack's Manafort thread? Who can say but thanks for the idea

We'd be remiss if I did not

I'll make sure to tell Jack to thank you after all this was your idea ....we are going to have some fun now ...aren't you the cleaver one..... :yay



Did you really think this thing through?

Are you daring me to give back in kind?

I will give conniption the heads up on who gave me this fantastic idea

See ya
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 has been Arrested

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:39 pm

.

Do what thou wilt.

Perhaps a refresher of my intent here may be helpful:

I come here -- RI -- for what I hope to be critical analysis of a given event, in the hopes of obtaining the closest approximation of truth (an increasingly elusive/naive aspiration). Whatever frustrations I may have expressed here have been principally due to my disappointment in what I view as the regurgitation of mainstream narratives echoed/replicated here with minimal, if any, interpretation/critical assessment, at least by those replicating it. I have viewed RI as a place (based on prior history) that offered scrutiny, rather than mere amplification, of all the CRAP out there.

Regretfully, I lured myself into petty interactions here over these last two+ years, something I aim to avoid moving forward. Whatever the outcome, I hold no ill will towards any members. Indeed, I know none of you personally, and therefore have no opinion of any of you as 'real life' individuals. As such, I take nothing personally, nor do I personalize any slights towards me here in this space. My occasional frustrations here, again, are in the bolded bit above.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Roger Stone has been Arrested

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:48 pm

Perhaps NOT....this thread is not about your angelic intentions..it is not helpful to disrupt my thread it only goes to show your real intentions

another off topic post too bad you don't have any threads that I could visit

keep it up...I mean keep my thread stuck at the top ...


I crossed posted your post where it belongs

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40878&start=555
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 has been Arrested

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:06 pm

HAPPY INDICTMENT FRIDAY

Image
JUSTICE NEWS

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, July 13, 2018
Grand Jury Indicts 12 Russian Intelligence Officers for Hacking Offenses Related to the 2016 Election

The Department of Justice today announced that a grand jury in the District of Columbia returned an indictment presented by the Special Counsel’s Office. The indictment charges twelve Russian nationals for committing federal crimes that were intended to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. All twelve defendants are members of the GRU, a Russian Federation intelligence agency within the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian military. These GRU officers, in their official capacities, engaged in a sustained effort to hack into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, and released that information on the internet under the names "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0" and through another entity.

“The Internet allows foreign adversaries to attack America in new and unexpected ways,” said Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein. “Together with our law enforcement partners, the Department of Justice is resolute in its commitment to locate, identify and seek to bring to justice anyone who interferes with American elections. Free and fair elections are hard-fought and contentious, and there will always be adversaries who work to exacerbate domestic differences and try to confuse, divide, and conquer us. So long as we are united in our commitment to the shared values enshrined in the Constitution, they will not succeed.”

According to the allegations in the indictment, Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, Boris Alekseyevich Antonov, Dmitriy Sergeyevich Badin, Ivan Sergeyevich Yermakov, Aleksey Viktorovich Lukashev, Sergey Aleksandrovich Morgachev, Nikolay Yuryevich Kozachek, Pavel Vyacheslavovich Yershov, Artem Andreyevich Malyshev, Aleksandr Vladimirovich Osadchuk, Aleksey Aleksandrovich Potemkin, and Anatoliy Sergeyevich Kovalev were officials in Unit 26165 and Unit 74455 of the Russian government’s Main Intelligence Directorate.

In 2016, officials in Unit 26165 began spearphishing volunteers and employees of the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, including the campaign’s chairman. Through that process, officials in this unit were able to steal the usernames and passwords for numerous individuals and use those credentials to steal email content and hack into other computers. They also were able to hack into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) through these spearphishing techniques to steal emails and documents, covertly monitor the computer activity of dozens of employees, and implant hundreds of files of malicious computer code to steal passwords and maintain access to these networks.

The officials in Unit 26165 coordinated with officials in Unit 74455 to plan the release of the stolen documents for the purpose of interfering with the 2016 presidential election. Defendants registered the domain DCLeaks.com and later staged the release of thousands of stolen emails and documents through that website. On the website, defendants claimed to be “American hacktivists” and used Facebook accounts with fictitious names and Twitter accounts to promote the website. After public accusations that the Russian government was behind the hacking of DNC and DCCC computers, defendants created the fictitious persona Guccifer 2.0. On the evening of June 15, 2016 between 4:19PM and 4:56PM, defendants used their Moscow-based server to search for a series of English words and phrases that later appeared in Guccifer 2.0’s first blog post falsely claiming to be a lone Romanian hacker responsible for the hacks in the hopes of undermining the allegations of Russian involvement.

Members of Unit 74455 also conspired to hack into the computers of state boards of elections, secretaries of state, and US companies that supplied software and other technology related to the administration of elections to steal voter data stored on those computers.

To avoid detection, defendants used false identities while using a network of computers located around the world, including the United States, paid for with cryptocurrency through mining bitcoin and other means intended to obscure the origin of the funds. This funding structure supported their efforts to buy key accounts, servers, and domains. For example, the same bitcoin mining operation that funded the registration payment for DCLeaks.com also funded the servers and domains used in the spearphishing campaign.

The indictment includes 11 criminal counts:

Count One alleges a criminal conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States through cyber operations by the GRU that involved the staged release of stolen documents for the purpose of interfering with the 2016 president election;
Counts Two through Nine charge aggravated identity theft for using identification belonging to eight victims to further their computer fraud scheme;
Count Ten alleges a conspiracy to launder money in which the defendants laundered the equivalent of more than $95,000 by transferring the money that they used to purchase servers and to fund other costs related to their hacking activities through cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin; and
Count Eleven charges conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States by attempting to hack into the computers of state boards of elections, secretaries of state, and US companies that supplied software and other technology related to the administration of elections.

There is no allegation in the indictment that any American was a knowing participant in the alleged unlawful activity or knew they were communicating with Russian intelligence officers. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the vote count or changed the outcome of the 2016 election.

Everyone charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court. At trial, prosecutors must introduce credible evidence that is sufficient to prove each defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to the unanimous satisfaction of a jury of twelve citizens.

This case was investigated with the help of the FBI’s cyber teams in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and San Francisco and the National Security Division. The Special Counsel's investigation is ongoing. There will be no comments from the Special Counsel at this time.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-ju ... 6-election




SpicyFiles


Lordy the @FBI has SO MUCH info notice the reference to an American Journalist?
Identity Theft 500K American IDs stolen
So @GOP @realDonaldTrump @HouseGOP @SenateGOP
NAMES
UNIT
METHODS
A REAL American does NOT conspire with Russia or Russian


Image
Image
Image

A simple analogy:

SCO investigation is a complex matter
At first glance it looks like seperate threads.
The likelihood that once viewed together these seperate threads actually weave together
Case in point something I noticed yesterday.
Fact not opinion



BEJESUS...
One has to wonder how freaked out @realDonaldTrump @jaredkushner @DonaldJTrumpJr @IvankaTrump are right now.
Also @PressSec just go home and open a bottle of wine
Stone arrested before 6AM today[

I’m <9 pages in (on my freaking phone) it’s galling and surprising how close Stone and @realDonaldTrump and @Trump coordinated.
Also here’s a thread of twitter archives re “Wikileaks” & members of the Trump campaign/family


Image

Notice the June and July 2016?
That puts the June 2016 @realDonaldTrump tower meeting with Russians DIRECTLY in the bullseye.

(See next sub-subthread tweet re transcripts & blocked number telephone calls)

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 has been Arrested

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:22 pm

This is a great paragraph and I hope someone shows it to

Image



Flipping Roger Stone

Elie Honig Posted: 9 hours ago
Updated: Jan 26, 2019 @ 15:02

FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA - JANUARY 25: Roger Stone, a former advisor to President Donald Trump, leaves the Federal Courthouse on January 25, 2019 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Stone was charged by special counsel Robert Mueller of obstruction, giving false statements and witness tampering. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
As a federal prosecutor working organized crime cases, I routinely staked trials on testimony from some of the worst human beings on the planet. Prosecutors call them “cooperating witnesses,” defendants and defense attorneys call them “rats,” “snitches” and worse, and trials often turn on their testimony. One of my star cooperators shot so many people during his career as a mob enforcer that he couldn’t count them all, so we had him give the jury an estimate (about 30 to 35, he testified). Another described how he lured his friend into the woods, then beat him over the head with a shovel before dumping him into a shallow grave. One cooperator explained how he engineered a series of home invasions in which victims were woken up in the middle of the night, zip-tied and pistol-whipped. Another particularly remorseless cooperator testified that he shot a dog to get even with the owner. Yet another cooperator had a large tattoo reading “GOD” across his chest; when I asked if that meant he believed in God or he thought he was God, he responded, “Both.” Bottom line: I was never squeamish about relying on cooperators, even those with staggering criminal baggage.

That said: Roger Stone just might top them all. No, Stone hasn’t done anything remotely as violent or horrible as my old stable of mafia cooperators. But, from a prosecutor’s point of view, everything with cooperators comes down to one thing: credibility. Give me a mobster or murderer or a leg-breaker as a star witness any day, if he has fully admitted what he did. What keeps prosecutors up at night are the snakes – the cooperators who lie and cheat and scheme. Cooperation isn’t a popularity pageant; it’s a credibility contest.

At first glance, Stone seems both extraordinarily slippery and exceedingly unlikely to cooperate. His career is marked by overarching hostility to the law, fair play and the truth. Stone started his political career in the 1970s, working for Richard Nixon. As would become a career hallmark, it was unclear what exactly Stone did; he boasted that he worked as a scheduler during the day but “[b]y night, I’m trafficking in the black arts.” Stone’s back is adorned with a large tattoo of Nixon’s face. In 1980, Stone co-founded the lobbying firm Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly. (Yes, that’s Manafort as in Paul; the firm now is two-for-four in having its principals federally indicted). In the 1980s, Stone began to work for Donald Trump, lobbying for Trump’s casino business. Stone has continued to work for Trump on and off since then. Throughout his career as a political operative, Stone has espoused hyper-aggressive theories you’d expect to hear from a college sophomore who has just read Sun-Tzu for the first time: “Admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack.”

Stone publicly declared in mid-2018 that he expected to be indicted by Mueller, decrying the investigation as “an effort to silence or punish the president’s supporters and his advocates.” Stone has remained openly defiant of Mueller ever since. In December 2018, Stone flatly declared, “there is no circumstance under which I would testify against the President.” Trump in turn tweeted his support for Stone’s vow of silence: “Nice to know that some people still have ‘guts!’” After his arraignment on Friday, Stone reiterated from the courthouse steps that he “will not plead guilty to these charges.”

All in all, seems like a pretty clear no-go. But let’s step back for a moment. I’ve seen plenty of people cooperate who once seemed even less likely to flip than Stone. Every one of my mafia cooperators took a blood oath when they joined an organization whose fundamental principles require that cooperators be put to death. Indeed, several of my cooperators pled guilty to murdering people because those people were suspected of cooperating. So if my cooperators could turn on the mob, in violation of their blood oaths and at the risk of their own lives, then Stone can flip against a testy politician with a quick twitter thumb.

Perhaps even more relevant here, everybody else in Mueller’s sights has flipped, or tried to, no matter how loyal they once were to Trump. Former campaign adviser and national security adviser Michael Flynn: flipped. Manafort: tried to flip but failed because he lied. Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos: flipped and flipped. Perhaps most notably, Trump’s former personal attorney and head cheerleader Michael Cohen – who once declared he would “take a bullet” for Trump – wound up cooperating with Mueller and implicating Trump in crimes. So, when it comes to Stone cooperating, I’m still firmly on “unlikely’ but far from “impossible.”

So what would it take to turn Roger Stone into a government witness? I see three areas of vulnerability. First, a prosecutor would need to appeal to – perhaps exploit – Stone’s natural sense of self-preservation. For all the trouble he has been mixed up in over his long career, Stone has never been at any real risk of serving time behind bars. Friday’s indictment might change his bearing a bit. It’s one thing to rail publicly against the possibility of a theoretical future indictment, but another to see seven federal criminal charges, carrying a total maximum sentence of 50 years, in black and white. As a practical matter, Stone isn’t looking at anything close to 50 years, but he easily could be facing five years or so if convicted on all counts. For a 66 year-old man like Stone, that could mean most or all of the rest of his life, which has to be at least a bit sobering. And the evidence laid out in the indictment seems locked in; over and over again, the indictment quotes Stone’s lies and then cites hard proof – typically Stone’s own texts – to prove that he lied. A good prosecutor could make a compelling case that cooperation offers Stone his best and most realistic chance to get through the case without having to serve time.

Second, as much as we don’t like to acknowledge it in our quest for pure justice, money matters. It is expensive to defend yourself in federal court, and it is jaw-droppingly costly to go to trial. Stone has flashed vulnerability on this, declaring that he faces legal fees of $2 million – not an outrageous estimate, if a trial is involved – while noting that he is “not a wealthy man” and begging for crowdfunded donations.

Third, Stone is nothing if not ego-driven. We all are, of course, but Stone’s in his own league. A prosecutor might therefore make a pitch to Stone along these lines. You can stay quiet, you can be a “stand-up” guy, you can fight the government and maybe even go to trial. Trump will send nice tweets about you, you’ll have a heavy media following for a couple years, but ultimately you’ll be a strange footnote in history. Or you can flip and be John Dean.

Of course, there’s one trump card – sorry, it’s just the right word – that could override all of this: a presidential pardon. A pardon is the golden ring for Stone. He’d walk free and it costs nothing. Many took Trump’s tweet supporting Stone’s silence as a hint of Trump’s inclination to issue a pardon. Perhaps the best response then is to remind Stone that he’d be taking an awfully big roll of the dice on the generosity of a guy not exactly known for it. Stone knows Trump’s personality: do you think Trump would do a favor for you, I’d ask Stone, if it meant putting himself in one ounce of political jeopardy over the backlash? Trump’s already got enough problems, legal and political, without taking on any more water to protect a far-past-his-prime political brawler.

If Stone somehow did see the light and cooperate, the rewards could be dizzying. If Stone did come clean, imagine what he could deliver. Starting with Friday’s indictment, Stone presumably could identify the “senior Trump Campaign officials” he spoke with about Wikileaks and dissemination of hacked e-mails – including, most tantalizingly, the person who “directed” a “senior Trump Campaign official” to contact Stone about the Wikileaks releases. Stone also could bolster a long-rumored case against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, identified as “the head of Organization-1” in the indictment. And that’s just based on Friday’s indictment, without even getting into Stone’s decades of political rough trade.

Stone remains unlikely to cooperate. But I’ve seen crazier things happen. If a prosecutor played it just right, he just might press the right buttons of self-interest and grandeur necessary to get Stone in the door. And if that happened somehow, Stone would pose a unique threat to Trump and his administration.
https://www.cafe.com/flipping-roger-stone/
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 has been Arrested

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Jan 27, 2019 12:53 am

No Escape for Roger Stone: Mueller’s Case Is a Slam Dunk and He’s Too Slimy to Get Flipped

Prosecutor who helped convict Dick Cheney aide Scooter Libby for lying and obstruction says the case against Trump’s old pal is virtually perfect.

01.26.19 8:57 PM ET
The long-anticipated indictment of Roger Stone finally dropped on Friday, and it landed on Stone like the proverbial ton of bricks. As someone who prosecuted Scooter Libby and others on similar charges and defended white-collar cases involving similar charges as those alleged here—false statements, obstruction of justice and witness tampering—my takeaway is that Stone should begin getting his affairs in order. Barring a presidential pardon (always the wild-card possibility with a POTUS like Trump) Stone will be convicted and receive a very substantial prison sentence. This is as close to a slam-dunk case as a prosecutor will ever bring.

There are several types of defenses that are typically employed when defending a case like this, and none of them are viable here.

“I didn’t actually say what the government alleges I said/the government didn’t understand what I said.”

This defense can often work when the false statements are based on an interview conducted by field agents who simply take notes of the interview and do not record it. In these instances, defendants can plausibly argue that either they did not understand the agents’ questions, or the agents either did not understand or did not memorialize their response accurately. Any ambiguity in the question or the answer can be exploited. But that won’t work for Stone, because the entire Congressional hearing was transcribed, verbatim. The questions, and the answers, were under oath and were not at all ambiguous or open to interpretation.

“You can’t prove that my answer was false.”

In other words, cast doubt about the government’s version of what it alleges is the truth. Typically, this can be done by attacking the credibility of the government’s witnesses who are called to establish what the government contends actually happened. So, for example, if the government were reliant on Randy Credico or Jerome Corsi to tell the jury the “truth,” then Stone’s counsel could attack their credibility. Even the most straight-arrow witnesses can get tripped up on cross-examination on occasion. (If you doubt this, just dig up the descriptions of how Tim Russert, perhaps America’s most trusted journalist at the time, was tied up in knots on cross-examination when he testified in the Libby trial. Not pretty.)

Unfortunately for Stone, and what makes fighting this case futile, is that the government will not need to rely on the credibility of any individuals to make its case. The email and text evidence laid out in excruciating detail in the indictment is not open to interpretation. Just one example: on the very day that Stone testified that he had never sent or received emails or text messages from Credico, the two men had exchanged more than 30 text messages. Good luck spinning that.

“Stone is too untrustworthy for a prosecutor to ever rely upon.”

And if that were not enough—and believe me, it is—the case will be tried in D.C. There is a facile critique that liberals are soft on crime. That can be true where the defendants are perceived to be from a disadvantaged minority. But have pity on an arrogant, white-collar defendant who is in cahoots with a despised Republican president; you will witness righteous fury. The venire in D.C. reviles Trump, and they will find Stone loathsome. The only contentiousness will be during jury selection, as the potential jurors all fight to be chosen so they can “do justice.”

Finally, do not expect to see special counsel Robert Mueller make any attempt to flip Stone and have him cooperate. A defendant like Stone is far more trouble than he is worth to a prosecutor. Stone is too untrustworthy for a prosecutor to ever rely upon. He has told so many documented lies, and bragged so often about his dirty tricks, that he simply has too much baggage to deal with even if here to want to cooperate—which seems unlikely in any event. Mueller, I suspect, would not even be willing to engage in a preliminary debrief with Stone to just test the possibility of cooperation out of concern that Stone would immediately go on television with his pals at Fox News to decry Mueller’s Gestapo tactics.

In short, Mueller does not need Stone to get to someone else and, even if he did, he could not rely on whatever Stone told him. Stone has nothing to sell that Mueller would be interested in buying.

Stone is clearly enjoying being in the spotlight now. He should enjoy it while he can. His remaining years won’t be nearly as pleasant.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/no-escape ... et-flipped


Peter Jukes


A memory of happier times with #RogerStoneArrested - just a year ago in London. He told ⁦@carolecadwalla⁩ and me he was trying to visit Julian Assange and had dropped off his card at the Ecuadorean Embassy
Image

Indeed he did.......
Image

Before going on to advocate a hostile right wing takeover of the Tory party in support of #Brexit in his speech given to hard right wing think tank, The Bow Group.......

Roger Stone, original ratfucker and #Trump campaign adviser, dropped in on Assange before addressing the #Tory hard right wing think tank, The Bow Group, in support of #Brexit. Listen as he advocates a hostile right wing takeover of the Tory party:


Peter Jukes

We were there.


It's called cultivating a source. It was just ten minutes at the bar. But he revealed his desire to see Assange again.
https://twitter.com/peterjukes/status/1 ... 4508190720
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 has been Arrested

Postby Jerky » Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:42 am

Man, on so many levels, I am LOVING this... and the (hysterically predictable) reaction to it in certain circles.

The dogs may bark, but the train rolls on.

YOPJ
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Roger Stone has been Arrested

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:34 am

TWO DETAILS THAT MANY ARE MISSING IN/ABOUT THE STONE INDICTMENT

January 27, 2019/33 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, Mueller Probe /by emptywheel
I’ve been traveling most of the day to get out of the Midwest before the snow and record low temperatures show up, and will be buried for three days working on things that have nothing to do with any investigation Mueller has been involved in since 2013.

But I do want to add two details to the parlor game going on about whether or not the Roger Stone indictment is the tip of a conspiracy-burg or evidence there’s no there there. Joyce White Vance argues that Mueller charged Stone the way he did to hide the rest of the conspiracy prosecution.

Why didn’t Mueller charge Stone with conspiracy? The rules in federal cases require that prosecutors provide defendants with broad discovery. By indicting Stone on a fairly narrow set of charges, Mueller limits what has to be disclosed & can protect ongoing investigation.


Randall Eliason offers a respectable version of the argument that the indictment suggests there won’t be a conspiracy case.

There have always been at least two possible end games for the Mueller investigation. He could uncover evidence of a widespread criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russians to influence the election. Or he could conclude that the campaign’s numerous documented interactions with Russians seeking to help Trump win were not criminal, but people close to Trump lied to cover up those interactions because revealing them would have been politically devastating.

Stone’s indictment falls into the coverup category. Mueller may have evidence of the broader conspiracy, and more charges may well be coming. But every case like Stone’s, or those against former campaign manager Paul Manafort, that is filed without charging a conspiracy with the Russians makes it seem more likely that criminal charges brought by the special counsel will end up being primarily about the coverups.


Andy McCarthy offers a less respectable version of the same.

Neither Eliason nor McCarthy account for one of the only new details in the indictment, showing that an unidentified Steve Bannon associate congratulated Stone on October 7.

On or about October 7, 2016, Organization 1 released the first set of emails stolen from the Clinton Campaign chairman. Shortly after Organization 1’s release, an associate of the high-ranking Trump Campaign official sent a text message to STONE that read “well done.” In subsequent conversations with senior Trump Campaign officials, STONE claimed credit for having correctly predicted the October 7, 2016 release.


This detail shows that the Trump campaign at least believed that Stone succeeded in getting WikiLeaks to drop the John Podesta emails to distract attention from the Access Hollywood video, which in turn is consistent with a claim Jerome Corsi made about Stone having advance knowledge of the Access Hollywood video and that he and Stone succeeded in timing the email release.

Corsi wrote in his forthcoming 57,000-word book that he told Zelinsky that Stone told him in advance that the “Access Hollywood” tape would be released.

He wrote that “although I could not remember exactly when Roger told me, or the precise substance of the discussion, I remembered Roger told me before the Washington Post went to press with the Billy Bush tape that the tape was coming and that it would be a bombshell.”

Corsi said he had three phone calls with Stone in the hours before the release of the tape.

“I know nothing about that, either does Jerry Corsi,” Stone told TheDCNF. When asked why Corsi might be motivated to make a false claim, Stone said: “He’s saying this because the prosecutors induced him to say it.”

Corsi also wrote that Zelinsky revealed that prosecutors had evidence of an email exchange between he and Stone “in which Stone expressed pleasure that Assange had released the Podesta emails as instructed.”

Corsi said he replied that he and Stone “should be given credit” for the release.


While Stone disputes Corsi’s claim and Corsi feigns forgetfulness about precisely what happened, by including a communication showing Stone getting credit for the timing, Mueller is suggesting that Corsi is right — and that he has credible, corroborating evidence to prove it.

That’s more coordination — between Corsi and Stone, but more importantly between some go-between and WikiLeaks — than would be the case if Stone’s indictment were all Mueller had. It would put Stone and Corsi in a conspiracy with WikiLeaks and their go-between(s).

Then there’s this detail from the motion to seal Stone’s indictment that no one has yet offered a full explanation for (indeed, most of the reports that noted that Amy Berman Jackson had been assigned the case didn’t explain this detail at all).

Image

Someone — and it would almost certainly have to be the prosecutors (including one who, DC US Attorney’s office prosecutor Jonathan Kravis, is on the internet Research Agency case), — told the court that Stone’s namby pamby “process crime” is related to the big conspiracy case involving WIkiLeaks with a bunch of Russian hackers. And while it’s true that Stone is described in the GRU indictment, he is not named in a way that the court would identify that by themselves. WikiLeaks shows up in both, but there’s no need to tie WikiLeaks cases together unless some defendant is going to show up to face prosecution (and WikiLeaks is does not take any of the overt acts described in the Stone indictment).

I don’t pretend to understand how this happened or what it all means. But there’s nothing about the Stone obstruction prosecution that would overlap with the evidence in the GRU indictment. And, as charged, the GRU indictment won’t be prosecuted at all until Julian Assange or someone else involved in it ends up in DC to face charges.

By all means, continue the parlor game. But at least explain how those two details fit into your theory of nothing-“berder” or grand conspiracy.

Update: By popular demand, I’m including the definition of a “related case” under DC’s local rules.

A related case for the purpose of this Rule means as follows:

(1) Criminal cases are deemed related when

(i) a superseding indictment has been filed, or

(ii) more than one indictment is filed or pending against the same defendant or defendants, or

(iii) prosecution against different defendants arises from a common wiretap, search warrant, or activities which are a part of the same alleged criminal event or transaction. A case is considered pending until a defendant has been sentenced.


Certainly, WikiLeaks is named as a co-conspirator in both. But it is not yet a defendant. Though both cases may rely on a wiretap targeting Wikileaks. Or perhaps Stone’s search warrant included his conversations with Guccifer 2.0, and so the other indictment.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/01/27/t ... ndictment/
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 has been Arrested

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:19 pm

Roger Stone leaves door open to cooperation with special counsel

CBS News
Last Updated Jan 27, 2019 9:33 PM EST

Roger Stone, the former Trump adviser indicted for allegedly lying to Congress, continued to insist he's innocent Sunday. He's the sixth associate of President Trump to be charged in connection with special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, and is set to appear in federal court Tuesday.

Stone spoke to CBS News justice and homeland security correspondent Jeff Pegues at his home in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and left open the possibility he might be willing to cooperate with Mueller's investigators.

"I'm going to tell the truth no matter what," Stone said. "I have no intention of not telling truth. I have never not told the truth. Claims that I was less than truthful before the House Intelligence Committee will be disproven."

According to the indictment handed down by a grand jury in Washington and unsealed on Friday, Stone spoke to "senior Trump campaign officials" about WikiLeaks' "future releases" of information stolen from Democratic Party computer systems by Russian-backed hackers in the months before the 2016 election.

roger-stone-interview.png
CBS News
Stone, who has been friends with Mr. Trump for decades, has denied he ever shared information about WikiLeaks with then-candidate Trump in 2016.

In a tweet Saturday night, Mr. Trump mentioned Stone's indictment and the so-called "dossier," which he called a "total phony con job."

The dossier, which was compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, was just one of several pieces of information that led the FBI to launch the Russia investigation in 2016. The special counsel is seeking to determine if there was coordination between Russian operatives and the Trump campaign.

Stone faces seven counts of lying, obstruction and witness tampering.

"Adding up the charges, the counts, that's 45 years behind bars," Pegues said. "Would you serve 45 years behind bars if you're found guilty?

"I don't answer hypothetical questions. I am going to be acquitted and I will be vindicated," Stone said.

Stone said he has been the target of death threats for months.

0127-en-stone-pegues-4.jpg
Roger Stone in his Florida home. CBS News
"It's very dangerous to be me at this moment," Stone said. "I'm not dangerous, but there are threats against my family, threats to disfigure my wife, threats to kill my grandchildren, threats to kill dogs. Yes, there are lots of demented people out there."

"What do you expect in federal court on Tuesday?" Pegues asked.

"Just an arraignment," Stone said.

The indictment also alleged that Stone communicated with someone identified as "Person 1" about WikiLeaks. Conservative author and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi says he is "Person 1" and that he is willing to testify against Stone, who is preparing to leave his home in Florida to travel to Washington.

Watch more of Stone's interview with CBS News in the video below:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roger-ston ... t-mueller/
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 has been Arrested

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:28 pm

emptywheel


@emptywheel
Follow Follow @emptywheel
More
One reason I'm interested that Kravis is on Stone's indictment is bc there were 3 still unidentified Trump campaign officials described as chatting up Russian bots in there.

Know where they're located?

Florida.


Florida, where a GOP consultant asked for, and received, DNC modeling data from Guccifer 2.0?



Why Won’t Roger Stone Shut Up?

It’s fascinating how many of Trump’s surrogates who are in legal jeopardy think it is wise to speak to the media

Peter Wade January 27, 2019 2:38PM ET
Just days after being indicted, Roger Stone continued his media blitz Sunday appearing on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Stephanopoulos asked Stone about possibly cooperating with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, as Mueller has not asked to speak with Stone to date: “Are you prepared to tell the truth about your dealings with him to the special counsel, the truth about your dealings with the campaign?”

Stone’s answer contradicts itself. He first said that he would speak with Mueller about wrongdoing by people that he knows about. But then said he doesn’t know about any wrongdoing. And then said that he would answer honestly about the wrongdoing. Got that?

JUST IN: @GStephanopoulos: "Any chance you'll cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller if he asks?"

Roger Stone: "That's a question I'll have to determine after my attorneys have some discussion … I would certainly testify honestly" https://t.co/PAbc4RuByr pic.twitter.com/yTWpkkBq3F

— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) January 27, 2019

“That’s a question I’d have to determine after my attorneys have some discussion. If there’s wrongdoing by other people in the campaign that I know about, which I know of none, but if there is, I would certainly testify honestly. I would also testify honestly about any other matter, including any communications with the president. It’s true we spoke on the phone, but those communications are political in nature, they’re benign and there is certainly no conspiracy with Russia. The president’s right. There is no Russian collusion,” Stone answered.

Stephanopoulos also asked Stone whether he had discussed receiving a pardon with Trump. “Absolutely, positively not,” Stone said. “I have never discussed a pardon [for myself].”

After reminding everyone that he is not perfect — “I am human and I did make some errors but they’re errors that would be inconsequential within the scope of this investigation” — Stone went on to complain about the way he was arrested this past week, a note he strikes in every media appearance in an obvious attempt to secure public sympathy. “I think the way I was treated on Thursday is extraordinary. I think the American people need to hear about it,” Stone said.

It’s fascinating how many of Trump’s surrogates who are in legal jeopardy think it is wise to speak to the media. Even those who are not in a legal line of fire like Rudy Giuliani, who supposedly is acting as Trump’s attorney, seems to do more harm than good for his client and his own reputation with every media appearance. What motivates this cast of characters is anyone’s guess.

The strategy, if you can call it that, seems to be in line with Trump’s longtime thought process of engaging with the media no matter how bad things may be going. Trump has a long history of reaching out to the press, even before his political career, sometimes as himself or acting as his own fake spokesman, John Miller, when things were going terribly for him. He has employed this tactic to defend his personal life, litigate public breakups as his divorces played out in the tabloids, and to set a false narrative about what a great businessman he was while half of his businesses were going bankrupt.

Some who have been indicted or who have cooperated with Mueller’s Russia probe have kept relatively quiet or have not spoken to the media at all like Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn and, to a lesser extent, Michael Cohen, who has mostly let one of his attorneys, Lanny Davis, do most of the public speaking for him. While others like, Stone, Carter Page, Jerome Corsi, Sam Nunberg, and Michael Caputo, all of whom are involved with the Russia probe, seemingly can’t say no to a media request.

Maybe all of this comes down to who thinks they have a chance of a pardon from the president and who is just living by Roger Stone’s adage: “The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.”
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... up-785160/
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 has been Arrested

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:32 pm

Roger Stone Will Save Himself, With Trump Or Without Him

By David Cay Johnston, DCReport Editor-in-Chief
Roger Stone Will Save Himself, With Trump or Without Him

The Indicted Political Trickster Signals that He’s Ready to Tell Mueller What He Knows


David Cay Johnston
At DCReport we focus on what politicians do, not what they say. Sometimes, however, parsing words is important. Such is the case with what Roger Stone, the freshly indicted adviser to Donald Trump, said after he was indicted Friday, Jan. 25.

Stone has been a dirty trickster his whole life, growing rich by making up lies, misleading voters and generally being a scoundrel, a role Stone relishes. He says what he does is legal and is “perfectly legal” exercise of his First Amendment free speech rights.

Until Friday Stone had said again and again that he would never testify against Trump.

Indeed, Trump tweeted just that on Dec. 3, 2018, quoting Stone: “I will never testify against Trump.”


But when Stone walked out of Florida courthouse Friday, released on $250,000 bond, Stone spoke in nuanced terms.

The television networks, the big newspapers and every other news report we’ve seen or heard reported that Stone said he would never testify against Trump. But like a politician whose stump speech never varies until the pol wants to signal a change in position, Stone didn’t speak in such unqualified terms on Friday.

Here are Stone’s precisely calibrated words:

“There is no circumstance whatsoever under which I will bear false witness against the president, nor will I make up lies to ease the pressure on myself.”

Those words sent a reassuring message to Trump, who Stone hopes will pardon him should he be convicted. Donald is not a detail man, He operates from simple terms, unable to grasp may subtleties. To Trump, those words were just like those Trump tweeted about in December—that Stone is still 100% loyal.

Stone’s remarks are subtle signals to Mueller that Stone might turn on Trump for the right deal.

But the conditionals in Stone’s remarks will not go unnoticed by Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Mueller is a man with a finely developed mind who grasps the subtlest of subtleties.

To Mueller, those words may well be read as indicating that Stone could be open to spilling the beans and telling the truth about Trump.

Also, notice the conditional “if” that Stone used in his comments on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, two days after he was arrested.

“If there’s wrongdoing by other people in the campaign that I didn’t know about—which I know of none—but if there is, I would certainly testify honestly.”

As I read it, the Friday and Sunday remarks are subtle signals to Mueller that Stone might turn on Trump for the right deal. Stone is facing up to 20 years in prison if convicted. That is a daunting penalty for a 66-year-old man, a virtual life sentence.

But by flipping on Trump, Stone might get out in a year or three to resume his famously hedonistic lifestyle.

A host of former federal prosecutors has told reporters in detail that a conviction is a slam dunk if Stone goes to trial given the emails released with the indictment that show Stone knowingly lied to Congress. That’s why his carefully couched words on Friday and Sunday are important.

Mueller isn’t interested in lies. He needs truths, deeply hidden truths about what went on between Trump and the Kremlin spymasters who have been courting him for more than three decades.

Mueller needs facts to build any case against the president, his grown children, his son-in-law and others. And those facts must be corroborated by other witnesses, documents, emails and other information.

Faced with dying in prison or getting out in a year or three, expect Stone will flip unless he is absolutely sure Trump will rescue him with a pardon. Given how mercurial Trump is that’s a high-risk bet.

And don’t miss that Stone himself says the testimony sought from him is about Trump.

Stone says nothing improper went on between him and Donald. Maybe, in fact, the crimes Mueller has already identified were done through intermediaries.

Both men are known to work through intermediaries to maintain deniability for their conduct. Donald has likely used his son Don Jr. and his son-in-law Jared Kushner while Stone has used another Mueller indictee, the fabulist Jerome Corsi.

For a prosecutor like Mueller that’s not a big problem to get around. Good prosecutors know how to deal with crime via third parties. And Mueller is not just good. He is as good as it gets.
https://www.dcreport.org/2019/01/28/rog ... thout-him/
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 General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 169 guests