home

Roger Stone Indicted by Mueller

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 12:37:16 PM EST
Tags: Roger Stone (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Roger Stone has been indicted by Team Mueller. The Indictment is here. The Washington Post reports (no link due to auto-play video)

With Stone’s indictment, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has struck deep inside Trump’s inner circle, charging a long-standing friend of the president. The court filing charges Stone sought to gather information about hacked emails at the direction of an unidentified senior Trump campaign official, and then engaged in extensive efforts to keep secret the details of those efforts.

Stone's reaction: He's innocent, he'll never plead guilty or make up stories to help authorities get Donald Trump.

“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. I look forward to being fully and completely vindicated,” Stone said. “I will not testify against the president because I would have to bear false witness.”

Who's who in the Indictment?

The breakdown from Quarz:

Person 1 is described as:

“a political commentator who worked with an online media publication during the 2016 US presidential campaign. Person 1 spoke regularly with Stone throughout the campaign, including about the release of stolen documents by Organization 1.”

Reportedly is Jerome Corsi, a conservative writer.

Person 2 reportedly is Randy Credico, a former comedian turned radio show host.

In November 2017, Stone told the House Intelligence Committee that Credico was his intermediary with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to obtain information on Clinton. Credico was then subpoenaed to appear before the committee, but avoided the interview by pleading his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

In the indictment, Stone is accused of directing Credico not to testify and plead the fifth.

Organization 1 is obviously Wikileaks.

The reporter is reportedly Breitbart’s Washington politics editor, Matthew Boyle. Steve Bannon also reportedly makes an appearance.

< Tuesday Open Thread | Trump to Announce Temporary Deal on Shutdown >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Roger Stone Indicted by Mueller | 169 comments (169 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    FWIW (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 01:19:48 PM EST
    CNN is claiming that were staking out Stone's on a hunch. Link Sounds reasonable and in any case a suspect that any tip probably would have come from the local FBI.

    A key passage in Stone indictment: (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 01:54:54 PM EST
    He "was contacted by senior Trump campaign officials to inquire about future releases" of stolen information by Wikileaks.

    "No collusion," my a$$.

    On the other thread (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 03:39:10 PM EST
    we were talking about who Trump's campaign manager was in July. Well, I googled and I think it might be Kellyanne. Can you imagine if it's Kellyanne that was contacting Russian Intelligence? Oh, please, please let it be her. I will drink some champagne in a HILLARY glass if it is.

    I just found that Lewandowski was let go in June and Bannon did not come on board until August leaving Kellyanne to run the show between those two.

    With the addition of Credico to be believed to be a conduit to Russian Intelligence this is also going to drag the Sanders 2016 campaign again into the Special Counsel's investigation.

    Actually (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 03:52:20 PM EST
    It doesn't say "in July"

    It says "after the July release of the DNC emails"

    read it here

    Parent

    And it always says things like (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 03:58:15 PM EST
    "In or around" or "on or about"

    I don't think the specific dates are that clear

    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 04:10:43 PM EST
    Chuck just gave list of specific dates.

    Reading it again.  I didn't see them.

    Parent

    Ooook (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 04:20:44 PM EST
    Chuck gave the one date as July 22

    I can't find a version of the indictment I can copy from but the Guardian agrees with me

    "a senior Trump campaign official was directed to contact Stone about any additional releases and what other damaging information [WikiLeaks] had regarding the Clinton campaign".

    This direction was given to the senior Trump campaign official after 22 July 2016



    Parent
    It's Manafort (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 04:33:34 PM EST
    After doing further research Manafort was the manager after Lewandowski was fired and before Bannon. For some reason I had it in my mind that Manafort was campaign manager longer than that but Manafort was on the campaign since March '16 but not campaign manager until June.

    Parent
    A Longer (none / 0) (#23)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 05:01:35 PM EST
    excerpt clarifies the timeline somewhat
    By in or around June and July 2016, STONE informed senior Trump Campaign officials that he had information indicating Organization 1 had documents whose release would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign. The head of Organization 1 was located at all relevant times
    at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, United Kingdom.
    12.

    After the July 22, 2016 release of stolen DNC emails by Organization 1, a senior Trump

    Campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other
    damaging information Organization 1 had regarding the Clinton Campaign. STONE thereafter
    told the Trump Campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by Organization 1.

    Link

    Communications with at least two senior campaign began possibly as early as mid-to late June and no later than mid to late July, Bannon was still at Breitbart at that time.

    Parent

    According (none / 0) (#20)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 04:40:38 PM EST
    to wiki Conway hired in early July as an adviser and was promoted to manager in mid August when Manafort was fired, I highly doubt she dealt with Stone and wikileaks at all.

    Some possibilities for the July activities.
        tRump directing Manafort
        Manafort directing Gates
        tRump directing Junior

    Stone was acting as a freelance rat-fkr outside of any chain of command, he was both a long time confidant of tRump and partner to Manafort so I doubt he was talking to anybody but one of them or their surrogates.

    Parent

    It's said (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 04:48:58 PM EST
    There are many possible charges referenced in that document that are not charged.  Clearly they are trying to flip him under the threat of a superseding indictment.  With charges that could put him away for a long time.

    Of course he says he will never talk.

    I kind of hope he doesn't.

    Trump is done.  He is neutered.  If nothing else he will give us the White House and the Senate in 2 years.

    Im fine with Roger taking his secrets to jail.

    Parent

    Me too. (none / 0) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 05:03:26 PM EST
    Stone is a career liar, dirty trickster and general miscreant.  He, certainly, would not be a credible witness and the associated corroborating documents may not outweigh his career treachery.  The most important information he could give up, I would guess, is who "directed" him to contact Wikileaks. And, if Trump or Jr., we know his response: just trying to get his jail time reduced. He has been indicted, after all, for lying urging a witness to lie.  If Stone was needed to get Trump out, then I would reconsider.

    Parent
    But what nobody is asking..... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Zorba on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 05:37:39 PM EST
    Will Roger (the heretofore Artful Dodger) Stone get a Trump tattoo on his back to complement the Nixon one he already has?


    Parent
    Do we know he hasn't already? (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 05:46:53 PM EST
    Watching nyc and Ari has the guy who made the doc GET ME ROGER STONE

    I rewound to get the quote right

    "Roger has a genuine affection, bordering on thesaurus love [gag].  I asked him one time if he considered Trump one of his closest friends.  He said he wasn't worthy of being Ne of Trumps closest friends.  That he saw himself as subordinate to a person as great as Trump"

    That right there, that's a pathology folks.

    Parent

    Damn spell check (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 05:47:57 PM EST
    But I think it's readable

    Parent
    This reminds me very much (none / 0) (#95)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 08:36:41 PM EST
    of how Gordon Liddy used to talk about his "Prince" Nixon.

    Stone is pretty kinky though, and I wouldn't be surprised if Liddy was to. Birds of a feather and all that.

    Parent

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 07:03:02 AM EST
    Stone was doing some strange stuff even advertising in the local paper as a "swinger". The repressive thing with Republicans must make them act out underground in strange ways.

    Parent
    Randy Rainbow (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 08:56:24 AM EST
    cellblock tango part 1 (probably)

    Ye old perjury trap. (2.00 / 1) (#49)
    by thomas rogan on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 09:22:39 PM EST
    It would be a little more convincing if in addition to seven perjury/obstruction counts if there were a charge of a bona fide crime. All of these charges were simply created by the process of giving sworn testimony.  What illegal thing did he actually DO besides testify wrongly?  Is this whole investigation merely designed to get people under oath to catch them in perjury traps?

    Do you even know what (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Peter G on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 09:36:07 PM EST
    a "perjury trap" is? Not all perjury charges arise from a "perjury trap," not even most. Perjury is most certainly a "bona fide crime" and has been for at least 500 years. So is a willful endeavor to obstruct justice. I have seen no indication here of a "perjury trap."

    Parent
    I fear your explanation is likely lost on thomas. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 05:22:41 AM EST
    "Perjury trap" -- like "Lock her up!" -- is really nothing more than an easily repeatable sound byte which plays well with the simple minded white-wing rubes.

    Parent
    Little known fact (none / 0) (#59)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 08:51:03 AM EST
    The "process crime" prison is the SAME prison where all the OTHER felons go.

    Also, Clinton was impeached for a "process crime" that had nothing to do with running the country, which by definition makes it a "high crime or misdemeanor."  Be careful what you wish for.

    Parent

    Hey dude (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 09:19:49 AM EST
    I guess you haven't read about the witness tampering charge? Do you think we should let all those mobsters out of prison who were convicted of witness tampering?

    And this is building up to a finale of what we don't know. We do know this indictment shows that the Trump campaign was in contact with Russian Intelligence.

    Parent

    "Perjury trap! Perjury trap!" (none / 0) (#99)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 07:53:09 AM EST
    "Not a real crime!"

    Lather rinse, repeat.

    Yawn    .

    Parent

    Tickled though I may be at the indictment (none / 0) (#1)
    by Peter G on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 01:12:15 PM EST
    I am disappointed that Mueller would allow one of his agents to tip off CNN to televise the defendant being taken out of his house after being arrested. That's circus stuff, intended to humiliate. An arrest at home at 6 am, btw, is unusual in cases of this kind. Sends a strong message that they believe he poses a risk of flight or of obstruction (including destruction of evidence). Bodes ill for Stone, so far as Mueller's position on bail is concerned also.

    The FBI did much the same ... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 01:52:14 PM EST
    ... when they raided Paul Manafort's home in the wee hours, and also when they hit Michael Cohen's home and office.

    Parent
    But, (none / 0) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 02:11:38 PM EST
    this time, in Stone's case, the FBI agents worked pro bono.

    Parent
    Judge releases Stone (none / 0) (#3)
    by ragebot on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 01:26:41 PM EST
    ROR.

    Have to wonder about what justification Mueller had to send (according to reports) 29 agents and 19 vehicles to arrest Stone.

    Since Stone only had to sign his name to be released.  The judge did not seem impressed with what Mueller's team gave him.

    Parent

    Here's a justification for you (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 06:46:22 PM EST
    "We're working without pay because of scum like you.  We had so many volunteers to take you down that we couldn't choose among them, so we all came.  Hope you don't like it."

    "Sir."

    Parent

    No point in wondering that. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jack E Lope on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 04:52:46 PM EST
    Have to wonder about what justification Mueller had to send (according to reports) 29 agents and 19 vehicles to arrest Stone.

    One must wonder what justification those reports have for exaggerating the number of agents needed for the arrest - maybe they include the number that were there to search the premises.   (The large number of vehicles must be there because the FBI did not have funds to buy transit passes for January.)

    Even right-wing media outlet The Washington Examiner called it "About a dozen FBI agents in riot gear...".   (A CNN talking head had said "in riot gear" while video of the scene was playing - but later corrected herself.  About 60 seconds later - apparently, the WE reporters have a short attention span.)

    ROR?  More exaggeration.  More like $250,000.

    Parent

    To help you get up to speed (none / 0) (#39)
    by ragebot on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 07:14:25 PM EST
    Stone was released on a surety bond.

    Since you seem to be ignorant of what that means I will try and explain.  You sign a document taking responsibility for someone's performance.  In this case Stone signed a document agreeing to pay $US250,000 if he does not show up for court appearances.

    Judges do this when they are convinced the accused will show up for court appearances.  No money changed hands.

    Parent

    I believe (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 07:15:40 PM EST
    Passports changed hands

    Parent
    Stone was asked (none / 0) (#42)
    by ragebot on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 07:42:42 PM EST
    about his passport and said it had, or soon would, expire; or at least that is what is being reported.  I had not seen anything about it being taken from him.

    In any case Stone getting out on his signature says a lot about what the judge thought about the chances of him fleeing.

    The question is will Stone's fate be more like that of Manafort or Papadopoulos.

    Parent

    My money (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 08:29:13 PM EST
    Would be on the former

    Parent
    I think the raid answers that question (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 08:55:22 PM EST
    Stone is the first taken out in cuffs.  Even Manafort was not taken away in his morning raid.

    I think they have been circling Stone for a long time.  Big fish.

    Parent

    The raids on Manafort's house and on (none / 0) (#69)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 01:33:01 PM EST
    Cohen's home and office were search warrant executions, not arrest warrants. No authority under a search warrant to "take them out in cuffs."

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 01:59:54 PM EST
    Like I said

    Parent
    David O. Markus, a very sharp young defense atty (none / 0) (#116)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 04:10:28 PM EST
    in Miami makes the point that when Manafort, Flynn and Cohen were indicted and then invited to turn themselves in, rather than arrested, they were already "cooperating" or in conversation with Mueller's office toward that approach. He argues that is is not a good basis to choose who will be arrested by a SWAT team and who will get a summons. Some years ago, the federal court rules committee took the power to make that choice away from US Magistrate Judges and gave it to prosecutors, by the way.

    Parent
    I am not attempting to argue (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 04:22:40 PM EST
    at least in that case, what is either legal or right.

    He question was would Stones fate be closer Manafort or Papadopoulos.

    I gave my opinion.

    Parent

    There were real crimes involving (none / 0) (#51)
    by ragebot on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 10:44:03 PM EST
    Manafort; stuff like tax issues and money laundering.  Not minimizing the process crimes Stone is accused of but absent the Mueller investigation Stone would just be another sleezeball involved in dirty politics.  Manafort is still facing other crimes in other courts related to how he (and his henchmen) played fast and loose with money.

    From what I have seen everything Stone is accused of so if Trump pardons him he will get off scot free.  The same can not be said for Manafort; even if all the federal stuff was dropped he would still face serious issues with NY State.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 08:23:42 AM EST
    and absent his election, tRump would be just another sleazy real estate developer(or reality TV star) involved in dirty Russian money.


    Parent
    Almost every prosecutor (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 08:50:27 AM EST
    I heard discuss the thing yesterday said it was laying the foundation of a conspiracy case.  That Mueller didn't specifically mention it because he's not ready.  Be cause when that drops it will probably involve some important people possibly named Trump and it will be the last thing he does.

    I think that, conspiracy, will be the major charge against Stone.  If he doesn't cooperate.  And maybe anyway.  Hard to imagine how useful his cooperation would even be.  Mueller never even interviewed him.

    Parent

    Stones (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 09:23:56 AM EST
    treatment may have something to do with his ties to a sex trafficking cult too link

    Parent
    Google says you are right about the passport (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 08:39:50 PM EST
    What I get for believing Chuck Todd

    Parent
    That sounds angry, (none / 0) (#126)
    by Jack E Lope on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 12:47:07 PM EST
    ...but it's difficult to know the tone of posts.

    IANAL, and I had never seen a dollar amount of bail when someone gets ROR.  
    But this might be a federal-court practice that I had never noticed.  The ignorance of which you complain is probably common among those who are not trained in the law.  (Ignorance leads to such things as claims that Mueller is exceeding the scope of his current appointment - when understanding the single-page authorization is actually something that does not appear to require law-specific training.)

    If the defendant is released without bail having been set, the defendants are released "on their own recognizance".  
    On re-read, that does NOT really say that no bail amount is set for ROR, but many would interpret it the way I did.   The nature of Wikipedia makes it so you could expand/clarify the article, and get a lot of people up to speed in a single effort.

    Nolo:

    Simply put, OR release is no-cost bail.  

    ...should probably be left alone, since they do not define "no-cost" as something that would not have a stated price tag.

    Since I mentioned The Washington Examiner, I also find an article that defends the FBI practices exhibited in this arrest.  I do not like the way that law enforcement escalates so many encounters, but I'd prefer that they treat suspects/warrants/family dogs based on something other than privilege.  
    When Stone says, "This was the most harrowing and terrifying experience of my life," I can't tell if he is taking the side of everyone who gets the 6AM service-of-warrant, or just trying to make himself seem the victim of law enforcement practices that are standard for 7-felony-count arrest warrants.

    I still wonder, and have not seen a response about, where reports of "29 agents and 19 vehicles" came from - mainly so I can make a mental note about the repute of that source.

    Parent

    Much ado about very little (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 01:15:45 PM EST
    It appears that neither you nor Ragebot is entirely correct. I have not checked the docket myself, but from what I have ready in more informed sources, the bond that Stone signed was nether ROR (what the statute calls "released on personal recognizance" - a signed promise to appear with no financial backing) nor a "surety bond" (what the statute calls "a bail bond with solvent sureties") but rather -- as authorized and encouraged by the applicable federal law -- "an unsecured appearance bond in an amount specified by the court." No money is posted, but the defendant will owe the U.S. government that much if he fails to appear. I have read that this was ordered by the Magistrate Judge with the agreement, or at least without objection, of the Special Counsel's Office.

    Parent
    Thanks for actually getting us (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 01:20:13 PM EST
    to speed, Peter.

    Parent
    What I read (none / 0) (#133)
    by ragebot on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 05:11:27 PM EST
    is that Stone agreed to the $US250,000 what ever it is called but if he does not show up the govt would have to start a civil suit to get the money.  Not sure how all this works or the legal distinctions.

    But the bottom line is if a judge lets a perp out on their signature it says a lot about the judge's view on the risk of flight.

    Parent

    Stone boasts about his armory of guns. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 08:53:17 AM EST
    Sow, reap.

    Parent
    I was not aware of that important detail (none / 0) (#68)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 01:29:58 PM EST
    If Stone was known to keep multiple guns in the house, and bragged of his willingness to use them, that would help explain the escalation of force. Where did you read that, Towanda?

    Parent
    Stone and guns (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 02:06:11 PM EST
    is an old story

    Alex Jones and Roger Stone, a conservative pundit who has advised President Donald Trump for decades, visited a shooting range to fire weapons in preparation for a civil war in the event Trump is removed from office.

    The visit was documented in a nearly one-and-a-half-hour-long December 19 video posted to Jones' YouTube channel with the title "Roger Stone Prepares For Civil War After Trump Is Removed From Office: LIVE AUTO GUNFIRE."

    Jones set up the video by explaining that when Stone "was recently asked by TMZ what happens if Trump is assassinated or overthrown, he said it would cause a civil war."

    Jones and Stone then entered the shooting area and fired an array of semi-automatic and fully automatic firearms, including one equipped with a silencer. At one point, Stone violated a basic safety rule by putting his finger on the trigger of an Uzi submachine gun before he was ready to shoot, causing the instructor to repeatedly remind Stone to take his finger off the trigger before physically removing it. Stone also remarked that he couldn't see where the safety was because of the glasses he was wearing. While firing the weapons, Stone and Jones joked about shooting "commie dogs" and making a "JFK throat shot," and Jones joked that Stone is "our Rambo" to "take on the globalists."



    Parent
    According to (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 02:10:00 PM EST
    this:
    Stone does not own a gun nor does he even have a license to do so.


    Parent
    hmm, maybe this link is better (none / 0) (#73)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 02:13:45 PM EST
    here

    Parent
    ok (none / 0) (#74)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 02:18:50 PM EST
    I just read the wiki bio of The Daily Caller, probably not a website most here would take at face value...

    ...though I'm not sure they'd misrepresent such an important fundamental fact that could be so easily refuted if it were not truthful.


    Parent

    The Daily Caller (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 02:44:40 PM EST
    is the print version of projectile vomit.

    A few months ago, a horrific murder occurred around here involving a child that traumatized a lot of people and kids, and the Daily Caller chose to post very explicit crime scene photos - how they got them is anyone's guess- for maximum shock value, I strongly suspect because the murderer had a very 'foreign-sounding' name. Why else would they go to so much trouble with all the murders that happen in this country?

    Tucker of the Norman Bates giggle is right at the top of my list of very punchable faces.

    Parent

    If you haven't seen SNL (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 02:54:31 PM EST
    You need to.  Just the cold open and WEEKEND UPDATE.   Maybe the rest was good but that's all I usually watch.

    Tucker was the cold open and WU did some great stuff on Stone.

    Parent

    Cold (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 03:01:42 PM EST
    open

    weekend update

    Parent

    It took me a bit before I recognized ... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 06:15:12 PM EST
    ... Steve Martin as Roger Stone:

    "I've set a donation page based on a phrase people have been yelling everywhere at me. It's called 'Hey, Roger, go f#@& yourself!'"

    Trump may be a nightmare for the country as a whole, but the guy's been a comedy gold mine for SNL.

    ;-D

    Parent

    I had closed captioning on (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 06:30:45 PM EST
    It said "go fund yourself" as if he didn't understand what they were actually saying.

    Which is even funnier

    Parent

    Although (none / 0) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 06:34:33 PM EST
    It really did sound like he said the other.

    Live tv and all

    Parent

    I missed Tucker's wavey (none / 0) (#115)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 03:26:42 PM EST
    holographic flag behind him to subliminally convey to his fans that he's the real patriot on the show.

    Parent
    my favorite compilation video of Tucker (none / 0) (#119)
    by leap on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 05:46:25 PM EST
    That Tucker Carlson look...looks at his guests as if they are eating mayonnaise right from the jar.

    Parent
    To me (none / 0) (#120)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 06:06:09 PM EST
    it's more like a dog staring at a doorknob.

    Parent
    Good (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 02:23:40 PM EST
    Now try one of Victoria

    Parent
    Ha! Fair enough. (none / 0) (#78)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 03:11:36 PM EST
    Although the actual question is, is the claim that Stone had guns in his house factual.

    Except for VT's claim that he did not have guns, nor even a license to own guns, I can find no reference to him owning guns.

    I'd expect we'll find out soon enough...

    Parent

    I have no idea if he owns guns (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 03:29:00 PM EST
    Or a permit.   But there has been stories about Roger Stone a guns forever.  I linked to one.

    He is known to use them and promote them in many venues and many times in many ways.  I would guess that's what the comment about him and guns was about.

    Parent

    Sure, I don't think anyone's questioning (none / 0) (#83)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 03:47:15 PM EST
    his support of the 2A.

    Just trying to get the facts.

    Parent

    No it isn't (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 07:26:39 PM EST
    If someone makes a shooting video and threatens and brags about starting a civil war over a certain issue, when my FBI goes to fetch you and it pertains to that issue, I want everyone fully geared up and locked and loaded. If you appear nuts, none of my FBI agents need to worry about loss of life anymore than they already do.

    Parent
    But it is. Towanda seemed to make a statement (3.00 / 1) (#105)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 09:57:23 AM EST
    of fact that would make a significant material difference if true.

    Some of us like to know the actual facts.

    Parent

    A question (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 10:13:44 AM EST
    If you were an LEO told to drag Roger Stone out of his house in shackles AND you had seen that Jones/Stone shooting range video

    Would you want to be armed?

    Parent

    of course. (none / 0) (#110)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 01:11:19 PM EST


    Parent
    What Capt Howdy said. (4.67 / 3) (#107)
    by Towanda on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 10:43:45 AM EST
    Why this is so hard for you to see is . . , interesting.

    Parent
    You seemed to present an important fact (1.67 / 3) (#111)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 01:13:19 PM EST
    that the rest of us were not previously aware of.

    At this point I'm assuming you misspoke?

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 02:22:43 PM EST
    Victoria Toensing in the Daily Caller.

    The links here get better by the day.  Do you even know who that is?

    Parent

    When he had Avenatti on (none / 0) (#118)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 04:30:45 PM EST
    he said "I'm not here to insult you" the entire time "sleazy porn lawyer" was flashing on the screen below them

    What a weasel. Sorry for the OT.

    Parent

    No one has claimed (none / 0) (#80)
    by ragebot on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 03:31:08 PM EST
    Stone owned any firearms, and Stone has denied owning any.  As long as he has been under investigation it would have been easy to see if Stone had purchased any weapons.  Certainly that is true in Florida as I have purchased weapons there and do have a CCC and hunting permits.  Not to mention that if anyone suspected Stone of purchasing firearms illegally that would have been an easy takedown.

    Not sure going to a range and renting multiple firearms and then bragging about being a prepper merits an escalation of force.  Especially if you are making a PR vid of the range trip.

    I would be interested in knowing who made the decision to send heavily armed LEOs on a dawn raid and how those decisions are made.  There is a risk/reward in the decision and I see more risk than reward.  Since Stone was released on his signature the judge did not think he was a flight risk.  My guess is the FBI knew where he was and had eye balls on him.  A call to his lawyer for Stone to turn himself in could have been made with eyes on his home.  As I posted earlier it would be silly to think Stone was foolish enough to keep incriminating evidence in his home at this late date.  Hard to see where there was any reward except the PR event.  The risk of sending heavily armed men into a residential neighborhood seems obvious.

    So who made the decision and why?

    Parent

    I my experience - over many decades - (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 05:21:43 PM EST
    the decision of how to execute a warrant is made by the supervisor of the pertinent FBI (or other LE agency) office, and not by prosecutors or anyone else.

    Parent
    The reason this issue is mentioned is (2.00 / 1) (#157)
    by ragebot on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 05:31:06 PM EST
    FOX news has asked several peeps involved who made the decision to send in the SWAT team.  No one seems willing to take responsibility for it.  Mueller's office, DOJ, FBI, and local offices were all asked the direct question; who made the call.  None of them were willing to answer the question, even to the point of denying it was them.

    I have also seen lots of blow back about how it is not a common practice to send a SWAT team to arrest a white collar suspect.  Sure at a place like this it is a popular move.  But it really does not pass the other shoe test.  Not to mention that even those that support the move concede that it was more of a PR move than anything else.

    Parent

    Perhaps Mueller, et al., refused to answer ... (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 03:56:47 AM EST
    ... because it's a loaded question from Fox News, one which is clearly meant to distract that network's audience of white wingbats, rubes, bumpkins and nitwits from the real issue. The question here should be "WHY was Roger Stone arrested?" and not "HOW was Roger Stone arrested?"

    Parent
    Wingers are funny (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 08:41:04 AM EST
    First of all, the article makes no mention of Stone "renting" guns.  When you make videos of yourself talking about a "civil war" and how you're preparing to defend yourself and your family, LEO should not assume you're just putting on a show for gullible wingnut supporters, or that you mean you're going to run out and "rent" a gun when you feel the need to "defend" yourself.

    "The Trump constituency has been awakened and they will not be put to sleep," he continued. "I choose to defend myself and my family. I'm tired of the death threats, I'm tired of the need for personal security, I'm tired of the insults. And therefore, I'm going to defend the Constitution and myself."

    But the crocodile concern for the neighbors and CNN reporter was funny.

    Parent

    Know what's going to be funnier (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 09:19:25 AM EST
    Stones dark roots in jail

    Parent
    The FBI may (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 10:56:37 AM EST
    be following the lead of the Commander-in-Chief, who urged law enforcement officers (in his speech of July 28, 2017) to use aggressive tactics while arresting alleged criminals.  "Please don't be too nice," he admonished.  Trump encouraged the cops to bang the suspects heads on their cars.  

    Parent
    No bleach (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 11:07:36 AM EST


    Parent
    I believe I can help with this one (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 05:31:08 PM EST
    They wanted to make a point.

    And while Peter could be right about CNN being tipped I would have expected them to cover it with more than one shaky camera.

    It also occurs to me that was a very big house.  Probably lots of entrances.  There was no way to know who might be where trashing evidence.  If you have the equipment, and if any one would have I would expect Stone would, it's pretty quick and easy to wipe hard drives.

    But the honest truth is it was probably intentional overkill.  It was Roger Freakin Stone.  Who's "time in the barrel" has been coming since the 70s.

    I'm good with overkill.

    Parent

    You can't say that (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 02:35:34 PM EST
    As if you know it's true

    Stone himself has been saying for months he would be arrested.  Everyone, every one, knew this was coming.  Its absolutely believable CNN would have a camera outside his house.

    If fact if there was some kind of tip off I doubt very much the news channel with the most resources would be the only one there

    A little disappointed in you Peter.

    Parent

    I know that the FBI has leaked arrest and search (none / 0) (#8)
    by Peter G on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 02:54:13 PM EST
    locations to the media on many prior occasions. I realize that CNN has denied receiving a tip. Perhaps not, this time. But do you really think they've been camping out there every morning at dawn for months, just to capture it on the right day? Arrests follow the return of a sealed indictment. The press should not have been aware that an indictment was returned yesterday. I remain highly skeptical of the denial.

    Parent
    The Story (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jmacWA on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 02:56:18 PM EST
    Peter... the story I saw was that CNN noticed that yesterday there was Grand Jury action on a day when they have typically been off in the past... It was this meeting of the Grand Jury yesterday that CNN credits as the tip that something big was going down.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 03:00:17 PM EST
    But the claims were also belied by the previous day's reporting. CNN had reported that indictments on Friday were likely because Mueller's grand jury had been convened for an unusual Thursday session. CNN, a massive media organization with a bureau in Miami, Florida, near where Stone lives, has the resources to stake out the sites of potential newsworthy events, even if they end up not materializing. And Stone has long been believed to be expecting an indictment from Mueller, so monitoring his home was a good bet.


    Parent
    Yeah, that's the denial I referred to in (none / 0) (#25)
    by Peter G on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 05:12:19 PM EST
    my previous comment. I have reason to doubt its veracity, based on years of experience dealing with the FBI and many claims of great journalism that were in fact based on spoon-fed leaks. But perhaps this time it was true. Anyway, what's important is the substance of the charges and where they may lead. Let's turn to that subject and stop dwelling on the use of commando tactics to arrest a 66-year old nonviolent offender whom the judge immediately released on O/R bail. Despising the person arrested is no reason to ignore the abusive tactics, in my opinion. But as I say, I am more interested in what comes next, as I'm sure we all are.

    Parent
    Fine (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 05:24:28 PM EST
    But I disagree about the tactics.

    Aside from the central fact that is was Roger Stone, the Roger Stone, he might not be a flight risk but he would positively absolutely destroy evidence.

    Which is said to be the reason for the surprise raid.   They knew there was evidence and they wanted it.

    Parent

    Thank you for your candor Peter (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 12:35:40 AM EST
    I want to believe CNN but a leak is just as plausible, maybe more. I accept timing might have been a factor as Trump was very desperate and irrational 36 hours ago. Now he's simply defeated for the moment.

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#29)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 05:43:39 PM EST
    agree to a point, I am suspecting that CNN was not spoon fed, but I get the impression that the DOJ/FBI were willing to drop some obvious clues.

    My understand is multiple reporters absolutely do stakeout the hallways near the GJ room and carefully note the comings and goings.

    Many people thought Stone would be the next to fall, many people noted the unusual activity over the last few days so it's not too much of a stretch that someone would take a flyer that today was the day(maybe with a few hints from their sources)

    IMO the FBI was probably aware that CNN would be there and they wanted to put on a show. I also thought the commando tactics were way over the top, but I almost want to chalk it up to macho posturing by the FBI, after all they have been getting nothing but derision from mooks like stone for two years now and as of 5 am this morning they weren't even getting paid. It's not understandable on a professional level but it certainly is on a human one.

    Parent

    I've seen at least (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 05:54:23 PM EST
    A half dozen FBI agents say today there was absolutely nothing unusual about that raid.  That its the way early morning raids are done.

    Unless we as saying your average pot dealer be treated one way and a slimy traitorous sack of sh!t like Stone gets kid gloves.

    And I don't think we are.

    Parent

    Never in my experience has the unnecessary (none / 0) (#43)
    by Peter G on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 08:25:12 PM EST
    use of multiple armed agents to arrest one nonviolent defendant on a sealed indictment involved that many participants. Two cars, four to six agents is more typical for this kind of arrest. Which is still 2-3 times more than necessary, imho, even where there is a legitimate concern, as here, about destruction of evidence. But as I said a couple of hours ago, I'm ready to change the subject.

    Parent
    I'm just glad his dogs weren't shot (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by McBain on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 08:48:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Please explain (none / 0) (#52)
    by ragebot on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 10:51:13 PM EST
    how the destruction of evidence was a consideration.  Whatever you think of Stone it is just plain silly to think after he has been under investigation forever he would still have any evidence in his home.  Not withstanding that even a 1YL would have advised him to destroy any thing incriminating, or at least not keep it in his house.

    Stone may be the biggest slime doggie around but it is delusional to think he would be silly enough to keep incriminating evidence around in his house at this stage of the game.

    Parent

    Marcy (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 08:08:19 AM EST
    Wheeler notes his past "silliness"  
    in spite of the fact that Stone has been rat-f!!king for almost a half century, and in spite of the fact that Stone was willing to risk major prison time as part of a cover-up, Stone utterly f!!ked himself by keeping incriminating materials around and leaking them out via journalists.

    snip
    Stone chose to keep these records, even (apparently, though I don't know that those came out other than in Corsi's own leaked plea deal) the ones with Corsi that show he was lying about Credico. Stone chose to obstruct justice, but not to do so in a way that would destroy the evidence he was trying to hide.

    snip

    Which may mean today's raids found far more interesting evidence implicating Trump and others.
    [my edit]

    I still have my doubts he could be that stupid after he witnessed how intrusive the searches were on Manafort and Cohen and his certainty that he was next.

    In any case it's worth a shot, even the most careful scrubbing of evidence is liable to be incomplete in the digital age.

    Parent

    Stone isn't very smart (none / 0) (#101)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 08:07:43 AM EST
    If he was, he never would've spoken to the FBI in the first place.  He's been caught in multiple, blatantly false lies, some of which were obvious.  Moreover, the FBI does not operate on the assumption that any suspect will have destroyed all the evidence before an arrest.  It would be foolish and irresponsible for them to do so.

    Not withstanding that even a 1YL would have advised him to destroy any thing incriminating, or at least not keep it in his house.

    Really?  You think any 1YL (sic) wants to be disciplined, disbarred and or imprisoned?

    Heh.

    Parent

    Roger Stone has long operated on the margins. (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 04:09:17 AM EST
    He's always been a big talker with oodles of false bravado to spare but truth be told, no respectable mainstream GOP campaign -- emphasis on the adjectives "respectable mainstream" -- would hire him because he's an unstable element. Or in layman's terms, he's a loose cannon whose bats bailed from his belfry years ago.

    Ans then the Trump campaign came along. It was a match made in Hell.

    Parent

    We are being told almost daily (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 02:57:48 PM EST
    About sealed indictments being filed.

    They may not know what's in them but they know they are filed

    And yes I believe CNN could know enough to camp out a few days.

    Read below.

    Parent

    There are (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 03:31:49 PM EST
    some reports that Mueller delivered 12 sealed indictments to the court.

    Parent
    Peter (none / 0) (#41)
    by ragebot on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 07:19:42 PM EST
    could you comment on how common it is for FBI leaking arrest and search locations when there is a significant armed cohort of FBI/LEO agents.  Seems like the implied risk associated with armed agents would mean a MSM presences would also be at risk.

    Parent
    My impression from watching a bit (none / 0) (#46)
    by Peter G on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 08:41:27 PM EST
    of the CNN video is that the camerafolks were kept well back, using a telephoto lens. There was a jumpy, off-focus part that made me think that they were then being pushed further back.

    Parent
    From what I saw on (none / 0) (#53)
    by ragebot on Fri Jan 25, 2019 at 10:55:38 PM EST
    CNN the LEOs were carrying long guns, normally 5.56 with armor piercing rounds; effective range is 550 meters according to US military and the round will carry well over a mile.

    I have no issue with LEOs being well armed and able to out gun the bad guys.  But long guns seem like overkill in this instance; dangerous not just to MSM but neighbors as well.

    Parent

    I'm sure they were hoping (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Jan 26, 2019 at 08:48:22 AM EST
    ...that he would brandish a cellphone at them and give them an excuse to empty their magazines.


    Parent