Attorney's file on Roger Stone, LaRouche and Russia influencing the 2016 presidential election

[Bob Ness]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks for that Jeff.  I never liked Stockman's politics, but I have admired his brains and candid style.

From reading this, he agrees with the FBi agent Strzok, collusion is not a crime.  And also "There is no there there."

He makes an interesting point with this line of argument:

In fact, Stone’s purported crimes all happened long after Trump was duly elected President and had sworn the oath. But for the Russia collusion hoax itself, Stone’s crimes wouldn’t have even happened because they stem from his appearance before a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) investigation in September 2017 – long after the fact.This 12 month time gap is of crucial importance because Mueller’s charges are based on Stone’s recollections of phone calls and emails during the final few months of the 2016 election – not anything he did or any one else did at the time.That is, he’s not charged with colluding with the Trump campaign or any Russians – just allegedly "lying" about his interaction with two absolutely marginal figures – a comedian and a whacko right-wing conspiracy theorists – who had exactly zero impact on the 2016 election.

Indeed, the only reason these two bit players – Credico and Corsi (see below) – show up in Mueller’s comic book prosecution is that they were peripherally involved in one of Stone’s self-promoting publicity stunts during the campaign.To wit, Stone had publicly claimed that he was in direct communication with WikiLeaks and its editor Julian Assange. It turns out, however, that he wasn’t and that his claims were based on brief communications with Credico and Corsi about second hand knowledge they may have obtained from WikiLeaks or Assange about further leaked materials from the DNC.

And I should add, Jonathan Turley is a distinguished law professor who apparently agrees with him. From what I understand it was Schiff who urged Mueller to go ahead and indict Roger Stone, based on his congressional testimony.  So we went from one extreme with Nunes, Jordan and Gowdy, to the other.  

Is there something here, something more than collusion?  Maybe.  But Mueller is sure taking a long time to get there.  Its a year and a half now. From the time McCord wrote his letter to Sirica, it took about that time to remove Nixon from office.

I'm sorry but Stockman's obviously biased (comic book prosecution, huh???). A simple accounting of the fruits of the Mueller probe shows it netting to date about 34 indictments and guilty pleas, something like 200 separate criminal charges and no doubt oodles of CI information that will be of long term use to all of the intelligence agencies and US law enforcement groups. It took Trump a year to answer a few questions which, if he were innocent, he could of done on the potty instead of tweeting garbage like he usually does. Seriously - why does everyone around him lie about innocent behavior and risk perjury charges?? Neither Stockman or I know what may have been held in abeyance - a common prosecutorial technique in complex federal crime investigations. To characterize this in such a way is ridiculous. Even the smallest of dope rings often take years to investigate.

In case we've lost track:

ORDER NO. 3915-2017APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian governments efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed t() serve as Specia] Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

Of all the people in the world I would think people on this board would understand the rats nest that Mueller has waded into and would be supportive of a maximum effort.

[Douglas Caddy]

Mueller closes the circle of Russian collusion on Trump

The next indictment will tie together the Russians, WikiLeaks, and the top of the Trump campaign

https://www.salon.com/2019/01/30/mueller-closes-the-circle-of-russian-collusion-on-trump/

 

[Roger Stone will face a superseding indictment or second indictment]

[James DiEugenio]

To anyone who has ever read Stockman or studied his biography, the thing about him is this:  he rebelled against his own party and his own administration. It was Stockman who, in a famous interview with Bill Greider, exposed the whole Laffer/Kemp Supply Side economics idea as nothing more than Andrew Mellon trickle down economics from the 1920's.  Except, as he said, you can't sell trickle down today so they renamed it Supply Side.  He also attacked the Pentagon for their ridiculously easy and extravagant pension plans and said the generals prioritize those plans more than they do national security.  After that speech, he left the White House.

So please, let us not bury the message with the Kill the Messenger tactics, tactics that  turn out to be unfair and uninformed.

But even if you want to smear Stockman because of his GOP pedigree, you also have Gareth Porter, who is not a Republican.  By any means.

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/08/28/how-the-department-of-homeland-security-created-a-deceptive-tale-of-russia-hacking-u-s-voter-sites/

Again, I do not have any horse in this race.  And it really does not matter to me since I do not think Trump has a chance in Hades of getting reelected. In fact, I hope he stays in office since I think he will bring down the GOP senate with him. But what I am saying is that Mueller sure is taking his time and indicting some rather minor players on some rather insignificant charges that happened after the fact.

Maybe this will change.  Maybe, as the article Caddy linked to tries to say, the big one is right around the  corner.   OK, in fairness to Mueller we can wait.   

Edited January 31, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Jeff Carter]

Much like the debate over the JFK assassination and conspiracy, the issue of “Russian collusion” and an alleged conspiracy to influence the 2016 US election produces two diametrically opposed points of view working from essentially the same set of “facts”. I believe the Salon writer will be left disappointed and that the circle presumedly being drawn by Mueller’s investigation will never be closed because the circle, as defined, does not in fact exist. I believe the phantom event in this case - much like the phantom of LHO sneaking up to the 6th floor, assembling his rifle, and firing three shots at the presidential motorcade - will remain spectral because it did not in fact happen. Russian agents did not hack the DNC servers to steal emails to pass to Wikileaks in concert with the Trump campaign. This much can be determined simply by a close reading of the available assembled information.  We will see what happens, but I suspect, like what happened with the JFK conspiracy, the alleged circle will be inferred but never proved and there will be a longstanding division between those who fervently still believe the circle exists and those who point out there never was a circle in the first place.

[Cliff Varnell]

25 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Much like the debate over the JFK assassination and conspiracy, the issue of “Russian collusion” and an alleged conspiracy to influence the 2016 US election produces two diametrically opposed points of view working from essentially the same set of “facts”. I believe the Salon writer will be left disappointed and that the circle presumedly being drawn by Mueller’s investigation will never be closed because the circle, as defined, does not in fact exist. I believe the phantom event in this case - much like the phantom of LHO sneaking up to the 6th floor, assembling his rifle, and firing three shots at the presidential motorcade - will remain spectral because it did not in fact happen. Russian agents did not hack the DNC servers to steal emails to pass to Wikileaks in concert with the Trump campaign. This much can be determined simply by a close reading of the available assembled information.  We will see what happens, but I suspect, like what happened with the JFK conspiracy, the alleged circle will be inferred but never proved and there will be a longstanding division between those who fervently still believe the circle exists and those who point out there never was a circle in the first place.

Even when the circle is smack dab right in front of your face, you still deny it.

Trump said on national TV that he fired Comey to bring an end to the Russia investigation.  That was like Ruby shooting Oswald -- right in your face, but still there are people who deny conspiracy.

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, let me add one other point.

Bannon said, after the left the White House, the biggest mistake Trump made was in firing Comey.  

I agree. Its the equivalent of Clinton appointing a special counsel for Whitewater.  Bernie Nussbaum argued with Clinton for hours on end not to do it.  And when Clinton did, he quit. Afterwards, Clinton admitted Nussbaum was correct, it was a big mistake.

Well, in retrospect this is what Trump did.  Now, politically, its great for Democrats like myself. Since its wrecking the GOP.  Its also great for the MSM  since they never liked Trump and they get to speculate endlessly and bash Putin and bring back the Cold War.  But, unless Mueller comes up with something genuine I just wonder if it does not come down to the old question of who's ox is being gored.

Maybe Jeff is right, maybe Mr. Ness is right. As I said, we shall see.

Edited January 31, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Kirk Gallaway]

Jim, now  weighing in on economics , Stockman had an ideological disagreement with Laffer over trickle down  theory,  it's true. But Stockman is a hard monetarist whose been projecting an economic cataclysm for 30 years now. Ok,  some day he may be right. You can let go of your future hopes for Social security with Stockman. There's more to his policies than just being down on defense spending. This is what they mean by a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Now I'd imagine Jeff doesn't even have the slightest clue  who David Stockman is. He's quite the Canadian American voyeur. I'm reminded in another thread Jeff while stoically hurling insults that the rest of us were in a state where our emotions have clouded our analytical judgment, and that he as a Canadian can talk with more objectivity about what's truly going on in the U.S. and then actually  turns around and talks of a Hillary Clinton plot  when she was to become President to launch a massive military strike on both China and Russia, while a certain unspecified window was still open, but was soon to close.. When asked specifics, he produced a MSM article about an advisor she was speculated to appoint who was more  hawkish than  Barack Obama's advisors.  Never once was there any reference in the article to any projected future policy toward Russia or China. And that was the entire extent of it.

Jim says: So we went from one extreme with Nunes, Jordan and Gowdy, to the other.  

One extreme, you mean we're actually having an investigation now? I never once heard you talk about the constraints the Republicans put on the investigation before, But now you've come around on that?.  Is that right?

Is there something here, something more than collusion?  Maybe.  But Mueller is sure taking a long time to get there.  

Wow, that's bold!  You mean the Mueller investigation is taking a long time? I've never heard anyone say that before. (except every night on Fox) My guess is Jim was one of those guys who declined to comment on the blood evidence  stating that he'll comment after the verdict in the O.J. trial.                                                          ha, ha joke.

Anyone who claims right now to know  about  future charges or no future charges on Stone or anyone is talking out of his a-s.

Edited January 31, 2019 by Kirk Gallaway

[Douglas Caddy]

Lawyers, especially criminal defense attorneys, look at the current Trump/Russia scandal through the lens of the law. Most lay people lack the education and experience to do this. These lawyers agree that there will be additional indictments or one massive indictment that links all those involved to a criminal conspiracy bordering on treason.

Watergate broke on June 17, 1972. Over the July 4th holiday --- less than three weeks later -- I was approached to pass "hush money" to the five arrested burglars and to Hunt and Liddy who had fled from the Watergate Hotel minutes after they learned of the arrests inside the DNC in the Watergate Office Building from their lookout, Alfred Baldwin. (Baldwin was a member of the Watergate topic of the Education Forum until he was run out by one of our insidious members when he attempted to tell what he knew.)

John Dean had directed Anthony Ulasewicz to approach me with the "hush" money. Ulasewicz told me in his "mysterious" telephone conversations to name the amount of money and it would be delivered in a laundry bag. In our final conversation I told this mysterious telephone caller to take a hike, that I did not know who he was and wanted nothing to do with him or his offer.

I attempted on July 19, 1972 -- about a month after case broke -- to tell the federal grand jury investigating Watergate that I had received these "mysterious" phone calls but my recitation was quickly cut off by Seymour Glanzer, one of the three prosecutors present in the room. I knew then that Watergate would end badly for President Nixon because "hush" money was involved. Two years later he was forced to resign.

Trump/Russia is Watergate on steroids. The future of our country and of Western Civilization is at stake. Mueller knows this and is proceeding accordingly. Lawyers recognize this if the general public does not.

Edited January 31, 2019 by Douglas Caddy

[Andrew Prutsok]

I have no doubt feds have overreached and generally performed here as they have in other "investigations." Nonetheless, if they are innocent, why are they all lying all the time?

[Douglas Caddy]

Posted today on Facebook by "Stand With Mueller":

Special counsel Robert Mueller has signaled to defense lawyers for Roger Stone, the longtime adviser to Donald Trump, that prosecutors might brandish Stone’s bank records and personal communications going back several years as evidence in the case against him.

Legal analysts said the move could be significant because the sizable amount of potential evidence listed by Mueller – and its nature, in the case of the bank records – seemed to go well beyond the current known charges against Stone.

A court filing by Mueller on Thursday said prosecutors had seized “voluminous and complex” material including “multiple hard drives containing several terabytes of information”, material seized from search warrants executed on “Apple iCloud accounts and email accounts”, “bank and financial records, and the contents of numerous physical devices (eg, cellular phones, computers, and hard drives)”.

Stone was indicted last week on charges of obstructing an investigation, witness tampering and five counts of making false statements. Two of his residences – one in Florida and one in Manhattan – were raided during his arrest.

“It’s interesting that Mueller produced bank and financial records to Roger Stone, given that they don’t appear related to the charges he faces,” former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti tweeted. “Perhaps Mueller’s team has a practice of producing broad discovery to defendants, but it is not required by the rules.

“If that is not Mueller’s usual practice, perhaps they want Stone to have this information now because there could be additional charges down the line, or because they think his knowledge that they possess this information could encourage him to flip.”

Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance called the filing “good news for the investigation”.

“This implies that the FBI was able to access communications Stone and others could have assumed were protected from law-enforcement,” Vance tweeted. “This is good news for the investigation, there is no telling what might be in there Stone thought law-enforcement would never be able to see it.”

The indictment of Stone last week suggested that prosecutors might have gained access to encrypted messages sent or received by Stone.

One section of the indictment describes a text message exchange between Stone and an unidentified Trump “supporter” asking about a Stone contact in London alleged to be in communication with the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

“The supporter involved with the Trump Campaign asked STONE via text message if he had ‘hear[d] anymore from London’,” the indictment reads in part. “STONE replied, ‘Yes – want to talk on a secure line – got Whatsapp?’ STONE subsequently told the supporter that more material would be released and that it would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign.”

Stone is suspected of attempting to establish or carrying out back-channel communications between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks – although he has not been charged with any crime along those lines.

He has pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing.

[Jeff Carter]

hi Douglas - thank you for the extremely interesting information about events in 1972. 

I'll just say, regarding current events - persons of recognized integrity such as Craig Murray and William Binney (and I personally would add Assange while recognizing he has been effectively villainized) insist that the core event of "Russiagate" (Russian agents hacking DNC and passing material to Wikileaks) did not happen, and that Wikileaks received the emails from a different source as the result of an internal leak. And that persons most identified with pushing the Russiagate story such as Mueller and Brennan are well known as liars, deep state coverup agents, or both.

We will see shortly the climax, perhaps. Or not. 

[James DiEugenio]

Is Tommy Graves back?  I would have thought no one could misconstrue my posts as much as that guy, but Kirk is giving him a run for his money.

When did I ever say I advocated anything to do with Stockman's politics or economics?  

What I said was that I did not like them but I did like his smarts and his candidness.  I mean who in the WH was denouncing the Laffer Curve back in 1982?  As far as econ goes, which I used to teach, I have always been in the Keynes/Stiglitz camp.

Nice to know that Kirk knows just what the limits of Jeff Carter's knowledge are.  Guess Jeff should not post anymore since he is north of the border.  Talk about American exceptionalism. But actually what is there to like about a Secretary of State who did what HRC did in Haiti, and especially Libya. She was all for the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. And she did advocate sending the Great White Fleet to scare China. HRC was pretty much a neocon.

As per an investigation, I mean what the heck do you call what Mueller has been doing for the last year and a half?  Or maybe you back the urination stories in the Steele Dossier that HRC paid for?

And wow, OMG to bring in the Simpson trial? That is the kind of trick Tommy G would use.

I agree with your last sentence. 

PS Everyone did hear that Trump Jr did not call his pop before the Trump Tower meeting right?  

 

Edited February 1, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

As per an investigation, I mean what the heck do you call what Mueller has been doing for the last year and a half?

Other than ringing up indictments, guilty pleas and the conviction of Manafort?

Whitewater took 4 years, "Iran...Contra" took at least 6.  A year and a half for a case this complex is a blink of the eye.

[James DiEugenio]

I made a mistake.

Mueller has been in office for 20 months, its over a year and a half.

I went back and compared this with Watergate.  Cox was installed in May of 1973.   Within one year, the special prosecutor was convicting people in the White House like Chapin.   He was indicting people like Mitchell, Haldeman, Colson etc. 

In August of 1974, less than a year and a half after the special prosecutor was installed,  Nixon resigned,  to avoid being impeached. 

Again, maybe Mueller is on to something bigger than anyone expects.  I would like to think that. Hopefully such is the case. I grant him the benefit of the doubt.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Jim, So now you're sensitive to the little guy? For 2 years never a word from you about the lies and corrosion of discourse, the  bullying, the sexism, the divisive behavior, the fearmongering, the intimidation of people who can't defend themselves. Then on a macro scale, the  economic suppression, the tax cuts for the wealthy. The total disregard for the environment at what some of us at least think  is a critical time.

All this is sacrificed at the altar of what? A more pro Putin Russia stance? that seems to be about the only issue. Even if I might agree with you, we probably missed a good opportunity for the cause of world peace if we had helped them more along 20 years ago.  Countries evolve and devolve.