Roger Stone under scrutiny in Mueller investigation

Roger Stone, a supporter of and adviser to Donald Trump, is under increasing scrutiny in the Mueller investigation.

He has been connected to Julian Assange and Wikileaks, who drip fed hacked emails related to the Hillary Clinton campaign.

CNN: Roger Stone’s finances examined by special counsel

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team has been probing Roger Stone’s finances as it summons a series of witnesses to gather more information about one of President Donald Trump’s longtime advisers, according to people familiar with the situation. Mueller’s team has questioned associates about Stone’s finances, including his tax returns.

The interest in Stone’s finances could be tied to Mueller’s charge of investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election and potential collusion, though another possibility is Mueller is pursuing something unrelated that turned up in the course of the investigation.

Even after he officially parted ways with Trump’s presidential campaign in its early days, Stone remained a staunch supporter and friend of Trump’s. During the campaign, he launched a pro-Trump super PAC called Committee to Restore America’s Greatness.

Now, the interest in Stone’s finances has created a new sense of alarm among his associates.

Whatever the reasoning, the probe into Stone’s finances should give him cause for concern, Zeldin said. Stone appears to recognize that.

“The special counsel having found no evidence or proof whatsoever of Russian collusion, trafficking in allegedly hacked emails with WikiLeaks or advance knowledge of the publication of (then-Clinton campaign chair John) Podesta’s emails now seems to be combing through every molecule of my existence including my personal life, political activities and business affairs to conjure up some offense to charge me with either to silence me or induce me to testify against the President,” Stone told CNN. “I have no intention of being silenced or turning my back on President Trump.”

Stone has come under public scrutiny, in part, because of a prescient prediction during the 2016 campaign. In a now-infamous tweet, Stone predicted trouble for Podesta, weeks before WikiLeaks began releasing thousands of Podesta’s emails. Stone denies having any advance knowledge of the Podesta leaks.

The email in question:

 

“I sleep well at night because I know what I have and have not done,” Stone told CNN. “There’s no inappropriate activity pertaining to Russian collusion. I obtained nothing from WikiLeaks or Julian Assange. I never passed anything on to WikiLeaks or Julian Assange.”

But Wall Street reports: Roger Stone Sought Information on Clinton From Assange, Emails Show

Former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone privately sought information he considered damaging to Hillary Clinton from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to emails reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The emails could raise new questions about Mr. Stone’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee in September, in which he said he “merely wanted confirmation” from an acquaintance that Mr. Assange had information about Mrs. Clinton, according to a portion of the transcript…

The rest is behind a pay wall, but more here: The email Roger Stone didn’t want anyone to see

Emails obtained by the Wall Street Journal indicate that longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone withheld key documents from the House Intelligence Committee — documents indicating he lied about his communications with a radio host he hoped would serve as a backchannel to WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign.

According to the Journal, in a message sent on September 18, 2016, Stone wrote to Randy Credico, a New York radio personality who interviewed WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange several weeks earlier, and asked him to:

“Please ask Assange for any State or HRC e-mail from August 10 to August 30–particularly on August 20, 2011.”

That email, which indicates Stone sought help colluding with a website that the U.S. intelligence community has accused of laundering emails stolen by Russian hackers, contradicts Stone’s September 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee that he “merely wanted confirmation” from Credico that Assange had information about Clinton. It also contradicts statements Stone has made on his Facebook page and website about how his communications with Credico about Wikileaks merely “asked Randy to confirm that the Australian journalist had credible information on Hillary Clinton’s campaign.”

The Journal details Credico’s response, which suggests that he had asked Assange for favors on Stone’s behalf on previous occasions.

Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Credico initially responded to Mr. Stone that what he was requesting would be on WikiLeaks’ website if it existed, according to an email reviewed by the Journal. Mr. Stone, the emails show, replied: “Why do we assume WikiLeaks has released everything they have ???”

In another email, Mr. Credico then asked Mr. Stone to give him a “little bit of time,” saying he thought Mr. Assange might appear on his radio show the next day.

A few hours later, Mr. Credico wrote: “That batch probably coming out in the next drop…I can’t ask them favors every other day .I asked one of his lawyers…they have major legal headaches riggt now..relax.”

About two weeks later Stone tweeted:

That raised suspicions about what he knew, how he knew it, and how this might be linked to the Trump campaign.

The campaign against Clinton by Wikileaks deserves more attention too.

A tangled web that may or may not be unravelled by the Mueller investigation.

 

Leave a comment

35 Comments

  1. The judge said the cause of the postponement from July 10 was “owing to a family member’s medical procedure.”

    Manafort, along with his business associate Richard Gates, was indicted in the Virginia court for charges related to false income tax returns, failing to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts and bank fraud.

    Manafort also faces charges in a Washington, D.C., court of conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money and failing to register as a foreign agent.

    The charges stemmed from a probe being conducted by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is looking into whether Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. election and, as part of that, whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

    Moscow and Trump both deny any wrongdoing.

    As they would.

    Reply
  2. Alan Wilkinson

     /  May 26, 2018

    “The campaign against Clinton by Wikileaks deserves more attention too.”

    Sure, as soon as the campaign against Trump by WaPo and NYT gets equal attention.

    Or do only leaks on one side matter?

    Reply
  3. David

     /  May 26, 2018

    Another nothingburger. Thousands of people have been investigated by Mueller and still no evidence against Trump collusion. Couple of people in politics charged with telling porkies which is hardly a crime its more a trap.
    What we have is an absolute chill over the democratic system where bit players have been almost bankrupted in an investigation launched without a crime having happened. We do have an admission that Obama,s agencies had spies in the Trump campaign which is something that should send lefties insane, if it was the other way around all hell would have broken lose. The IG report should be out soon.

    Reply
    • Joe Bloggs

       /  May 26, 2018

      Yes, David, anything you say … black is white, up is down, war is peace.

      Reply
    • Griff

       /  May 26, 2018

      Michael Flynn, a former national security adviser to Trump who was also a close campaign aide, pleaded guilty in December to lying to Federal Bureau of Investigation agents about his contacts with Russia and agreed to cooperate with Mueller’s investigation.

      Paul Manafort, a former Trump election campaign chairman, is facing two indictments in different federal courts brought by Mueller. Charges against him include conspiring to launder money, failing to register as a foreign agent in connection with his lobbying for the previously pro-Russia Ukrainian government, bank fraud and filing false tax returns. Manafort has pleaded not guilty to all charges and has argued that Mueller has overstepped his authority.

      Rick Gates, a former deputy campaign chairman, pleaded guilty in February to conspiracy against the United States and lying to investigators, and agreed to cooperate with the Mueller probe.

      George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign adviser, pleaded guilty last fall to lying to FBI agents about his contacts with Russia. According to documents released with his guilty plea, Papadopoulos offered to help set up a meeting with then-candidate Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. He is now cooperating with Mueller.

      Alex Van der Zwaan, a lawyer who once worked closely with Manafort and Gates, pleaded guilty in February to lying to Mueller’s investigators about contacts with an official in the Trump election campaign. Van der Zwaan, the Dutch son-in-law of one of Russia’s richest men, was sentenced on April 3 to 30 days in prison and fined $20,000.
      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-aides-factbox/factbox-under-investigation-or-indicted-the-trump-aides-facing-scrutiny-idUSKBN1HH3HH
      It matters what you are telling porkies about.
      Most of the charges are linked to Russian contacts.
      Trump says he had no links.
      Why are so many around him telling lies about their own links and can any of them be trusted to tell the truth about trumps links to Russia?

      Reply
      • David

         /  May 26, 2018

        Hey Grimm the charges against Manafort and Gates date from before Trump even said he was standing, 2012 I believe.
        Flynn,s legal costs have cost him pretty much everything and if he didnt plead guilty Mueller was going to go after his son. His crime is lying to the FBI so just think about that for a moment..he is charged with lying, there are no other offences in other words he committed no crime or did anything wrong all he did was get caught in a Mueller trap. Papadopolous is in the same boat. In the US the justice system grinds you down with its unlimited resources until you have no financial alternative than to cop a lesser charge, its a shakedown by the state.
        Usually when an investigation is launched it is because there has been a crime committed, this investigation was launched based on a lie and an admitted manipulation by the sacked head of the FBI.

        Reply
        • Griff

           /  May 26, 2018

          Dave
          The investigation is about Russian contacts .
          Telling lies about your Russian contacts when the man in a dark suit from the FBI asks you directly is a no no.
          You only tell porkies in that case if you really dont want them to know something.

          There is plenty of evidence that persons involved with the Trump campaign were also talking and dealing with Russian agents intent on altering the election result.
          What is there is not as far as we know material directly linking trump to these contacts.
          I dont know what Muller has any more then you do. To present a case agsint a sitting president you need Iron tight case. There may be evidence of collusion but not enough to risk a prosecution at this stage Muller may be biding his time watching his ducks fall in line. There may be no direct evidence or no evidence at all.
          We simply can not know until the Muller investigation ends.

          Yet you already know every thing ! ……

          I do see a massive smoking gun in so far as russain interference in the election and links between elements in the trump campaign and Russia.
          This link is worrying enough for the American democracy that the continuation of the investigation should preceded unhindered by Trump or his supporters.

          Reply
      • Joe Bloggs

         /  May 26, 2018

        At the end of the day trump’s support is based almost entirely on ignorance of the facts:
        – over 100 charges
        – 22 indictments for federal crimes
        – 5 convictions

        Reply
        • David

           /  May 26, 2018

          And still nothing on Trump, nothing even close to having any Trump involvement after 2years of spying and investigations.

          Reply
          • A) We don’t know if Mueller has nothing on Trump or not.

            B) We don’t know if Mueller has anything on Trump Jr or KUshner or not but they certainly seem to have been investigated.

            C) We don’t know what Mueller has on associates of trump like Manafort and Cohen, but there are certainly charges and probably plea bargaining.

            D) The investigation isn’t against Trump, it’s against his campaign, and that’s a very broad beast.

            We will all have to wait and see what comes out of it. Claiming there as nothing at this stage is meaningless, it just sounds like uninformed (which it is) denial.

            Reply
        • David

           /  May 26, 2018

          “– over 100 charges
          – 22 indictments for federal crimes
          – 5 convictions”

          So, how many of the charges are actual collusion, and how many are simply process related charges the Feds love to stack a mile high to ensure convictions?

          Reply
    • If there were people in the Obama administration “spying” on the Trump campaign, it was because they were trying to find out more about said campaign’s contacts with Russians. Seems perfectly justified to me.

      Reply
      • David

         /  May 26, 2018

        “If there were people in the Obama administration “spying” on the Trump campaign, it was because they were trying to find out more about said campaign’s contacts with Russians. Seems perfectly justified to me.”

        For all this spying, they seem to have not managed to come up with any actual charges on collusion between Trump and Russia. Is this because they are inept, or there isn’t any collusion? This spying has been in progress now for years, and involves the President, you would think some actual progress would have been made by now no?

        Reply
        • It’s because they’re in the process of gathering information, and they’re professionals who want to make a solid case 🙂 I’m not sure why you assume that they’re not making progress? The investigation has not been going on that long, as investigations go.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  May 27, 2018

            Seems to have been a lot more progress on investigating the investigators than on investigating Trump.

            And underneath all the redactions the evidence emerging seems to incriminate Obama officials, not Trump. I guess they don’t want the investigation to end anytime soon and that information to become public so it is having to be squeezed out of them and all their Democrat lawyers.

            Reply
            • “Seems” is the correct way to put it, since we don’t know what all Mueller is finding out about Trump. We do keep seeing more information about interesting meetings between Russians and the Trump family, so those nasty Obama officials will likely end up vindicated. It’s probably normal for an investigation like this to be gradual in nature. I’m sure they don’t want the investigation to be over until they have a truly solid case, but when they do, it will be well worth the wait 🙂

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  May 27, 2018

              Except that Kushner just got his security clearance renewed so obviously nothing there. Clutch another straw.

  4. David

     /  May 26, 2018

    Waiting for the YourNZ thoughts on the now disgraced lawyer Avanetti, just another one who has come for Trump with a pile on from the media only for everyone except Trumps reputation left shredded, CNNs ratings are off 30% and given Avanetti set up office there its not surprising.
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/22/firm-of-lawyer-avenatti-hit-with-10-mln-judgment-in-bankruptcy-court.html
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/25/michael-avenattis-messy-divorce-records-allege-porn-star-lawyer-was-emotionally-abusive-angry.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5759331/Judge-orders-law-firm-Stormy-Daniels-lawyer-pay-10M.html

    Reply
    • Joe Bloggs

       /  May 26, 2018

      It’s a sad day for America when a disgraced lawyer representing a porn star has more credibility than the president.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  May 26, 2018

        I see what you did there. 😉

        Reply
      • David

         /  May 26, 2018

        At a time when the media and the Dems are on the side of MS13, Kim Jong Un and Hamas normal judgement has been suspended/superceded by an irrational hatred of Trump.

        Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  May 26, 2018

        It’s entirely credible Avanetti wants money. Is there anything else he is credible about?

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  May 26, 2018

          I feel sure he can be believed when he says he’s concerned about upholding the good name of his client Stormy

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  May 26, 2018

            Seems as though his own is at greater risk. Hers is quite clear already.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  May 26, 2018

              Come on Al he’s a lawyer – they usually rank only just above politicians, who themselves often rank just above mass murderers and necrophiliacs in the public affections.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  May 26, 2018

              Not usually accused of domestic abuse though.

            • Gezza

               /  May 26, 2018

              Trump was too – by Ivana. not to mention those other ladies.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  May 26, 2018

              That disposes of Joe’s claim Avanetti has more credibility than Trump then.

        • Patzcuaro

           /  May 26, 2018

          Perhaps the great deal maker can do a deal with him.

          Reply
    • Patzcuaro

       /  May 26, 2018
      Reply
  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  May 26, 2018

    NYT squirms as Trump keeps the heat on Obama’s Intel swamp and Democrats attempt to run interference:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-lawyer-chief-staff-john-kelly-briefings-fbi-russia-informant-a8368616.html

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s