Thursday, November 7, 2019

Will Roger Stone's Trial Have a Happy Movie-Style Ending?




By Robert Wenzel

This is all you need to know about Roger Stone.

He has written many books including these:
Got that? 

He takes on the power elite, Democrat or Republican and exposes their evil doings.

I am convinced that the establishment is quite satisfied that Robert Mueller indicted Roger Stone, even if he didn't get Trump.

Stone's trial started Wednesday with federal prosecutors spinning an absurd tale about Stone.

The New York Times sets the scene:
President Trump was more personally involved in his campaign’s effort to obtain Democratic emails stolen by Russian operatives in 2016 than was previously known, phone records introduced in federal court on Wednesday suggested.
Federal prosecutors disclosed the calls at the start of the criminal trial of Roger J. Stone Jr., Mr. Trump’s longtime friend, who faces charges of lying to federal investigators about his efforts to contact WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign. Russian intelligence officers had funneled tens of thousands of emails they stole from Democratic computers to WikiLeaks, which released them at critical points during the presidential race.
The records suggest that Mr. Trump spoke to Mr. Stone repeatedly during the summer of 2016, at a time when Mr. Stone was aggressively seeking to obtain the stolen emails from Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. The prosecutors noted that they did not know what Mr. Stone and Mr. Trump had discussed. But they stressed that the timing of their calls dovetailed with other key developments related to the theft and release of the Democratic emails.
The phone records are the first concrete suggestion that Mr. Trump may have had a direct role in his campaign’s effort to benefit from Russia’s hidden hand in the election. At the very least, the calls and other evidence underscored the eagerness of senior campaign officials and other Trump associates to reap the rewards of what the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, later called a sophisticated and alarming covert Russian influence operation.
First, there is no evidence that Russian intelligence stole emails off of Democratic Party servers. Zero.

Second, Stone is both a writer and a political consultant, why shouldn't he attempt to get his hands on the emails? Are we to believe that mainstream newspaper reporters weren't trying to get their hands on the emails? In other words, so what?

What difference does it make if Stone was talking to Trump about the emails or anything else? As the NYT article points out, they have known each other for over 40 years.

There is nothing criminal about anything Stone did here. He was trying to reach out to Julian Assange, so what?

He reached out to Gucifer 2.0, but the back and forth between them clearly shows that Stone thought Gucifer 2.0 was a kid hacker in his parent's basement.

This is Stone's first attempt at reaching out to Gucifer 2.0:

This is not how you would reach out to someone you thought was a Russian intelligence officer.

It is how you would reach out to someone who you thought was an anti-state kid hacker.

There is nothing here. Zero.

So the state moves on to its next absurd claim. That Stone was trying to "coverup" his contacts with Russian intelligence.

But again they have zero. They have Stone in a message threatening to kill his source's dog. I am not making this up.

Of course, for context, you need to know Stone's long-time relationship with the source, Randy Credico, and how they had bantered back and forth, and that Crecdico was obsessed with his dog.

Keep in mind, Credico is a comedian who took his dog to his grand jury testimony. Stone bantering about killing Credico's dog seems to fit. I think it is hilarious. It's a Walter Matthau-Jack Lemmon routine.

Now, I think what has really gotten Stone into the mess he is in, aside from attacking in book form every major establishment player, is that he is a stand-up guy that was trying to protect Credico.

It seems that Credico was getting his information about Julian Assange from a lady friend. If it became public that Credico was Stone's source, Credico's lady friend, apparently a Wikileaks lawyer, would quickly realize that Credico had betrayed her confidence. But when it came time to keep their stories straight in the middle of the outrageous Russiagate investigations, Credico wouldn't cooperate with Stone.

And so now Stone sits at the defendant's table being charged with basically nothing other than a Walter Matthau/Jack Lemmon-type routine.

No one else would ever be charged for the statements that Stone made before investigators or what he texted to Credico.

Will the jury buy the prosecutors' story? Remember, they are trying to link this to Trump and thus imply some grand scheme went down. And the trial is taking place in Washington D.C. which, as Trump found out when he attended a Washington Nationals game and was roundly booed, is not Trump country.

Stone and his lawyers have an uphill battle that soars higher than the D.C.'s Washington Monument.

Happy-style movie endings don't usually occur in real life but that is what Stone needs now, he needs a juror to see through the Deep State created fog and stand up for Roger Stone and stand up for decency and principles.


Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.comand Target Liberty. He also writes EPJ Daily Alert and is author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bankand most recently Foundations of Private Property Society Theory: Anarchism for the Civilized Person Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics and on LinkedIn. His youtube series is here: Robert Wenzel Talks Economics. More about Wenzel here.

4 comments:

  1. I don't know what that OTHER crap was, but the definitive Lemmon / Matthau routine is THIS:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDXSXkYoM5Y



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDXSXkYoM5Y

    ReplyDelete
  2. The email metadata proves it wasn't stolen/hacked from Russia over the internet. Download speeds were too fast for that. Someone (Seth Rich?) had to physically steal them from the server with a thumb drive. Metadata don't lie like the USGOV.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is no evidence of Russian hacking and:

    "The prosecutors noted that they did not know what Mr. Stone and Mr. Trump had discussed. But they stressed that the TIMING of their calls dovetailed with other key developments related to the theft and release of the Democratic emails."

    There it is. Beyond A Reasonable Doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Stone is being railroaded. The government can make endless references to the “fact” that the Russian government hacked the emails and provided them to Assange but Stone is BARRED from mentioning, much less introducing evidence, that Assange received the emails from another source.

    09/26/2019 MINUTE ORDER. The Court ruled on the following motions as to ROGER J. STONE JR. for the reasons stated in open court on September 25, 2019.
    The government's motion in limine to exclude evidence or argument regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election 153 was granted, and defendant's related motion in limine to admit evidence that Wikileaks did not receive the stolen Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Clinton Campaign emails from the Russian state 158 was denied.

    CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ-1

    ReplyDelete