I’m covering the Roger Stone trial today. Part of Stone’s legal defense has been funded through the sale of signed Roger stones. pic.twitter.com/opUaLIqRfI
— Will Sommer (@willsommer) November 5, 2019
Hello from the DC federal courthouse, where jury selection continues for Roger Stone's trial (it's not being piped into the media room, so no live updates). The scene outside the courthouse is quiet right now, but there is ~ this ~: pic.twitter.com/cDBOBqUwrg
— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) November 6, 2019
Both Sommer and Tillman are good leads for this trial, if you’re curious. Yes, I am allowed to ‘obsess about minor characters’ like Stone, because I’ve actively loathed that dude since he was one of Nixon’s sleaziest defenders back in the 1970s…
Minutes into the Roger Stone trial, prosecutors link his alleged crimes directly to Trump, saying Stone lied ‘because the truth looked bad for Donald Trump’ https://t.co/KIYJ2utcPe
— Devlin Barrett (@DevlinBarrett) November 6, 2019
… Stone’s lawyer, in turn, argued that his client never meant to lie to lawmakers about his efforts to gain insights about Democrats’ hacked emails ahead of the presidential election. In an unusual gambit, Stone’s lawyer Bruce S. Rogow argued that Stone’s public claims about connections to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks were false, and therefore he did not make false statements later to Congress.
Stone’s trial is the last case filed by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III in his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 campaign, and prosecutors wasted little time drawing a straight line from Stone’s alleged crimes to Trump’s political interests…
The prosecutor urged jurors to focus on Stone’s conduct, not the broader controversies still swirling around the 2016 campaign.
“This case is not about who hacked the Democratic National Committee servers. This case is not about whether Roger Stone had any communications with Russians. And this case is not about politics,” said Zelinsky. “This case is about Roger Stone’s false testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in an attempt to obstruct the investigation and to tamper with evidence.”
Stone, 67, a longtime Trump adviser and political consultant, has pleaded not guilty to a seven-count indictment that charges him with false statements and witness tampering…
Is she absolutely sure she doesn't want the Roger Stone trial on TikTok? https://t.co/zwCDOLLwQ1
— erica orden (@eorden) November 6, 2019
Timeline of all the incriminating communications here:
Big new evidence of Rogert Stone/Trump calls at key 2016 hack moments https://t.co/KvYKriSJrI via @TPM
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) November 6, 2019
Roger Stone “straight-up lied” to Congress about his communications surrounding WikiLeaks, prosecutors said today. https://t.co/3IK2lqEZZQ
— Caroline Orr (@RVAwonk) November 7, 2019
… The first witness called by prosecutors was a former FBI agent who presented evidence that Stone was in frequent contact with top Trump campaign officials including strategist Steve Bannon and chairman Paul Manafort about when WikiLeaks might release more emails damaging the Clinton.
Prosecutors noted that Stone, in sworn testimony to the Intelligence Committee, denied that these communications ever occurred…
Zelinsky said the prosecution’s case rests on five false statements Stone made to the committee related to WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange.
In addition to lying about his communications with Trump campaign figures, Zelinsky said Stone made multiple other false statements including claiming a radio host named Randy Credico was his only intermediary with WikiLeaks when in fact he had a second source in conservative author Jerome Corsi.
In one July 2016 email shown to jurors, Stone told Corsi “get to Assange!” in London and “get the pending WikiLeaks emails.” …
All the best fekkin’ conspirators, Yer Honor. Hall-of-Fame material, every one!
Zelinsky showed the jury an 8/18/16 email from Stone to Steve Bannon that included the line: "I do know how to win this but it ain't pretty"
— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) November 6, 2019
During opening statements, federal prosecutors argued Trump played a direct role in Roger Stone’s effort to prod WikiLeaks to release damaging emails on Hillary Clinton. They also argued Stone’s motive in covering up his activities was to benefit Trump.
https://t.co/dV3WltLWR6— Caroline Orr (@RVAwonk) November 6, 2019
President Donald Trump played a role in Roger Stone’s effort to prod WikiLeaks to release damaging emails for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential race, federal prosecutors argued Wednesday in an extraordinary act of defiance toward the White House.
During opening statements at Stone’s trial for lying to Congress in Washington, D.C., the prosecution — which ultimately answers to Trump — stopped short of accusing the president of a crime, but alleged he was in direct contact with Stone as the political provocateur sought information about the release of hacked emails.
It was a remarkable start to what is expected to be a spectacle-heavy trial. Jurors were also told on Wednesday that the trial will feature Trumpworld characters like Steve Bannon, the ex-Trump campaign adviser and later a top White House aide, who was in touch with Stone during the 2016 election. Bannon initially fought a subpoena for his testimony but recently relented and will appear.
Stone’s defense also offered its first glimpse Wednesday afternoon into how it will fight the government’s charges. In essence, Stone’s attorneys argued that their client had no corrupt intent when he testified before Congress and that his interactions with the witness central to the tampering charge were really just harmless discussions between two longtime associates who admittedly had a “strange relationship.” …
Trump hasn’t said anything publicly about the Stone case since late January, when the president sent out several tweets on the day after the FBI arrested Stone in a pre-dawn raid. The Trump posts questioned why federal prosecutors weren’t also investigating their fellow law enforcement officials, as well as Clinton herself, and then added a line noting that Stone “didn’t even work for me anywhere near the Election!” …
NotMax
The prosecutor is named Zelinsky?
Irony truly is not dead.
OzarkHillbilly
Oh sure… NOW you put up this post and make me go to ALLLLL the trouble of reposting this where it is relevant. Thanx. A heap. ;-)
?BillinGlendaleCA
@OzarkHillbilly:
Blech.
OzarkHillbilly
@?BillinGlendaleCA: Definitely!
WereBear
What is the German for “a face that cries out for indictment” I wonder…
JPL
Steve Bannon?
OzarkHillbilly
@JPL: My money says he is not going to risk prison for trump. He’s seen what Manafort’s loyalty got him.
JPL
@OzarkHillbilly: When I saw his name yesterday, I was surprised. I hope you are right because the guy in the white house is stressing me out.
JWR
Are Roger Stones like Kidney sto.., oh, never mind. I’ll come back in.
OzarkHillbilly
WereBear
TickmfTOCK. To concisely-quote a Jackal.
JWR
@OzarkHillbilly: From that piece:
I’m reminded of what Stephen Colbert said the other night: Sondland ‘amended’ his testimony in the same way Sherman ‘amended’ Atlanta.
Richard Guhl
@WereBear: Scheissgesicht
oatler.
Is he really? Or is Gohmert going to spray the chamber like a skunk?
Fester Addams
This whole “amended his testimony” thing has been an eye opener. I suppose it shouldn’t surprise that affluent white guys would be afforded the privilege of de-perjuring themselves.
Amir Khalid
@Fester Addams:
I don’t get that. Why are these people allowed to “amend” their testimony to Congress? Isn’t it on them to get it right the first time, or face criminal penalties?
Eunicecycle
@Amir Khalid: A guest on Lawrence’s show last night said sometimes a witness might get a timeline wrong, for instance, after reviewing their notes following their testimony. So they ask to amend their testimony. But they usually do this right away, not two weeks later, or hearing the leaked testimony of others contradicting him, OR TALKING TO OTHER WITNESSES, as Sondland did.
glory b
@Amir Khalid: Amending won’t absolve one of criminal penalties, but can be a bargaining chip for lower charges or lesser sentences. It’s up to the prosecutor.
This is a last-resort kind of thing, His lawyers probably didn’t have any other options for him.
EthylEster
front pager writes:
That calls took place is all this TPM “article” reveals.
Pretty typical of them: all the content is in the headline.
The real TPM blockbuster is today’s internet poll: Who do you expect to win the 2020 US presidential general election?
Frankensteinbeck
@EthylEster:
Is it Baud?
Raoul
That Politico article excerpted at the end of the OP. The framing is horrible. It appears to be marveling that prosecutors are acting in “defiance toward the White House”.
Jesus. They are doing their jobs without politics or favor. I know that seems shocking in the fascist and corrupt world the GOP is trying to set up, but it is actually how our country more or less used to behave.
There is a way that this could have been reported that acknowledges Barr’s dangerously deteriorated standards at Justice. But this wasn’t it. And saying “the prosecution — which ultimately answers to Trump” is (or was!) wrong. The standard, not always met, but expected, was that the AG and her/his prosecutors acted for the American people, not the Prez.
Gaaaahhh!
feebog
@OzarkHillbilly:
And the government would want to cut him a deal, why exactly? The investigation is over, the report is filed. The gooses are cooked. The time to cut a deal would have been months ago when his testimony could have helped proved Trump was involved in the conspiracy.
Neldob
I am a little bit happier today knowing some honorable people are chewing on Roger Stones ankles. May they work with many shark-like teeth and turn his stones to bones.