Reading Roger’s Indictment

/99 Comments/in , /by

This post will provide a guide to reading Roger Stone’s indictment, to highlight what was unknown from it, and what has long been known. I’ll do updates to talk about the pregnant silences in the indictment.

Organization 1: WikiLeaks

Person 1: Jerome Corsi

Person 2: Randy Credico

Senior Trump Campaign official (¶12): Unknown — my wildarseguess is Rick Gates

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.

Corsi’s associate (¶13a, ¶13b): Ted Malloch

Attorney with ability to contact Assange (¶15dii): Margaret Kunstler

A supporter involved with the Trump Campaign (¶16a, ¶16d): Unknown

High-ranking Trump campaign official (¶16b, ¶16c): Steven Bannon

A reporter who had connections to a high-ranking Trump Campaign official (¶16b): Matthew Boyle

Associate of high-ranking Trump campaign official (¶17): Unknown

Person 2’s dog (¶39b): Credico’s therapy dog Bianca, who attended his grand jury appearance with him

September 18 request for information (¶15d): Stone was looking for details on Hillary’s attempts to thwart a Libyan peace deal

Update: I’ve taken out a reference to Sam Nunberg, who has said he’s not the one named in this indictment.

image_print
99 replies
  2. Pinson says:

    Am I wrong to believe that Mueller didn’t have access to Stone’s HPSCI testimony until Schiff took over a couple weeks ago? Most of the counts hinge on his perjury in and around his interactions with the committee. Seems like a key takeaway here.

  3. Pete says:

    Four references to Trump Campaign officials.

    From Marcy’s post.

    ============
    Senior Trump Campaign official (¶12): Unknown
    High-ranking Trump campaign official (¶16b, ¶16c): Steven Bannon
    A reporter who had connections to a high-ranking Trump Campaign official (¶16b): Matthew Boyle
    Associate of high-ranking Trump campaign official (¶17): Un(known)
    ======

    Is there any sense, I suppose from Mueller’s PoV, who might be considered Senior and High-ranking Trump Campaign officials? Asking, but will search if Boyle’s connection is Bannon ’cause if not that’s a second “high-ranker”.

    Yes, I need multiple reads of the indictment :-(

  5. Hops says:

    Is the interaction with Wikileaks in and of itself a crime? Does this make Stone and others part of a conspiracy?

    • Avattoir says:

      Tempted tho I am to respond, ‘That’s not how conspiracy charges work’, I’ll just content myself here with this: It’s remarkably rare for conspiracy charges to be boiled down to such simpletonian dynamics, and that’s particularly the case as the number of co-conspirators charged – whether named or not, whether standing charged before the court or not – rises, as well as the number of overt acts contributing to the agreement to break the law.

      To attempt to reduce all this to something as discrete as that which you pose is an effort that isn’t supported in the historical arc of proven criminal conspiracy charges as anywhere remotely near to how they tend to be drawn, and downgrades the available evidence in this case to something remarkably naive, if not grotesquely misleading.

      • pseudonymous in nc says:

        A lot of cablenews lawyers today said “this is a conspiracy indictment in all but conspiracy charges” which leaves room for a superseding indictment but also leaves open the status of  “was directed by-1”. The argument then becomes why Mueller might withhold conspiracy charges for now.

  6. Ann says:

    In light of the details in your post about Corsi’s lawsuit, I’d be very interested to see whether/how Alex Jones/Infowars fits into all this, as well as whether the names of any other figures of that general ilk besides Chuck Johnson pop up — eg, Cernovich, etc.

    I have to admit that’s partly wishful schadenfreude. But it would also make sense.

  7. Pete says:

    If Marcy;’s wildarseguess as to the Senior Trump campaign official is Gates then who could DIRECT him: Manafort, DJT, someone else? Does not appear to be particulalry relevant in this indictment.

  8. punaise says:

    This adds nothing, but: couldn’t happen to a not-nicer guy.

    digging back for this reprise, to the tune of the old TV cartoon:

    Flynn / Stones — meet the Flynn / Stones,
    They’re a modern crime age family.
    From the town of Moscow,
    Carter Page, right to the hoosegow
    Let’s ride with the family to the court,
    through the courtesy of Bob’s report.
    When you’re with the  Flynn / Stones,
    have a stab at, dab at: do time, a stab at: do time,
    we’ll have a plea: no time!

  9. Rugger9 says:

    Indeed it would make sense given how connected Stone was to every sort of political rat fornication.   He thrived on it like Manafort did on propping up dictators, and IIRC wasn’t Manafort’s arrest also a predawn visit and Cohen’s raid too?

    What does this mean for the Enquirer chief Pecker?  Did he get immunity?

  12. Pete says:

    Parsing a and the…

    FWIW as my head hurts the high-ranking Trump Campaign official referenced in the indictment is first called a high-ranking 16b.

    Person is then references and the high-ranking later in 16b, 16c, 17 (in phrase associate of the high-ranking), and 23f.

    The in 35c there is reference to a high-ranking Trump Campaign official:

    c. On or about October 4, 2016, STONE told a high-ranking Trump Campaign official that the head of Organization 1 had a “[s]erious security concern” but would release

    “a load every week going forward.”

    So, if 16a and 16b  reference Bannon who might be considered a likley associate of Steve Bannon’s per 17?

    Who is likely to be the reference in 35c?

    • Pete says:

      Looks like 17c and 35c reference the same subject matter re: Wikileaks “security concern” and “land every week”.

      17c Stone is mentioned in context with “the high-ranking” Trump Campaign official and in 35c in context with “a high-ranking” Trump Campaign official.

      So, they are likely one and the same and possibly all Bannon.

      This endeth the “a” and “the” parsing.

  13. Dr. Pablito says:

    Best quote from the CNN story:
    Multiple times, Stone told him to do a “Frank Pentangeli,” a reference to a “The Godfather: Part II” character who was a former Corleone ally who later feigns innocence to Congress before killing himself.
    He also called him “a rat” and a “stoolie,” prosecutors say. He threatened to take away Credico’s dog — a fluffy white therapy pet named Bianca who even later went with Credico into his grand jury appearance — and told him “Prepare to die [expletive],” prosecutors wrote.

  14. Dr. Pablito says:

    Dang it, it’s tough for us left-coasters to be up to speed on things before y’all have squeezed all the good juice out of the morning oranges. Looks like I have a lot of catch up reading to do.

  15. Ecmic says:

    Bannon has, to the best of my knowledge, undergone an evolution in his views of the Special Counsel since his October interview. “Mueller’s team has been very professional and courteous,” he’s said, and, “There is zero chance Trump will fire Mueller. It won’t happen. And he shouldn’t.” This in contrast to him offering unsolicited advice to Trump to fire Rosenstein and claim retroactive executive privilege following his first sit-down with Mueller in early 2018.

    What are the odds Bannon lied to Mueller about his contacts with Stone and his discussions surrounding Wikileaks in his previous interviews with Mueller? And might that mean that he’s been compelled – by the existence of electronic evidence outlined in the indictment – to cooperate with Mueller in other ways as well?

    • Rugger9 says:

      Did Bannon visit one of Mueller’s grand juries?  The reason I ask is that there seems to be a connection between being left off of that dance card and getting an indictment.  I don’t recall much tweet-tention from Kaiser Quisling after he was let go in an initial flurry but maybe I missed something.

      Also, let’s not forget Parscale as a target as well since he did the mechanics of the targeting of voters and might know a couple of things Mueller wants to hear.  He’s also been talking tough IIRC on those rare occasions he has spoken to the press.

      And the Royal Family is open to getting hit by Mueller, but we knew that.

  16. Semanticleo says:

    I’m told FBI agents were very polite to Roger Stone and family when they arrived, treated family respectfully and were very professional when serving the arrest warrant.

    White collar criminals need to be taken down hard in cuffs.

    • bmaz says:

      Bull fucking shit. No defendant needs any more or further exacerbation upon arrest than minimally necessary. Seriously, wtf?

      • Semanticleo says:

        Seriously?

        Have you seen street criminals taken with Nerf handcuffs?

        I just want parity for white collar thugs

        • BobCon says:

          I hate people like Stone and Manafort, I want them stuck in prison sleeping on cots and eating food on a par with free school lunches. But I don’t want anyone, rich or poor, getting rough treatment.

          And for that matter, I don’t want anything that offers any kind of legal advantage to Trump’s conspirators.

        • P J Evans says:

          This.

          (I suspect that Stone’s going to have a hard time because of that tattoo on his back. And that is definitely his problem.)

        • John K says:

          Of course bmaz is right. We should aim higher rather than lower, and treat every defendant with as much dignity as possible. That doesn’t change the fact that those white collar criminals definitely deserve to be treated like the shit that they are. It’s just that our legal community should conduct itself, top to bottom, as a stalwart of civilized behavior. And if only that were always the case.

      • dwfreeman says:

        So, Stone was at the head of the Trump rat-fucking crew that included Eric Prince and a host of well-connected Breitbart people who did Trump’s dirty tricks bidding. Guys like Chuck Johnson, Elaine Goodman, the maestros of the Carolina Consipiracy, the well-conceived Weiner laptop operation that divided the FBI and sidetracked Comey and led to all kinds of bullshit never followed-up and dismissed by the MSM.

        Yeah, the laptop scandal was just a thing that happened. Eric Prince was telling the truth when he claimed that Weiner’s phone and ipad was filled with Hillary email garbage. And it never occurred to anyone that Stone and the Russian-shaped social media message, controlled by Parscale and pushed by the Mercers, were just changing up the Trump campaign when they came aboard in September 2016 and got rid of Manafort in favor of Bannon and Conway. Yeah, Manafort was let go because he was ineffective as campaign chairman.

  17. klynn says:

    EW,

    A little OT…Followed the NYTs link re: Matthew Boyle. Saw MaggieH’s name as one of the reporters in the byline and it reminded me that I have wanted to ask,”Why is she given this beat? Didn’t her Mom benefit from Trump business with her PR firm for years?  Had the impression her family knows him personally. COI no?

  18. Charles says:

    True story:  I was once in a courtroom where the issue was whether a man had stolen a diamond necklace from a jewelry store. After a delay of about an hour, the defendant’s lawyer came forward. The judge asked him how the defendant wished to plea. The lawyer’s reply was that he was not prepared to enter a plea, but he was prepared to stipulate to certain facts. In particular:

    That the man had entered the jewelry store.
    That the man had taken the necklace.
    That the man had left the store with the necklace in his possession.
    And that the man had not returned within 24 hours to restore what he had taken or to pay for it.

    The Stone indictment has that same feel to it.

    Have a good time on Signorile’s show, Marcy.

  19. OldTulsaDude says:

    Just heard from Pink Floyd how Individual-1 is taking this:

    “All in all, you just shat another brick for your wall.”

  20. Savage Librarian says:

    Marcy,

    If you Google “Susie Wiles and Steve Brannon” you will find a connection between them. She was once Huckabee’s campaign manager.

    I’m wondering if she is The Associate of the High Ranking Campaign Official (para 17)

  21. jaango says:

    One tangent removed?

    For the past several months, I have a long-running discussion regarding the ‘connection’ between Julian Assange and the White House cohorts or political operative and where any Russian-Wikileaks  and America, writ  large, is not thoroughly obvious to me.

    And perhaps, someone here can ‘connect’ me to what I am missing or am I missing my education?

    Regardless, thanks.

  22. Savage Librarian says:

    EW

    Extremely interesting document called p2016.org

    Essentially an organization chart for Trump campaign. Susie Wiles name is just above Hope Hicks.

    Can’t figure out how to link this.

  23. Semanticleo says:

    @BobCon
    January 25, 2019 at 12:43

    I understand the sensitive nature but I am tired of Red Carpet treatment for white collar criminals. No more Country Club incarceration.

    • BobCon says:

      The right approach is much wider enforcement of the law, refusal to allow overly generous plea bargains, appropriate prison sentences, larger fines, and especially treating violations as an institutional issue rather than something that stops with a low level individual or two. It is not rough treatment in prison and especially not before conviction.

      And remember in the case of Stone, he is going to bring in good lawyers. He is not bringing in Victoria Toensing to work for free. Everything that is done to Stone will be scrutinized. His case should not have any hitches for a moment of gloating.

    • Rugger9 says:

      Most likely in a Grenada kind of way.  The OAS (except for Mexico) recognition of the National Assembly leader will give him more cover than an adventure in Iran would do, and it’s an easier fight even if the Soviets Russians just sent some aircraft over.

      Iran might be more satisfying as an opponent, but it is a harder nut to crack than Venezuela, it’s not in our hemisphere (the Monroe Doctrine hasn’t been withdrawn, only resented), the EU is willing to give the Iranians more time, and Kaiser Quisling needs a quick and low-cost win for his wag-the-dog plan to work.

      • AitchD says:

        There’s the Carter Doctrine, restating the Truman Doctrine, deeming the Persian Gulf area vital to the U.S. national interests. Truman made official what FDR had arranged with Saud, and Carter reaffirmed what used to be called Manifest Destiny. Imagine SOD James Schlesinger with his pipe.

        • Rugger9 says:

          True enough but moving enough stuff there to take the country out will be a logistical headache and starts with clearing the Strait of Hormuz as well as Bandar Abbas.  Fundamentally it will take too long for the Palace to get a quick enough win for KQ.  Plus, while the IRGC is still steps below our troops there are a lot of them and they are motivated (especially so for the “Great Satan”).  It doesn’t mean Bolton still won’t hit the Iranians, it just won’t wrap up fast enough to save KQ’s Palace. So, I think Venezuela goes first.

          If one wants a permanent war, however, the preparation with the KSA and the Israelis will signal trouble coming and I’m not so sure our other allies (UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait) would be enthusiastic in their support. That stands in contrast to the OAS position (without Mexico, an interesting gap) of support for “Interim President” Guaido.

      • BobCon says:

        I’m sure Bolton is screaming at the Pentagon right now to send in the bombers and landing craft, but I think you’re right that anything they pull off will be closer to Granada in size.

        This article in the Washington Post

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/for-now-pentagon-on-margins-of-american-response-to-venezuela-crisis/2019/01/25/72d91e2a-20b5-11e9-9145-3f74070bbdb9_story.html

        seems to have some pretty clear signals that the Pentagon is not going to rush into anything. With the Iraq war, Bolton was able to coast behind the manipulative skills of Cheney and Rumsfeld. I think he will find that when he is running the show he is nowhere near as effective as they were, despite what his ego is telling him.

      • Avattoir says:

        This brings to my mind the running joke about NCAA rules discipline where whenever the University of North Carolina is caught red-handed in a major violations pattern, it increases to 100% the likelihood that the NCAA will soon issue sanctions against Cleveland State.

        I think the better bet for victimization here is more Reagan-lite but even lite-r, some weaker Granada, a helpless Monroe Doctrine patsy, like … Honduras … Guatemala (I mean, who would notice?) … some Central-ish America banana republic with a comically tenuous nexus to Mexican caravans and a national army with its mobility limited by the fact the all cars get driven home at night & the retaliatory power of a spavined gerbil.

  25. Trip says:

    Interesting irony. Satire, what? Not sure. But the last thing on Junior’s twitter acct:

    Donald Trump Jr. Retweeted
    Nick Short‏

    Nick Short‏Verified account @PoliticalShort

    Did Putin write this tweet for you?

    Ilhan Omar‏Verified account @IlhanMN

    A US backed coup in Venezuela is not a solution to the dire issues they face. Trump’s efforts to install a far right opposition will only incite violence and further destabilize the region. We must support Mexico, Uruguay & the Vatican’s efforts to facilitate a peaceful dialogue.

    I mean today of all days, he’s acting like some random person on twitter is a Putin bot.

  26. Jenny says:

    Thank you Marcy for again revealing the unknown.

    Perhaps Bianca, Credico’s therapy dog would have a lot to bark about if questioned.  (She is a cutie)

  27. NotNamedinAnIndictment says:

    Person 1 is Corsi ;)

    “Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps,” Corsi wrote on Aug. 2, 2016, referring to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, according to the draft court papers. “One shortly after I’m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.”

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/mueller-has-emails-stone-pal-corsi-about-wikileaks-dem-email-n940611

    2 is Goldstone. The email says he was set to testify the 15th.

    https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Goldstone%201%20Transcript_redacted.pdf

  29. Savage Librarian says:

    Hey y’all,

    Look Susie Wiles up on Ballotpedia. She was on the RNC Rules Committee 2016. Plus there is much more about her. I happen to have had a “personal” encounter with how she operates. So, I’m just sayin’…

    You might want to place your bets on her level of involvement.,,

  31. Rugger9 says:

    The fundamental question as all of this swirls around is what will Kaiser Quisling do?  Specifically, where are his real red lines, as I would expect anything targeting Ivanka would certainly move the Palace to intervene?

    Is it the rest of the Royal Family?

    Is it Manafort or Stone or Ghouliani?

    It’s probably not anyone outside of that circle (sorry, Mooch, Hope, Corey or Susie) who will have buses waiting for them.

    • AitchD says:

      Ivanka is valuable as an innocent next-of-kin, she can get a court order in a New York minute that authorizes her to begin a family formal intervention. Hahahahaha. No, really, how was Woodrow Wilson’s stroke managed?

  32. Savage Librarian says:

    Lanny Wiles, Susie’s husband, saved Natalia Veselnitskya (sp?) a seat at a House Foreign Affairs Committee.
    Former Florida Trump campaign chair Susie Wiles talks Russia scandal, ABC News story 7/16/17

  34. Savage Librarian says:

    More on the curious actions of the Wiles family:

    Daughter of Jacksonville political strategist resigns from White House job
    By: Action News Jax

    Updated: Feb 16, 2017 – 8:57 PM

  35. Savage Librarian says:

    bmaz, I’m having trouble with links. But the evidence is mounting. Thanks for the interest.

  36. MattyG says:

    General query; does this suggest SCO still needs flippers to pin DT on the big charge, or that things are proceeding at a deliberate pace because of the nature of the investigation; small-to-big, low-to-high?

    • BobCon says:

      I wouldn’t assume anything. It could be that they’re missing key evidence needed for any case against Trump and are still working on it, or it could mean that they have evidence on 9 counts against Trump and they’re working on a 10th. It could be that they’re essentially done with Trump and are now focused on cleaning up the Russian side.

      I think the slow pace is largely a function of what we’ve seen so far — this is a very big case involving a lot of interconnected parts, and I suspect there is a fair amount of chasing evidence up and down the chain of command. The bottom to top method isn’t a bad starting point to the approach Mueller is taking, but I would bet it’s a more iterative process than that.

      • MattyG says:

        Also, the Trump/Russia conspiracy side of things may have literally ballooned on Mueller’s team at some point. Early on there was quite a bit of lively action; Papadopolis, Flynn, Manafort/Gates etc., which seemed to bracket obstruction, something sinister (but conceivably contained) vis a vis Russia, and crimes uncovered as a result of the investigation. The long pause in indictments that followed may point to a general broadening of the case against the principals rather than a scripted noose-tightening scenario.

  37. mister bunny says:

    I’m intrigued by the graf 12 sentence that says “a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact STONE “. Any informed speculation out there regarding who did the directing here?

  39. Watson says:

    Not to underestimate the Rambo mentality of our militarized police forces, but I think that they use swat teams for routine arrests because of the likelihood that people inside the building will have guns, and the possibility that they will use them against the officers. (Of course, law enforcement types tend to vote for politicians who insist on the proliferation of guns, thereby increasing the danger to themselves and to the rest of us.)

    • Alan says:

      And this was Florida, home of stand your ground and no-question concealed carry. Anyone with sense would bring the cavalry and wear full body armor to serve a warrant in Florida.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      SWAT teams also serve warrants for non-violent offenses for practice and to intimidate.  Their use for that purpose is excessive.

  40. Pete says:

    Agreed…as a Florida resident (and native of Miami circa 1950s – so there) and CCW holder do not do this (anywhere): https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/video-man-pulls-gun-on-black-kids-at-rally-in-brickell-calls-them-the-n-word-11054927

    Turns out this crazy man did NOT have a CCW so he’s basically screwed – as he should be. Even if he did have a CCW he likely would be only a bit less screwed.

    Not strictly legally correct, but essentially if you have a CCW and pull it out you better use it and be damn certain you need to. And even then you’re probably in for quite a ride – civil at the least.

  41. oldoilfieldhand says:

    Reply currently not working on this post…

    “Bull fucking shit. No defendant needs any more or further exacerbation upon arrest than minimally necessary. Seriously, wtf?”

    It wasn’t Sematicleo who publicly called for rougher treatment of people who are being arrested by LE officials. IIRC, it was the titular head of the Executive Branch of the Government, the same branch that is in charge of the Department of Justice.
    In reality, where we the people live, where no one wears a fucking robe unless they just got out of bed or the bath (what happened to the wig anyway?), where we’re not required to risk contempt if we do not stand because someone enters or exits the room, where that same person is constantly addressed as “your honor”; there really are two “rules of law”. We can see them every day! There is a “rule of law”for the well connected remunerating source for members of the bar and a “rule of law” for everyone else.

  43. Savage Librarian says:

    16.a & d – Supporter – Ex Rep Dana Rohrabacher (obvious Russia nexus)

    17. Associate of high ranking campaign official – Susie Wiles
    (plus Husband, Lanny & daughter)

    Lanny is buds with Rohrabacher from way back.

    Susie, Lanny & Stone have connected history, context, motive, values, means, heft, deference to status behavior

  44. Savage Librarian says:

    Hey, Rayne, this is a shout out to you and bmaz for motivating me. I actually have two “Nevertheless she persisted” t-shirts that I thought about sending along to you. But then I said, “Nah,” as bmaz so kindly taught me.😉

    So, here it is:
    Killing two birds with one Stone:
    Birds are Rohrabacher & Wiles.
    Or maybe the birds are:
    1. Earning your trust by working for it.
    2. Sprouting my wings.
    You Pick 😬

Comments are closed.