While most media outlets focus their attention on the continuing shambles that is Brexit, over in the USA the investigation headed by Special Counsel Rober Mueller has been inexorably rumbling on towards its conclusion. And today’s instalment of Mueller Time featured Roger Stone, best known as being (a) a serial teller of tall tales, (b) a close pal of Combover Crybaby Donald Trump, and (c) also a pal of Nigel “Thirsty” Farage.
Squeaky FBI knock at the door finger up the bum time
Stone, whose involvement in political dirty tricks Stateside began with the re-election of Richard Nixon in 1972, was arrested this morning by the FBI. Someone tipped off CNN - Trump’s least-liked broadcaster - so the event was captured on video. So far, so routine, but it is who else the Stone arrest may drag in that will interest observers in the UK.
As the BBC has reported, “The indictment includes one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five counts of false statements, and one count of witness-tampering. The charges are linked to an alleged Russian-led hack into the emails of Democratic Party officials. The information contained in the emails was released by WikiLeaks during the 2016 US presidential election campaign”. And there was more.
“Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign chairman John Podesta, who was targeted in the email hack, accused Mr Stone of knowing about it beforehand. More than a month before the emails were made public, Mr Stone tweeted it would soon be Mr Podesta's ‘time in a barrel’, which some critics say was a reference to his prior knowledge of the hack”.
Worst Naked Gun reboot ever
Vox takes up the Wikileaks angle. “As October [2016] began, Stone took on a new role - as WikiLeaks’ hype man. He again claimed inside knowledge, saying a ‘friend’ of his met with Assange and learned ‘the mother lode is coming Wednesday.’ He tweeted: ‘Wednesday @HillaryClinton is done. #Wikileaks.’ And when nothing came on Wednesday, Stone tweeted, ‘Libs thinking Assange will stand down are wishful thinking. Payload coming. #Lockthemup.’ Assange published the Podesta emails two days later”.
Also, as Mother Jones observed, “Nigel Farage, the British politician who led the Brexit movement in Great Britain, is a ‘person of interest’ in the FBI investigation of interactions between Trump associates and the Russian government. The [Guardian] reported that Farage was under FBI scrutiny because he had relationships with both the Trump camp and WikiLeaks”. And then came the Wikileaks back channel.
Carole Cadwalladr at the Observer noted that Stone “told a local CBS reporter about ‘a back-channel communication with Assange, because we have a good mutual friend … that friend travels back and forth from the United States to London and we talk’. Asked directly by the Observer if Nigel Farage was that friend, his spokesman said: ‘Definitely not.’”
But Farage was caught trying to sneak in and out of the Ecuadorian embassy - where Assange is holed up. And, as Kyle Griffin has pointed out, “CNBC is reporting that, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter, one of the senior Trump campaign officials who reached out to Roger Stone was Steve Bannon”.
And if Farage is not the “UK-based associate” named in the Stone indictment, then who is? I’ve said before that Farage was in line for getting his collar felt. The Stone arrest brings that point closer. We may be breaking out the popcorn very soon.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at
19 comments:
"The charges are linked to an alleged Russian-led hack".
No they're not. There's no mention of "Russia" in the charges.
But at least the Beeb inserted "alleged" for a change - a fuck up for which some hapless newsy clerk will doubtless get fired.
Tsk tsk. Wait'll Lord Hall-Hall hears of this.
Thirsty is increasingly nervous,keeping his head down, letting his friends do the talking like his former female Kipper talking up a new Brexit party.
Thirsty would be better off heading to Venezuela, which at the present time has no extradition treaties with either the US or UK governments.
Or he could try Zimbabwe..
"The charges are linked to an alleged Russian-led hack".
Anonymous 17:53 "No they're not."
Oh yes, they are.
A copy of the Roger Stone indictment in on the ABC News website.
A full list of the 25 Russians indicted is on the Washington Post website.
Anonymous 11:32.
Oh no they aren't.
Stone is indicted on seven counts, pages 21 to 24 of the indictment. None of them mention Russia.
Either you can't read or you are wilfully ignorant. Or something else.
Next?
Anonymous 14:01
You think that because Stone isn't indicted with illegally hacking into the Democrats' computer system indicates that there is no connection?
Did you follow the UK phone hacking trials in the UK? If you did, you'll note that News International got their hacked materials from third parties.
Using your twisted logic, the News of the World and the hackings aren't linked.
Extract from page one of the Roger Stone indictment: -
"2. On or about June 14, 2016, the DNC—through Company 1—publicly announced that it had been hacked by Russian government actors."
3. From in or around July 2016 through in or around November 2016, an organization (“Organization 1”), which had previously posted documents stolen by others from U.S. persons, entities, and the U.S. government, released tens of thousands of documents stolen from the DNC and the personal email account of the chairman of the U.S. presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton (“Clinton Campaign”)"
Do you think that the United States District Court included that for decoration?
'Organization 1' is mentioned in Counts 2 to 5 (Page 22).
Will Nige have to beware gravity poisoning a phrase some US wag has coined?
Interesting that 30 people in the White House, including Kushner, only got security clearance because a Trump appointed official over rode intelligence officials concerns.
Just makes me wonder how The Maybot managed to get on so well with the Russian asset.
Isn't an associated case mentioned on page 1 of the indictment which so happens to be that of the alleged Russian hackers?
One has to be careful whilst awaiting "hard evidence" that one doesn't lose "control" of the situation in the mean time.
Remember Pearl Harbor? Or Germany invading Poland?
"7.
After the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (“HPSCI”), the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (“SSCI”), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) opened or announced their respective investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, which included investigating STONE’s claims of contact with Organization 1.
8.
In response, STONE took steps to obstruct these investigations."
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5694946-Roger-Stone-Indictment.html
Anonymous 21:13.
Item 2 describes a "public announcement" by the DNC. Which is not an indictment, anymore than "Organization 1" is proven "Russian interference".
None of the seven counts mention "Russia".
In the name of common sense and democratic law, which part of this do you not understand?
Rob 10:53.
An "associated case" is meaningless unless there is a proven link. Which there isn't.
Additionally, an indictment remains a charge/allegation until it is PROVEN in court. Otherwise it's back to the Star Chamber.
Clear?
Anonymous 16:30
The indictment is as clear as any legal document can be. It's your failure to understand the indictment. I doubt if anyone can explain the document to you in words that you can follow.
Clearly, you cannot comprehend single sentences. The DNC did not make the public announcement, Company 1 did.
Anonymous 17:14
So, the specialist IT firm that traced the Russian sources and the documents leaked by Organization 1 aren't linked?
After a 'Hero of the Russian Federation' medal? Ah, bless.
Anonymous 17:34.
Here's item 2: "2. On or about June 14, 2016, the DNC—through Company 1—publicly announced that it had been hacked by Russian government actors."
Care to change your bullshit sophistry before you bury yourself even deeper?
Anonymous 19:14
The piece that you copied & pasted means that Company 1 made the announcement.
Anonymous 20:18.
Good grief.
The DNC publicly announced it THROUGH COMPANY 1. Therefore, the announcement originated with the DNC, who are consequently responsible (or culpable) for the announcement.
If you can't see that, then I can't help you anymore. Gawd help any counsel you ever get involved with.
Anonymous 22:32
Stupidity by the bucket load.
The DNC engaged the services of a very expensive cybersecurity company to investigate a sophisticated hacking of their computer. The cybersecurity company traced the hacking to known Russian operatives.
When an individual or company or group employs the services of an expensive law firm to carry out work for them, the law firm makes the announcements because they have the information and the ability to answer media questions.
In the same way, if a group pays an expensive cybersecurity firm to carry out an investigation, the cybersecurity firm does the talking to the press.
If you had taken the time to find out the real name of Company 1, you wouldn't have embarked on making a fool of yourself on this thread.
"When the Democratic National Committee suspected it had suffered a cyberattack in 2016, it turned to George Kurtz to figure out what went wrong. Kurtz and his firm, CrowdStrike, examined the DNC's networks and discovered that the organization had fallen victim to hackers affiliated with the Russian government.
Since announcing their findings in June 2016, CrowdStrike’s Washington, D.C. office has been bustling with business" - Forbes Magazine.
Anonymous 11:49.
Your bucket is certainly loaded with stupidity on top of the usual sophist propaganda bullshit.
Quoting "expensive law firms", George Kurtz and Forbes magazine amounts to exactly nothing but allegations and assertions. Unsubstantiated "plausibility" is indeed expensive in the USA.
The FACT remains that Russia isn't mentioned in the seven counts, which is what matters in law. A competent lawyer would drive a horse and cart through any mere unsubstantiated allegation/assertion. And that is precisely why the counts are worded as they are and why Stone is the target.
You may be willing to fall for the propaganda bullshit. But an honest court won't. Not that you seem capable of understanding that.
Next?
Anonymous 14:46
Russia isn't mentioned in the seven counts against Roger Stone because Roger Stone wasn't part of the team that hacked into the DNC computer.
You are too stupid to realise just how thick you are.
Anonymous 15:44.
You've drifted an awful long way from your original propaganda. All the way to "expensive law firms" and other nonsense.
There isn't a scrap of provenproven evidence of "Russian interference". If there was it would have been made public months ago. All there is is allegation.
But full marks for finally recognising that the indictment counts are against Stone. All your weasel words have led exactly nowhere. Which is all they deserve.
Post a Comment