|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 9, 2018 20:55:25 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/11/09/mueller-paul-manafort-cooperation/Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort has reportedly met with the special counsel nearly a dozen times since he entered a plea deal on Sept. 14. But ABC News reports that Manafort is not providing the Mueller team with the information it had hoped for. Manafort began cooperating in hopes of cutting time off of his prison sentence for tax and bank fraud convictions. Prosecutors with the special counsel’s office are “not getting what they want” from Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman who entered a plea agreement in September in hopes of shaving time off his prison sentence for tax and bank fraud. ABC News reports that Manafort is providing much less information than Robert Mueller and his stable of prosecutors in the special counsel’s office initially expected. Manafort has met with prosecutors nearly a dozen times since entering a plea agreement on Sept. 14, just before the start of a second trial on charges related to Manafort’s lobbying work in Ukraine. (RELATED: Manafort Enters Plea Deal With Mueller) As part of the plea deal, Manafort agreed to provide information on a “broad” array of topics. It has been unclear whether Manafort was providing information about President Donald Trump, Trump associates, or other matters.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 9, 2018 20:57:26 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/11/09/swalwell-whitaker-trump-hitman/Democratic California Rep. Eric Swalwell labeled acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker a “hitman” hired by President Donald Trump to end Robert Mueller’s probe, during his appearance on CNN Friday afternoon. Trump requested and accepted Sessions’ resignation on Wednesday. The president publicly announced the decision on Twitter and announced Whitaker as his temporary replacement. “Whitaker was hired to be a hitman, to take out the Mueller probe. It’s clear he fired the guy that recused himself from the probe to put in someone who has already prejudged the investigation. Now if this had happened on Monday, we would be helpless as Democrats. We’re not helpless anymore,” Swalwell stated. “The American people spoke on Tuesday. They want a check on abuses of power. That’s I think was one of the issues that was on the ballot. So we have a number of options,” he added. “One, we’re going to a funding the government vote coming up here in a couple of weeks and we’re going to insist we protect the Mueller probe.” “How are you going to do that?” Blitzer followed up.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Nov 9, 2018 21:21:36 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/11/09/swalwell-whitaker-trump-hitman/Democratic California Rep. Eric Swalwell labeled acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker a “hitman” hired by President Donald Trump to end Robert Mueller’s probe, during his appearance on CNN Friday afternoon. Trump requested and accepted Sessions’ resignation on Wednesday. The president publicly announced the decision on Twitter and announced Whitaker as his temporary replacement. “Whitaker was hired to be a hitman, to take out the Mueller probe. It’s clear he fired the guy that recused himself from the probe to put in someone who has already prejudged the investigation. Now if this had happened on Monday, we would be helpless as Democrats. We’re not helpless anymore,” Swalwell stated. “The American people spoke on Tuesday. They want a check on abuses of power. That’s I think was one of the issues that was on the ballot. So we have a number of options,” he added. “One, we’re going to a funding the government vote coming up here in a couple of weeks and we’re going to insist we protect the Mueller probe.” “How are you going to do that?” Blitzer followed up. Odd how no one was concerned about the agenda of the AG when it was Holder and Lynch.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 11, 2018 20:59:25 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/11/11/democrats-doj-matthew-whitaker/Top Democrats in the House and Senate continued Sunday to press for acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker’s recusal from the Mueller investigation over his remarks criticizing the probe. In a letter sent to the Department of Justice’s top ethics official, California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and five leading committee Democrats asked whether Whitaker was advised to recuse himself from the investigation. “There are serious ethical considerations that require Mr. Whitaker’s immediate recusal from any involvement with the Special Counsel investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,” reads the letter, which was sent to Assistant Attorney General Lee J. Lofthus. “Regrettably, Mr. Whitaker’s statements indicate a clear bias against the investigation that would cause a reasonable person to question his impartiality.” The Democrats pointed to remarks that Whitaker made in 2017 when he ran the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), a conservative non-profit group. Whitaker was hired as Jeff Sessions’s chief of staff, reportedly after President Donald Trump saw him on CNN criticizing the Mueller investigation. “The official supervising the Special Counsel investigation must be — in both fact and appearance — independent and impartial,” reads the letter, which was signed by Pelosi, Schumer, Adam Schiff, Mark Warner, Dianne Feinstein, Jerold Nadler and Elijah Cummings. ...... Democrats also asserted that Whitaker has a conflict of interest because of his relationship with Sam Clovis, a former Trump campaign official who has appeared as a witness before Mueller’s grand jury. “Mr. Whitaker’s relationship with Mr. Clovis, who is a grand jury witness in the Special Counsel investigation, as well as Mr. Whitaker’s other entanglements, raise additional concerns about his ability to supervise the investigation independently and impartially,” reads the letter. Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney from Iowa, has reportedly said he has no plans to recuse himself from the probe.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 13, 2018 12:08:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 13, 2018 12:12:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by atl1979 on Nov 13, 2018 14:26:20 GMT -6
This is going to be great when all of the information finally comes out on the British intel collusion with the Dems to setup Papadopolous and Page (influence the election)
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 13, 2018 15:58:24 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/11/13/mueller-witness-conflict-of-interest/ An associate of Roger Stone who appeared before the Mueller grand jury on Nov. 2 is accusing the special counsel of a conflict of interest. Tyler Nixon says that he was questioned prior to his testimony by Jeannie Rhee, a prosecutor who previously represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. Nixon says he finds it “deeply troubling” that Rhee is involved in the investigation, which has recently focused on Stone. An attorney who appeared as a witness before the Mueller grand jury is accusing the special counsel’s office of a conflict of interest because one of the prosecutors involved in the special counsel’s case has worked for Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. The prosecutor, Jeannie Rhee, has questioned witnesses about Roger Stone, the Trump confidant who is one of the targets of the investigation, numerous sources tell The Daily Caller News Foundation. Rhee questioned Tyler Nixon, an attorney for Stone, just before his grand jury appearance on Nov. 2. “[Rhee’s involvement] was not disclosed to me prior to my testimony, and I find this to be deeply troubling and certainly Ms. Rhee should be recused or removed from the investigation,” Nixon told TheDCNF. Recusals related to special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe became an issue after the appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general on Nov. 7. Among the reasons that Democrats have called for Whitaker’s recusal are his comments criticizing the Trump-Russia probe as well as his work in 2014 on a political campaign for Sam Clovis, a former Trump campaign official who testified before the Mueller grand jury as a witness in 2017.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Nov 14, 2018 3:53:04 GMT -6
This is going to be great when all of the information finally comes out on the British intel collusion with the Dems to setup Papadopolous and Page (influence the election) Trump needs to release it all. Fuck it. People already know what's in them. If it was at all damaging to Trump it would have all been leaked a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 14, 2018 9:56:28 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/14/doj-releases-opinion-outlining-why-whitaker-can-serve-as-acting-ag/The Justice Department released a legal opinion Wednesday outlining why Matthew Whitaker can legally serve as the interim Attorney General. President Donald Trump appointed Whitaker following the resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions last Wednesday. From The Wall Street Journal: www.wsj.com/articles/matthew-whitaker-can-legally-serve-as-acting-attorney-general-justice-department-says-1542207612The Justice Department argues Mr. Whitaker’s appointment was lawful under a statute called the Vacancies Reform Act, according to the 20-page opinion from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which offers advice to the executive branch but whose guidance doesn’t carry the force of law. … Department officials had previously advised the White House that Mr. Trump could designate Mr. Whitaker as acting attorney general, a senior Justice Department official said Wednesday. “As all three branches of government have long recognized, the President may designate an acting official to perform the duties of a vacant principal office, including a Cabinet office, even when the acting official has not been confirmed by the Senate,” the department wrote in its opinion.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Nov 14, 2018 12:04:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Nov 14, 2018 14:38:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Nov 14, 2018 16:45:40 GMT -6
This is going to be great when all of the information finally comes out on the British intel collusion with the Dems to setup Papadopolous and Page (influence the election) Trump needs to release it all. Fuck it. People already know what's in them. If it was at all damaging to Trump it would have all been leaked a long time ago. Totally agree, but here’s the thing: he can’t. Which is a fucking “Constitutional crisis”, if you ask me. He tried to release the FISA stuff and people at the top (prob trying to protect themselves or others) refused to cooperate. Have you seen any of those FISA docs??? Me neither. And that’s some bullshit. Trump is largely on an island. It’s sad, but people only want transparency if it lines up exactly so it benefits them. We are in trouble, brother.
|
|
|
Post by NN on Nov 14, 2018 16:54:41 GMT -6
Trump needs to release it all. Fuck it. People already know what's in them. If it was at all damaging to Trump it would have all been leaked a long time ago. Totally agree, but here’s the thing: he can’t. Which is a fucking “Constitutional crisis”, if you ask me. He tried to release the FISA stuff and people at the top (prob trying to protect themselves or others) refused to cooperate. Have you seen any of those FISA docs??? Me neither. And that’s some bullshit. Trump is largely on an island. It’s sad, but people only want transparency if it lines up exactly so it benefits them. We are in trouble, brother. I thought presidents could declassify anything?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 14, 2018 17:01:40 GMT -6
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/14/mcconnell-rejects-mueller-protection-bill/Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell flatly rejected the need to approve legislation protecting the special counsel’s probe into the 2016 election, saying Wednesday there’s no evidence the investigation needs protection. Mr. McConnell laid out Republicans’ goals for the lame-duck session of Congress, saying preventing a government shutdown is tops on the list, along with passing new rules to stop sexual harassment on Capitol Hill and approving a farm bill. He flatly ruled out the chance of a partial government shutdown over border wall money and other spending fights. And he dismissed the need for Congress to act on legislation Democrats and some Republicans want to protect special counsel Robert Mueller. “I don’t think any legislation’s necessary,” Mr. McConnell said.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 14, 2018 17:03:43 GMT -6
Right on cue, RINO will RINO:
“I have informed the Majority Leader that I will not vote to advance any of the 21 judicial nominees pending in the Judiciary Committee or vote to confirm the 32 judges awaiting confirmation on the Senate floor until S.2644 is brought to the full Senate for a vote,” Flake said.
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Nov 14, 2018 17:10:18 GMT -6
Right on cue, RINO will RINO: “I have informed the Majority Leader that I will not vote to advance any of the 21 judicial nominees pending in the Judiciary Committee or vote to confirm the 32 judges awaiting confirmation on the Senate floor until S.2644 is brought to the full Senate for a vote,” Flake said. someone should send him this:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 15, 2018 6:08:14 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/11/14/roger-stone-wikileaks-randy-credico-mueller/New text messages show that Roger Stone learned about WikiLeaks’ plans to release Clinton-related emails through Randy Credico. The messages, which Stone’s lawyers extracted from an old phone on Wednesday, back up Stone’s claims about how he learned of WikiLeaks’ plans. The messages severely undercut Credico’s denials that he was a source for Stone. Robert Mueller has been investigating whether Stone had advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’ plans to release emails stolen from John Podesta. Text messages released on Wednesday appear to support Trump confidant Roger Stone’s testimony that a New York radio show host was his source for information about WikiLeaks’ plans to release information damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. “Julian Assange has kryptonite on Hillary,” Randy Credico wrote to Stone on Aug. 27, 2016, according to text messages that Stone provided to The Daily Caller News Foundation. “You are not going to drag my name into this are you,” Credico wrote on Sept. 29, 2016, suggesting that he was worried that Stone would identify him as his source for public claims he was making about WikiLeaks’ plans. “ ig news Wednesday,” Credico wrote on Oct. 1, 2016, days before WikiLeaks began releasing emails stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. “Now pretend u don’t know me.”
Credico also suggested in the texts that his source for some information about WikiLeaks was one of the group’s lawyers, who he said was one of his “best friends.” Stone has long claimed that the lawyer, Margaret Ratner Kunstler, was a source for Credico. (RELATED: Roger Stone’s Attorney Recently Testified Before Mueller Grand Jury)
NBC News first reported details of the text exchanges.
Stone’s knowledge of WikiLeaks’ plans has been a central focus of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Prosecutors have questioned numerous Stone associates to find out how the longtime political operative appeared to have advance knowledge that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to the Clinton campaign.
Stone, 66, reluctantly told the House Intelligence Committee in October 2017 that Credico was his back channel to WikiLeaks and Assange. But he has claimed that he did not know the source or content of the Clinton campaign emails. Credico has adamantly denied being Stone’s conduit, saying in numerous interviews over the past year that Stone was lying.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 15, 2018 9:57:34 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2018/11/15/obvious-double-standard-recusals-proves-muller-probe-getting-trump/Obvious Double Standard On Recusals Proves Russia Probe Is About Getting Trump Don’t bother reading the underlying rules on conflict of interest, because there’s only one test that matters: Would the recusal help get Trump? Adam Mill By Adam Mill NOVEMBER 15, 2018 The installation of Matthew Whitaker as the acting attorney general has the recusal pundits barking like shelter dogs in the presence of a trespassing squirrel. In case you’re wondering how the recusal rules work, it’s simply a matter of whether it helps or hurts Trump. Don’t believe me? See if you can detect a pattern. Since Whitaker might reign in the special counsel, he must be recused, they argue. Similarly, when it appeared former attorney general Jeff Sessions might help Trump, he acceded to demands he recuse himself. But Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is a proven thorn in the president’s side with an obvious conflict of interest, so no demands for recusal there. Judge Rudy Contreras’s friendship with disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok and lawyer Lisa Page at the same time he was reviewing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant applications from Strzok did not require recusal from considering the application. But the Trump appointee with authority to consider a search warrant of Trump’s lawyer’s private office was recused, leading to the raid to look for evidence that likely could have been obtained by subpoena. The recusal pundits called for the recusal of newly confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh because he might side with the president in future cases. Yet when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg calls Trump a “faker” and openly expresses dismay at the prospect of his presidency, she need not recuse. Don’t bother reading the underlying rules on conflict of interest, because there’s only one test that matters: Would the recusal help get Trump? This Is Obviously a Partisan Witch Hunt Forcing Whitaker to recuse himself from the Robert Mueller probe would “protect” it by restoring oversight responsibility to Rosenstein. This seems to be a bipartisan goal. Republicans have joined the Democrats and the media to knowingly caution against the imprudence of stopping the Mueller “investigation.” But before we start contemplating tortured recusal arguments, it’s worth asking, “What is Mueller is supposed doing, anyway?” Mueller is supposed to be investigating “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump,” or at least that was his original appointment until Rosenstein issued a secret memo supplementing Mueller’s jurisdiction. By now, everybody knows there is no evidence the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 election. As I show below, even Trump-hating legacy media sources such as The New York Times have been forced to admit the key facts that support this conclusion. The Russia hoax started when the Hillary Clinton campaign hired Fusion GPS to counterweight her email investigation troubles. Fusion GPS provided the “dirt” that Fusion GPS-connected Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskyaya used as bait for the Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. The George Papadopoulos meetings often cited by Trump-Russia collusion boosters appear more connected to U.S. government sting operations than to Russia. U.S. Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr, who is married to Fusion GPS subcontractor Nellie Ohr, unsuccessfully attempted to coerce Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to say that Manafort was coordinating with Russia during the campaign. Deripaska refused, calling the assertion preposterous. Mueller Delayed Until Democrats Retook the House Zero percent of Mueller’s indictments and convictions fall within the mandate of investigating links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. But the investigation did succeed in one important goal of its proponents: to delay and frustrate House oversight into the Justice Department and FBI’s interference in the 2016 elections until after the Democrats could retake the House. It’s not hard to see why the government officials who helped the Clinton campaign advance the Trump-Russia smear would want a new House. It was these Republican-led House investigations that uncovered many of the critical revelations of the Clinton campaign using Fusion GPS and Perkins Coie to collude with elements inside our own government to interfere with the 2016 election. For example, we would not know that the Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS to frame Trump for Russia collusion but for a House subpoena of Fusion GPS bank records. Likewise, it was investigators for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence whose investigation originally broke that Nellie Ohr worked for Fusion GPS. And it was during a House hearing when we learned that Bruce Ohr sponsored Fusion GPS research to the FBI. It was the House memo that revealed Rosenstein signed off on the FISA warrant application that heavily relied upon the Fusion GPS dirt to justify surveillance of Carter Page. Indeed, to the extent that we have an answer to the original mandate of the Mueller probe, we have the House, not Mueller, to thank. More than half of Americans voting in the midterms think the Mueller probe is politically motivated. Only 40 percent of Americans think the investigation is justified. Let’s stop and think about this for a second. The Mueller probe is staffed with “hyper-partisan” Clinton allies and Trump haters. Second in command is Andrew Weissman, who appears to be reprising his central role in the unjust destruction of accounting firm Arthur Andersen LLP. Mueller’s probe is a political prosecution, and everyone willing to be honest with the situation knows it. It has no moral basis for continuing even another hour. Where are the calls for their recusals? Politicized Prosecution Is the End of True Justice It’s extremely bad for a democracy to criminalize political differences. This is a favorite tool of dictatorships that pretend to be democracies but use the criminal justice system to neutralize their political opposition. For example, Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly trumped up embezzlement and fraud charges against Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny to prevent him from participating in presidential elections. Russia uses leaks and issues bogus international arrest warrants against critics of the Russian government. The assembly line of political prosecution appears to be the only thing that functions efficiently in the socialist paradise of Venezuela. To criticize or run for office against the ruling party in Egypt, Pakistan, China, Burma, Saudi Arabia, and many other such countries could put your legal well-being in jeopardy. Unfortunately, prosecution of political opponents is becoming more common in America, as prosecutors seek to interfere with or reverse elections results in Missouri, Texas, Alaska, New York, and Virginia, to name a few high-profile examples. With the real control of the Mueller probe in the hands of leftist partisans, political prosecution might seem a tolerable evil to the left as it seeks to reverse the 2016 election. It’s not. It’s just evil. And it shouldn’t be tolerated by any on the left who still believe in democracy. Even as the left makes lofty pronouncements about how the Mueller investigation protects constitutional principles, it does exactly the opposite by driving us ever closer to an America in which criminal prosecutions steer elections to the outcome desired by the real power brokers. The scary thing is that a majority of Americans can see this for what it is. Our leaders nevertheless lecture their subjects on the moral necessity for Mueller’s criminal probe to continue pursuit of its apparent real goal: to reverse a political outcome too important to be left to voters.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 15, 2018 10:09:46 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/video/2018/11/15/coons-mcconnell-is-running-interference-for-trump-with-mueller-investigation/Thursday, Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) reacted to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocking a vote on a protection bill for FBI special counsel Robert Mueller. Coons questioned why McConnell would block the bill because President Donald Trump “has a long history of doing and saying unpredictable things.” CNN “New Day” host John Berman asked the senator, “[D]o you think Mitch McConnell, majority leader, is running interference for the president?” “Yes,” Coons replied. Berman said, “You do?” “Yes,” Coons responded. “I see no other justification for refusing to bring forward such a simple bipartisan bill that takes existing Department of Justice regulations and strengthens them by putting them in statutes.”
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Nov 15, 2018 10:38:47 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/11/14/roger-stone-wikileaks-randy-credico-mueller/New text messages show that Roger Stone learned about WikiLeaks’ plans to release Clinton-related emails through Randy Credico. The messages, which Stone’s lawyers extracted from an old phone on Wednesday, back up Stone’s claims about how he learned of WikiLeaks’ plans. The messages severely undercut Credico’s denials that he was a source for Stone. Robert Mueller has been investigating whether Stone had advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’ plans to release emails stolen from John Podesta. Text messages released on Wednesday appear to support Trump confidant Roger Stone’s testimony that a New York radio show host was his source for information about WikiLeaks’ plans to release information damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. “Julian Assange has kryptonite on Hillary,” Randy Credico wrote to Stone on Aug. 27, 2016, according to text messages that Stone provided to The Daily Caller News Foundation. “You are not going to drag my name into this are you,” Credico wrote on Sept. 29, 2016, suggesting that he was worried that Stone would identify him as his source for public claims he was making about WikiLeaks’ plans. “ ig news Wednesday,” Credico wrote on Oct. 1, 2016, days before WikiLeaks began releasing emails stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. “Now pretend u don’t know me.”
Credico also suggested in the texts that his source for some information about WikiLeaks was one of the group’s lawyers, who he said was one of his “best friends.” Stone has long claimed that the lawyer, Margaret Ratner Kunstler, was a source for Credico. (RELATED: Roger Stone’s Attorney Recently Testified Before Mueller Grand Jury)
NBC News first reported details of the text exchanges.
Stone’s knowledge of WikiLeaks’ plans has been a central focus of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Prosecutors have questioned numerous Stone associates to find out how the longtime political operative appeared to have advance knowledge that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to the Clinton campaign.
Stone, 66, reluctantly told the House Intelligence Committee in October 2017 that Credico was his back channel to WikiLeaks and Assange. But he has claimed that he did not know the source or content of the Clinton campaign emails. Credico has adamantly denied being Stone’s conduit, saying in numerous interviews over the past year that Stone was lying. If Stone had inside knowledge of the hack by the Russians, why would he need to be told by Credico that Assange had info and would be releasing it soon? It sounds like the info was coming from Assanges attorney (who he will prob soon fired for leaking to Credico). None of this tells us where the emails came from. Did Mueller talk to Assange? He seems to be the only one who does know. Mueller is supposedly going to charge Credico with perjury, which seems odd if he actually knew more about where the emails came from, or had a first hand role in acquiring them.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 15, 2018 10:44:40 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/11/14/roger-stone-wikileaks-randy-credico-mueller/New text messages show that Roger Stone learned about WikiLeaks’ plans to release Clinton-related emails through Randy Credico. The messages, which Stone’s lawyers extracted from an old phone on Wednesday, back up Stone’s claims about how he learned of WikiLeaks’ plans. The messages severely undercut Credico’s denials that he was a source for Stone. Robert Mueller has been investigating whether Stone had advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’ plans to release emails stolen from John Podesta. Text messages released on Wednesday appear to support Trump confidant Roger Stone’s testimony that a New York radio show host was his source for information about WikiLeaks’ plans to release information damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. “Julian Assange has kryptonite on Hillary,” Randy Credico wrote to Stone on Aug. 27, 2016, according to text messages that Stone provided to The Daily Caller News Foundation. “You are not going to drag my name into this are you,” Credico wrote on Sept. 29, 2016, suggesting that he was worried that Stone would identify him as his source for public claims he was making about WikiLeaks’ plans. “ ig news Wednesday,” Credico wrote on Oct. 1, 2016, days before WikiLeaks began releasing emails stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. “Now pretend u don’t know me.”
Credico also suggested in the texts that his source for some information about WikiLeaks was one of the group’s lawyers, who he said was one of his “best friends.” Stone has long claimed that the lawyer, Margaret Ratner Kunstler, was a source for Credico. (RELATED: Roger Stone’s Attorney Recently Testified Before Mueller Grand Jury)
NBC News first reported details of the text exchanges.
Stone’s knowledge of WikiLeaks’ plans has been a central focus of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Prosecutors have questioned numerous Stone associates to find out how the longtime political operative appeared to have advance knowledge that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to the Clinton campaign.
Stone, 66, reluctantly told the House Intelligence Committee in October 2017 that Credico was his back channel to WikiLeaks and Assange. But he has claimed that he did not know the source or content of the Clinton campaign emails. Credico has adamantly denied being Stone’s conduit, saying in numerous interviews over the past year that Stone was lying. If Stone had inside knowledge of the hack by the Russians, why would he need to be told by Credico that Assange had info and would be releasing it soon? It sounds like the info was coming from Assanges attorney (who he will prob soon fired for leaking to Credico). None of this tells us where the emails came from. Did Mueller talk to Assange? He seems to be the only one who does know. Mueller is supposedly going to charge Credico with perjury, which seems odd if he actually knew more about where the emails came from, or had a first hand role in acquiring them. Assange has not talked to anybody about the leaked emails yet. Some Republicans in Congress wanted him to be granted immunity and flown here to testify, but no such offer has been extended yet.
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Nov 15, 2018 10:46:32 GMT -6
If Stone had inside knowledge of the hack by the Russians, why would he need to be told by Credico that Assange had info and would be releasing it soon? It sounds like the info was coming from Assanges attorney (who he will prob soon fired for leaking to Credico). None of this tells us where the emails came from. Did Mueller talk to Assange? He seems to be the only one who does know. Mueller is supposedly going to charge Credico with perjury, which seems odd if he actually knew more about where the emails came from, or had a first hand role in acquiring them. Assange has not talked to anybody about the leaked emails yet. Some Republicans in Congress wanted him to be granted immunity and flown here to testify, but no such offer has been extended yet. And that is mind boggling. He has the answers, and I am sure can prove it. Everyone and their brother is getting immunity (as long as they are anti-Trump). Why not Assange?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 15, 2018 10:49:50 GMT -6
Assange has not talked to anybody about the leaked emails yet. Some Republicans in Congress wanted him to be granted immunity and flown here to testify, but no such offer has been extended yet. And that is mind boggling. He has the answers, and I am sure can prove it. Everyone and their brother is getting immunity (as long as they are anti-Trump). Why not Assange? Rand Paul was the main one spearheading the movement to get Assange on to US soil. My thoughts are, those blocking it are doing so because they already know the truth. That being that this possibly ties back to the DNC &/or Clinton’s somehow and has nothing on Trump. Therefore, their reluctance to pursue that path. If this was an actual independent investigation and not the current partisan witch hunt, Assange would have already testified.
|
|
|
Post by NN on Nov 15, 2018 12:35:52 GMT -6
How much rope do you give a guy that wants to hang himself? Just enough to do the job.
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Nov 15, 2018 13:28:33 GMT -6
How much rope do you give a guy that wants to hang himself? Just enough to do the job. Watching two movies from the same screen. As is most of America. Is super scary, honestly.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 15, 2018 13:51:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Nov 15, 2018 14:11:03 GMT -6
They used to add this to their accomplishments and brag how tough Mueller was on Russia. Not so much anymore.
|
|
|
Post by NN on Nov 15, 2018 16:59:25 GMT -6
How much rope do you give a guy that wants to hang himself? Just enough to do the job. Watching two movies from the same screen. As is most of America. Is super scary, honestly. Agreed, at the end of the day I think we all want and deserve the truth and hopefully we'll get it.
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Nov 15, 2018 17:09:50 GMT -6
Watching two movies from the same screen. As is most of America. Is super scary, honestly. Agreed, at the end of the day I think we all want and deserve the truth and hopefully we'll get it. Totally agree. What really concerns me is whether we can even agree on what "true" is. I mean, the right believes the left has obscured the truth (fakenews) and the left believes the right obscures the truth (alternative facts). When Muellers findings are released, if he has "hard evidence" regarding collusion, both sides will immediately commence the spin on the truth. The masses will follow, as usual. If he doesnt have "hard evidence," the truth gets even murkier. People see what they want to see, like Val said.
|
|