Mueller Investigation!

[AmazonGrace]

I know a few folks he should tell on 

[fraurosena]

 

Bump stocks may be banned, but even without them he doesn't miss his foot once he shoots.

 

[AmazonGrace]

But if he's expecting to be pardoned why would the jail time matter?

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

But if he's expecting to be pardoned why would the jail time matter?

If Flynn uses twitter he knows the presidunce is (not too subtly) alluding to a pardon, but Flynn also knows that a pardon is far from a sure thing. He knows the presidunce's capricious nature better than most of us, and we all know how unreliable the presidunce is. Flynn is being smart here, and not taking any chances. He's found the judge's alluding to some serious jail time is a more reliable thing than a presiduncial pardon. So Flynn's doing that which gives him the most assurance of no, or hardly any, jail time. More cooperation with Mueller.

[Howl]

It could be years before Flynn's associates come to trial; I'm guessing at some point (maybe sooner rather than later) there will be a plea deal with "business" associate 1.   The second "business" associate, a Turkish/Dutch dual citizen, is currently in the wind and likely to stay that way.  

 Or maybe they are hoping that Flynn and his "business" associates will spill even more beans.  But anyway, perhaps Flynn is hoping for a pardon or maybe to get a new judge for sentencing.  Had Flynn been sentenced today, I think Sullivan would have imposed jail time. 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

My thoughts exactly

[AmazonGrace]

Sarah Sanders was saying that the White House still sticks to the theory that Flynn was ambushed. It sounds a lot like, "please don't tell please don't tell we'll have your back if you don't tell".  

[Howl]

Upthread I mentioned that it might be years before there is a trial for Flynn's "business" associates; however, that doesn't matter.  My impression is that the new sentencing date is March 2019, so if Flynn is going to be whispering in Mueller's ear, he better get it done by then. 

[fraurosena]

17 minutes ago, Howl said:

Upthread I mentioned that it might be years before there is a trial for Flynn's "business" associates; however, that doesn't matter.  My impression is that the new sentencing date is March 2019, so if Flynn is going to be whispering in Mueller's ear, he better get it done by then. 

I read the new sentencing date is March 13. Flynn can have a great many interviews with Mueller's team in the meantime. To be honest, I don't think Flynn can actually give Mueller something he doesn't know already, but he can corroborate the evidence Mueller currently has. So to simplify, the interviews will be something like this:

Mueller team: "We know Individual-1 did such and such a thing. Tell us all about it."

Flynn: "Ok. This is gonna take a while though..."

Mueller team: "That's fine, we've got a couple of months. Start talking."

17 minutes ago, Howl said:

Upthread I mentioned that it might be years before there is a trial for Flynn's "business" associates; however, that doesn't matter.  My impression is that the new sentencing date is March 2019, so if Flynn is going to be whispering in Mueller's ear, he better get it done by then. 

I read the new sentencing date is March 13. Flynn can have a great many interviews with Mueller's team in the meantime. To be honest, I don't think Flynn can actually give Mueller something he doesn't know already, but he can corroborate the evidence Mueller currently has. So to simplify, the interviews will be something like this:

Mueller team: "We know Individual-1 did such and such a thing. Tell us all about it."

Flynn: "Ok. This is gonna take a while though..."

Mueller team: "That's fine, we've got a couple of months. Start talking."

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"The Mueller conspiracy graveyard inters another corpse"

Spoiler

Friends, Americans, countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to bury a slew of debunked conspiracy theories about special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation, not to praise them.

Lo, in the past 365 days, there have been any number of theories floated about how Mueller’s probe has been tainted by bias, improper behavior or the destruction of evidence. Over and over, those theories have been dismantled, undercut or disproved. Yet, like the tide, a new theory soon washes ashore.

On Tuesday came the latest example. Former national security adviser Michael Flynn appeared in court in Virginia to be sentenced after a plea agreement in which he admitted to lying to federal investigators. That Flynn willingly met with two FBI agents in his office in the White House in January 2017 has been cited as evidence from Mueller’s detractors that Flynn was tricked into violating the law. In court, though, Flynn denied that, telling Judge Emmet G. Sullivan that he was not entrapped by the FBI.

But again, that’s only the most recent example. Let’s review a solid year of various theories being dashed against the rocks, even as new theories crest somewhere offshore.

RIP Dec. 18, 2017: The Strzok-Page “insurance policy” tweet. This is a good place to start because it serves as a reminder that even debunked theories can persist in the ether.

Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were, as you probably know, two FBI employees who were involved in a romantic relationship during the 2016 campaign. When Mueller was appointed in May 2017, each went to work on his team. Mueller soon learned, though, that over the campaign’s course, the two had exchanged text messages often disparaging or critical of then-candidate Donald Trump. Page left the special counsel’s team, and Strzok was removed from it.

One message, revealed last year, had Strzok writing to Page in August 2016: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

Given Strzok’s role as one of the originators of the Russia investigation, the comment was interpreted as demonstrating a political motive. It seemed to suggest, it was argued, that he was pointing to the investigation into Russian interference and possible coordination with Trump’s campaign — which began at the end of July 2016 — as something that could be used as leverage against Trump in the then-unlikely event that he won the election.

One year ago, though, the Wall Street Journal reported that Strzok had explained the text to colleagues as encouraging the investigation to continue so that, should Trump win, possible administration appointees would have been vetted. He wanted to be ready, in other words, in case Trump won and one of those under investigation was tapped for a senior position.

As it turns out, that’s exactly what happened. Trump won and he tapped Flynn to serve as his national security adviser — over warnings offered to Trump by former president Barack Obama.

RIP Jan. 25, 2018: The deleted text messages. The text messages came to light because they were sent on government phones. The FBI regularly collects messages sent from such devices — but an error in that collection tool that affected about a tenth of employee phones meant that no messages were collected for several months in 2015 and 2016.

This was quickly seized by Mueller critics as proof that evidence was being hidden. Missing messages? What nefarious interactions might the two of them have had?

In short order, there was an update: Using various recovery tools, thousands of messages between the pair were recovered from their old phones. None was a smoking gun proving that the investigation originated from political bias.

RIP Jan. 25, 2018: The anti-Trump “secret society” in the FBI. At the same time that the FBI announced the recovery of those messages, a briefly burning theory was being put to rest.

“Are you even going to give out your calendars? Seems kind of depressing,” Page wrote on the day after the election. “Maybe it should just be the first meeting of the secret society.”

A secret society! There was a cabal in the FBI organizing to opposed President Trump only hours after his victory!

Beyond the idea that members of a secret society would text about being members of a secret society using the term “secret society,” there were some other problems with the theory, including a lack of evidence that it existed. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who had advocated the theory, soon backed off it.

The calendars, though, were real. They were gag gifts featuring shirtless pictures of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

RIP Feb. 22, 2018: The judge in the Flynn case exposing government misbehavior. Well before the sentencing brouhaha Tuesday, Sullivan was the centerpiece of another theory.

In that case, it was speculated that Sullivan’s demand that prosecutors produce “any exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession” related to Flynn’s plea. Now why would Sullivan make that demand if he didn’t think there existed evidence that proved Flynn was innocent?

Well, because Sullivan always asks prosecutors to release such evidence. Because he oversaw the government’s prosecution of former Alaska senator Ted Stevens, in which key evidence was withheld, Sullivan established a practice of issuing a standing order to turn such evidence over. He did so in the Flynn case — and it was quickly misinterpreted.

Clearly, the government didn’t turn over evidence proving that Flynn was innocent.

RIP May 21, 2018: The spy in the Trump campaign. Trump himself launched the idea that his campaign was under surveillance with a March 2017 tweet claiming that Trump Tower’s phones had been wiretapped. They hadn’t, but the tweet spurred a cottage industry in efforts to prove that the campaign had been under improper investigation for months.

Earlier this year, The Washington Post reported that a retired professor had contacted several people who worked with Trump’s campaign on behalf of the FBI to try to learn about possible connections with Russia. That professor was eventually revealed as Stefan A. Halper, who met with campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page as well as Sam Clovis, who helped lead the campaign’s foreign policy team.

In short order, Trump dubbed this “SPYGATE."

But the revelation that Halper was the informant working with the FBI actually proved that Trump’s campaign wasn’t being spied on. Halper contacted Page and Papadopoulos only after they had already been implicated with ties to Russia. The FBI investigation began formally in late July; Halper only contacted Papadopoulos and Clovis in September. Nor did he work in the campaign, as Trump and others had alleged.

RIP June 7, 2018: OCONUS lures. Yet another Strzok text kicked up a storm in early June, when a random Twitter user noted that Strzok in December 2015 asked Page whether she had gotten “all our oconus lures approved?”

“OCONUS” means outside the contiguous United States. “Lures,” it was offered, referred to spies. Spies outside the United States? Was there a Halper-type person in place as far back as December 2015? Trump tweeted that he thought so.

The only problem? There was no connection at all drawn between that text message and Trump. Strzok’s job was counterintelligence, meaning that he would be in the practice of setting up intelligence assets overseas. (That’s also why he helped initiate the Russia investigation, itself a counterintelligence operation.) The OCONUS theory quickly faded.

RIP July 22, 2018: The warrant to surveil Page was politically motivated. Halper reached out to Page before the formal investigation began — but after Page visited Moscow in early July 2016. (Page was already on the FBI’s radar, having been interviewed by them both in 2013 and earlier in 2016.)

Page also featured in the dossier of reports compiled on behalf of an attorney working for the campaign of Hillary Clinton by a former British intelligence officer named Christopher Steele. That information made its way into the FBI’s formal request for a warrant to surveil Page in October 2016, under a law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

That the FISA warrant included information from the Steele dossier was seen as hopelessly flawed by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), a stalwart Trump defender who came under scrutiny in early 2017 for his efforts to defend Trump’s wiretapping allegation. Nunes’s staff put together a memo making what they argued was a definitive case that the Page warrant was improperly biased and inaccurate — and therefore, that the Trump investigation itself was flawed.

A few caveats were obvious at the outset: Page had left the campaign by the time the warrant was issued, and the investigation into Trump’s campaign had already begun.

But with the release of the Nunes memo in February and the release of a July response from Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee that Nunes chaired, his argument was revealed as riddled with problems. The Clinton campaign wasn’t identified as a sponsor of the dossier, no, but the FISA warrant did indicate that the information was compiled by a biased source. How much of the warrant was based on the dossier wasn’t clear — but the warrant was also renewed three times, each time gaining additional information used to justify the reapplication.

RIP Dec. 13, 2018: Strzok and Page’s iPhones were wiped clean. Last week, the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General released a report assessing the cause of those missing messages from Strzok’s interactions with Page. Were they, in fact, a function of bias within the FBI?

Well, no. The IG reported that, as had been said at the time of the messages' recovery, it was a technology problem that went wider than Strzok and Page. But the report also introduced a new conspiracy theory: iPhones given to Strzok and Page while they worked for the special counsel had been wiped clean! No text messages were recovered!

The IG report introduced that theory — and also debunked it. Beyond the fact that the phones were only used well after the investigation began, decreasing the likelihood they would reveal new information about its genesis, the report also noted that wiping phones when returned to the government was standard practice.

What’s more, the official in charge of taking in the phones told the IG that Strzok’s phone had been reviewed — and it appeared that there weren’t any text messages on it anyway.

RIP Dec. 13, 2018: Michael Flynn was set up. Flynn himself admitted in court that he hadn’t been entrapped by the FBI.

But just a few hours later, speaking from behind the lectern in the White House press briefing room, press secretary Sarah Sanders insisted that, despite Flynn’s comments, he’d been ambushed by the FBI.

Just because a conspiracy theory is proved wrong doesn’t make it go away.

 

[Howl]

Sarah Kendzior has noted that Flynn is a dangerous guy for the US and will continue to be going forward.  No one knows what he might have given up to the Russians during his stint as National Security Adviser. 

Also note that ESPIONAGE is considered in the same league as treason. I checked in with the Google on the definition of espionage: 

 Espionage is the crime of spying on the federal government and/or transferring state secrets on behalf of a foreign country. If the other country is an enemy, espionage may be treason, which involves aiding an enemy.

No wonder that Judge Sullivan, who read the un-redacted version, was pissed at Flynn. 

And if you want to know who Flynn likes to hang with, he attended and spoke at the Gateway Pundit conference in Sept of this year, a congregation of your favorite conspiracy theory wingnuts, vicious camp followers and European fascists. I keep seeing references to the "frothy Right," which I think are these people. 

The Gateway Eagle Council XLVII (!) conference included such luminaries as Joe Arpaio, Steve King (R - Racist) and James O'Keefe (Project "Veritas"), and dailydot.com noted that "Speaking of heroes, Trump’s disgraced former national security adviser General Michael Flynn collected his award for service to America."

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump backers just had their anti-Mueller hopes and dreams dashed"

Spoiler

On Saturday, Fox News host Jeanine Pirro engaged in a bit of wishful fantasizing.

Earlier that week, Michael Flynn’s attorneys seemed to imply that he was tricked into lying to the FBI. In response, the judge in Flynn’s case asked for more information about Flynn’s interview. Pirro wagered that the judge, Emmet G. Sullivan, might blow up special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s entire case.

She hailed Sullivan as “a jurist unafraid of the swamp, a judge who has a track record of calling out prosecutorial misconduct, a man who does not tolerate injustice or abuse of power.” She suggested Flynn’s guilty plea might be thrown out: “The amazing part of it is, if he does it, then the house of cards of Robert Mueller falls.”

That’s decidedly not what happened Tuesday. In fact, quite the opposite.

At Flynn’s sentencing, Sullivan made a point of making sure that Flynn stated (and restated) that he lied to the FBI, that he knew it was wrong to do so and that he accepted responsibility. Sullivan asked Flynn whether he knew that lying to the FBI was illegal, and Flynn said, “I was aware.” The judge gave Flynn several chances to withdraw his guilty plea, and Flynn opted to proceed.

Then Sullivan went big. “Arguably, you sold your country out,” he told Flynn, adding: “I’m not hiding my disgust, my disdain, for this criminal offense.” He even invoked treason, asking the government whether they considered such a charge. (The government said it had not.) Sullivan suggested Flynn was working as a foreign agent while serving in the White House — a claim which he later backed off.

Sullivan was clearly seeking to uproot the seeds of doubt planted by Flynn’s attorneys in the sentencing memo, which alleged that the government treated Flynn differently than other witnesses by urging him not to bring an attorney to questioning and failing to tell him that lying was illegal.

That argument was cultivated by the likes of Pirro and other critics of Mueller’s investigation, including President Trump himself and White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. They have argued that Flynn didn’t really do anything wrong and that he’s basically a military hero who has been railroaded by his government in its single-minded pursuit of Trump.

But while Pirro’s speculation might have been the most over-the-top, plenty of others believed that they were witnessing the emergence of a smoking gun that could lay bare malfeasance on the part of Mueller and the FBI.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board even accused the FBI of “entrapment,” which is a very specific legal term that clearly didn’t apply in this case. The more serious allegation, which some made after Flynn’s attorneys filed the memo, was that this amounted to some kind of “perjury trap.” As I wrote at the time, though, the treatment meted out to Flynn was wholly unremarkable. Most people who aren’t in custody aren’t informed that lying is illegal, and the government need not tell you to bring a lawyer. The idea that Flynn, a three-star general who has worked in military intelligence, would need to be reminded of such things was always grasping at straws, both legally and logically.

In the end, Pirro’s monologue might be the most telling. She rightly pointed out that Flynn faced a judge who has shown concerns about “prosecutorial misconduct” and abuses of government power and who is something of a judicial wild card. Even he saw basically nothing objectionable about Flynn’s treatment and nothing small about his lies. Instead, he saw a very guilty man.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

LOL. as if anyone would purchase something like this:

 

[onekidanddone]

People will buy it and believe it is an exact replica of a mythical stone. These are the same people who buy shit sold on the 700 club like a scrap of paper blessed by Pat Robinson 

[Howl]

Ooooh, shit's getting real for Misha Flynn.  Surrendering the passport, stayin' close to home. 

Don't know why they are waiting until January 4, but this is great. 

[formergothardite]

If it dawns on the president that Flynn is turning on him there will be no pardon and Flynn knows that. He can't depend on Trump to get him out of this since Trump turned his back on his own lawyer. 

I'm glad the judge is treating this seriously. 

[Howl]

If you have been wondering what the Flynn Group was up to, this Twitter unroll will help you sort it out.  The Tweeter is Alan Silberberg (Digijaks Group Cyber Security) on his interactions with the Flynn Group, the clueless-ess of Flynn Jr, how they were shady AF seeking info on how to communicate without being surveilled, why Silberberg refused to engage on any level and why he ultimately told Bijan Kian to f**k himself. 

Adding chapter to my book about my accidental interactions with him and Flynn... incidents ended with me telling Kian to go F himself...

[GreyhoundFan]

Here's an interesting analysis: "Michael Flynn hoped cooperating would keep him out of prison. Here’s why he may face five years."

Spoiler

After months of cooperation and more than a dozen meetings, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III argued this month that Michael Flynn should receive no prison time for his substantial assistance in the Russia investigation.

A veteran judge saw things differently.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan upended the former national security adviser’s hopes of avoiding jail at the sentencing hearing Tuesday, assuring courtroom spectators that he — and only he — would be the final arbiter.

“I’m not hiding my disgust, my disdain for this criminal offense,” Sullivan said as he laid into Flynn, before opting to deviate from Mueller’s recommendation of no jail time.

Flynn resigned from his White House position in February 2017, amid accusations that he misled Cabinet members about his contacts with Russia. He was the first of five aides to President Trump to plead guilty in the special counsel investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. After admitting in December 2017 that he lied to federal agents, Flynn began cooperating with the investigation.

The judge also said he saw through last-minute suggestions by Flynn’s attorneys alleging the former general was duped into lying by the FBI. To Sullivan, that seemed like a misfired attempt to minimize or distract from the underlying conduct.

“All along you were an unregistered agent of a foreign country, while serving as the national security adviser to the president of the United States!” he said. “Arguably, that undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably, you sold your country out!”

Sullivan’s statements Tuesday sent several severe messages:

Flynn, once the national security adviser to the president of the United States and a double agent, now stands at the mercy of the court.

In Sullivan’s courtroom, lying to federal agents, which Flynn’s supporters have dismissed as a minor “process crime,” constitutes a serious offense.

Is the judge allowed to ignore Mueller’s no-jail-time recommendation?

Several former prosecutors said that it’s uncommon for a judge to deviate from the government’s sentencing recommendation. It’s particularly unusual where the federal sentencing guideline range is zero to six months, as it was for Flynn, a first-time offender.

The guidelines were a 1984 effort by Congress to make the process more equitable. The concern was that there were years-long disparities at sentencing for similar crimes. The new rules created levels of offense seriousness — the more serious the crime, the higher a mandatory minimum and maximum length of imprisonment.

The judiciary was bound by these guidelines until 2005, when the Supreme Court ruled they were advisory. Today, judges are not required to follow them, though they often do.

When negotiating plea deals, prosecutors’ recommended sentences also fall within the guideline framework. Abusing a position of power could justify an increase. Substantial assistance, meaning that the offender accepted responsibility and cooperated with the government (often helping them build other cases) could lower a sentence.

Many believed that was the arrangement between the Mueller team and Flynn: By assisting the Russia investigation, Mueller recommended a non-jail sentence.

Still, Sullivan suggested Tuesday he would likely deviate from Mueller’s position.

“I cannot assure you, if you proceed today, you will not receive a sentence of incarceration,” he said, setting up the possibility he will sentence Flynn to jail.

Former federal prosecutor and Georgetown law professor Paul Butler told The Washington Post in an interview that plea bargains are all-or-nothing operations and “concern about equal justice under the law is in Sullivan’s DNA.”

“A typical defendant who pled guilty and then tried to backtrack, like Flynn, would lose credit for cooperation because he’s failed to accept responsibility,” Butler said.

Another former prosecutor, Kenneth White, echoed Butler, calling Sullivan’s outbursts “not that surprising.” Earlier this year, Sullivan threatened to hold former attorney general Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in contempt of court while presiding over an immigration case.

“This is exactly why it’s so hazardous for any defendant to try to shift blame after pleading guilty. Judges are looking for sincere acceptance of responsibility and attrition,” he said. “Part of the judge’s anger is that Flynn’s showing the opposite of acceptance of responsibility and he already got a sweet deal by pleading to one count. The prosecutor asked for a straight-up walk.”

On Monday, prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia charged two of Flynn’s business associates with acting as agents of a foreign government; Flynn confirmed his possible criminal liability in court. Knowing this, Mueller’s team nevertheless allowed him to plead to one count and recommended a sentencing range that could have been a significantly higher.

What does that mean for Flynn?

In the federal system, judges must consider all relevant conduct and circumstances, said former Utah U.S. attorney Brett L. Tolman, adding that judges can deviate from the guidelines where warranted. “You can be charged with 50 crimes, acquitted of 49, and then sentenced on all 50.”

Often the government is the gatekeeper of a defendant’s underlying conduct, but the Russia probe and Flynn’s prosecution are highly public and uniquely political, and Sullivan is receiving information from multiple sources.

Lying to a federal agent carries a sentence of zero to six months in jail, but, Tollman explained, if Sullivan believes Flynn’s actions were egregious, the statute permits him to send Flynn to prison for up to five years, the statutory maximum.

Flynn held a position of enormous responsibility, yet he pursued his own interest over those of the United States, Butler said. The judge made clear that was a serious crime. Sullivan even asked special counsel prosecutors if Flynn could be charged with “treason” — though, he cautioned the crowd to not read too much into his questioning.

Still, he clearly was thinking along those lines.

Flynn’s sentencing hearing was adjourned Tuesday, with Sullivan requesting a status report in 90 days. Flynn’s attorney asked that he be given “every modicum of consideration.” Sullivan said he was “not making any promises” his position would change.

In context of the current administration and the allegations surrounding Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, Flynn’s crimes may seem less serious, but, attorney Paul Butler said, to many judges this would be a big deal.

Sullivan, who Butler called a strong believer in the judiciary as a coequal branch of government, knew his remarks would send a message about the gravity of Flynn’s conduct. He said, “Sullivan has the last word.”

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Mueller seeks Roger Stone’s testimony to House intelligence panel, suggesting special counsel is near end of probe of Trump adviser"

Spoiler

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III asked the House Intelligence Committee on Friday for an official transcript of Trump adviser Roger Stone’s testimony, according to people familiar with the request, a sign that prosecutors could be moving to charge him with a crime.

It is the first time Mueller has formally asked the committee to turn over material the panel has gathered in its investigation of Russian interference of the 2016 campaign, according to the people.

The move suggests that the special counsel is moving to finalize his months-long investigation of Stone — a key part of Mueller’s inquiry into whether anyone in President Trump’s orbit coordinated with the Russians.

Stone, who has advised Trump on and off for decades and was in contact with the candidate during the 2016 campaign, has been a focus of the special counsel as Mueller probes whether the Trump campaign had advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’s release of Democratic emails allegedly hacked by Russian operatives.

Securing an official transcript from the committee would be a necessary step before pursuing an indictment that Stone allegedly lied to lawmakers, legal experts said.

The special counsel could use the threat of a false-statement charge to seek cooperation from Stone, as Mueller has done with other Trump advisers, such as former national security adviser Michael Flynn and longtime Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.

It is unclear what aspect of Stone’s testimony Mueller is scrutinizing. But Stone has given conflicting accounts about what prompted him to accurately predict during the 2016 race that WikiLeaks was going to unleash material that would hurt Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

In an interview Wednesday, Stone said he had not been notified of Mueller’s request. But he said he is confident that the transcript of his testimony will not provide the special counsel with grounds to charge him.

“I don’t think any reasonable attorney who looks at it would conclude that I committed perjury, which requires intent and materiality,” Stone said.

For weeks, the special counsel’s office has had access to an unofficial copy of Stone’s closed-door September 2017 interview, according to people with knowledge of the process. Mueller’s request of the official copy signals the special counsel could now be pursuing an indictment, several legal experts said.

“That suggests prosecutors are getting ready to bring a charge,” said former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner. “Prosecutors can’t bring a charge without an original certified copy of the transcript that shows the witness lied.”

The House Intelligence Committee, which has provided testimony of its witnesses to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for a declassification review, has not yet turned over the official Stone transcript to Mueller, according to the people with knowledge of the situation.

The committee is expected to discuss the topic at a closed-door business session scheduled for Thursday, according to one person familiar with committee plans. An agenda for the meeting posted online shows the panel’s first item to consider is the “Transmission of Certain Executive Session Materials to the Executive Branch.”

The committee’s incoming chairman, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), who takes over from Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) next month, has made it clear that he believes the committee should provide the special counsel with the Stone document.

“I believe that there’s ample reason to be concerned about his truthfulness,” Schiff said Sunday on NBC News’s “Meet the Press.” “And I do think that with respect to Mr. Stone, and perhaps others, the special counsel is in a better position to determine the truth or falsity of that testimony, and that we ought to provide it to the special counsel.”

A spokesman for Mueller declined to comment. A spokesman for Schiff declined to comment. A spokesman for Nunes did not respond to requests for comment.

Stone accused House Democrats of “attempting to play frivolous word games, and hairsplitting about semantics over nonmaterial matters.”

“This has devolved into gotcha word games, perjury traps and trumped-up process crimes,” he said Wednesday. “I think people can see through the political motivations behind this.”

Stone added: “Where is the evidence of Russian collusion or WikiLeaks collaboration?”

Mueller has spent months investigating whether Stone knew of WikiLeaks’s plan to release hacked Democratic emails in advance of the November 2016 election and whether he lied to Congress about his knowledge and his contacts with the group. In July, the special counsel charged a group of Russian intelligence officers with hacking the emails and providing them to WikiLeaks.

Stone, who boasted during the race that he was in touch with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, has said since that his past comments were exaggerated or misunderstood. Both he and WikiLeaks have adamantly denied they were in contact.

Several weeks ago, the House Intelligence Committee provided transcripts of its interviews with Stone and more than 50 other individuals to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which is conducting a declassification review before they are released publicly, according to congressional officials.

As part of that review, ODNI shares copies of the transcripts with other agencies, including the special counsel’s office, that might have an interest in protecting information in the interviews, officials said.

However, because the Stone interview was conducted in executive session, the transcript officially belongs to the committee and may not be released unless authorized by the committee, according to its rules.

In general, if prosecutors want to bring a charge of lying to investigators, they must obtain a certified “clean” copy from the transcriber or clerk who took the statement to present as an exhibit to a grand jury, legal experts said.

Charges of lying to Congress are relatively rare. But last month, Cohen pleaded guilty to such a charge as part of the special counsel probe.

Stone released written testimony he provided the House Intelligence Committee before his September 2017 interview, in which he wrote that he had no “advanced knowledge of the source or actual content of the WikiLeaks disclosures regarding Hillary Clinton.”

He told the panel that he based some of his predictions on public information and tips from associates. He also said that he had an intermediary who provided him with information about WikiLeaks — but refused to name the person, indicating the person was a journalist with whom he had spoken off the record.

Shortly after his closed-door appearance, Stone wrote a letter to the committee saying he learned about WikiLeaks’s planned release from Randy Credico, a New York comedian who had interviewed Assange and is a longtime friend of New York attorney Margaret Ratner Kunst­ler, who has represented WikiLeaks.

Credico has repeatedly denied passing any information from WikiLeaks to Stone. He said he may have speculated about the group’s tactics with Stone.

Stone has released numerous text messages that he says prove he was relying on Credico for information about the upcoming Wikileaks release of material damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign. In one of them Credico, who boasts of being best friends with Assange's attorney, asserts that the Wikileaks founder will make an announcement soon. In another the comic writes: "Hillary's campaign will die this week."

In recent weeks, Mueller’s prosecutors have been focused on another Stone associate who alerted him to an upcoming WikiLeaks release in 2016: conservative writer Jerome Corsi.

In an Aug. 2, 2016, email, Corsi wrote to Stone that the group planned to disclose emails that October that would embarrass Clinton, according to charging documents drafted by Mueller’s team and provided to The Washington Post.

“Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps,” Corsi wrote in the email quoted in the draft document, referring to Assange, who has been living in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London since 2012. “One shortly after I’m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.”

Corsi, who rejected a plea offer from the special counsel, said the email was based on his speculation of what WikiLeaks might be planning, not any inside knowledge.

The day after receiving the message from Corsi, Stone has said, he spoke with Trump by phone.

Stone has said he never discussed WikiLeaks or hacked emails with Trump. “Unless Mueller has tape recordings of the phone calls, what would that prove?” he told The Post last month.

“The emails prove nothing,” Stone added, “other than like every other politico and political reporter in America, I was curious to know what it was that WikiLeaks had.”

Both Trump and Stone have decried the Mueller investigation as a “political witch hunt,” and Stone has said Mueller is applying intense pressure on his associates as a way of punishing him for supporting the president.

Over the past several months, Mueller’s investigators have interviewed a dozen Stone friends and associates, focusing on individuals who discussed WikiLeaks with Stone before to the election. Some have provided testimony and records that contradict Stone’s claims.

Charles Ortel, a Wall Street analyst and conservative writer, told The Post that he was interviewed in New York last week by two FBI agents who asked about his 2016 contacts with Stone, Corsi and Credico.

Ortel said the agents were interested in an email from then-Fox News reporter James Rosen that Ortel forwarded to Stone on July 25, 2016. In it, Rosen wrote, “Am told WikiLeaks will be doing a massive dump of HRC emails relating to the CF in September,” referring to Clinton and her family foundation.

Ortel declined to disclose the full details of his FBI interview but told The Post that he did not know where Rosen had gotten his information about WikiLeaks’s plans.

Rosen, who no longer works at Fox News, has repeatedly declined to comment.

In written questions posed to the president earlier this year, Mueller sought information from Trump about his interactions with Stone and whether they discussed WikiLeaks.

According to people familiar with Trump’s responses, the president said he had no prior knowledge of what the group was going to do and that Stone did not tell him about WikiLeaks’s plans.

In recent days, however, Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani was less definitive.

“Did Roger Stone ever give the president a heads-up on WikiLeaks’s leaks concerning Hillary Clinton and the DNC?” ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos asked him Sunday.

“No, I don’t believe so,” Giuliani said. “But again, if Roger Stone gave anybody a heads-up about WikiLeaks’s leaks, that’s not a crime . . . collusion is not a crime.”

 

[AmazonGrace]

He got it unanimously.

 

[fraurosena]

Well now, unanimously! 

 

[fraurosena]

Poor Mikey. He has two homes and wants to be able to commute between them. Purely out of spite, I hope the judge says no. Let him be confined to one home only, just like the rest of us.

 

[AmazonGrace]

Our friend Carter is suffering too 

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/carter-page-accuses-dnc-domestic-terrorism-bonkers-legal-filing-apparently-wrote-without-lawyers/

[AmazonGrace]