Roger Stone Indictment – Text Version

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
* CRIMINAL NO.
* Grand Jury Original
* 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1505, 1512, 2
*******
INDICTMENT
The Grand Jury for the District of Columbia charges:
Introduction
1. By in or around May 2016, the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (“DCCC”) became aware that their computer systems had been compromised by unauthorized intrusions and hired a security company (“Company 1”) to identify the extent of the intrusions.
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”).
ROGER JASON STONE, JR.,
Defendant. *

a. On or about July 22, 2016, Organization 1 released documents stolen from the DNC.
b. Between on or about October 7, 2016 and on or about November 7, 2016, Organization 1 released approximately 33 tranches of documents that had been stolen from the personal email account of the Clinton Campaign chairman, totaling over 50,000 stolen documents.
4. ROGER JASON STONE, JR. was a political consultant who worked for decades in U.S. politics and on U.S. political campaigns. STONE was an official on the U.S. presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign”) until in or around August 2015, and maintained regular contact with and publicly supported the Trump Campaign through the 2016 election.
5. During the summer of 2016, STONE spoke to senior Trump Campaign officials about Organization 1 and information it might have had that would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign. STONE was contacted by senior Trump Campaign officials to inquire about future releases by Organization 1.
6. By in or around early August 2016, STONE was claiming both publicly and privately to have communicated with Organization 1. By in or around mid-August 2016, Organization 1 made a public statement denying direct communication with STONE. Thereafter, STONE said that his communication with Organization 1 had occurred through a person STONE described as a “mutual friend,” “go-between,” and “intermediary.” STONE also continued to communicate with members of the Trump Campaign about Organization 1 and its intended future releases.
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
2

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. Among other steps to obstruct the investigations, STONE:
a. Made multiple false statements to HPSCI about his interactions regarding Organization 1, and falsely denied possessing records that contained evidence of these interactions; and
b. Attempted to persuade a witness to provide false testimony to and withhold pertinent information from the investigations.
Other Relevant Individuals
9. Person 1 was a political commentator who worked with an online media publication during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. Person 1 spoke regularly with STONE throughout the campaign, including about the release of stolen documents by Organization 1.
10. Person 2 was a radio host who had known STONE for more than a decade. In testimony before HPSCI on or about September 26, 2017, STONE described Person 2 (without naming him) as an “intermediary,” “go-between,” and “mutual friend” to the head of Organization 1. In a follow-up letter to HPSCI dated October 13, 2017, STONE identified Person 2 by name and claimed Person 2 was the “gentleman who confirmed for Mr. Stone” that the head of Organization 1 had “‘[e]mails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication.’”
Background
STONE’s Communications About Organization 1 During the Campaign
11. By in or around June and July 2016, STONE informed senior Trump Campaign officials that he had information indicating Organization 1 had documents whose release would be
3

damaging to the Clinton Campaign. The head of Organization 1 was located at all relevant times at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, United Kingdom.
12. 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. STONE thereafter told the Trump Campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by Organization 1. 13. STONE also corresponded with associates about contacting Organization 1 in order to obtain additional emails damaging to the Clinton Campaign.
a. On or about July 25, 2016, STONE sent an email to Person 1 with the subject line, “Get to [the head of Organization 1].” The body of the message read, “Get to [the head of Organization 1] [a]t Ecuadorian Embassy in London and get the pending [Organization 1] emails . . . they deal with Foundation, allegedly.” On or about the same day, Person 1 forwarded STONE’s email to an associate who lived in the United Kingdom and was a supporter of the Trump Campaign.
b. On or about July 31, 2016, STONE emailed Person 1 with the subject line, “Call me MON.” The body of the email read in part that Person 1’s associate in the United Kingdom “should see [the head of Organization 1].”
c. On or about August 2, 2016, Person 1 emailed STONE. Person 1 wrote that he was currently in Europe and planned to return in or around mid-August. Person 1 stated in part, “Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I’m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.” The phrase “friend in embassy” referred to the head of Organization 1. Person 1 added in the same email, “Time to let more than [the Clinton Campaign chairman] to be exposed as in bed w
4

enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC. That appears to be the game hackers are now about. Would not hurt to start suggesting HRC old, memory bad, has stroke – neither he nor she well. I expect that much of next dump focus, setting stage for Foundation debacle.”
14. Starting in early August 2016, after receiving the August 2, 2016 email from Person 1, STONE made repeated statements about information he claimed to have learned from the head of Organization 1.
a. On or about August 8, 2016, STONE attended a public event at which he stated, “I actually have communicated with [the head of Organization 1]. I believe the next tranche of his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation, but there’s no telling what the October surprise may be.”
b. On or about August 12, 2016, STONE stated during an interview that he was “in communication with [the head of Organization 1]” but was “not at liberty to discuss what I have.”
c. On or about August 16, 2016, STONE stated during an interview that “it became known on this program that I have had some back-channel communication with [Organization 1] and [the head of Organization 1].” In a second interview on or about the same day, STONE stated that he “communicated with [the head of Organization 1]” and that they had a “mutual acquaintance who is a fine gentleman.”
d. On or about August 18, 2016, STONE stated during a television interview that he had communicated with the head of Organization 1 through an “intermediary, somebody who is a mutual friend.”
5

e. On or about August 23, 2016, Person 2 asked STONE during a radio interview, “You’ve been in touch indirectly with [the head of Organization 1]. . . . Can you give us any kind of insight? Is there an October surprise happening?” STONE responded, “Well, first of all, I don’t want to intimate in any way that I control or have influence with [the head of Organization 1] because I do not. . . . We have a mutual friend, somebody we both trust and therefore I am a recipient of pretty good information.”
15. Beginning on or about August 19, 2016, STONE exchanged written communications, including by text message and email, with Person 2 about Organization 1 and what the head of Organization 1 planned to do.
a. On or about August 19, 2016, Person 2 sent a text message to STONE that read in part, “I’m going to have [the head of Organization 1] on my show next Thursday.” On or about August 21, 2016, Person 2 sent another text message to STONE, writing in part, “I have [the head of Organization 1] on Thursday so I’m completely tied up on that day.”
b. On or about August 25, 2016, the head of Organization 1 was a guest on Person 2’s radio show for the first time. On or about August 26, 2016, Person 2 sent a text message to STONE that stated, “[the head of Organization 1] talk[ed] about you last night.” STONE asked what the head of Organization 1 said, to which Person 2 responded, “He didn’t say anything bad we were talking about how the Press is trying to make it look like you and he are in cahoots.”
c. On or about August 27, 2016, Person 2 sent text messages to STONE that said, “We are working on a [head of Organization 1] radio show,” and that he (Person 2) was
6

“in charge” of the project. In a text message sent later that day, Person 2 added,
“[The head of Organization 1] has kryptonite on Hillary.”
d. On or about September 18, 2016, STONE sent a text message to Person 2 that said,
“I am e-mailing u a request to pass on to [the head of Organization 1].” Person 2 responded “Ok,” and added in a later text message, “[j]ust remember do not name me as your connection to [the head of Organization 1] you had one before that you referred to.”
i. On or about the same day, September 18, 2016, STONE emailed Person 2 an article with allegations against then-candidate Clinton related to her service as Secretary of State. STONE stated, “Please ask [the head of Organization 1] for any State or HRC e-mail from August 10 to August 30—particularly on August 20, 2011 that mention [the subject of the article] or confirm this narrative.”
ii. On or about September 19, 2016, STONE texted Person 2 again, writing, “Pass my message . . . to [the head of Organization 1].” Person 2 responded, “I did.” On or about September 20, 2016, Person 2 forwarded the request to a friend who was an attorney with the ability to contact the head of Organization 1. Person 2 blind- copied STONE on the forwarded email.
e. On or about September 30, 2016, Person 2 sent STONE via text message a photograph of Person 2 standing outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where the head of Organization 1 was located.
7

f. On or about October 1, 2016, which was a Saturday, Person 2 sent STONE text messages that stated, “big news Wednesday . . . now pretend u don’t know me . . . Hillary’s campaign will die this week.” In the days preceding these messages, the press had reported that the head of Organization 1 planned to make a public announcement on or about Tuesday, October 4, 2016, which was reported to be the ten-year anniversary of the founding of Organization 1.
g. On or about October 2, 2016, STONE emailed Person 2, with the subject line “WTF?,” a link to an article reporting that Organization 1 was canceling its “highly anticipated Tuesday announcement due to security concerns.” Person 2 responded to STONE, “head fake.”
h. On or about the same day, October 2, 2016, STONE texted Person 2 and asked, “Did [the head of Organization 1] back off.” On or about October 3, 2016, Person 2 initially responded, “I can’t tal[k] about it.” After further exchanges with STONE, Person 2 said, “I think it[’]s on for tomorrow.” Person 2 added later that day, “Off the Record Hillary and her people are doing a full-court press they [sic] keep [the head of Organization 1] from making the next dump . . . That’s all I can tell you on this line . . . Please leave my name out of it.”
16. In or around October 2016, STONE made statements about Organization 1’s future releases, including statements similar to those that Person 2 made to him. For example:
a. On or about October 3, 2016, STONE wrote to a supporter involved with the Trump Campaign, “Spoke to my friend in London last night. The payload is still coming.”
b. Also on or about October 3, 2016, STONE received an email from a reporter who had connections to a high-ranking Trump Campaign official that asked, “[the head
8

of Organization 1] – what’s he got? Hope it’s good.” STONE responded in part, “It is. I’d tell [the high-ranking Trump Campaign official] but he doesn’t call me back.”
c. On or about October 4, 2016, the head of Organization 1 held a press conference but did not release any new materials pertaining to the Clinton Campaign. Shortly afterwards, STONE received an email from the high-ranking Trump Campaign official asking about the status of future releases by Organization 1. STONE answered that the head of Organization 1 had a “[s]erious security concern” but that Organization 1 would release “a load every week going forward.”
d. Later that day, on or about October 4, 2016, the supporter involved with the Trump Campaign asked STONE via text message if he had “hear[d] anymore from London.” STONE replied, “Yes – want to talk on a secure line – got Whatsapp?” STONE subsequently told the supporter that more material would be released and that it would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign.
17. On or about October 7, 2016, Organization 1 released the first set of emails stolen from the Clinton Campaign chairman. Shortly after Organization 1’s release, an associate of the high- ranking Trump Campaign official sent a text message to STONE that read “well done.” In subsequent conversations with senior Trump Campaign officials, STONE claimed credit for having correctly predicted the October 7, 2016 release.
The Investigations
18. In or around 2017, government officials publicly disclosed investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible links to individuals associated with
the campaigns.
9

a. On or about January 13, 2017, the chairman and vice chairman of SSCI announced the committee would conduct an inquiry that would investigate, among other things, any intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns, as well as Russian cyber activity and other “active measures” directed against the United States in connection with the 2016 election.
b. On or about January 25, 2017, the chairman and ranking member of HPSCI announced that HPSCI had been conducting an inquiry similar to SSCI’s.
c. On or about March 20, 2017, the then-director of the FBI testified at a HPSCI hearing and publicly disclosed that the FBI was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible links and coordination between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government.
d. By in or around August 2017, news reports stated that a federal grand jury had opened an investigation into matters relating to Russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, including possible links and coordination between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government.
STONE’s False Testimony to HPSCI
19. In or around May 2017, HPSCI sent a letter requesting that STONE voluntarily appear before the committee and produce:
Any documents, records, electronically stored information including e-mail, communication, recordings, data and tangible things (including, but not limited to, graphs, charts, photographs, images and other documents) regardless of form, other than those widely available (e.g., newspaper articles) that reasonably could lead to the discovery of any facts within the investigation’s publicly- announced parameters.
On or about May 22, 2017, STONE caused a letter to be submitted to HPSCI stating that “Mr. 10

Stone has no documents, records, or electronically stored information, regardless of form, other than those widely available that reasonably could lead to the discovery of any facts within the investigation’s publicly-announced parameters.”
20. On or about September 26, 2017, STONE testified before HPSCI in Washington, D.C. as part of the committee’s ongoing investigation. In his opening statement, STONE stated, “These hearings are largely based on a yet unproven allegation that the Russian state is responsible for the hacking of the DNC and [the Clinton Campaign chairman] and the transfer of that information to [Organization 1].” STONE further stated that “[m]embers of this Committee” had made certain “assertions against me which must be rebutted here today,” which included “[t]he charge that I knew in advance about, and predicted, the hacking of Clinton campaign chairman[’s] email, [and] that I had advanced knowledge of the source or actual content of the [Organization 1] disclosures regarding Hillary Clinton.”
21. In the course of his HPSCI testimony, STONE made deliberately false and misleading statements to the committee concerning, among other things, his possession of documents pertinent to HPSCI’s investigation; the source for his early August 2016 statements about Organization 1; requests he made for information from the head of Organization 1; his communications with his identified intermediary; and his communications with the Trump Campaign about Organization 1.
STONE’s False and Misleading Testimony About His Possession of Documents Pertinent to HPSCI’s Investigation
22. During his HPSCI testimony, STONE was asked, “So you have no emails to anyone concerning the allegations of hacked documents . . . or any discussions you have had with third parties about [the head of Organization 1]? You have no emails, no texts, no documents whatsoever, any kind of that nature?” STONE falsely and misleadingly answered, “That is correct.
11

Not to my knowledge.”
23. In truth and in fact, STONE had sent and received numerous emails and text messages during the 2016 campaign in which he discussed Organization 1, its head, and its possession of hacked emails. At the time of his false testimony, STONE was still in possession of many of these emails and text messages, including:
a. The email from STONE to Person 1 on or about July 25, 2016 that read in part, “Get to [the head of Organization 1] [a]t Ecuadorian Embassy in London and get the pending [Organization 1] emails . . . they deal with Foundation, allegedly.”;
b. The email from STONE to Person 1 on or about July 31, 2016 that said an associate of Person 1 “should see [the head of Organization 1].”;
c. The email from Person 1 to STONE on or about August 2, 2016 that stated in part, “Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I’m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.”;
d. Dozens of text messages and emails, beginning on or about August 19, 2016 and continuing through the election, between STONE and Person 2 in which they discussed Organization 1 and the head of Organization 1;
e. The email from STONE on or about October 3, 2016 to the supporter involved with the Trump Campaign, which read in part, “Spoke to my friend in London last night. The payload is still coming.”; and
f. The emails on or about October 4, 2016 between STONE and the high-ranking member of the Trump Campaign, including STONE’s statement that Organization 1 would release “a load every week going forward.”
12

24. By falsely claiming that he had no emails or text messages in his possession that referred to the head of Organization 1, STONE avoided providing a basis for HPSCI to subpoena records in his possession that could have shown that other aspects of his testimony were false and misleading.
STONE’s False and Misleading Testimony About His Early August 2016 Statements
25. During his HPSCI testimony on or about September 26, 2017, STONE was asked to explain his statements in early August 2016 about being in contact with the head of Organization 1. STONE was specifically asked about his statement on or about August 8, 2016 that “I’ve actually communicated with [the head of Organization 1],” as well as his statement on or about August 12, 2016 that he was “in communication with [the head of Organization 1]” but was “not at liberty to discuss what I have.”
26. STONE responded that his public references to having a means of contacting Organization 1 referred exclusively to his contact with a journalist, who STONE described as a “go-between, as an intermediary, as a mutual friend” of the head of Organization 1. STONE stated that he asked this individual, his intermediary, “to confirm what [the head of Organization 1] ha[d] tweeted, himself, on July 21st, that he ha[d] the Clinton emails and that he [would] publish them.” STONE further stated that the intermediary “was someone I knew had interviewed [the head of Organization 1]. And I merely wanted confirmation of what he had tweeted on the 21st.” STONE declined to tell HPSCI the name of this “intermediary” but provided a description in his testimony that was consistent with Person 2.
27. On or about October 13, 2017, STONE caused a letter to be submitted to HPSCI that identified Person 2 by name as the “gentleman who confirmed for Mr. Stone” that the head of Organization 1 had “‘[e]mails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication.’”
13

28. STONE’s explanation of his August 2016 statements about communicating with the head of Organization 1 was false and misleading. In truth and in fact, the first time Person 2 interviewed the head of Organization 1 was on or about August 25, 2016, after STONE made his August 8 and August 12, 2016 public statements. Similarly, at the time STONE made his August 2016 statements, STONE had directed Person 1—not Person 2—to contact the head of Organization 1. And Person 1—not Person 2—had told STONE in advance of STONE’s August 8 and August 12, 2016 public statements that “[w]ord is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps,” including one in October. At no time did STONE identify Person 1 to HPSCI as another individual STONE contacted to serve as a “go-between,” “intermediary,” or other source of information from Organization 1. STONE also never disclosed his exchanges with Person 1 when answering HPSCI’s questioning about STONE’s August 8 and August 12, 2016 statements.
STONE’s False and Misleading Testimony About Requests He Made for Information from the Head of Organization 1
29. During his HPSCI testimony, STONE was asked, “[W]hat was the extent of the communication with [the intermediary]?” STONE replied, “I asked him to confirm . . . that the tweet of [the head of Organization 1] of the 21st was accurate, that they did in fact have . . . Hillary Clinton emails and that they would release them.” STONE was then asked, “Did you ask [the intermediary] to communicate anything else to [the head of Organization 1]?” STONE falsely and misleadingly responded, “I did not.” STONE was then asked, “Did you ask [the intermediary] to do anything on your own behalf?” STONE falsely and misleadingly responded, “I did not.”
30. In truth and in fact, STONE directed both Person 1 and Person 2 to pass on requests to the head of Organization 1 for documents that STONE believed would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign. For example:
a. As described above, on or about July 25, 2016, STONE sent Person 1 an email that 14

read, “Get to [the head of Organization 1] [a]t Ecuadorian Embassy in London and
get the pending [Organization 1] emails . . . they deal with Foundation, allegedly.”
b. On or about September 18, 2016, STONE sent a text message to Person 2 that said, “I am e-mailing u a request to pass on to [the head of Organization 1],” and then emailed Person 2 an article with allegations against then-candidate Clinton related to her service as Secretary of State. STONE added, “Please ask [the head of Organization 1] for any State or HRC e-mail from August 10 to August 30— particularly on August 20, 2011 that mention [the subject of the article] or confirm
this narrative.”
c. On or about September 19, 2016, STONE texted Person 2 again, writing “Pass my
message . . . to [the head of Organization 1].” Person 2 responded, “I did,” and the next day Person 2, on an email blind-copied to STONE, forwarded the request to an attorney who had the ability to contact the head of Organization 1.
STONE’s False and Misleading Testimony About Communications with His Identified Intermediary
31.
with the person he identified as his intermediary. STONE falsely and misleadingly stated that he had never communicated with his intermediary in writing in any way. During one exchange, STONE falsely and misleadingly claimed only to have spoken with the intermediary telephonically:
Q: [H]ow did you communicate with the intermediary?
A: Over the phone.
Q: And did you have any other means of communicating with the intermediary?
A: No.
Q: No text messages, no – none of the list, right?
During his HPSCI testimony, STONE was asked repeatedly about his communications
15

A: No.
Later during his testimony, STONE again falsely denied ever communicating with his intermediary in writing:
Q: So you never communicated with your intermediary in writing in any way?
A: No.
Q: Never emailed him or texted him?
A: He’s not an email guy.
Q: So all your conversations with him were in person or over the phone.
A: Correct.
32. In truth and in fact, as described above, STONE and Person 2 (who STONE identified to HPSCI as his intermediary) engaged in frequent written communication by email and text message. STONE also engaged in frequent written communication by email and text message with Person 1, who also provided STONE with information regarding Organization 1.
33. Written communications between STONE and Person 1 and between STONE and Person 2 continued through STONE’s HPSCI testimony. Indeed, on or about September 26, 2017—the day that STONE testified before HPSCI and denied having ever sent or received emails or text messages from Person 2—STONE and Person 2 exchanged over thirty text messages.
34. Certain electronic messages between STONE and Person 1 and between STONE and Person 2 would have been material to HPSCI. For example:
a. In or around July 2016, STONE emailed Person 1 to “get to” the head of Organization 1 and obtain the pending emails.
b. In or around September 2016, STONE sent messages directing Person 2 to pass a request to the head of Organization 1.
c. On or about January 6, 2017, Person 2 sent STONE an email that had the subject 16

line “Back channel bs.” In the email, Person 2 wrote, “Well I have put together timelines[] and you [] said you have a back-channel way back a month before I had [the head of Organization 1] on my show . . . I have never had a conversation with [the head of Organization 1] other than my radio show . . . I have pieced it all together . . . so you may as well tell the truth that you had no back-channel or there’s the guy you were talking about early August.”
STONE’s False and Misleading Testimony About Communications with the Trump Campaign 35. During his HPSCI testimony, STONE was asked, “did you discuss your conversations with the intermediary with anyone involved in the Trump campaign?” STONE falsely and misleadingly answered, “I did not.” In truth and in fact, and as described above, STONE spoke to multiple individuals involved in the Trump Campaign about what he claimed to have learned from his intermediary to Organization 1, including the following:
a. On multiple occasions, STONE told senior Trump Campaign officials about materials possessed by Organization 1 and the timing of future releases.
b. On or about October 3, 2016, STONE wrote to a supporter involved with the Trump Campaign, “Spoke to my friend in London last night. The payload is still coming.”
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.”
Attempts to Prevent Person 2 from Contradicting STONE’s False Statements to HPSCI
36. On or about October 19, 2017, STONE sent Person 2 an excerpt of his letter to HPSCI that identified Person 2 as his “intermediary” to Organization 1. STONE urged Person 2, if asked by HPSCI, to falsely confirm what STONE had previously testified to, including that it was Person 2
17

who provided STONE with the basis for STONE’s early August 2016 statements about contact with Organization 1. Person 2 repeatedly told STONE that his testimony was false and told him to correct his testimony to HPSCI. STONE did not do so. STONE then engaged in a prolonged effort to prevent Person 2 from contradicting STONE’s false statements to HPSCI.
37. In or around November 2017, Person 2 received a request from HPSCI to testify voluntarily before the committee. After being contacted by HPSCI, Person 2 spoke and texted repeatedly with STONE. In these discussions, STONE sought to have Person 2 testify falsely either that Person 2 was the identified intermediary or that Person 2 could not remember what he had told STONE. Alternatively, STONE sought to have Person 2 invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination. For example:
a. On or about November 19, 2017, in a text message to STONE, Person 2 said that his lawyer wanted to see him (Person 2). STONE responded, “‘Stonewall it. Plead the fifth. Anything to save the plan’ . . . Richard Nixon.” On or about November 20, 2017, Person 2 informed HPSCI that he declined HPSCI’s request for a voluntary interview.
b. On or about November 21, 2017, Person 2 texted STONE, “I was told that the house committee lawyer told my lawyer that I will be getting a subpoena.” STONE responded, “That was the point at which your lawyers should have told them you would assert your 5th Amendment rights if compelled to appear.”
c. On or about November 28, 2017, Person 2 received a subpoena compelling his testimony before HPSCI. Person 2 informed STONE of the subpoena.
d. On or about November 30, 2017, STONE asked Person 1 to write publicly about Person 2. Person 1 responded, “Are you sure you want to make something out of
18

this now? Why not wait to see what [Person 2] does. You may be defending yourself too much—raising new questions that will fuel new inquiries. This may be a time to say less, not more.” STONE responded by telling Person 1 that Person 2 “will take the 5th—but let’s hold a day.”
e. On multiple occasions, including on or about December 1, 2017, STONE told Person 2 that Person 2 should do a “Frank Pentangeli” before HPSCI in order to avoid contradicting STONE’s testimony. Frank Pentangeli is a character in the film The Godfather: Part II, which both STONE and Person 2 had discussed, who testifies before a congressional committee and in that testimony claims not to know critical information that he does in fact know.
f. On or about December 1, 2017, STONE texted Person 2, “And if you turned over anything to the FBI you’re a fool.” Later that day, Person 2 texted STONE, “You need to amend your testimony before I testify on the 15th.” STONE responded, “If you testify you’re a fool. Because of tromp I could never get away with a certain [sic] my Fifth Amendment rights but you can. I guarantee you you are the one who gets indicted for perjury if you’re stupid enough to testify.”
38. On or about December 12, 2017, Person 2 informed HPSCI that he intended to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination if required to appear by subpoena. Person 2 invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege in part to avoid providing evidence that would show STONE’s previous testimony to Congress was false.
39. Following Person 2’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify before HPSCI, STONE and Person 2 continued to have discussions about the various investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election and what information Person 2 would provide to
19

investigators. During these conversations, STONE repeatedly made statements intended to prevent Person 2 from cooperating with the investigations. For example:
a. On or about December 24, 2017, Person 2 texted STONE, “I met [the head of Organization 1] for f[i]rst time this yea[r] sept 7 . . . docs prove that. . . . You should be honest w fbi . . . there was no back channel . . . be honest.” STONE replied approximately two minutes later, “I’m not talking to the FBI and if your smart you won’t either.”
b. On or about April 9, 2018, STONE wrote in an email to Person 2, “You are a rat. A stoolie. You backstab your friends-run your mouth my lawyers are dying Rip you to shreds.” STONE also said he would “take that dog away from you,” referring to Person 2’s dog. On or about the same day, STONE wrote to Person 2, “I am so ready. Let’s get it on. Prepare to die [expletive].”
c. On or about May 21, 2018, Person 2 wrote in an email to STONE, “You should have just been honest with the house Intel committee . . . you’ve opened yourself up to perjury charges like an idiot.” STONE responded, “You are so full of [expletive]. You got nothing. Keep running your mouth and I’ll file a bar complaint against your friend [the attorney who had the ability to contact the head of Organization 1].”
20

COUNT ONE (Obstruction of Proceeding)
40. Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
41. From in or around May 2017 through at least December 2017, within the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant ROGER JASON STONE, JR., corruptly influenced, obstructed, impeded, and endeavored to influence, obstruct, and impede the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry and investigation is being had by either House, and any committee of either House and any joint committee of the Congress, to wit: STONE testified falsely and misleadingly at a HPSCI hearing in or around September 2017; STONE failed to turn over and lied about the existence of responsive records to HPSCI’s requests about documents; STONE submitted and caused to be submitted a letter to HPSCI falsely and misleadingly describing communications with Person 2; and STONE attempted to have Person 2 testify falsely before HPSCI or prevent him from testifying.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1505 and 2.
21

COUNTS TWO THROUGH SIX (False Statements)
42. Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
43. On or about September 26, 2017, within the District of Columbia and elsewhere, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the Government of the United States, the defendant ROGER JASON STONE, JR., knowingly and willfully made and caused to be made materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations, to wit:
Count
False Statement
2
STONE testified falsely that he did not have emails with third parties about the head of Organization 1, and that he did not have any documents, emails, or text messages that refer to the head of Organization 1.
3
STONE testified falsely that his August 2016 references to being in contact with the head of Organization 1 were references to communications with a single “go-between,” “mutual friend,” and “intermediary,” who STONE identified as Person 2.
4
STONE testified falsely that he did not ask the person he referred to as his “go-between,” “mutual friend,” and “intermediary,” to communicate anything to the head of Organization 1 and did not ask the intermediary to do anything on STONE’s behalf.
5
STONE testified falsely that he and the person he referred to as his “go-between,” “mutual friend,” and “intermediary” did not communicate via text message or email about Organization 1.
6
STONE testified falsely that he had never discussed his conversations with the person he referred to as his “go-between,” “mutual
22

Count
False Statement
friend,” and “intermediary” with anyone involved in the Trump Campaign.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001(a)(2) and 2.
COUNT SEVEN (Witness Tampering)
44. Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
45. Between in or around September 2017 and present, within the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant ROGER JASON STONE, JR., knowingly and intentionally corruptly persuaded and attempted to corruptly persuade another person, to wit: Person 2, with intent to influence, delay, and prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(b)(1).
A TRUE BILL:
________________________ Foreperson
23
________________________ Robert S. Mueller, III
Special Counsel
U.S. Department of Justice

Date: January 24, 2019

Trey Gowdy Fox News Spygate

I am going to write more about this.  This is just a placeholder.

 

REP. TREY GOWDY, R—S.C., CHAIRMAN, HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: I think there are two things important to understand. Number one, the source of President Trump’s frustration. Brennan say he should be in the dustbin of history. Comey said impeachment is too good of a remedy. Clapper doesn’t like him, Loretta Lynch, said call it a matter, not an investigation.

Schiff said he had evidence of collusion before we even began the investigation, and 60 Democrats have voted to impeach him before Bob Mueller has come up with a single solitary finding. That’s what’s got him frustrated.

What should have him hearten is the fact that Chris Wray, Rod Rosenstein, and all the senior folks at DOJ now were all Trump appointees. So, here is what’s fair to ask, what did the FBI do? When did they do it? What was the factual predicate upon which they took whatever actions they took and against whom were they directed?

But remember, Martha, it was President Trump, himself who said, number one, “I didn’t collude with the Russia but if anyone connected with my campaign did, I want the FBI to find that out.” It looks to me like the FBI was doing what President Trump said I want you to do, find it out. He is not the target. So, when Schiff and others don’t make that clear, they’re doing the disservice to our fellow citizens. He is not the target.

MACCALLUM: But this raises the question that the president raised in this — in this one of those tweets, there were a lot of them. In which we talked about quite a bit here last week, is if that were the case, why didn’t they give him a little briefing?

So, here is what we found out. You know, we do have somebody who asked some questions of George Papadopoulos. We do have somebody who’s asked questions of Carter Page. Here’s what you need to know.

GOWDY: I think, defensive briefings are done a lot. And why the Comey FBI didn’t do it? I don’t know, but Chris Wray and Rod Rosenstein have at least made it clear to us, Donald Trump was never the target of the investigation. He is not the current target of the investigation. Now, keep in mind that can all change depending on what a witness says.

But as of now, I think Chris Wray and Rod Rosenstein are stunned whenever people think Trump is the target of their investigation. I’ll leave it up to them how to brief the president, or how to brief his lawyers.

MACCALLUM: Was that point of view that you’re talking about right now, was that strengthened when you went into this briefing last week?

GOWDY: Yes, I am — I am even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got. And that it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, given the things that were over here on your right hand, all the frustrations, do you think it’s problematic the way the president has — is tweeting about this all the time? Because he feels like he needs to get — he needs to vent. He’s got to get his message out there. Is it legally problematic in your mind what he is doing?

GOWDY: I think any time you create prior statements, you give Mueller or other folks a chance to question you on them and ask what was your factual basis, why did you say that? The president should have access to the best legal minds in the country. And I think he should take advantage of those. And he has got some really good communicators that are on his staff and at his — at his call. If I were his lawyer, and I never will be, I would tell him to rely on his lawyers and his comes folks.

MACCALLUM: All right, here is one of them, Rudy Giuliani, speaking with Bill Hemmer over the holiday weekend. Watch this.

BILL HEMMER, FOX NEWS CO-ANCHOR: What’s wrong with the government trying to figure out what Russia was up to?

RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Nothing wrong with the government doing that. Everything wrong with the government spying on a candidate of the opposition party, that’s a Watergate, a spy gate. I mean, and without any warning to him. And now, to compound that, to make it into a criminal investigation bill? That’s why this is a rigged investigation.

GOWDY: There are two things wrong with what the former U.S. attorney said. Number one, no one knows whether this is a criminal investigation. Mueller was told to do a counterintelligence investigation into what Russia did. And number two, President Trump himself in the Comey memos said if anyone connected with my campaign was working with Russia, I want you to investigate it.

And it sounds to me like that is exactly what the FBI did, I think when the president finds out what happened, he is going to be not just fine, he’s going to be glad that we have an FBI that took seriously what they heard. He was never the target, Russia is the target.

MACCALLUM: So, it sounds to me as if you would advise him that there’s no problem with him sitting down with Robert Muller.

GOWDY: Oh, absolutely no. I have always said, I think you want to sit down with Bob Mueller. You’ve told us publicly there was no collusion, you’ve told us publicly there was no obstruction. Say in private what you’ve said publicly, limit the scope to exactly what the — what the Mueller memo is, but if he were my client and I’d say if you’ve done nothing wrong, then you need to sit down and tell Mueller what you know.

MACCALLUM: you know, we had — there was one judge who said that the scope was all over the place. Do you feel comfortable with the scope of this investigation, and do you feel like your committee has been shared with to the extent that, that exists, that the scope exists?

GOWDY: I’m not sure what the scope of the Mueller probe is. But I know this, Rosenstein is the one who created the memo.

MACCALLUM: Right.

GOWDY: It’s not Bob Mueller’s fault.

MACCALLUM: Have you ever seen that memo?

GOWDY: I have — I have. I’ve seen the memo that you’ve seen also. The other memo some of my colleagues want to see is a more narrow admission.

MACCALLUM: I want to basically say, investigate Russia and all — anything related to it.

GOWDY: And as a frontal way line at the end, and of course, if there’s any criminality look at that to me. We run towards the criminality, but I would think everyone would want to know what Russia did. So, I mean, with whom if anyone is the second part? The first question is what did Russia do?

MACCALLUM: All right, we’ll see. Trey, thank you very much.

Evidence Woman Are Gaining Power

Stacy Abrams, the history-making African-American female Democratic nominee for Georgia governor, is more evidence women are gaining power in the US.

Many more women are running for elected office, especially this year — the year in the echoes of Donald Trump’s “hot mic” tape in which he boasts about grabbing women to kiss them and grope their private body parts. This year when the #metoo movement is still gaining steam.

In 1970, there was just one female Senate candidate. Today, there are 49 to 54 women running, depending on whether and which third-party candidates you include, according to a new count by CNN. There were 394 women running for the House and 56 in governor’s races (including third-party candidates), as of last Wednesday.

Certainly more state primary elections will winnow those numbers and fewer women will appear on ballots in November.

But still: This year boasts a record share — 22 percent — of female candidates for Senate seats, a peak not seen since 1994, when the share was 19 percent.

Elle Magazine writes, “It’s too early to call it the ‘year of the woman’ but if these first weeks of the 2018 primaries have told us anything, it’s that women’s electability is surging, and it could become a national trend.”

Recently in Pennsylvania’s primary, eight women won their House races.

But let’s talk just Democrats.

Already, women have some new “firsts” goals: Come November we could see the first black female governor in the United States, the first lesbian serving in Congress from Texas, the first Democratic woman representing Kentucky in the House.

Sure the odds are tough, but what else is new? All of these scenarios moved closer to reality last week following a round of primary elections in those red states.

Look at Georgia, and not just with the crucial win of Abrams over another female primary contender. There were solid female candidates all over Georgia’s Democratic primary ballot. In a state where no woman currently holds statewide elected office, Georgia on Tuesday had two Democratic women running for governor, two running for lieutenant governor, one running for secretary of state, two running for insurance commissioner, and two running for Georgia’s highly visible and controversial Public Service Commission. Three out of six Democratic candidates for the 7th congressional district were women, and one is now in a July run-off race. There’s also a woman in a run-off for the 6th District.

In Georgia’s 180-member House of Representatives, 34 Democratic women signed up to compete for seats previously held by Republicans. This is on the heels of Georgians electing the first two Latina and the first Vietnamese female state representatives, joining other African-American and white women elected to the state legislature in 2016 and 2017.

Georgia Republicans usually out-vote Georgia Democrats in primaries by about 290,000 votes. This year, it was 54,000.

Democrats are said to have struggled to find a voice in recent elections. We’re not so sure.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016. And Donald Trump has done much to help Americans realize that pocketbook issues are not just for rich people, D.C. swamp politics or tribalism.

But there’s still much work to do, and perhaps nowhere more so than Tennessee — one of the bottom five states for percentages of female candidates running for Senate since 1994. (This year two women are seeking high office in the Volunteer State, but both are Republican Trump cutouts.)

Let’s not take the good old boys’ networks for granted, Democrats.

As Stacy Abrams said Tuesday after she won the nomination in Georgia:

“In the book of Esther, there’s a verse that reminds us — we were born for such a time as this.”

Brian Kemp Provides More Evidence Conservatives Cannot Govern Effectively

Brian Kemp provides more evidence Conservatives cannot govern.

Apparently Secretary of State Brian Kemp is attacking another Conservative group called Citizens for Georgia’s Furture. Conservatives have to attack everyone.  They trust no one.  No wonder our government is dysfunctional.  It is, not surprisingly, being run by Conservatives.

The latest evidence is a report from Greg Bluestein, AJC Political Insider, that Kemp assailed  “secret donors and shady tactics” from Citizens for Georgia’s Future in a speech at the Cobb County GOP over the weekend.  Kemp was upset that Citizens for Georgia’s Future said they ” could” launch ads to try to influence the race for the No. 2 spot in the May 22 primary.

Kemp is reported as having said:

  • “That’s typical, pathetic, insider politics if you ask me,” ,
  • “I fully expect” to be targeted by pro-Cagle forces in the next two weeks.
  • He said the group will criticize his record as Georgia’s top elections official and question his experience in the private sector.
  • “Cagle’s team will attempt to stop the bleeding he’s experiencing by lashing out at me,”
  • “But you’re smarter than that.”

Just as a reminder we are filling up two big Kemp evidence buckets: 1) Kemp’s role in data breaches and disclosures, 2) The lawsuit claiming he lied to make $500,00.0.

Again, this is evidence that Conservatives just cannot govern.  They don’t trust anyone.

In these critical times for our communities, one would think the GOP would be talking about how to solve the issues.  Particularly how to solve the issues of divisiveness in our communities.  Instead of walking the walk of improved civility they chose to attack in relatively mean ways.  Using phrases like “secret donors and shady tactics” and “That’s typical, pathetic, insider politics if you ask me.”

It is normal political communication to criticize your opponent.  But, Kemp, Cagle, and most Conservatives have raised criticism to a hateful art.

We know they don’t like government.  This is evidence for a possible reason they hate government.  Perhaps they hate everyone that is not them.

Evidence Karen Handel is Not Bipartisan

Evidence Karen Handel is not bipartisan can be found in a Lugar Center and Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy report.

The study found Karen Handel to be one of the least bipartisan House lawmakers. She was 435 out of 438 in terms of her ability to reach out to others that think differently.

This is important because in my humble perspective, since she only won the District 51% to 48%, she should be more bipartisan.

This evidence suggests Handel is not the right candidate for the 6th District.

Click here to see the report if your interested in the details

Of course, selective perception, confirmation bias, and motivated reasoning affects what conclusions one can draw from the evidence.  Here is a sampling of the conclusions one might draw, given your tribal leanings.

  • Dems would conclude:
    • Handel is indeed a Trump Tool and will do whatever Trump supporters tell her to do.
    • She believes compromising with anyone to her left is a bad thing, not because of any reasonable policy differences, but simply because leftists are bad and you must not compromise with them.
  • Trump Supporters would conclude:
    • It does not matter what the evidence is because Georgetown is a liberal academic center.  Anything they put out is biased, and anything biased from the left has to be completely ignored.
    • Even it is true, even if, in fact, Handel is not bipartisan, well that is a good thing.  We don’t want compromise with the Lefties because they are destroying America and we need to make America Great again, like in the 1950s.  For Trump supporters the ends justifies the means.  Winning is the goal.  Getting their agenda is the goal.  Compromise is not the goal.  If fact, they believe compromise got us to this terrible place to begin with.
  • Libertarians would conclude:
    • The faction within Libertarians that believe in individual freedom and understand Hayek’s writings on Central Planners, would probably agree the evidence is valid and Handel is not bipartisan.  And that should disqualify her in their eyes.  (This faction would follow James Maddison’s advice in Federalist Paper #10 about “factions.”  Madison wrote, “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”   I would think Libertarians would want bipartisanship.
    • The racists faction within the larger Libertarian community, who don’t want the Government giving money to blacks, or having blacks in government, would say that Handel lack of bipartisanship is a badge of honor.  The ends justifies the means and Handel should not compromise with those lefties, commies, socialists atheists.

Looking at the report we, the Georgia 6th District, think the report is credible enough to believe it is correct.  We conclude Karen Handel is not “bipartisan.”  And we further think this is a negative.  We think our Representative should have the 6th District top of mind, not GOP, Dem, or Libertarian.

If there are Trump Supporters or Karen Handel supporters that want to help provide evidence that either Karen is bipartisan and the report is wrong, or it is better that she is not bipartisan, here are our questions for Karen Handel:

  • Does she consider the report valid?  Would she say that they missed all the bipartisan things she has done?
  • Would she consider herself bipartisan?  If so, what examples can she provide?
  • What has she done in our Community to reach out the 48% that voter against her?
  • Does she think the ends justify the means?

Of course getting honest answers from Karen, her supporters or Trump Supporters, is not likely.  She/they would lie about this stuff.  She is a politician, after all.

GOP issues their Position Questions for Candidates Wishing their Support

The GOP has identified the key positions the GOP Candidate for the Georgia 6th District must take to get the GOP endorsement.

  • “Do you support or oppose President Trump’s appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court?”
  • “Do you support or oppose President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multinational trade agreement?”
  • “Do you support or oppose President Trump’s Executive Order to suspend the issuance of visas and other immigration benefits to nationals of countries of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen?”
  • “Do you support or oppose the repeal of Obamacare’s individual mandate within the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017?”
  • “Do you support or oppose the President’s intention to withhold foreign security assistance to Pakistan?” 
  • “Do you support or oppose President Trump’s Infrastructure Initiative, which calls for $200 billion in Federal funds to spur at least $1.5 trillion in infrastructure investments with partners at the State, local, Tribal, and private level?”
  • “On January 30, 2018, President Trump released a framework with the following four proposals to reform our immigration system: 1. Establish a $25 billion trust fund for the border wall system, ports of entry and exit, and northern border improvements 2. Promote nuclear family migration by allowing immigration sponsorships of spouses and minor children only 3. End the visa lottery program 4. Provide legal status for DACA recipients and certain other DACA-eligible illegal immigrants. Do you support or oppose President Trump’s framework for immigration reform?”
  • “Do you support or oppose President Trump’s imposition of 25 percent tariffs on steel imports and 10 percent tariffs on aluminum imports?” 

Notice that all the positions are prefaced by demonstrating support for Trump.

This evidence comes from the candidates meeting with the White House in recent weeks and months.  Apparently they are leaving with an “Opinion Leader Questionnaire” from the Office of Political Affairs, with eight yes-or-no questions to fill out and space to elaborate on their reasoning.

The evidence reflects how the Trump hopes to use GOP primaries to move the GOP in his direction.

While former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon’s dream of a nationwide insurgency against incumbent Republicans has gone up in smoke, the White House is still looking to turn the GOP into a more fascist party.

“It’s necessary for the White House to want to make sure the candidates President Trump lines up behind share his views on issues like trade, immigration and an America first foreign policy,” said one former White House official.

So these are the question we need to ask the GOP Congressional Candidates for the Georgia 6th District.

The version was dated March 16 and requested answers by March 30.  So it is possible the criteria will change.

Of the eight questions, five divide at least some elements of the GOP. Economic conservatives and free-traders have revolted against Trump’s protectionist moves, including the tariffs and his decision to throw away the TPP, a 12-nation trade deal negotiated by the Obama administration.

Republicans who favor a robust American presence abroad are likely to question his desire to cut off aid to Pakistan. And conservatives are often unenthusiastic about Trump’s infrastructure plan.

The most controversial might be the question on Trump’s immigration principles, where border-state Republicans are often skeptical of the president’s proposed border wall and immigration hawks don’t like the decision to include permanent legal status for DACA recipients. When a proposal based on the framework came up for a vote in February, it received just 39 votes, with GOP senators opposing the proposal from both the center and the right.

While previous administrations hadn’t issued formal questionnaires to candidates, it was standard for them to gather intelligence on candidates and political leaders meeting with the president.

“The political office is trying to gather the information they need to inform the president,” said Scott Jennings, a GOP strategist who worked in the White House political office under the George W. Bush administration. “It’s absolutely their responsibility to know the political beliefs of the people the president meets with or endorses.”

The document isn’t just being given to candidates, and not every candidate running in a GOP primary has received one. The White House has also reportedly sent the document to state-level Republican committee members and other influential members of the party.