- Special counsel Robert Mueller indicted Trump confidant Roger Stone on Friday.
- The indictment highlights a growing rift between Stone and two former associates, Jerome Corsi and Randy Credico.
- Corsi and Credico have already indicated that they are willing to testify at any trial Stone may face. Stone has also pledged to fight the charges at trial.
DC: The special counsel’s indictment of Roger Stone highlighted a deep rift that has grown during the Russia investigation between the longtime Trump confidant and two former associates he worked with during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Jerome Corsi and Randy Credico, who are referred to as “Person 1” and “Person 2” in the indictment, have indicated that they will testify against Stone at any trial that may occur. If that happens, the public can expect a dramatic affair. Stone has said that he plans to go to trial.
Stone was indicted Friday on charges that he lied to Congress about his interactions with Trump campaign officials, Corsi and Credico regarding WikiLeaks, the group that published emails hacked from the Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. He is also charged with witness tampering involving Credico and obstructing the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign.
Stone, who got his start in politics working for former President Richard Nixon’s campaign, is not accused of colluding with WikiLeaks or with Russians, or even of knowing in advance that WikiLeaks specifically would release Democratic National Committee and Podesta emails. But prosecutors appear to be interested in what conversations Stone had with the Trump campaign regarding WikiLeaks.
Stone, Corsi and Credico have butted heads in various ways over their competing claims about their discussions regarding WikiLeaks during the campaign.
Stone has insisted that Credico, a left-wing activist, was a back channel source of information for him about WikiLeaks’ plans to release information on former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Credico has denied the claim, though text messages show him providing Stone with insight into WikiLeaks’ plans. more here
SNIP: They got into trouble gossiping.
Here’s how it started:
An associate of Stone’s named Charles Ortel forwarded him an email from Fox News reporter James Rosen who wrote: “Am told Wikileaks will be doing a massive dump of HRC emails relating to the CF in September.”
Stone said he interpreted “CF” as a reference to the Clinton Foundation.
I read the entire thing. Credico seemed to be doing a lot of the work trying to get info [email previews] from Wikileaks and Stone liked to go on TV bragging, “I know something you don’t know” after talking to Credico.
Meanwhile, Corsi seemed to be in for the juicy gossip and maybe get a book deal out of it.
No matter what happened, Mueller hasn’t proven any of the 3 gave Wikileaks stolen emails or even knew who did the stealing. Meanwhile, has Mueller gone to question Assange directly? *crickets*
Ok, Im not a lawyer but so what if the Trump discussed hacked emails from the Clinton campaign. The Trump campaign did not do the hacking. Is it now against the law to see if anyone can access what has been hacked and in the public domain?
Stone’s just another example of getting in trouble for what you say, not what you don’t say.
And a good interrogator can trick almost anyone into saying anything he deems necessary to go after him.
So don’t talk to anyone in law enforcement under any situation without going through an attorney and either having him answer for you or getting direct approval of everything you say from him in writing and in advance.
stop2think – remember, only CNN can look at those kind of documents, not anyone else…
I would add to Anonymous: and make sure it is a good attorney!