Roger Stone Warns President Not To Speak With Mueller

440px-Director_Robert_S._Mueller-_III I recently posted a column in the Hill on the curious case of Roger Stone who has caused himself and the President endless trouble with prior emails claiming to have had dinner with WikiLeaks’ head Julian Assange.  Stone’s best defense is that he is something of a buffoon or political trickster.  He is not the most credible source for giving advice to Trump on what to do with Special Counsel Robert Mueller. However, he is back on the news (after a respite following his calling his former protegé Sam Nunberg a “coke head” and “a**shole”) warning Trump that the interview is a perjury trap.  Indeed, as shown in his recent video with his grandson smoking giant cigars, Stone seems to specialize in a type of obnoxious theater of the bizarre.

Stone’s recent posting captures Stone perfectly from Instagram.  Stone’s warning against anyone “taking him seriously” (in reference to Nunberg) obviously could apply with equal, if not greater, force to Stone.


Stone told Jake Tapper “There’s every possibility the special counsel is looking at some process-related crime that doesn’t relate to Russia . . . I obviously believe the special counsel has a political bias, as demonstrated by the FBI text messages and emails that have surfaced and the political nature of this investigation, so I think it is very dangerous for the President to do so.”
 CNN is reporting that the President began initial steps to prepare for a possible interview with the special counsel.
I have previously stated that the four categories given to Trump is a good deal for him — at least the best deal in a bad situation.  Mueller is not raising the areas that could pose the greatest dangers for Trump, including Stormy Daniels.  If Trump listens to his lawyers and preps for the interview, this is doable. If he refuses, he risks a court fight that he might lose.
As for Stone, he past controversies suggest that a visit at the DMV would be a perjury trap for him.  He is one of a long list of questionable associations that have dogged this President and this presidency from Amarosa to Nunberg to Michael Cohen to Steven Bannon to others.  Given the tempest created by Stone, the best service he could offer Trump would be to fade away from the national spotlight. That however is a trap that Stone has never been able to avoid.

134 thoughts on “Roger Stone Warns President Not To Speak With Mueller”

  1. I will take the position of Mark Levin on this entire issue. President Trump should refuse to answer any questions of Muller’s until Muller can produce evidence that there was a crime committed, and that the President may be connected to that crime.

    To date, there has been no evidence that a crime had been committed by the Trump Presidential campaign; therefore, the “investigation” by Muller is not legal.

    There have been major inconsistencies in how the “investigation” has been conducted. Muller’s charging order from Rod Rosenstein did not indicate anything about investigating anyone for activities that occurred before the campaign started; that was only added through a back-dated memo by Rosenstein.

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions only recused himself on issues related to Russia and the campaign. Muller is suddenly investigating tax evasion and foreign agency issues that occurred before the campaign started. This is information that should be turned over to Sessions, not Rosenstein, for further handling and adjudication.

    In regard to the firing of James Comey, which seems to be the strike-point for the start of the “investigation”: Rosenstein’s memo to the President was the reason for the firing. Rosenstein is conflicted; he cannot be both a witness and an investigator. And Muller is not allowed to ask the President the so-called “big question” of “Why did you fire Comey?” since this is a matter that cannot be asked as part of an investigation.

    President Trump should use his executive authority to protect the Office of the President of the United States from being diverted by a flimsy investigation that is neither allowed nor allowable.

    1. Mark Levin, Alex Jones, Hannity, Infowars, Redacted Tonight…none of them produce anything that strengthens America.

  2. I’ve no idea why Prof Turley continues to completely destroy his rep? I mean the public, like me, can not ignore the over whelming criminal evidence against against the USA by: Rosenstien, Mueller, Hillary, Obama, Bush, etc…, ect….

    1. The boy from Infowars wants real evidence!!!!
      Thanks for the laughs.

  3. What will David Brock’s paid trolls do for an income given these recent findings?
    Dom Lemon, Jake Trapper, Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, Matt Lauer”….all big fat whiny hypocrites

    Monmonth University Polling Center

    “‘Fake News’ Threat to Media; Editorial Decisions, Outside Actors at Fault”
    Monday, April 02, 2018

    “More than 3-in-4 Americans believe that traditional major TV and newspaper media outlets report “fake news,” including 31% who believe this happens regularly and 46% who say it happens occasionally. The 77% who believe fake news reporting happens at least occasionally has increased significantly from 63% of the public who felt that way last year.

    Just 25% say the term “fake news” applies only to stories where the facts are wrong. Most Americans (65%), on the other hand, say that “fake news” also applies to how news outlets make editorial decisions about what they choose to report.

    “These findings are troubling, no matter how you define ‘fake news.’ Confidence in an independent fourth estate is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy. Ours appears to be headed for the intensive care unit,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.

    The belief that major media outlets disseminate fake news at least occasionally has increased among every partisan group over the past year, including Republicans (89% up from 79% in 2017), independents (82% up from 66%), and Democrats (61% up from 43%). In addition to the fact that a clear majority of Democrats now believe that traditional media outlets report fake news at least occasionally, the poll also finds that a majority of Republicans (53%) feel this happens on a regular basis (up from 37% in 2017).

    A plurality of the public (42%) say that traditional news media sources report fake news on purpose in order to push an agenda.”

    Clearly George Soros needs to try a different approach than continue to buy the news media outlets because no one believes them any who

  4. “Any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to the police under any circumstance.”  Watts v. Indiana  338 U.S. 49, 59 (1949).

    Donald J. Trump, client, under no circumstance or circumstances must make a statement to the police, Robert S. Mueller.

    Here, Mr. Mueller is the cop.

    Any advice to the contrary, may be the spittle of a professor with sinecure, but never the counsel of an experienced and astute criminal defense attorney.
    dennis hanna

  5. The Daily Mail reported that the Saudi crown prince bragged Kushner gave him classified intelligence.
    But to Republicans, that kind of thing doesn’t matter because the people harming the nation’s intelligence efforts are in the party they voted for.

      1. Kushner has power. The jeers from below reflect the only voice the powerless have. Princeton Prof. Gilens documented that the US is an oligarchy.
        Putin and his plutocrats manipulated the Presidential vote with messages from Facebook and selective leaks from the DNC. The powerless were denied an honest election. Adding in, the popular vote was rejected by the electoral college.
        But, Russians and conservatives can keep at it exacerbating the problem that national inequality of wealth is already at the point that it has historically resulted in upheaval. It’s what the Kochs want.
        We can predict the greed and loathing for the 99% that Pete Peterson, the Waltons and Bill Gates have, closes their minds to the consequences of impoverishing workers through the theft of labor’s Social Security, pensions and public schools.

        1. Linda – did you take Civics when you were in high school? Did you pass? The popular vote was not ignored by the Electoral College, the votes went to whoever won the popular vote in their state. It was the will of the people.

          1. President Trump won the popular vote in a decisive majority of 50 state elections.

            P.S. The foreign invaders in California should be deported, not allowed to vote.

        2. “… the problem that national inequality of wealth is already at the point that it has historically resulted in upheaval.”

          LOL — democrats are so concerning about “inequality of wealth” that when multimillionaire, Andrew McCabe, set up a go-fund-me account, democrats fell all over themselves donating more that half a million dollars to a guy who’s both a multimillionaire AND a lawyer, while they leave the legitimately needy to use an overworked public defender when accused of a crime.
          Sorry, but the democrat lie regarding being concerned about “inequality of wealth” has been exposed for what it is — just nonsense spewed to swindle votes from the ignorant.

          1. William Bayer,..
            The “inequality of wealth” is not really an issue with “Linda”.
            If it were, she wouldn’t have her pet ” oligarchs” like Soros.
            Her complaint is that the mega-spending in politics isn’t restricted to her approved, “blessed” spending.

      2. Da marmalade porn star habitue had no sprinklers in T rump Tower. Something fishy. Look for lawyers and lawsuits to follow.

      3. Against da law not have sprinklers in NYC. This cheap bas…. is in trouble cause someone died. No tweet about dat today. Seem like he was runnin T rump Tower like a flea bag joint. Doin same to da country.

        1. Original Ken – if there are sprinklers, then some safety inspector did not do their job. I have been through a couple of public building inspections and sprinklers are high on the list.

  6. “… Roger Stone who has caused himself and the President endless trouble with prior emails claiming to have had dinner with WikiLeaks’ head Julian Assange.”

    Uh huh — except that only a MORON would believe that Stone had dinner with Julian Assange because, apart from being able to prove via passport and credit care evidence that he was in the US while Assange was in the UK at the time of the alleged dinner, Stone — a highly-recognizable personage — would have had to get past all the police and press surrounding the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to have his dinner date with Julian.

    So apparently JT believes that Stone showing that only idiots would believe this nonsense has caused Trump “endless trouble.” LOL LOL

    That sonic boom that some of you may have heard today was just my opinion of Turley’s intelligence or honesty dropping faster than the speed of sound.

    This reminds me of Paul Krugman, who constantly exploits his field of expertise and Nobel Prize in Economics for purposes of expressing opinions that have ZERO to do with that field of expertise.

    Would that Turley could stick to his field of expertise and help his readers understand how the law works — which would be a valuable and much-needed service to his country — instead of delving into matters where his opinions are no more valuable than the opinions of any of the trolls that infest his website.

    1. Indeed, William. Mr. Turley would benefit by sticking to opinions that would withstand a Daubert challenge in federal court. For those unacquainted with this standard for experts, here it is:

      Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses
      A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

      (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

      (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

      (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

      (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

      Thus, Mr. Turley should cease offering opinions about matters in which he has no knowledge, skills, experience, training, or education. He should also stick to applying the knowledge, skills, and training that he does have to the facts at issue. And finally, he should apply his knowledge, skills, and training reliably, rather than with his partisan spin.

      1. Prezactly. And isn’t it a shame that it’s us (or we) of the comment section that are the ones who are being forced to explain or understand the law without the assistance of expert opinion offered by Turley and against his inexpert personal opinions that have nothing to do with his field of expertise.
        A court will admit the expert opinion of a physician, but NOT concerning matters of structural engineering or any other issues lying outside of the expert’s field of expertise.
        I think the readers of this blog deserve the same consideration as is applied in court, and Turley is actually doing a disservice to the law when he allows his opinions to stray from opinions about the law.

        1. Above: In which Bayer and Adamo file a complaint alleging that Res Ipsa Loquitur is in violation of the rules of evidence and possibly even the rules of procedure that Bayer and Adamo need to quash the First Amendment rights of their host, Professor Jonathan Turley.

          If jawboning the referee won’t work, then impeach the judge for refusing to enforce the rules of evidence and the rules of procedure in his own court of public opinion.

      2. If you don’t care to read Mr. Turley’s opinions, what on earth are you doing here?

  7. Mueller and Rosenstein have usurped authority that does not exist in law while collusion is not a crime and special counsels are not to be deployed for theoretical counter-intelligence operations. “Deep state” democrats lost the election. This coup d’etat is criminally false and illegitimate and the solution is en masse impeachment of the “deep state” officers of the U.S. who are conducting it beginning with Rosenstein, Mueller and Wray. Congress must act decisively to preserve the Constitution and the nation, and all roads lead to Obama.

    1. I was ready to give you a hearty thumbs up, until I got to “Wray.” Not sure how he got on the list and/or how Comey got left off the list. Comey is at the very center of the conspiracy. Literally none of it could’ve happened without him — and he was even involved in it after he was fired, by stealing FBI records and having information contained in them unlawfully disclosed to the NYT for the purpose identified by Comey under oath of having a special counsel appointed.

      1. Wray is presiding over the withholding of evidence as documents demanded by the only power in this country, the People through their Congress. Wray tampers with evidence by redaction. Wray is acting in opposition to the Congress and to the People. The DOJ/FBI “deep state” is in full contempt and conducting nothing less than a coup d’etat in America, one no less egregious than the coup effected by the forces that conspired to conduct the JFK assassination. The “deep state” is endeavoring to overturn the election of President Trump as it overturned the election of JFK. The ultimate mechanism of control by the People is impeachment by the Congress and conviction by the Senate. This nation must be returned to the dominion of the MANIFEST TENOR of the Constitution.

        1. And AGAIN I’d have given you a hearty thumbs up — all eleven of them, in fact — but for you conclusion about Wray. While it might be true, there’s no evidence that it’s true.

          The fact is that the FBI is well within its rights to withhold documents if they constitute criminal evidence, or if there’s an ongoing criminal investigation such that a determination of what is and what maybe and what isn’t criminal evidence has not yet been made.

          The crowd of people fired up about Congress not having gotten all of the documents requested is comprised of 99% Hannity watchers who’ve been rabble roused into demanding action that is contrary to their ultimate desire to see the conspirators prosecuted.

          If Congress received all of the documents that the DOJ possesses concerning these issues, then all the criminal conspirators would have to do is review that information in order to figure out what lies they could get away with telling and thereby avoid prosecution and/or conviction.

          I’m reasonably certain that the Director of the FBI has more on his plate than personally reviewing every decision concerning every document that is released or every paragraph of such documents that does or doesn’t get redacted. Probably many decisions concerning what is and what is not redacted or released are being made by personnel that are following standard redaction/release policies. Other decisions might well be misguided and the result of “deep state” actors still within the bureaucracy.

          If you haven’t read Sessions’ letter related to the appointment of John Huber to investigate and assist Inspector General Horowitz, I highly recommend that you do so.

          A slow and careful reading might help you understand why I’m willing to postpone judgment against the possibility that things are being handled exactly the way they’re supposed to be handled. One sentence in particular stands out:

          “However, the law requires that much of the work we are doing to accomplish these goals remain confidential to ensure full and fair process and just outcomes.”

          1. I see you’re well trained in chicanery, obfuscation and filibustering. Bloomberg might improve your factual deficit:

            December, 2017 –

            “U.S. House Republicans are drafting a contempt of Congress resolution against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray, claiming stonewalling in producing material related to the Russia-Trump probes and other matters.”

            And the Wall Street Journal:

            By The Editorial Board
            April 6, 2018 6:33 p.m. ET

            “Just last week, FBI Director Christopher Wray released a statement saying he was unhappy with how the bureau was responding to “legitimate congressional requests” for information—and promised a “transparent and responsive” FBI. But already both the FBI and the Justice Department are back to their old tricks.”

            How about that, Wray is unhappy…more like unresponsive, un-effective and/or un-American. This soldier of the “deep state” is an employee of the People represented by the Congress. Wray does not report to Obama or Hillary Clinton. Wray reports to the Sovereign, the People. Wray does not know the OrgChart in America. At this point in their history, the French rolled out the guillotines. Congress needs to roll out the guillotines of mass impeachment.

            1. OK, I withdraw any desire to give you any thumbs up. You can go back to watching Hannity now.

              1. 23h ago
                “I see you’re well trained in chicanery, obfuscation and filibustering.”

                Bayer, is this guy some kin of yours?
                He sounds just like you!

                Cordially, Bill

            2. No George, the David Brock paid trolls are not what you accuse them of being

              “I see you’re well trained in chicanery, obfuscation and filibustering…”

              They are exhibiting withdrawal symptoms from Brock’s fake fentanyl baggies as payment for paid trolling.
              They are more conflabulated than Brock on his death bed due to cardiac arrest,
              Is he dead yet? Save the hamsters!


        2. George – they have 1.2 million docs to turn over so I am going to give them a little slack. 😉 Think of all the black pens they have to buy.

  8. If Rosenstein is to be permitted to continue ignoring the Constitution’s Appointment Clause, why not encourage him to quit pussyfooting around and just go ahead and appoint Mueller as POTUS?

    In addition to saving the taxpayers an ungodly sum of money, this would have the added advantage of making the whole Deep State happy as a clam, not to mention rescuing Hillary Clinton and her remaining 15 or 16 supporters from their deplorably deep funk.

    1. Hear, hear!

      Mueller, the once dutiful and faithful soldier, is a traitor committing treason.

      How does Mueller sleep at night with the American Founders looking down on him?

      1. How do you expect to be taken seriously tossing around preposterous accusations of treason? Let me guess, you heard it at Infowars!

  9. Contrary to Jon Turley’s bogus article, the young man smoking the cigar with Roger Stone is Stone’s grandson, not son. But who cares about facts and evidence when you’re living in the Leftist world that consists exclusively of lies, fibs, falsehoods, canards, deceptions, fabrications, hoaxes, and frauds–as Jon Turley and others of his ilk do?

  10. “Perjury trap”? How can someone trap you into perjuring yourself, if you haven’t lied and don’t lie? Of course, we all know that to Trump, the truth is whatever makes him look good and whatever attacks anyone who challenges him. He is a serial, pathological liar, but he is not above the law. He should be subjected to an in-person deposition, no-holds-barred, no question off-limits. If he is the “very stable genius” he claims to be, there should be no problem.

    1. There’s no such thing as a “perjury trap”. The term is being used to project some implication that the special counsel is playing dirty pool. It’s nonsense. One, even the president, has the right to refuse to speak on 5th Amendment grounds. He also has the right to answer questions truthfully. The only traps are the political (possibly criminal) consequences of Trump’s on making if he speaks. And those consequences might not exists in reality since his supporters really don’t care about his lies anyway.

    2. Nitachat,

      You need to lay off of those talc/sand/aspirin baggies that David Brock uses to pay you for your paid trolling services in lieu of fentanyl baggies. David Brock threw his former boss under the boss rightly so (during his brief jog down sanity) and eventually his boss (your president) was impeached by the US House for perjury.

      Yes, sweetheart, you can perjure yourself.

      Try to attend an Narcotics Anonymous meeting, find a sponsor and by all means stop believing working for David Brock as his paid troll is a good ROI. Maybe Nancy Pelosi can use your assistance as her caregiver

      1. More of the same appropriation that reflects Russian/conservative lack of imagination and penchant for lying.

        1. Catfish catfish Linda,

          You know your paid employer, David “dead hamsters in his orifices” Brock, was instrumental in Hillary delivering that oh so clever Russia reset button that wove the hearts of Russia and America

          Why the hate for Russia? Joe McCarthy is that you?
          Insert idiotic gif here

          Alas, Brock suffered a heart attack (and no one really gave a hamster’s arse about it) because Hillary has more evidence pointing to her colluding with Russia than you have fake Linda avatars

          Get with a 12 Step Program, sweetheart, and break from David Brock’s supplying you of cheap fentanyl for trolling

          Practice Mindfulness!

          Yours truly….

          How an FBI Uranium investigation was corrupted to protect the Clinton’s Russian connection.
          2017-10-19T00:26:00-04:00 Daniel Greenfield

          Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

          Hillary is demanding to know the truth about Trump and Russia. The truth is that every accusation about Russian ties that Hillary and her associates have hurled at President Trump is really true of the Clintons.

          In ’14, Hillary Clinton made headlines by comparing Russia’s Vladimir Putin to Hitler. But if the Russian strongman really was ‘Hitler’, what did that make stooges like Hillary, Bill and Barack Obama?”

          – The one and only Linda non-catfish

Comments are closed.