Bizarre, Politics, Society

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. As always Trump would be wise to listen to Roger Stone’s advice. The guy is something of a goofy provocateur, but he has proven to have very good political instincts.

  2. A visit to the nut house

    Loyalty matters. Inspector Clouseau visits his boss, former Chief Inspector in the nut house….To cheer him up. A pervert was spotted. And it’s not his day.

  3. What the Kochs are doing against democracy this week, from the Center for Media and Democracy-
    “ALEC Legislator Fast Tracks a Bill to Block Local Campaign Finance Ordinances in AZ”.
    More articles from CMD- “Pruitt Plot Thickens: Koch Industries Bought Stake in LNG Giant Cheniere” and, another topic, state Republican attorney generals attended panels where they got counsel and advise like, make lobbyists look good to their clients, suggestions provided by the corporate lobbyists themselves.
    Does that characterize an incestuous relationship to allow the will of the people to be undermined in favor of big business?

        1. My point is Neo-Liberalism is as bad as the KOchs.
          PLease name your suggested next POTUS nominee.
          Your blather is tiresome without suggesting one single candidate to elevate the current symptoms you describe.

        2. Linda, I’m sorry I can’t just slather on with spew they way you do so consistently. So please take my reply to you as a break you have been given.
          You really should be put in a corner and ignored.
          But I guess you are consistent.

    2. Linda – I agree with ALEC on this one in Arizona. That is nuts. It is a bill written for Tucson and Phoenix, but hurts everyone else. You do not represent the will of the people.

    1. It’s just a partisan deflection from the criminal conduct of Hillary’s coconspirators, Blumenthal and Shearer.

      1. And there it is..two in one….volleying back criticism and what about…ism.

        1. Gee, I’m sorry that my statement had nothing to do with your Ahab-like obsession over the Kochs — a subject irrelevant to virtually every issue mentioned at this site in the last month, and yet the subject of virtually all of your comments.
          Better stop paying attention to me and grab your harpoon, or the Koch Whale might escape from you again.

          “Aye, aye! and I’ll chase him round Good Hope, and round the Horn, and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition’s flames before I give him up.”

          “To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell’s heart, I stab at thee; For hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee.”

          1. The Kochtopus shuts down. Their $400,000,000 isn’t spent. They limit their influence to their own wealthy enclave and leave my neighborhood and its schools alone. Then, I may shift to talking about Uihlein, Art Pope, Bill Gates and Pete Peterson, who has spent $ 1/2 bil. to destroy Social Security.
            No American should be silent about oligarchy. Labor deserves a fair share of the rewards that they create by increasing productivity, increases they haven’t seen in 35+ years, while wealth concentrated to the point it is strangling economic growth. The Kochs’ agenda makes a travesty out of the huge sacrifices made for this nation. The Kochs have been described as unAmerican. Their “freedom” PR is bait and switch. Your pompous assessment that drivel about Stone has higher priority makes you repugnant.

            1. LOL LOL LOL (hang on — gotta catch my breath — OK) LOL LOL LOL

              “And this is what ye have shipped for, men! to chase that white whale on both sides of land, and over all sides of earth, till he spouts black blood and rolls fin out.”

                1. If you’re attempting to quote Nancy Pelosi, I think the word you’re looking for is “crumbs,” not “cake.”

  5. Today Professor Turley reminds us that Roger Stone is one of many people in Trump’s orbit unbecoming to a president. From the article: “Stone 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”.

    1. I agree that Trump’s friends and associates are not the usual roster a president would choose on past record. But, this president is such an unsavoury shyster that his friends reveal that somehow or other these types, beset with their various “pathologies” always manage to find each other.

    2. As compared with whom? — “Reverend” Al Sharpton and his official 100 logged-in visits to the Obama White House?

      1. According to a Washington Post fact check on 12/30/14, Sharpton made 72 visits to the White House. But only 5 of those visits were one-on-one meetings with President Obama. The vast majority of visits were for events that included larger groups. And Sharpton didn’t necessarily see Obama on every visit. Here’s the breakdown:

        One-on-one meetings: 5 (7 percent)
        Meetings with staff members or senior advisers, with more than one guest: 20 (27 percent)
        Events with more than 90 people: 16 (22 percent)
        Miscellaneous meetings or events, ranging from 3 to 700 guests: 31 (43 percent)

        1. LOL — your WaPo “fact check” is from December, 2014. I guess you forgot that Obama was in office more than two years after that “fact check” was published.
          East mistake to make — if one WANTS to make it.

          1. Correction: “East” should be “Easy.” I believe there should be an investigation into the wordpress spell check or auto correct. I’m the king of typos, but there seem to be three times as many typos as I usually make when I’m on this particular comment platform.

            1. @William Bayer April 7, 2018 at 3:21 PM
              “Correction: ‘East’ should be ‘Easy.’ I believe there should be an investigation into the wordpress spell check or auto correct. I’m the king of typos, but there seem to be three times as many typos as I usually make when I’m on this particular comment platform.”

              Maybe it has to do with the intensity of your excitement at being able to participate in discussions here. 🙂

  6. ‘Stone’s best defense is that he is something of a buffoon or political trickster.’

    From one buffoon to the President Buffoon, who more suited to advise the turnip. The turnip has been firing all non buffoons since he started and looking for like buffoons to replace them.

    Turley’s use of the term ‘trickster’ is enlightening to some degree. An interesting insight into the role of the ‘trickster’ in society can be found in Lewis Hyde’s ‘Trickster Makes This World’. In society before his Presidency, Trump fit the role. He was disruptive, provocative, and part jester. In this role as trickster Trump’s shoe fit. However, the decline of most societies can be identified as when the ‘trickster’ takes command. The turnip is simply out of context, not Presidential material, regardless of whether you blow left or right.

  7. Roger Stone has his counterparts in the democrat party — people such as Sidney Blumenthal and Cody Shearer. Turley forgot to mention that. Hmmm.

    One major difference between Stone and Blumenthal/Shearer is that Stone is much better at doing what he does than they are at doing what they do.

    Another difference is that Stone doesn’t violate the law — that anyone knows of — whereas Blumenthal and Shearer constantly violate the law, such as with the FISA crimes currently being investigated, where they fed false information to the FBI by funneling it through the State Department. If you ever catch Roger Stone doing something like that, send him prison with Blumenthal and Shearer.

    Other than the recent crimes of Blumenthal and Shearer, it’s hard to say what role is played by people such as Stone, Blumenthal, and Shearer in political campaigns — or why such a role is necessary. But given their use by campaigns, people in a position to know apparently believe such roles are necessary. By not mentioning Blumenthal and Shearer, Turley is suggesting that one side unilaterally disarm. That’s a wholly disingenuous proposal, suggested under the pretense that Turley doesn’t have a partisan dog in this fight.

    Meanwhile, something Turley missed in his analysis of Stone: If a person believes, or even just wonders, that his emails or phone calls might be tapped, he will never find out unless he offers some form of bait that allows the eavesdropper to think he’s found something incriminating. Unless the eavesdropper finds something incriminating, the person being spied upon will never find out about the spying.

    I believe that’s what Stone was doing with his emails to Nunberg pretending to have meetings with Assange — laying out bait for eavesdroppers.

    And I think that what happened is that Mueller/Comey got punked by RoJoSto — big time.

    1. Seriously…Stone mentioned Assange as bait to see if he was being wiretapped?

      RICO the GOP associated with Russiagate.

    2. This is hilarious – the thoroughly biased assumptions that Stone didn’t break the law, but Blumenthal and Shearer did.

      No wonder fake news has taken over Trump world.

      1. Identify where Stone has violated the law. Blumenthal have been identified as composing a second dossier and feeding that information to the State Department which then, as an exercise in information laundering, fed the information to the FBI.
        Where has Stone violated the law?

        1. Correction: “Blumenthal” should be “Blumenthal and Shearer”

        2. You have no evidence whatsoever that any of them has broken the law. My point was how funny it was that you assume Stone is innocent whereas the others aren’t. A bit biased, I’d say!

          1. I hate to break the news to you, but before democrats started peddling McCarthyist Guilt-by-Accusation and Guilt-by-Association, the common practice in the USA, as a matter of culture and law, was that people have a right to presumption of innocence.
            I stated that Stone has not violated the law “that anyone knows of” and also stated that he should be sent to prison if he has.
            The conduct of Blumenthal and Shearer has been widely reported. The actual evidence, however, is not directly available to the public as the matters are currently under investigation. But you can easily google the information about their conduct in composing a “second dossier” and feeding that information to the State Department, which then provided the information to the FBI.
            If you were not biased, you’d ask why their information was provided to the State Department and not directly to the FBI, which would be the proper recipient of the information if it had been legitimate.

            I’m not aware of any criminal accusations against Stone that have any merit and/or haven’t already been disproven with conclusive evidence such as Turley pointed out, concerning his passport and credit card information confirming that he was in the US at the time when democrats are accusing him of having met with Julian Assange.

            Still waiting for conclusive evidence, or any evidence, suggesting that the accusations that Blumenthal and Shearer composed a second fake dossier and fed it to the State Department in order to launder the information and conceal its source when the information was then passed along to the FBI.

            Guilt-by-Accusation and Guilt-by-Association is good enough when democrats do it, but they have an odd aversion to it when it’s used against them. And I’m pretty sure that the information concerning what Blumenthal and Shearer were up to will eventually be confirmed and released to the public.

            Meanwhile, as concerns Blumenthal — Obama banned him from his administration, yet Hillary decided to secretly use him while she was at the State Department, and Blumenthal repeatedly exchanged emails with Hillary via her secret “personal” email server. Those facts are documented and publically available.

            Your accusation that there’s bias in my analysis is biased.

            Ask Obama why he banned Blumenthal from participation in his Administration and why Hillary secretly circumvented the Obama ban.

            1. You can’t believe in the presumption of innocence and at the same time judge the two democrats as guilty before they have a trial. You’re not credible.

              2. The defense, “My client was conducting a sting which explains him being caught red-handed”, is one of those strategies that attorneys use as a hail Mary. The rest of the stuff is just to distract from how lame the defense is.

                1. What was Stone “caught red-handed” at? — having passport and credit card evidence that he was nowhere near where he’d have to have been in order to have dinner with Julian Assange?

                    1. That’s right. Absent evidence that Stone met with Assange, I believe there must be some explanation for his email(s) stating that he met with Assange, and the conclusion I came to is that he was saying it for the benefit of someone who was (or would be) reading his email.
                      And, in fact, that turned out to be the case. Someone read his email and believed what he’d written — contrary to the FACT that nobody could get anywhere near Assange without it immediately making the news, since Assange is holed up at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, and nobody comes or goes from that place without being under both police and press scrutiny.
                      You’d have to be a blithering MORON to believe that Stone met with Julian Assange. And if someone wasn’t stupid enough to believe it, then they’d have to be a pathological liar to claim to believe that Stone met with Julian Assange.

                    2. Stone is the pathological liar who said he met with Assange, why involve anyone else?

                      Assange selectively leaked info. detrimental to the Dems. The trail leads back to Russia.

          2. From Slate Magazine (hardly a right-wing website), July 1, 2015:

            “Hillary Clinton is again under fire for being less than forthright in her description of her relationship with controversial unofficial adviser Sidney Blumenthal, after the State Department made public on Tuesday the first batch in a planned series of email releases from her time as secretary of state.

            The emails show a closer relationship between Clinton and Blumenthal than she had previously acknowledged. The While House all but banned Blumenthal, who served as senior adviser to former President Bill Clinton for four years, from being part of Hillary Clinton’s State Department staff, Politico reports. Yet the emails show that Clinton paid special interest to Blumenthal’s policy advice and sought to hire him despite the Obama administration’s disapproval. The exchanges reveal Blumenthal’s close advisory role on everything from British politics to global climate change talks to elections in the Middle East, and they contradict earlier claims by Clinton that his advice was “unsolicited.”

            The emails show the opposite: Clinton was in regular contact with Blumenthal and often sought him out specifically. Late on Oct. 8, 2009, Clinton sent him an email that read, “Are you still awake? I will call if you are,” without providing more details. The emails also reveal Blumenthal’s influence in affairs related to the 2012 Benghazi attacks—a more expanded influence than what was revealed from a special release of Clinton’s Benghazi-specific emails in May.

            The Benghazi emails have taken on special significance because Blumenthal reportedly had business interests related to regime change in Libya.”

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/01/clinton_emails_hillary_clinton_s_emails_show_a_closer_relationship_with.html

            And this involves conduct while Hillary Clinton was IN OFFICE — not games played during a campaign.

            How many times has Roger Stone visited Trump, or even communicated with him, while Trump has been in office, and how many times has Stone offered Trump advice about US policy?

            If you can’t see the difference between Blumenthal and Stone, as Turley apparently can’t, it couldn’t only be because you don’t want to see it.

  8. @ JT
    “Roger Stone Advices (sic) President Not To Speak With Mueller”

    As far as I know, the court in which the charges against Paul Manafort have been filed has not yet ruled on Manafort’s motion to dismiss those charges on the basis of their not being within the legitimate purview of Mueller’s investigation, as they pre-date Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, and therefore have nothing to do with it.

    As constitutional law attorney Robert Barnes points out:

    “Paul Manafort‘s legal team brought a motion to dismiss on Tuesday [3/13/18], noting that Rosenstein could not appoint Mueller to any investigation outside the scope of the 2016 campaign, since Sessions did not recuse himself for anything outside the campaign. [Emphasis added] I agree with this take on Mueller’s authority.

    “If we follow that argument that would mean Sessions himself has exclusive authority to appoint a special counsel for non-collusion charges, and Sessions has taken no such action. Sessions himself should make that clear to Mueller, rather than await court resolution. Doing so would remove three of the four areas of inquiry from Mueller’s requested interview with President Trump. [Emphasis added]

    “The Constitutional Appointments Clause (found in Article II, Section 2, clause 2) was designed to prevent a Robert Mueller-type prosecutor – a prosecutor with all the powers of the executive branch and all the powers of the grand jury at his disposal who is: 1) not elected by the public, 2) not appointed by anyone who was elected by the public, and 3) not directly accountable for his actions to anyone who was elected by the public.

    “In other words, the Appointments Clause is about protecting democracy and [ensuring] civil liberty. The Appointments Clause does not give unfettered prosecutorial discretion to what the law calls ‘inferior officers’ – those never elected, never appointed by elected officials, and never accountable to elected officials.

    “Thus, in my opinion, Manafort’s legal position in his motion to dismiss the Mueller indictments is constitutionally correct – the Special Counsel’s behavior makes Mueller’s appointment and actions unconstitutional, in violation of the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution.

    “Dismissal of both the Manafort and Flynn indictments would be the right remedy. The end of Mueller’s tenure should soon follow.”
    https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/constitution-jeff-sessions-dismiss-robert-mueller-non-campaign-cases/

    Also see Andrew McCarthy’s cogent analysis of the same issues, along with how Trump himself has created a major share of his associated problems:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/donald-trump-jeff-sessions-president-blame-mueller-affair/

    1. Sounds like Robert Barnes nailed it. And to it I’d add that as a signatory to one of the FISA-renewal applications, Rod Rosenstein is — or should be — a subject, if not a target, of the Inspector General’s investigation now that he’s formally announced inquiry into FISA abuses. And Rosenstein should also be a subject, if not target, of a parallel DOJ criminal investigation by John Huber.

      Therefore, if Rosenstein had half the ethics of Sessions, he would have immediately recused himself from further participation in anything related to ANY of these matters. Actually, he should recused himself much earlier, when questions about the FISA applications first arose. Yet for months the DOJ concealed Rosenstein’s participation in the FISA-application process.

      I believe Rosenstein’s failure to recuse himself constitutes grounds for his removal from office, per 28 U.S. Code § 528 – Disqualification of officers and employees of the Department of Justice:

      “The Attorney General shall promulgate rules and regulations which require the disqualification of any officer or employee of the Department of Justice, including a United States attorney or a member of such attorney’s staff, from participation in a particular investigation or prosecution if such participation may result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof. Such rules and regulations may provide that a willful violation of any provision thereof shall result in removal from office.”

      If there comes a point where a second special counsel is necessary, it should be for the purpose of examining Rod Rosenstein’s participation in matters dating back to his signature on a FISA-renewal application, his appointment of a special counsel, and specifically his appointment of Robert Mueller, his failure to establish 28 CFR 600.4 original jurisdiction, his amendment of his instructions to Mueller after the fact, to authorize and make legal certain actions Mueller had already engaged in without proper authorization, and his allowance of the democrat hit-squad that Mueller hired — people in the process of learning and taking back to the DNC everything there is to know about Trump for their future misuse.

      1. See, this is the Trump approach: when someone comes after you, attack them and go after them. That’s why Fox harped and whined until they got the Inspector General to investigate the investigators. Now, they’re pushing for another special counsel. All of this is a pathetic, expensive attempt to mitigate what’s going to come from the Mueller investigation, even though it’s far from complete. If Trump wasn’t dirty, he wouldn’t fight so hard to try to convince people there’s no collusion. He wouldn’t hide his tax returns.

        It won’t work because most Americans don’t watch Fox and see this tactic for what it is.

        1. FACT: The Obama Administration unlawfully restricted the DOJ Inspector General’s ability and request to investigate the National Security Division of the DOJ while it was engaged in the conduct that is now being investigated. None of this has anything to do with Fox — it has to do with the responsibilities and authority of an Inspector General who was, in fact, appointed by Obama.
          https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/23/obama-restricts-investigative-powers-inspectors-ge/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

  9. Bad news for Koch Republicans (and, there aren’t any other GOP), the Democratic candidate for Senate in Tennessee polls far better than the Koch pick.

    1. There are other GOP. There’s the Mercer batshit crazies fronted by Bannon. The alt-right is beset with conspiracy peddling weirdos and yet even Mercer is seemingly beginning to see the failure of this grotesque project.

      1. I read an article about Mercer a while back. He believes that humans have no innate value other than their ability to make money. So, a CEO who makes 1000X what a nurse makes is 1000X more valuable than the nurse. What an amoral loon.

        I’ve been wondering for at least a year when the media was going to burst forth with stories about him, his daughter, and Cambridge Analytica. Turns out they’ve been working on it – kudos to Carole Callwaladr in Britain and all the reporters who are breaking the story on this and their association with FB, et al.

    2. “monomania — noun — Exaggerated or obsessive enthusiasm for or preoccupation with one thing.”
      Oxford online dictionary

  10. (music to Randy Newman song called Sam Stone)

    R. Stone, came home…
    To his wife and famileee…
    After serving in the conflict under sea.

    And the time that R served… had shattered all his nerves…
    And left a little shrapnel in his pee.

    Well his wife had been a nun…there was nuthin to be done…
    But yak his arse off when he got on the DC fun.
    For the time that he’d served… had ahattered all his verves
    And left a little rapsidy in his tree.

  11. If perjury trap means a pathological liar has no hope of escaping unscathed, then the term applies. It is likely the conflicting advice he’s gotten from his own lawyers is because he’s lied to them as well. Stone may well have his own reasons not to want to see Trump talking, given what Stone may have told him about his own ties to WikiLeaks.
    I’d prefer to see Trump, not in an interview but testifying under subpoena… on television. But that’s just me.

    1. And, me. Enigma. It will be riveting, like Watergate. I hope the exotic foreigners (oligarchs and honey pots) show up.

      2. One was married to Putin’s daughter. Putin got mad st him and took half his money. Putin is rumored to be da richest man in da world due to what he got from from his oligarchs.

        1. Think Progress 3/9/2018, “We Just Got a Glimpse into Where Putin Stores His Family’s Money”. The Sun estimates he has more than 160 bil. British pounds. He has an 800 mil. Black Sea Palace, 28 mil. super yacht a jet with a 50,000 toilet and a watch collection worth 500,000 British pounds.
          The average Russian family spends one-half its income on food, while they are told the solution is to eat less.
          With the Kochs driving the U.S., our population is headed where the Russians are- median U.S. family income is less than it was in 2000.

          1. Right now T rump is running afoul if d Koch’s. da Koch’s are free market guys while. T rump is fun in up a trade war. Everybody is goons get hurt.

            1. The capacity for emotion, is necessary to be hurt. That rules out the richest 0.1%. But, you meant they would be hurt, financially. it is the others, that suffer real harm caused by a corrupted marketplace.

              1. Da Trump cronies like ICahn won’t be hurt. They short damarket. Same with da Kochs. Da farmers. Da people that shop at Walmart and those that live on a fixed income will get hurt.

    2. Agreed. The framing is all wrong. There is no perjury trap conditions here, and they are not using the term correctly- just to embellish their pathetic excuses.

    3. The only perjury trap Trump should worry about is that one he creates when he opens his trap and lies.

  12. Simply put, it would be like a fox in a hen house situation. Mueller, so far, in this long overly drawn out investigation, has proven to be quick to judge in the slightest direction (i.e. Flynn et al). If you never lied your entire life Mueller will be the first to break that record. If Trump’s attorneys advise him to be interviewed by Mueller they should be disbarred. it’s an obvious perjury trap. I agree with Alan Dershowitz and Joe Digenova who are not exactly buffoons.

    2. Agreed. Turley couldn’t be more wrong about this. And he doesn’t know much about Stone, either, but as with his advice about being interviewed by Mueller, appears to have a naïve or very superficial understanding of Stone.

    3. Surprise, surprise. Infowars is unhappy that Russian oligarchs are being questioned about Russiagate/ Putingate, The oligarchs would prefer written questions submitted in writing. Fair play- they should have asked Facebook users if they wanted to receive unidentified messages, crafted to ensure Trump would win.

      1. “The oligarchs would prefer written questions submitted in writing.” — you mean like when Hillary refused to be questioned in deposition by Judicial Watch and preferred written questions submitted in writing?

    4. I don’t know what diGenova is like in his client interactions, but if you judge him by his Fox News appearances, he makes buffoons look like Rhodes scholars.

      It’s only a perjury trap when you lie. Mr. T. created that trap all by himself.

      1. Funny — the special agents that interviewed Flynn didn’t think he lied, and Comey didn’t charge him with lying — and yet Mueller, who specializes in witness intimidation and process crimes accused Flyinn of lying, and got him to plead guilty by bankrupting him and threatening to do the same to Flynn’s son.
        So apparently whether one lies or not is a judgment call, not a fact.

        In other words, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      1. “You become what you think about all day long.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

      2. Koch Industries has spent $5.7 million thus far in the 2018 election cycle. As an individual, Charles Koch has donated $1 million.

        You can’t stop lying.

        1. You’re aware the Kochs have committed, in public announcements, that their intent is to spend $400,000,000.
          If they don’t, put the liar badge on them.

  14. Is Trump’s inner circle getting advice from Deripaska, Khan (Alfa Bank), Dmitriev, Torshin, Assange and Kochs and Mercers?
    Possible advice?- following-up on replacement of the expelled Russian diplomats, getting dirt on opponents, help in getting around sanctions or ignoring them, without consequence, best methods and avenues to conduct business while under scrutiny, campaign contributions, finding the best way to influence political policy (seminar conducted by Paul Ryan and Charles and David Koch- min. payment $500,000).

  15. I agree with Mr. Turley. Either way this President has dug himself a hole by his associations with the wrong people. If he can pull himself together and let Mueller interview him I suspect he might have a chance. I think Mueller is out for different fish altogether. If they wanted Trump gone he would be gone by now. I wouldn’t take Stone’s advice on anything.

  16. Obviously Turley is right that Trump out not to take advise from Roger Stone. However, the actual advise, itself, might not be bad–if it came from someone else besides Roger Stone. There’s a theory going around that Mueller has parceled his investigation into several installments. The next installment is said to the obstruction of justice case and that that is why Mueller is interested in interviewing Trump. It’s also supposedly why Mueller has limited his areas of questioning to subjects pertinent to the obstruction of justice case. Meanwhile, the same theory holds that Mueller will continue his investigation for who knows how long after the interview with Trump. There are indictments expected against the Russian intelligence operatives associated with Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear that may remained sealed even after Mueller’s report to Rosenstein. Those indictments could name co-conspirators associated with the Trump campaign. I have no idea if the expected indictments would have to be unsealed in order for those co-conspirators to be named in Mueller’s report.

  18. Stone, this time, is giving Trump good advice. I very much doubt that any court would order Trump to participate in an interview with Mueller – or hold him in contempt of court if he refuses to do so.

  19. I think Stone is giving excellent advice. Written questions only. If it was good enough for Hillary, it is good enough for Trump.

    1. If they fail to reach an agreement with team Mueller about written questions only, maybe Donna Brazille could facilitate a compromise by obtaining a list of questions that Trump will be asked, then giving Trump that list ahead of any interview.

      2. Tom, why should Mueller accommodate Trump by allowing “written answers?”. I mean, wouldn’t that be the way to go for anyone in trouble? Just get your lawyers to craft responses that are legally airtight. ‘I’ would chose that route instead of a live deposition.

        I pray that Mueller is not that foolish.

        1. Mueller’s an employee of the executive branch. Trump can and should tell him to go f*** himself.

Comments are closed.