Mueller Probes Possible Witness Intimidation by Roger Stone
Source: Wall Street Journal
Special Counsel Robert Muellers office is exploring whether longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone tried to intimidate and discredit a witness who is contradicting Mr. Stones version of events about his contacts with WikiLeaks, according to people who have spoken to Mr. Muellers investigators.
In grand jury sessions and interviews, prosecutors have repeatedly asked about emails, text messages and online posts involving Mr. Stone and his former friend, New York radio personality Randy Credico, the people said. Mr. Stone has asserted that Mr. Credico was his backchannel to WikiLeaks, a controversial transparency group, an assertion Mr. Credico denies.
Mr. Muellers investigators are probing whether Mr. Stone had direct contact with WikiLeaks and knew ahead of time about its release of stolen Democratic emails, as he claimed during the campaign and now denies. Mr. Stone says he is angry at Mr. Credico because his ex-friend has refused to tell the truth about being his conduit to WikiLeaks.
Filmmaker David Lugo, who knows both men, said in an interview he has testified before Mr. Muellers grand jury about a blog post Mr. Stone helped him draft that was harshly critical of Mr. Credico. Another witness, businessman Bill Samuels, said he was questioned by Mr. Muellers team about Mr. Credicos reaction to allegedly threatening messages sent by Mr. Stone.
Read more: https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller-probes-possible-witness-intimidation-by-roger-stone-1542222284
I can't wait for the day--probably very soon--where Robert Mueller announces, "Get Me Roger Stone!"
Welcome to the barrel, asshole.
Bfd
(1,406 posts)Sounds like someones being played, but its not Stone or Credico
Cripe.
BumRushDaShow
(128,904 posts)Bfd
(1,406 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,904 posts)but for some reason I am thinking that he's not the "direct" channel but operated through someone he either knows and won't/can't reveal or through someone who anonymously communicated to/through him but never "in person", in order for him to have plausible deniability.
YessirAtsaFact
(2,064 posts)More likely there will be multiple counts of perjury added to the indictments.
Bfd
(1,406 posts)Just wanted to add this