By Dagny Taggart | Organic Prepper | Feb. 8, 2019

Unconstitutional gun law ideas seem to spread from one state to another like some kind of insidious virus.

Late last year, an Orwellian gun bill was presented in New York state. If signed into law, anyone who wants to buy a gun would have to turn over three years of their social media history and one year of their Internet search history.

“A three-year review of a social media profile would give an easy profile of a person who is not suitable to hold and possess a firearm,” said Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, who has proposed the legislation with New York State Senator Kevin Parker. (source)

Before purchasing a gun, applicants would have to turn over their social media passwords to accounts like Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram. They would also have to allow police to see a year’s worth of their searches on Google, Yahoo, and Bing.

That law would also require anyone renewing their permit for a pistol to be subject to this invasion of privacy as well.

In the article, “This Anti-Gun Bill Would Require the Social Media History and Internet Search History of Prospective Buyers,” Daisy Luther wrote (emphasis mine):

Remember, these things never stop with just one state.

It’s easy to scoff and say, “Those crazy people in New York are getting what they voted for.”  I know someone’s going to say it so there, I said it for you.

But that’s short-sighted, and dare I say, ignorant of the way the world works.

Look at all the states that have recently flipped from red to blue in the midterm elections. If you don’t think it could ever happen where you are, you’re not paying attention. Please keep in mind that I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but am referring to some party generalizations here. (source)

Now, another state has an Orwellian gun bill on the table.

It turns out, Daisy’s prediction was spot-on. In Illinois, to be allowed to possess your own gun, you have to have a special card, and the requirements to get that card could be about to become much more intrusive:

Meanwhile, in the Illinois House, state Rep. Daniel Didech, D-Buffalo Grove, has filed HB 888 which would require those who apply for a state-issued Firearm Owners Identification Card– mandatory for legal gun owners– turn over a list of their social media accounts to authorities under threat of a Class 2 felony. The State Police would use the information to determine if the accounts have any “information that would disqualify the person from obtaining or require revocation” of a FOID card. (source)

FOID cards also require your photograph, height, weight, address, birthday, hair color, and eye color. That is pretty basic information for a government-issued ID card.

But that isn’t all that Illinois requires.

In order to be granted a FOID card by the overlords in Illinois:

…you have to answer a questionnaire that asks if you’ve ever been convicted of a felony, whether you are addicted to narcotics, whether you’ve been treated in a mental institution or are “intellectually disabled.” Other questions ask about convictions of some specific crimes, whether you are an illegal alien, whether you’re named on a current order of protection that prohibits firearms. (source)

As you can see, being granted a permission slip to exercise a constitutional right in Illinois is already a tedious and invasive process. If this bill becomes law, the process will become a lot more complicated and intrusive.

What kind of social media content will police be looking for?

In addition to the obvious problems with the new bill, here’s something to really be concerned about: Exactly what kind of information found on social media accounts would be used to “disqualify” people from getting a card, or lead to the revocation of FOID cards?

That seemingly important detail is not specified anywhere in the bill (which can be read here).

Will decisions simply be based on the thoughts and feelings of individual police officers who are assigned to evaluate social media accounts?

Will there be specific, objective guidelines to follow or will decisions regarding who gets to exercise their Second Amendment rights be arbitrary and subjective?

What else will the information collected be used for?

Some groups are already voicing opposition to the bill, including gun rights groups and the ACLU.

“When people look at this everyone who has a Facebook account or email account or Twitter account will be incensed or should be,” said Richard Pearson with the Illinois State Rifle Association.

But the ACLU is opposed as well.

Rebecca Glenberg with ACLU Illinois says the bill “doesn’t say anything about how that list will be retained and for how long and what uses it might be put to.”

The first amendment group worries police scanning social media may show bias.

“A person’s political beliefs, a person’s religious beliefs, things that should not play a part in whether someone gets a FOID card,” Glenberg said. (source)

This bill is another example of pre-crime legislation, and it is terrifying.

Just days ago, we reported on a new study that found the privacy of those who have deactivated all of their social media accounts – or never had any in the first place – is not guaranteed.

team of researchers from the University of Vermont and the University of Adelaide wanted to find out if fundamental limits exist when using information from social networks “to predict the activities and interests of individuals, and to what accuracy such predictions can be made using an individual’s social ties.”

This may not sound like a big deal, but think about the worrisome nature of different types of predictive technology. You don’t have to actually be guilty of anything if the tech says that one day you might be. The stuff we’re discussing here takes “guilt by association” to an entirely new level. (source)

How long until control freak politicians start calling for spying on friends, and friends of friends (and so on) to find any justification for denying gun rights to all of us?

What do you think?

This invasion-of-privacy bill has already hopped from one state to another.  Which states do you foresee it heading to next? Do you think this intrusiveness will lead to an uptick in people who refuse to comply? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.


Contributed by Dagny Taggart of The Organic Prepper.

Dagny Taggart is the pseudonym of an experienced journalist who needs to maintain anonymity to keep her job in the public eye. Dagny is non-partisan and aims to expose the half-truths, misrepresentations, and blatant lies of the MSM.


SHARE:

By Chris Menahan | Information Liberation | Feb. 7, 2019

President Donald Trump on Wednesday stood by the off-script comment he made during the State of the Union that he wants legal immigrants coming to our country “in the largest numbers ever.”

From Breitbart:

President Trump is reversing his campaign commitment to reduce overall legal immigration levels to the United States in order to raise the wages of America’s working and middle class, as he is now demanding more immigration.

During his State of the Union (SOTU) address this week, Trump went off-script while discussing national immigration policy, saying he wanted to admit “the largest numbers ever” of legal immigrants to the country.

“Legal immigrants enrich our nation and strengthen our society in countless ways,” Trump said. “I want people to come into our country, in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally.”

Currently, the U.S. imports more than a million legal immigrants annually, with the vast majority deriving from chain migration, whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country. In 2017, the foreign-born population reached a record high of 44.5 million.

The U.S. is on track to import about 15 million new foreign-born voters in the next two decades should current legal immigration levels continue. Those 15 million new foreign-born voters include about eight million who will arrive in the country through chain migration. This booming legal immigrant population has not only rapidly shifted the demographics of the nation, but research indicates it will hand over all electoral dominance to Democrats in a matter of decades.

Just so we’re clear here: we’ve got no wall, no fence, record legal and illegal immigration (1.75 million arrivals in 2016) and Trump’s now saying he wants even more (as Jared Kushner is meeting with the Koch brothers).

As Roy Beck, the founder of NumbersUSA said, “This *is* the largest immigration wave ever.”

In the past Trump would make 180 policy reversals like this every week only to go back to his campaign promises after massive outrage from his base.

Lately, he’s just been making the 180 reversals without going back on anything.


Contributed by Chris Menahan of Information Liberation.


SHARE:

L. Steele | America Uncensored | January 31, 2019

When it comes to the Obama’s, Americans are faced with a harsh reality. After 8 disgusting years of this obama-nation we realize the first question that should have been asked. Do we know anything about these people?

America are you okay?

What happened to this nation in the last decade is nothing less than an atrocity. In 2008 many Americans gathered at the polls hoping to make history by voting in the first black president. Opening the White House doors to many firsts for sure. Such as the first foreign president and the first transgender First-Lady declaring war on school lunch.

So, America are you okay?




Earlier this week a gay twitter account discovered something that may add to rumors that “Michelle” Obama is actually a man. Tweeter @usminority discovered the official Obama account @BarackObama was following @Fleshjack, the official account of Fleshjack gay sex toys.

This tweet put Twitter execs in full panic mode, working overtime to hide the truth and make it seem as if the proof never existed. However, the tweet gained enough attention before twitter would apply it’s damage control.

Further more, not only was Obama’s account following a gay sex toy account but also following a gay porn star account!

As this was unfolding Twitter jumped in and took action. First by blocking users from viewing who follows @Fleshjack and later hiding the Fleshjack account until the next day, after the truth was removed.

This all ties in with a claim by Larry Sinclair, who says he had gay sex with Barack Obama while doing cocaine. But as usual mainstream sources will do everything to ignore and even help cover up the truth.

Are you okay, America?

Once again we are reminded that everything about the Obamas is a lie. They came in to destroy the foundations of this nation. In eight years they turned the Democrat party into a bunch of raging anti-American lunatics.

America are you okay? So America are you okay? Are you okay, America? You’ve been hit by, you’ve been scammed by, a smooth criminal.


Contributed by L. Steele of America Uncensored.net, where this article was originally published.


SHARE:

By Michael Snyder | Economic Collapse | Jan. 31, 2019

The left has been salivating over the prospect of voting Donald Trump out of office in 2020, but now something has happened that could change everything.  On Sunday, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced that he is “seriously considering running for president as a centrist independent”.  If Schultz officially decides to run, and it looks like that is almost certainly going to happen, then a Trump victory in 2020 will become almost inevitable.  Unless something dramatic takes place, Trump is going to have the support of at least 40 to 45 percent of American voters in 2020.  But the key was going to be finding that last 5 to 10 percent that he needed to push him over the top.  Unfortunately for Trump, he does not do well with moderate independent voters, and Democratic strategists were counting on those voters to help them beat Trump.  But if a “centrist independent” like Schultz enters the race, he will inevitably steal a lot of those voters from the Democrats, and that is why the left is freaking out so much right now.

There is certainly room in the race for someone like Schultz.  If faced with a choice between Donald Trump and a radical leftist such as Kamala Harris, many Americans would be open to a third option.  And since Schultz is a billionaire, he could certainly provide the resources necessary to mount a serious independent bid.

But he would not have a prayer of actually winning.  40 percent of the country is going to vote Republican no matter what, and 40 percent of the country is going to vote Democrat no matter what.  If things go well for Schultz he could end up with 10 percent of the vote, and if things go perfectly for Schultz he could end up with 20 percent of the vote.

And he is likely to take far more votes from the Democrats than from the Republicans because everyone knows that he was a lifelong Democrat.  He was a big donor to top Democrats, and he voted Democrat his entire life.

So a three way race would be a dream come true for Trump.  In such a scenario Trump may only receive 45 percent of the national vote, but Schultz could pull enough support away from the Democratic candidate to push Trump over the top.

If you are a Trump supporter, send Schultz a message on Twitter encouraging him to run, because it looks like it isn’t going to take too much encouragement to push him over the edge.  In fact, it is being reported that he has already spent many months preparing an independent presidential campaign…

Before announcing his presidential ambitions this week, former Starbucks chief executive Howard Schultz secretly undertook a months-long effort to prepare an independent presidential campaign against the nation’s two-party political system, deploying more than six national polls and laying the groundwork for paid advertising that could debut in the next two months.

All of that effort tells me that Howard Schultz is not just “thinking about it”.  He really wants to do this, and that is extremely good news for Trump.

On Monday, Schultz released his brand new book entitled “From the Ground Up: A Journey to Reimagine the Promise of America”, which is essentially his way of introducing himself as a presidential candidate to the American people.  If you will remember, Barack Obama did the same thing when he first ran for president.  Now Schultz is going on a book tour, and on this tour he will “test the appeal of his ideas”

An early advertising effort, made possible by Schultz’s net worth of about $3.4 billion, would be designed to help Schultz show early promise in national polls during his book tour, which he has described as a time to test the appeal of his ideas.

But if he is a lifelong Democrat, then why didn’t he just run as a Democrat?

Well, these days the Democratic Party has taken a radical turn to the left, and Schultz simply doesn’t agree with many of the socialist policy positions that they are currently espousing

But in 2019, he says he cannot in good conscience run as a Democrat. He is considering an independent run. “What the Democrats are proposing is something that is as false as the wall,” he says, indicating “free” health care, “free” college, and the entire litany of “free” things “which the country cannot afford.” He worries — oh, bless his pointy little head! — about the national debt, unfunded liabilities, and other examples of fiscal recklessness. He thinks that the Democrats’ current “liquidate the kulaks as a class” approach to taxes may prove counterproductive to the long-term interests of the United States as a whole. He worries that “extremists” have taken over both parties.

And in this political environment, a moderate white billionaire would simply not have a prayer of winning the Democratic nomination.

So if he wants to run for president, his only option is to do it as an independent, and the fact that he might actually do this is really stressing out those on the left.  The New York Times just published an editorial entitled “Howard Schultz, Please Don’t Run for President”, and Henry Blodget is urging Schultz “to go home”

Unfortunately, right now, our political system is built around only two major parties.

The best way to defeat a candidate from one party is to vote for the candidate from the other.

So if you want to see President Trump fired in 2020, you should probably urge Howard Schultz to go home.

And the media attacks on Schultz have already begun.  For example, a Slate article is painting him as someone that was horrible to his employees…

For one, during Schultz’s long tenure as CEO, Starbucks repeatedly fought against workers’ attempts to organize a union. In 2008, for example, a National Labor Relations Board judge found that the company had illegally fired three workers for their union activities, as well as violated other aspects of the law. Starbucks workers in our country still don’t have a union. Although the right wing has tried for years to paint unions as extreme, a recent Gallup poll showed that 62 percent of Americans approve of labor unions; similarly, an MIT survey found that most workers wanted a greater voice on the job, and that almost half would join a union if given the opportunity. Squelching union organizing efforts may be routine for companies, but it’s not where our country’s political center lies.

Starbucks also pays its workers poverty wages. According to PayScale, an online salary information company, the average hourly rate for Starbucks employees is around $11 per hour. Baristas average $9.77 per hour, and wages don’t reach $15 per hour until a worker becomes a retail store manager ($17.44) or assistant manager ($15.17).

If there is enough abuse from the left, it is still possible that Schultz could pull the plug on his campaign before it has even begun.

But if you are a Trump supporter, you definitely do not want that to happen, because having at least one viable third party candidate is probably the key to Trump winning in 2020.  So everyone needs to encourage Schultz to run, because we absolutely do not want a radical socialist like Kamala Harris in the White House.


Contributed by Michael Snyder of TheEconomicCollapseBlog.com

Michael Snyder is a nationally syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is publisher of The Most Important News and the author of four books including The Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters.


SHARE:

By Tyler Durden | ZeroHedge | January 25, 2019

Update 5: Released on $250,000 bail, Roger Stone said Friday as he left court that he will plead not guilty to charges brought against him by special counsel Robert Mueller.

The Hill reports that Stone told reporters outside of a federal courthouse in Florida that he will go to trial over the indictment, saying that it is “incorrect” that he made false statements during his testimony before Congress.

He also dug in on his previous vow not to testify against Trump.

” There is no circumstance whatsoever under which I will bear false witness against the president,” Stone said, “nor will I make up lies to ease the pressure on myself.”

https://twitter.com/cnnpolitics/status/1088857231863500800?s=21

Stone said he will be arraigned on the charges in a Washington, D.C., court next week. 

*  *  *

Update 4: As Washington reporters sift through the indictment of Roger Stone, confusion about exactly what he is being charged with, as well as the implications for the Trump administration, has already seeped into the coverage.

Following Stone’s first court appearance on Friday, his bail was set at $250,000 and his travel limited to Washington DC, Virginia, New York and Florida (Stone can’t leave the country, but his passport wasn’t taken because, according to his lawyers, he has no valid passport).

With rulings in the case about to accelerate, the Washington Examiner’s Byron York has published a handy guide to the Stone indictment that aims to set the record straight. Instead of being a broad indictment of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian-backed agents, the indictment sketches a picture of a man who had been pushed to the periphery of Trump World as the campaign locked up the nomination, who maybe ran his mouth a little too much. But importantly, Stone wasn’t accused of directly coordinating with Wikileaks – indeed he had no advanced knowledge of the contents of the leaks. And he never lied in his interviews with Mueller, either.

All of the lies Stone allegedly told stemmed from his September 2017 interview with the HPSCI, as well as what he told his unindicted associates. Or as York puts it:

In the end, it appears Stone’s big problem was his big mouth. He liked to brag about being behind all sorts of nefarious deeds when in fact he was not, or he had a tangential connection to them. That led to this chain of events: 1) Stone bragged in public; 2) the House committee asked him about his bragging under oath; and 3) Mueller investigated the veracity of Stone’s sworn testimony. If Stone had not popped off about himself all the time, he probably would not have gotten himself in trouble.

Here’s a count-by-count breakdown (text courtesy of WashEx):

• Count One alleges that Stone obstructed the House committee’s investigation by denying he had emails and other documents about WikiLeaks-related contacts. During his House testimony, Stone was asked if he had “emails to anyone concerning the allegations of hacked documents … or any discussions you have had with third parties about [WikiLeaks]?” Stone answered that he did not, when in fact he had a bunch of emails and other communications. The obstruction charge also alleges Stone attempted to prevent Credico from testifying or tried to convince him to testify falsely.

Counts two through six concern specific statements to the House committee. Count Two is based on Stone’s assertion that he did not have emails.

• Count Three alleges that Stone lied when he said that Credico was his only “go-between” to Assange, when in fact, Stone was also in contact with Corsi for that purpose. “At no time did Stone identify [Corsi] to [the House] as another individual Stone contacted to serve as a ‘go-between,'” the indictment says.

• Count Four alleges that Stone lied when he said he did not ask Credico to communicate anything to Assange, when in fact Stone asked both Credico and Corsi to get in touch with Assange “to pass on requests … for documents Stone believed would be damaging to the Clinton campaign.”

• Count Five alleges that Stone lied when he told the House that he and Credico did not communicate via text message or email about WikiLeaks. Stone told the committee the two talked over the phone, when in fact, according to the indictment, “Stone and [Credico] … engaged in frequent written communications by email and text message.”

• Count Six alleges that Stone lied when he testified that he had never discussed his conversations with Credico with anyone at the Trump campaign, when in fact, “Stone spoke to multiple individuals involved in the Trump campaign about what he claimed to have learned from his intermediary to [WikiLeaks].”

• Count Seven is a witness tampering charge, alleging that Stone tried to convince Credico to take the Fifth or to lie to the House committee.

Notably, the indictment doesn’t allege that Stone had direct contact with Julian Assange (as media reports have suggested) and it doesn’t allege that he had extensive communications with anybody in the Trump Campaign related to Wikileaks.

* * *

Update 3: Roger Stone’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day just got worse.

According to media reports, Amy Berman Jackson, the same judge who presided in the case brought against Manafort in Washington, will be the judge overseeing Stone’s case.

As we mentioned earlier, Stone will make is first appearance in her courtroom at 11 am ET.

* * *

Update 2: A source from within the FBI has confirmed that the unidentified Trump administration official cited in the Stone indictment is former White House Chief Strategist (and Trump campaign manager) Steve Bannon.

Steve Bannon is the “high-ranking campaign official” referenced in the discussion of October emails in the 24-page indictment released today by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The other two unnamed individuals in the indictment – Person 1 and Person 2 – are widely believed to be Jerome Corsi and Randy Credico.

* * *

Update: Though nobody is saying the president did anything wrong with regards to Friday’s indictment of Roger Stone (notably, the indictment didn’t allude to any interactions between Stone and the president) Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Friday felt it appropriate to remind the media that the president “did nothing wrong” regarding the Stone indictment.

Stone worked for dozens of Republicans, Sanders said, and the charges in the indictment have “nothing to do” with the president, she said during an interview on CNN.

Asked if Trump directed the campaign official to contact Stone about the stolen emails released by Wikileaks, Sanders refused to speculate. She also said she wasn’t aware of any heads up given by the DOJ to the White House about Stone’s arrest (though clearly the DOJ felt comfortable giving CNN advanced notice).

“I haven’t read this document,” she said. “I’m not an attorney. I’m not going to be able to get into the weeds on the specifics.”

However, if the past is a guide, we imagine this, too, will be lost on the likes of CNN and NBC.

* * *

Former Trump advisor Roger Stone, who has been under scrutiny by Special Counsel Robert Mueller over his alleged contacts with Wikileaks, has been arrested In Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. on a seven-count indictment: One count of obstruction, five counts of making false statements and one count of witness tampering.

The arrest – which like many of Mueller’s high profile arrests, occurred early on a Friday – isn’t exactly a surprise: Stone has long said he expected to be indicted by a grand jury convened by Mueller.

As reporters comb through the Stone indictment, one twitter user pointed out that Mueller had determined that Stone had been “contacted by senior campaign officials to inquire about future releases” of information stolen by Wikileaks from the DNC.

Stone will make an initial appearance later Friday at the federal courthouse in Fort Lauderdale. Late last year, Trump famously tweeted a congratulatory message to Stone after the advisor said he would never testify against the president – something that is likely being scrutinized by investigators. The indictment, which was under seal until Stone was taken into custody, was handed down by the jury on Thursday.

In a summary tweeted by WaPo’s Aaron Blake, Stone was busted for lying about the nature of his contacts with his “intermediary” to Wikileaks (he had two intermediaries previously reported to be journalists Randy Credico and Jerome Corsi) and for lying about his communications with senior campaign officials and Wikileaks about the latter’s upcoming releases of stolen emails. Stone raised eyebrows during the campaign for “predicting” the release of emails embarrassing to the Clinton campaign.

The indictment also alleges that Stone requested specific Clinton-related information from Wikileaks.

He also allegedly asked a witness appearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to pull a “Frank Pentangeli”, a reference to a famous scene in the Godfather II when a government witness pretends not to know anything about Michael Corleone’s criminal activities during a Congressional hearing.

In the indictment, Mueller accuses Stone of…

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.

Stone’s requests to “Organization 1” – clearly identified as Wikileaks – were occasionally very specific, with Stone at times asking if Wikileaks had specific “dirt” on Hillary Clinton relating to incidents that occurred during her tenure as Secretary of State.

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 blindcopied STONE on the forwarded email.

The indictment also accuses Stone of keeping an individual affiliated with the Trump campaign apprised of Wikileaks’ plans to dump emails stolen from the DNC and Hillary campaign chairman John Podesta.

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 9 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 highranking 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.

When called to testify before the HPSCI, Stone allegedly made false and misleading statements about his interactions with Wikileaks and about whether he had any records of his contacts with his go-between.

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.

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. Not to my knowledge.”

When pressed about how he had ascertained that Wikileaks was planning more dumps, Trump offered the HPSCI a misleading statement that minimized the role of “Person 1” – believed to be Jerome Corsi – in ferrying advanced knowledge of Wikileaks’ planned dumps to Stone.

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 also reportedly lied to HPSCI about his correspondence with senior Trump campaign officials. The indictment implies that Stone’s attempts to obtain the stolen emails from Wikileaks was done at the behest of a campaign official.

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.”

After misleading the committee about his communications with his intermediaries, Stone allegedly tried to convince person 2 (Credico) to either make sure his testimony conformed with Stones, or to just plead the 5th and pretend he didn’t know anything.

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 18 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 selfincrimination. 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 wastold 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 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.

Stone served as an official advisor to the Trump campaign shortly after its launch in 2015. He has publicly acknowledged exchanging messages with a hacker known as Guccifer 2.0 that the government has sought to portray as a front for Russian intelligence, and Stone once boasted about his contacts with Wikileaks, even calling its founder, Julian Assange, “my hero.”

Meanwhile, NBC News reported that roughly a dozen associates of Stone have been summoned to appear before Mueller’s grand jury.

Stone will appear in federal court at 11 am ET.

Read the indictment below:

Stone Indictment 012419 by Zerohedge on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/398206050/Stone-Indictment-012419


Originally Published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge.

Copyright Information: This content has been contributed to America Uncensored by a third-party or has been republished with permission from the author. You are encouraged to click their link above for more interesting content.


SHARE: