On Once and Future Mueller Grand Juries: The Texts Obtained from Andrew Miller Overlap with Roger Stone’s Voter Suppression

Yesterday, two events provided an indication of how extensive what at one time was the Mueller investigation was.

First, Chief Judge Beryl Howell unsealed enough of the Mystery Appellant challenge to reveal that that part of the investigation started in the DC US Attorney’s Office before Mueller got hired and continues. The Mystery Appellant started turning over stuff voluntarily last December, but prosecutors believe it withheld information. Mystery Appellant very clearly waited Mueller out, and it appears that prosecutors did not expect Mueller to finish when he did (which may suggest Bill Barr did shut Mueller down early). The government seems to have a pretty clear idea of what Mystery Appellant withheld.

One of the prosecutors on the case is one of the ones that picked up Paul Manafort’s case.

I’ll write more about what the Mystery Appellant shows up later.

The other piece of news is that Roger Stone’s associate, Andrew Miller, actually testified before a different grand jury, not the Mueller one, and got a follow-up subpoena requiring him to produce all his texts with Roger Stone from October 2016 to March 2017.

A former aide to political operative Roger Stone has turned over to a grand jury all of his text messages with Stone from October 2016 to March 2017, as well as the written agenda for Stone while he was at the Republican National Convention in 2016.

The aide, Andrew Miller, turned over the documents in response to a federal grand jury subpoena following his two-hour testimony last Friday before the body, according to communications between Miller’s lawyer and the government that were reviewed by POLITICO.


Adding to the intrigue is the fact that Miller testified before a new grand jury rather than the one convened by Mueller that Miller was initially fighting, and that he was held in contempt over.

That may explain a few of the things we’ve seen recently.

First, recall that Mueller announced, on short notice, that he was done once Miller agreed to testify, but quit before he did testify (Mueller actually quit minutes before the hearing where Howell forced Miller to testify). I wondered then if there was some jurisdictional reason he did that, and this second grand jury may be the reason: that Mueller used his authority to ensure Miller did testify, but resigned in a way to ensure that the other grand jury had uncontested jurisdiction over this.

Now consider this redaction in the Mueller Report showing what appear to be two issues referred elsewhere.

The redaction btC-3 shows it pertains to either Stone or his case. I had suggested that it might be WikiLeaks (this part of the list is in alpha order). But MelissaN suggested it may be Roger Stone himself. This second grand jury (and a Rod Rosenstein comment that the WikiLeaks investigation never left EDVA) may support that.

Now consider the timeline in this post. It shows that the Stone dark money group that he used to prep claims that Hillary was stealing the vote, Stop the Steal, was active during precisely the period the government asked for Miller’s texts with Stone (this was the second incarnation of this group–Stone used an earlier one to harass Ted Cruz voters in advance of the GOP Convention). Indeed, the group pays Miller $5,000 right at the beginning of it (though he also received a few payments from Stone during the summer).

October 4, 2016: Stone tells Bannon to get Rebekah Mercer to send money for his “the targeted black digital campaign thru a C-4”

Following October 5, 2016: Mariia Butina and Aleksandr Torshin discuss whether she should serve as a US election observer; Torshin suggests “the risk of provocation is too high and the ‘media hype’ which comes after it,” but Butina suggests she would do it “Only incognito! Right now everything has to be quiet and careful.”

October 13, 2016: Stop the Steal pays Andrew Miller $5,000

October 23, 2016: Stone tweets out message saying Clinton supporters can “VOTE the NEW way on Tues. Nov 8th by texting HILLARY to 8888”

October 28, 2016: GRU officer Anatoliy Kovalev and co-conspirators visit websites of counties in GA, IA, and FL to identify vulnerabilities

October 30, 2016: Ohio Democratic Party sues Ohio Republican Party to prevent Stop the Steal voter suppression; Democrats also sue in NV, AZ, and PA

November 3, 2016: Filings in ODP lawsuit describing Stop the Steal (declarationexhibits)

November 4, 2016: Judge James Gwyn issues Temporary Restraining Order against Trump, Stone, and Stop the Steal

November 4, 2016: Guccifer 2.0 post claiming Democrats may rig the elections

November 7, 2016: Sixth Circuit issues a stay in OH TRO

December 14, 2016: Women versus Hillary gives $158.97 to CRAG

December 19, 2016: Stop the Steal pays $5,000 to Alejandro Vidal for “fundraising expenses”

December 19, 2016: Stop the Steal pays $3,500 to C Josi and Co.

December 21, 2016: Stop the Steal pays $1,500 to The Townsend Group

December 27, 2016: Stop the Steal pays $3,500 to Kristen [sic] Davis

December 28, 2016: Stop the Steal gives $94 to CRAG

December 29, 2016: Stop the Steal pays Jerry Steven Gray $4,000 for “fundraising expenses”

December 30, 2016: Stop the Steal pays 2,692 total to unnamed recipients

January 19, 2017: Stop the Steal pays $5,000 for fundraising expenses to Alejandro Vidal

February 8, 2017: Stop the Steal pays Kristen [sic] Davis $3,500 for “fundraising expenses”

February 15, 2017: Stop Steal pays Brad Boeck $862 for sales consultant consulting fee

Remember, too, that Andrew Miller once said he’d invoke the Fifth if asked to testify about his role in these dark money groups.

Miller had asked for “some grant of immunity” regarding financial transactions involving political action committees for which he assisted Stone, according to Alicia Dearn, an attorney for Miller.

On that issue, Miller “would be asserting” his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions, Dearn said.

And consider that wire fraud variously appeared among the crimes listed on the various warrants targeting Stone (these particular warrants would likely have been the ones issued during the period when Miller was most actively challenging his subpoena).

  • Beryl Howell, CFAA: include “all crimes” (18 U.S.C. § 3 (accessory after the fact); 18 U.S.C. § 4 (misprision of a felony); 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy); 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505 and 1512 (obstruction of justice); 18 U.S.C. § 1513 (witness tampering); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (attempt and conspiracy to commit wire fraud), and 52 U.S.C. § 30121 (foreign contribution ban)
  • Beryl Howell, CFAA: includes “all crimes”
  • Beryl Howell, CFAA: includes “all crimes”
  • Beryl Howell, CFAA: ¶¶ 35-40 discuss Stone’s communications with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange: includes “all crimes”
  • Rudolph Contreras, CFAA: ¶ 24 discusses private Twitter message between Stone and Guccifer 2.0: includes “all crimes”
  • James Boasberg, CFAA: includes “all crimes”
  • James Boasberg, CFAA: includes “all crimes”

All of that would be consistent with the possibility that Mueller formally referred (rather than simply passing off) two distinct investigations as he finished up, based on these interim warrants that included wire fraud, one of which focuses on his voter suppression efforts.

Finally, note that by referring this, Mueller may have put it in a place where the decisions Rod Rosenstein made about how aggressively to charge crimes would no longer hold.

As I disclosed last July, I provided information to the FBI on issues related to the Mueller investigation, so I’m going to include disclosure statements on Mueller investigation posts from here on out. I will include the disclosure whether or not the stuff I shared with the FBI pertains to the subject of the post. 

46 replies
  1. PSWebster says:

    Gaddam…really great work here and on your blog following this to me very complex stuff.

    Great work.

  2. Badger Robert says:

    Articles like this hint at the reason Bob Mueller does not want to testify in public. The warning he will deliver to Republicans in private will be much more direct.

    • Patient Observer says:

      An interesting thought, Badger. However, according to Nadler on May 24, the public would have gotten to see a full transcript of Mueller’s behind-closed-doors testimony.

      ***Nadler noted that a private Mueller testimony would still come with a transcript that would be publicly made available.

      “We’d see a transcript,” he told Maddow.***

      Perhaps Mueller was not keen on that idea, as he subsequently indicated that he does not want to testify at all.

      ***Last week, in his first public statement since the beginning of the government’s probe into Russian election interference, former special counsel Robert Mueller made it clear that he has little interest in testifying to Congress about his 448-page report. “I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner,” he told reporters. “The report is my testimony.”***

      Seems to me that as a matter of education for a public that does not read, video of Mueller answering pointed, clarifying questions is essential.

  3. Holly says:

    Michael Wolff tells that he has information from a ‘reliable’ source which he cannot reveal. Is this possibly the Mystery Appellant that is referred to?

  4. Savage Librarian says:

    This is unlikely to be the case, but the timing of this action seems curious to me. Putin signed the law to make RDIF a sovereign fund in June 2016, shortly before SPIEF (which DT and Cohen were urged to attend.)

    So, I am wondering if there is even a remote possibility that RDIF might somehow be connected to the Mystery Appellant case.

    From wikipedia:
    “On 2 June 2016, President Vladimir Putin signed Federal Law on the Russian Direct Investment Fund changing the status of RDIF. According to the law, RDIF became the sovereign wealth fund of the Russian Federation.”


    • Americana says:

      I’ve been mulling over the implications of your post… I wondered if the change in status of the Russian Direct Investment Fund would somehow have an effect on tracing payments made by its previous incarnation or if the status change was done as a preemptive legal protective measure?

  5. TooLoose LeTruck says:

    Since Mariia Butina is mentioned above in the article, I hope it’s okay to ask a question about her here… I don’t want to be off topic, ya know…

    Anyways, here goes… I’ve wondered for some time now if there’s more to her story than is out in public yet… and I ask this because no one on that side of the division seems to want to talk about her… I don’t recall Trump coming to her defense publicly once, nor the Russians…

    And to me, that’s a tell… I’ve always been surprised both Trump and the Russians haven’t been shouting about her plight nonstop, calling her an unfortunate victim of the deep state, and demanding she be released NOW!

    And it’s that avoidance that makes me wonder what’s really going on there… it’s like, because they don’t want anyone paying attention to her, they scrupulously avoid even mentioning her, let alone talking her up as a victim of the witch hunt!

    Does that make sense? Anybody have an opinion they’d like to share?

    • P J Evans says:

      I suspect drawing attention to her would put too much attention on those she was socializing with. (Why were they socializing with her? What were their motives? What did they get from the relationship?)

      • TooLoose LeTruck says:

        That’s kind of the direction my reasoning was taking me…

        Pretty sure she was cozying up to the NRA… I’ve seen some ridiculous pictures of her posing w/ a variety of weapons… I think I’ve read the Russians have given substantial amounts of money to the NRA, it being a ‘non-profit’ and all… and the NRA in turn donated substantial amounts to the GOP, including to Trump’s campaign…

        Somehow the name McConnell comes up, and wasn’t she even tied to Don Jr in some way at one point?

        Given that Trump apparently has ZERO impulse control and never shuts up, I do find it curious that he never mentions her, period.

        • P J Evans says:

          It’s possible that outside of that once in Vegas, they never interacted. But McTurtle, and all the NRA people, and probably several other congresscritters from both houses – those I’d buy were more familiar with her than they want people – especially voters – to know. There had to be *something* in it for them.

          • TooLoose LeTruck says:

            Agreed… there was almost assuredly *something* they were getting out of it… didn’t the treason turtle go around the GOP at one point, doling out significant amounts of cash thru his super-pac?

            I recently saw a picture of a billboard a group put up in Kentucky… something about ‘Putin’s Mitch’…

            Then, there’s that aluminum plant Deripaska (I think) is funding in KY…

            • Vicks says:

              Deripaska? Good grief that guys name pops up far too often.
              One of the many things I get stuck on is the model from Belarus who said she had video of Deripaska that proved Russia meddled to help trump win the election. No clue if that is true or not but next thing you know she is arrested and jailed in Thailand for almost a year, her plane on its way to take her home got diverted to Moscow where she was taken off the plane kicking and screaming.
              She dissapreared for a couple of days a reappeared apologizing to Deripaska and saying she had given him her evidence. Four days ( and some magic math) later Deripaska’s company’s sanctions were lifted and a few months later Deripaska gives Mitch an aluminum factory.
              Looks like it’s team Trump’s turn again, so many gifts to choose from I wonder what it will be?
              Almost forgot, if the story wasn’t strange enough Fox News ran several stories about her AFTER her release and apology ALL of them spun what she said in her apology to include Her saying she had lied about their being any recordings. Again I have no clue on the status of any recordings but I heard and read what she said and that was not it.

        • William Greenan says:

          The Freedom Fest in Vegas 2015. The 1st person to ask a question of Trump is Butina. Trump would have picked an individual that looked like a showgirl given his own preference. Someone was interacting with the Russians very early and Stone was one of the inner circle then.

          • allison holland says:

            The fact that Trump picked her first out of the crowd has always stuck with me. She is easily identifiable as “a red-head”, young pretty etc. I have never doubted that it was suggested to him that he ask her a question. I think he did it first so he wouldnt forget to do it at all because he doesnt really respect women or think of them as important enough to ask a question of the great Him.To me that has always been a red flag but not a pretty one.

            • Mulder says:

              If I recall correctly, lil’ mariia was not called on randomly and wasn’t the first to ask Donald President a question. She lined up like the rest of the questioners.

              Check YouTube for the clip. She was the first to ask about sanctions. Trump’s response was weirdly coherent. As if he had practiced and knew that the question was coming.

  6. Savage Librarian says:

    Hmm. The embedded link to the NYT’s article in this part of Marcy’s timeline is helpful.

    “October 4, 2016: Stone tells Bannon to get Rebekah Mercer to send money for his “the targeted black digital campaign thru a C-4”

    The article makes clear Matthew Boyle’s strong link to Bannon. This makes me see other options for the unnamed people in Stone’s indictment. Now I have to reassess who might be that person who said, “Well done.” Might it be Boyle?

    • Savage Librarian says:

      Oops. Boo boo. Scratch that. I just realized Boyle is already accounted for as the “Reporter connected to the high rank campaign official 16b (Bannon.)”

      • Savage Librarian says:

        At least I was willing to be open minded. But I am glad to be able to go back to my initial theory that it might be Susie Wiles :-)

  7. Mooser says:

    Sorta OT, but in my odd moments I can’t help wondering what the Donald Trump Presidential Library will be like.

    • Tom says:

      I’ve had the same thought and can only imagine a Fun House Crazy Hall of Mirrors collection of inane tweets. I’ve also wondered why there hasn’t been a day-in-the-life-of-the-President photo essay in TIME magazine. According to a TIME story from Jan. 27, 2017, the official White House photographer is a Ms. Shealah Craighead, but if she’s done a photo essay on Trump I’ve missed it.

    • TooLoose LeTruck says:

      A fantastic collection of comic and coloring books, plus some pop-ups and maybe even some talking books…

        • Tom says:

          In years to come, the Trump administration will be a fertile field of study, not only for historians, but for psychologists, psychiatrists, gerontologists, and linguisticians. Criminologists, too.

          • TooLoose LeTruck says:

            And comedians… don’t forget the comedians… and late night talk shows hosts, too…

        • TooLoose LeTruck says:

          There ya go… my point EXACTLY…

          Actually, have you ever read Art Spiegelman’s monumental ‘Maus’? Amazing piece of work…

          Or the great Will Eisner’s ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’?

          A good graphic novel can be a really powerful thing…

            • TooLoose LeTruck says:

              I read about that the other day, someone already doing a graphic novel of the report… great idea… I hope it really gets the truth of Mueller’s work across effectively.

              I keep hearing about book clubs forming to read the report… live readings… CliffsNotes-like summaries being written… whatever it takes to get the information across to as many people as possible…

            • TooLoose LeTruck says:

              It’s very much worth taking the time to read, IMHO… it’s easy to think of a graphic novel as an overgrown comic book, but ‘Maus’ is so powerful… I believe Spiegelman won a Pulitzer for it… (yes he did, in 1992)…

              It’s such an effective way to reach people who don’t have the patience to read an entire book…

              • P J Evans says:

                I have another graphic novel: “Grease Monkey”. It’s interesting, gets into stereotyping and prejudices, and the “good guys” come out ahead if they don’t actually win. (It’s also SF, set on a space station.)

                • TooLoose LeTruck says:

                  Haven’t heard of that one… sounds like it’s worth looking up… I hope it doesn’t sound ridiculous, but I more than occasionally go to the children’s section of my local library and take out kids’ books to start into complicated subject matter… short, written in simple language, and often quite good at distilling something down to its main tenets…

  8. Desider says:

    Guessing maybe the 88 88 for Hillary is an inside joke, a double “Heil Hitler” (88 in neo-Nazi circles), otherwise did Stone set up a number to get gullible Clinton backers to text instead of actually voting?
    And is that legal to actively promote that?

    • P J Evans says:

      It’s probably legal -they’d have sent it out as “advertising” – but it shouldn’t be. Like the billboards that sometimes go up in minority neighborhoods, with the wrong date for the primary election, or implying that their citizenship will be checked before they can vote.

  9. Anne says:

    Please somebody, explain.
    If I got a court order to produce my texts with a certain person from last week, I couldn’t comply because I regularly delete them (from the phone and from iMessage). If they’re still “in there” because a file is never really erased, just written over, I’d need to turn the phone over to some serious computer technicians because I don’t have the tools to find them. Texts from last year? You gotta be kidding. Unless I’m keeping them to blackmail somebody.
    If they’re SMS carried by the GSM provider, the provider doesn’t keep them any longer than they have to; maybe mine from last week could be recovered but not last year.
    So what is the court exactly asking folks to do when they want texts?

    • timbo says:

      I’m not a lawyer…

      It requires them to do due diligence to maintain all records requested by the subpeona and to turn them over to whomever has requested them… unless you seek to fight the subpeona.

      In the case where it may cost you money to retrieve records that you may have, you can request the court review the reasonable of the request, etc. In some instances, you may have to hire folks to get the info requested if you know you have it but do not have the technical expertise to find/locate the information yourself. The alternative to that would be turning >everything< over to the requesting party and making them plow through it themselves at their own expense. However, you must turn over information if a subpeona has been upheld. There is no excuse for you not to produce the information that a court has held is reasonable for you to produce, etc.

  10. Savage Librarian says:

    Here are some interesting insights. This is about Andrew Miller. But also notice the mention of Jason Sullivan. Sullivan is again mentioned in the article below that, in a very recent event.

    “Who is Former Roger Stone Aide Andrew Miller?” | Law & Crime, June 28, 2018

    “Miller is the third such Stone acolyte who has been subpoenaed by Mueller thus far. John Kakanis and Jason Sullivan were already reportedly called to testify before the grand jury in the wide-ranging electoral interference probe.”


    (Note mention of Jason Sullivan, below.)
    “Feldman said he was approached by a newly formed political action committee, the American Pro-Israel PAC, to host a day long event at the temple on May 14, 2019. The PAC was founded by Jason Sullivan, a pro-Trump political strategist and social media expert who worked for longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone.”


    • klynn says:

      Not that it is a trusted source but her wiki write up is an interesting read…she had many contacts in 2010 that have ties to the Mueller investigation simply because of her political run in NY.

  11. Vicks says:

    I understand that privilege does not apply when crimes have been committed; is there any legal jeopardy for those who have been called on to testify that are aware of, witnessed, or participated in crimes that are using Trump’s claim of privilege as cover for their own crimes, or to do their part in obstructing justice?

Comments are closed.