Roger Stone Points to Evidence His Witness Tampering Worked to Argue Selective Prosecution

In an order rejecting most of Roger Stone’s first frivolous efforts to throw out his prosecution, Amy Berman Jackson explains why Randy Credico is not similarly situated to Stone for the purposes of his selective prosecution claim.

Defendant also characterizes Randy Credico as a similarly situated individual. In reliance upon a sealed transcript of Credico’s July 6, 2017 grand jury testimony, Stone identifies two statements Credico made about his communications with Stone that are inconsistent with the indictment and Stone’s own text messages. First, according to the defendant’s motion, Credico stated that he never discussed the head of Organization 1 with Stone, yet the Indictment in this case quotes an August 23, 2016 conversation between Stone and Credico in which they discuss the head of Organization 1.26 Disc. Mot. at 6; see Indictment ¶ 14(e). Second, Stone asserts that Credico provided information that he had never spoken to Stone about WikiLeaks prior to September 10, 2016, but Stone released text messages from August 19, 2016 in which Credico told Stone that he had a connection to Assange. Disc. Mem. at 7. [my emphasis]

What ABJ reveals — without saying so explicitly — is that Stone is pointing to lies Credico told at a previously undisclosed grand jury appearance. Credico’s previously known grand jury appearance was on September 7, 2018, over a year after the one in which Stone says he lied.

But that’s the entire point: Stone is accused of issuing threats to induce Credico to lie. And he has just made public evidence that — at a time when he was making those threats — Credico risked perjury charges in order to do as Stone wanted him to.

It’s a bad day for rat-fucking when in an attempt to mount a defense you make evidence public that your crimes were worse than previously known.

29 replies
  1. Frank Probst says:

    I’m waiting for the inevitable response from Stone, which will involve some sort of questionable breach of his gag order.

  2. Frank Probst says:

    A question for @bmaz and the other lawyers:

    What happens with the Flynn case now? While the government hasn’t proved this yet, he almost certainly broke his plea agreement. He did so in an apparent attempt at sabotaging the trial of his business partner, Bijan Rafiekian. It looked like it was going to work, because the judge was skeptical of the evidence against Rafiekian without Flynn’s testimony. The jury, on the other hand, was NOT skeptical at all, and returned a verdict of guilty in just a few hours. The judge still might set the verdict aside, but if I were Rafiekian right now, I wouldn’t be counting on it, and I’d desperately be searching for any sort of deal I could make with the government. In Flynn’s case, both the government and the prosecution are pretty pissed off at him. Flynn has pled guilty to–among other things–lying about his work with Turkey. But he has never been charged for his FARA violations or a conspiracy to commit FARA violations, which is what Rafiekian was convicted of.

    Given all of that, if Flynn’s plea agreement gets thrown out, could Rafiekian flip on him for his Turkey business? They were trying to get Fethullah Gulen thrown out of the US and sent back to Turkey, which would have drastically reduced Gulen’s expected lifespan. I don’t think it’s ever been clear as to how far they were willing to go to do this. Rafiekian’s testimony could be pretty explosive. And none of this has anything to do with Russia.

    Possible, or am I just being nutty here?

    • bmaz says:

      I would be beyond stunned if Trenga sets aside that verdict. The only real argument in that regard was made previously and rejected.

      • Democritus says:

        So is there anyway the DOJ could make a new deal with now convicted guy to go after Flynn for being an alleged two faced cheat?

        Or am I getting into Lala land, even without Barr potentially mucking about, and things that convoluted only happen on tv.

        In which case please send refreshments, I need a good vacay and lala land could work ;)

        • Democritus says:

          Thanks :) oh and reading below, Flynn still has Sullivan of the why isn’t this treason to paraphrase. Oh I needed a little something, and that there nugget of schadenfruede works!

          (Don’t remind me how judges are supposed to be impartial, I’ll have to agree and that won’t be as much fun)

          Ha, I see the other irony nugget below regarding Comey.

    • emptywheel says:

      NAL, so take bmaz’ judgment on Trenga over mine. He was pretty bugged about those issues, so I think it possible he’ll throw out one of two guilty verdicts, the one pertaining to conspiracy.
      That said, the timing on this is pretty awkward, bc Trenga’s own deadline for deciding that is the first week of September, which is after the next status hearing in Flynn’s sentencing. I wouldn’t be surprised if Flynn’s prosecutors moved to take back his acceptance of responsibility, which would give Sullivan the excuse to give him prison time. But unless they know Kian’s case has blown up I’m not sure they’ll say he violated his agreement.

      • bmaz says:

        Hey now, acceptance of responsibility is just a suggestion until the judge accepts it at sentencing! Sullivan might do that irrespective of the prosecutors.

        • Peterr says:

          I think Sullivan is much less concerned about Flynn having violated a cooperation agreement and much more concerned about Flynn having violated his oath as a general officer, as well as his responsibilities as a senior advisor to the president. He did not seem to buy any sense of Flynn accepting responsibility last Dec and was much more concerned about the “aggravating circumstances” of Flynn’s misdeeds. He summed himself up like this: “I mean, arguably, that undermines everything this flag over here stands for (indicating). Arguably, you [Flynn] sold your country out. The Court’s going to consider all of that.”

  3. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Gosh, DoJ embarrasses/slurs Comey, but declines to file charges for his alleged leaks, apparently concerning the memos he took regarding Trump’s undue pressure on Comey relating to the Russia investigation.

    I guess that means Barr won’t prosecute him, but won’t exonerate him either. Sauce for the goose, as it were.

    DoJ IG’s report, the claimed foundation for this position, is not yet released, which means we don’t yet have the basis for it. That seems to be how Barr likes to do things.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      The short explanation by Joyce Vance is that intent is an element for the crime of mishandling classified evidence, prosecutors found no evidence of intent on Comey’s part, and so declined to charge him. [https://twitter/joycewhitevance]

      “In other words, this wasn’t a close call or an effort to protect someone. There simply wasn’t a crime.” But it seems to be playing out as a sop to Trump.

      • bmaz says:

        I have to chuckle at the irony here. Comey did this to Hillary Clinton, and now it is done to him. Oh well.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Yea, sauce for the goose in many respects.

          As an inside baseball matter, it’s not as if any of these guys were rookies who had never seen a fastball to the head before.

        • harpie says:

          I’m so glad you said that, because it’s what I immediately thought…but I never know if I’m actually understanding everything…..

        • Frank Probst says:

          I’m not enjoying it much. At this point, it just keeps his name in the news, which sells more books and gets more TV appearances (and probably paid speeches). It’s ironic but not really harmful to him. I expect a future headline reading something like “Blistering Inspector General’s Report Slams Comey, McCabe, and FBI Barista for Unethical Behavior”, which also won’t harm any of them in the least. McCabe may never get his pension, but he’s already showing up as an FBI expert on TV news shows, so he’ll probably end up making more money than have would have from his pension.

        • bmaz says:

          McCabe should appear as an expert on TV, because he is absolutely a serious expert as to the FBI, terrorism and counter-terrorism. I have no issue with that whatsoever, and he makes the conversation and analysis better and smarter.

      • allison holland says:

        But there was intent. Comey was reacting to certain FBI agents in New York who were extremely anti Clinton. I remember reading that he said that he was mindful of the fact that they were more likely than not to publicize either publicly or surreptitiously accusations against the Clintons of wrong doing based on the conspiracy book Clinton Cash. His intent was to go around them or diminish their desire to foment distrust and disgust for Clinton or as they say Crooked Hilary. So his intent was stated by him. It was to protect his business which was the FBI. It wasnt in the line of duty. It wasnt for our protection. It was political and that carries with it intent.

  4. Rapier says:

    In all fairness. I know, a stupid concept when discussing Roger Stone, Credico could have lied to the Grand Jury for many reasons besides Stone telling him to. There is evidence but no proof and if push came to shove Credico could say he lied because Stone told him to or he could deny it, but that isn’t proof either.

    That’s the tremendous power nihilists like Stone have. The courts are rendered a shadow play. I suppose I am too cynical but I’m sure ABJ knows Stone walks in the end and her court will be treated with absolute contempt by Stone and team R in the meantime. That must be a bit hard to swallow.

  5. earlofhuntingdon says:

    We’re all swimming in the water that is the MSM. But some creatures acquire the ability to breath air.

    The corporate MSM wants simple horse races. They let the ignorant vent and shout and bet their life savings on horses they don’t know, in races between nearly identical candidates. Those can be covered with little talent, much heat, and no light. That sort of coverage avoids change, avoids people discovering their own agency, and avoids their grasping the levers that would make it happen.

    Sure, “beating Trump” is important. But being “centrist” won’t do it. It’s a Bidenesque fantasy, a dream that the status quo ante will reappear the moment Trump gives way.

    Dems beat Trump by rallying their own and by giving them something to vote for. The change Obama promised but that McConnell prevented. The change that Trump promised but never intended to deliver. The change that would improve access to healthcare, jobs and affordable education.

    They do it by empowering people with fire in their belly, who can make that change happen. They do it by pointing out what Trump stands for, but only as a way to show what they stand for.

    They do not do it by kicking Lucy’s football or by falling for manufactured controversies. Trump’s tweeting about Dems criticizing Obama, for example. Trump hates Obama more than he hates an IRS auditor with brass knockers. He is not committing a fit of leadership or good fellowship. He is pissing in the well.

    • Democritus says:

      Well said, and thank god I’m not the only one having these worries. Hopefully many more are realizing the same thing, if with the help of social media.

      Sigh, which allows even more disinfo.

      Again I really think there needs to be some sort of fact based liberal streaming site/network, if only running good video pods and a couple of its own shows. Run by activists, not owned by a huge telecom.

      In other pipe dreams…

    • Vicks says:

      It’s no big secret, Dems have showed their hand. There will be no protest votes in 2020, they will vote in solidarity for whatever candidate wins the primary.
      The unknown is whether or not that will be enough to win the electoral college.
      It is far too soon to tell if the “fire in the belly” talk will be enough, especially if most of the outrage is coming from already blue states.
      Never ever forget that Trump has proven to be a master at the “fire in the belly game” just look at Baltimore.
      Trump lost Maryland by 30 points in 2016, and he continues to trash Baltimore knowing he has nothing to lose in Maryland but much to gain from supporters living in areas he can win.
      “All we know is all we know” and t appears if that AS OF NOW in the general election Joe Biden, in addition to the full support of dems (and independents too cool to call themselves dems) would get votes from moderate republicans and independents (especially women) disgusted with Trump.
      Hopefully we won’t need this “cushion” but this is going to be a dirty filthy sleazy campaign,
      and the msm is simply pounding home the fact that Biden is (as of now) the safe bet.

        • Vicks says:

          Correct, but if you are talking odds, at this moment it appears there are enough republicans that would be willing to vote for a democrat, if that democrat was Biden to make him the safest bet to get Trump out of the White House.
          The combination of things that can happen to change that are endless, and imho the best way to get the msm to back off is to do everything you can to help change the story.

  6. earlofhuntingdon says:

    The MSM’s angst – not the public’s – over whether Democrats should be “moderate” or “move left” continues. []

    The framing of these stories is about “winning the election.” But the angst is about what the Democrats would do after winning it. Heaven forbid they should tear open the shutters and throw up the sash of the Overton Wiindow, and enact expansive new policies.

    What we regard as moderate or leftist really depends on the circumstances, doesn’t it? The problems now facing America have been festering since Reagan took office. After four years of Trump, they will be breathtaking. What looks “moderate” then?

    In July 1914, quiet and sedate might describe tea on the vicarage lawn. In July 1918, though, a self-satisfied optimism would seem deranged to a bereaved and shell-shocked congregation.

    • Vicks says:

      Dems can be terrible messengers.
      How long did it take for Bernie to figure out that he could have cut the “shell shock” over medicare for all in half by explaining that volume will bring the overall cost of insurance down and any increase in taxes will be offset by the fact you don’t have to pay for insurance anymore?
      Has he even bothered to factor in what a relief this could be to business owners? Corporations? Why the hell are they paying for their employees health care anyway?
      Better wages, a company car or a bonus are what most people consider incentives that motivate or reward.
      Sorry, back to my point, most “lefty” ideas are perfectly reasonable solutions to existing issues, the problem is most politicians are unable or unwilling to adjust their script for those who’s instinct is to automatically resist.
      Rather than taking a step back and figuring out where “home” is for these folks they just repeat their canned presentation, louder and with an edge. Instead of reaching the person they are trying to convince they alienate

Comments are closed.