Rat-Fucker Rashomon: Roger Stone’s Mid-Burglary Foreknowledge

This post showed that the SSCI Report ignored a lot of evidence (laid out in the affidavits) that Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone had specific details — possibly even the John Podesta emails themselves — pertaining to Joule Holdings, which they tried to use to claim he was as corrupt as (!!!) Paul Manafort. This post showed how, rather than actually explaining what the investigation learned about whether, how, and why Stone optimized the release of the Podesta files, the Mueller Report instead gave us a comedy routine starring Jerome Corsi.

Both public reports, then, presented the question, what did the candidate’s rat-fucker know and when did he know it, exclusively in terms of what Stone knew about the Podesta release. Indeed, the SSCI Report treats this as a question exclusively about what Stone knew of WikiLeaks’ plans.

The Committee could not reliably trace the provision of non-public information from WikiLeaks to Stone, and as a result. could not evaluate the full scope of Stone’s non-public knowledge of WikiLeaks’s activities.

The investigation, however, examined evidence Stone knew what was coming much earlier.

Rick Gates testified at Stone’s trial, for example, that Stone was predicting new releases in April and May of 2016. A previously redacted passage from the Mueller Report echoes that testimony.

In debriefings with the Office, former deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates said that, before Assange’s June 12 announcement, Gates and Stone had a phone conversation in which Stone said something “big” was coming and had to do with a leak of information. Stone also said to Gates that he thought Assange had Clinton emails.

SSCI reasonably reads those claims to relate to the uproar over Hillary’s “missing” State Department emails.

(U) In the spring of 2016, the Trump Campaign’s opposition research team primarily focused on Clinton’s “missing” emails, and financial contributions to the Clinton Foundation. 1437

1437 (U) FBI, FD-302, Gates 4/10/2018. The Committee assesses that, at this time, the references to Clinton’s “emails” reflected a focus on allegedly missing or deleted.emails from Clinton’s personal server during her tenure as Secretary of State.

But that’s not the only proof that Stone had advance knowledge earlier than August 2016.

There’s also the testimony from Stone aide Andrew Miller, testimony pursued for an entire year and the last bit of work completed by the Mueller team. Miller was subpoenaed for information about what he learned while scheduling Stone’s time at the RNC, the days before the DNC emails dropped. While Miller was subpoenaed for Stone’s trial and kept in DC for days awaiting possible testimony, he never did testify, so we don’t know what he might have said.

Still, Miller’s testimony might reveal that Stone learned of the impending DNC release, by WikiLeaks, days before it happened, as testimony from Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort supports.

All of those earlier claims, however, are presented in terms of what Stone knew about WikiLeaks’ plans. The affidavits tell a very different, albeit inconclusive story.

The FBI believed in 2018 that Stone had foreknowledge of Russia’s plans.

Two affidavits obtained in summer 2018 reveal that FBI had reason to believe that Stone was Googling the names of Russia’s personas, dcleaks and Guccifer 2.0, before they had been publicly unveiled. One of those affidavits described searches occurring starting on May 17, 2016.

93. During the course of its investigation, the FBI has also identified a series of searches that appear to relate to the personas Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks, which predate the public unveiling of those two personas. In particular, between May 17, 2016, and June 15, 2016 (prior to the publication of the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress blog), records from Google show that searches were conducted for the terms “dcleaks,” “guccifer,” and ”guccifer june,” from IP addresses within one of two ranges:, These IP ranges are assigned to T-Mobile USA, Inc., and AT&T Mobility LLC, respectively, and, according to Google, the searches were all conducted from Florida. On or about June 13, 2018, this Court issued a search warrant for information associated with these searches and, in particular, for the full search histories associated with the CookieIDs that conducted the search. 4 As set forth in the affidavit submitted in support of that search warrant, IP logs obtained from Twitter showed that STONE used multiple IP addresses within the ranges and to log into his Twitter account @RogerJStoneJr. A Facebook account controlled by STONE also used an IP address within the range on or about June 13, 2016, to purchase a Facebook advertisement.

Another affidavit more specifically focused on searches on Guccifer (but not, at least by this description, Guccifer 2.0) on June 15, 2016, before the WordPress site for Guccifer 2.0 was unveiled.

22. During the course of its investigation, the FBI has identified a series of searches that appear to relate to the persona Guccifer 2.0, which predate the public unveiling of that persona. In particular, on or about June 15, 2016 (prior to the publication of the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress blog), records from Google show that searches were conducted for the terms “guccifer” and “guccifer june,” from an IP address within the range 107. 77 .216.0/24. 1 This IP range is assigned to AT&T Mobility LLC, and, according to Google, the searches were all conducted from Florida.

Without seeing the FBI’s forensics, there might be explanations for both these searches. Some journalists, for example, got advance or private alerts on some of this activity, and searches on “Guccifer” in 2016 might be focused on Marcel Lazar, the hacker who first used the moniker Guccifer, who was sentenced in that period.

But in July and August 2018, just as the Mueller team was beginning to pursue the obstruction charges against Stone that focused everyone’s attention on how Stone learned that WikiLeaks was going to release stolen Podesta emails, the FBI had, in hand, data that strongly suggested that Stone, virtually alone in the country, had non-public information about the Russian hack-and-leak campaign in advance.

They believed he had it in May, while Russian hackers were still in the process of stealing the DNC emails.

If FBI were to — if they did — validate those searches (particularly the May search on dcleaks), it would provide independent evidence making it clear Stone’s claims of foreknowledge to Gates weren’t just confused boasts about Hillary’s missing State emails, as the SSCI Report concludes, but instead knowledge of the Russian operation akin to that George Papadopoulos obtained.

If the FBI had proof that Stone knew of the hack-and-leak while the Russians continued hacking, then the drama over whether Randy Credico or Jerome Corsi was Stone’s source would just be theater. Corsi’s August 2, 2016 boasting of foreknowledge of the schedule of upcoming WikiLeaks leaks would be just a distraction.

Roger Stone spoke to Donald Trump at least 13 times in May 2016, a month when (the FBI suspected) the rat-fucker had foreknowledge of the Russian theft of Democratic emails. The Watergate investigation, with far more authority and a successful subpoena of the President, never proved that Richard Nixon had foreknowledge of that burglary. Here, though, the FBI got far closer to that proof.

The movie Rashomon demonstrated that any given narrative tells just one version of events, but that by listening to all available narratives, you might identify gaps and biases that get you closer to the truth.

I’m hoping that principle works even for squalid stories like the investigation into Roger Stone’s cheating in the 2016 election. This series will examine the differences between four stories about Roger Stone’s actions in 2016:

As I noted in the introductory post (which lays out how I generally understand the story each tells), each story has real gaps in one or more of these areas:

My hope is that by identifying these gaps and unpacking what they might say about the choices made in crafting each of these stories, we can get a better understanding of what actually happened — both in 2016 and in the investigations. The gaps will serve as a framework for this series.

20 replies
    • bmaz says:

      1) Who exactly are the “they” you refer to?

      2) Manning was detained, pursuant to a civil contempt of court finding, and very properly so. Manning had no right whatsoever to refuse to testify. None.

      3) What part of this do you not understand, and why in the world do you think it is analogous to Stone who had an actual prison sentence that was commuted?

      • daelv says:

        Manning was pardoned. They detained her after the pardon for refusing to answer questions. She already testified had nothing more to say. Do you concur with that as being justified after all she had been through? Sorry, I do not think it was justified.

        • bmaz says:

          Yes. And you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Manning was NOT pardoned, Obama simply commuted her UCMJ prison sentence. She was then given full immunity under BOTH civil and UCMJ jurisdictions, which meant she had NO 5th Amendment basis to refuse to testify.

          So, yes, you bet your ass I think she should have been civilly detained for contempt. If that is not enforced, then contempt means nothing. I do not give a tinker’s damn what she “has been through”. That is the remedy for contempt. And what you “think” is irrelevant.

          Grand juries and trial courts depend every day on the enforcement of subpoenas. The entire justice system does. It is in the freaking Sixth Amendment. One does NOT get to blithely refuse because it offends their or your fee fees, else the 6th and compulsory process generally is effectively meaningless, and so too the entire justice system.

        • daelv says:

          Appreciate your feed back but it seems rather soulless?
          Do have any compassion? Or are you into legal precedent so deep you forgot what laws are for?
          Wikipedia for what it’s worth:
          “Manning objected to the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings and announced she would refuse to testify,[221] saying “we’ve seen this power abused countless times to target political speech. I have nothing to contribute to this case and I resent being forced to endanger myself by participating in this predatory practice.”[222] Manning also said she had provided all the information she had in 2013 during her court martial and that she stood by her previous answers” Wrong answer? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning#2019_jailing_for_contempt

        • vvv says:

          Gotta speak up for what bmaz says and offer my agreement. This stuff is important.

          “compassion” and “suffering” and “seems rather soulless” are irrelevant here – it ain’t Chancery.

          And, she got her mercy in the commutation and immunity, the price being a limited loss of 5th Amendment rights as to specific matters, for which she was obligated to testify to when it was demanded of her. Her failure to comply was her decision to fail in her legal obligation(s), and she was penalized for it.

          And her argument in the wiki quote, to me, is straw-man and exaggerated.

        • emptywheel says:

          Even setting aside from questions she refused to answer in her statement accepting guilt, we now know (from the superseding indictment), that they were working an expanded CFAA charge that, in fact, DID include stuff that wasn’t addressed in her statement at all.

          So yes, they needed her testimony.

  1. John Paul Jones says:

    Is there a timeline anywhere of Russian attempts to reach out to the Trump campaign, such that we could see where Stone might have got his first “lead”? For example (and this is of course a WAG), Papadopoulos reports to campaign, Caputo picks it up, passes it to pal Stone? Or is it more likely he had independent sources?

    • tvor_22 says:

      There are three possible points of interest AFAIK:

      Before Pap’s first contact with Mifsud on March 14 (which might have triggered Mercer/GAI’s “From Russia With Money” report, whose earliest reference was accessed on March 14) there was this:

      February, 20, 2016: [Douglas Caddy] Stone wrote me: “Thanks for connecting me with Harley Schlanger [of LarouchePAC] – he is a great guy and shares our goals. I think we hit it off. I have a back channel to Trump and we are fighting the globalists.”

      Caddy himself apparently believed LaRouche was a conduit to the Kremlin. LaRouche is mentioned in the earliest entry in the dossier (December 2015, to be used as conduit for kompromat, along with Flynn and others), but take that with a pinch of salt. Caddy also claimed private investigators stalked him when he went to Mueller about his suspicions.

      Also on December 3, 2015 Barbera Ledeen reached out to Smith claiming she knew someone who could get “emails”, who she was then in contact with. Maybe she also reached out to Stone, although apparently Corsi ignored her.

      Also the day before Stone’s dodgy dcleaks and guccifer searches, someone (I think it was an Israeli contact) reached out to Stone and Corsi for a meeting with Trump and Manafort. This is from the Roger Stone Warrants, but a lot is redacted. Contacts were made on may 15-16, then Stone begins searching on the 17th, and then the Israeli contact and Stone had dinner meeting on the 18th.

      • Eureka says:

        re GAI report, lots of other (early, and otherwise) significant access dates Marcy identifies here:


        What I’ve found odd is that they published it with these (non-) scattershot dates, like they are laying out a trail, rather than using, say, a common “Last Accessed” convention (and with dates closer to publication). Apparently GAI does things differently.

        Also different from how Corsi tries to forward-date his related writing activities.

        Stone [power-tripping, almost like he +/- Corsi _are_ the ones ~optimizing the to-be-released Podesta mails, like how Mercer had wanted an optimizer for the WL releases in general, but may have preferred someone closer to her vest] email to Bannon October 4, 2016:

        “[…] Tell Rebecca [sic] to send us some $$$”

        It’s like the yin-yang swirling through time with these guys and their shifting roles. Foreground, background, foreground, …

      • emptywheel says:

        I don’t think Schlanger fits in the redactions, FWIW. And while I think Stone’s claims to have had no tie to Peter Smith are false (as I said, I think R may be part of that effort), I do think he didn’t have any that earlier.

        • bmaz says:

          Was concerned when I first saw the Schlanger reference. Am quite relieved to find it has nothing to do with Margo.

      • emptywheel says:

        Oh, and thanks for keeping a focus on that GAI report (there’s still so much redacted in Bannon’s released interviews but I think they may have asked abt that).

        There are three dates of interest, IMO: When WikILeaks released a “poll” asking if they should get Hillary’s speeches, when GRU phished Podesta, and that report, all around the same days in March.

  2. Savage Librarian says:

    Old news from the other side of the pond, and another name ending in R, just to add it to the mix of “oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” I’m looking forward to when we can loosen up on knitting our brows.

    “Roger Stone Allegedly Communicated With Mysterious Hacker Guccifer 2.0” – SecurityWeek, 2/21/19

    “After political consultant Roger Stone was charged in January 2019 on seven counts relating to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian electoral interference, he requested that his case be randomly assigned to a judge. Mueller objected to this saying that the case relates to the United States v. Netyksho, 1:18-CR-00215 (ABJ) case, and that under U.S. rules it should be tried by the same judge.”
    “February 18 has also seen publication [of] the UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) final report into ‘disinformation and fake news’. This committee of members of parliament does not have the legal teeth nor global reach of Mueller’s special enquiry. All it can do is make recommendations; and as such it largely focuses on Facebook. “The Cambridge Analytica scandal was facilitated by Facebook’s policies. If it had fully complied with the FTC settlement, it would not have happened,” it states.”

    “Outside of the committee, its chairman Damian Collins is less reticent. Commenting on the news of Kaiser’s subpoena, he said, “her work connected her to WikiLeaks, Cambridge Analytica and [its parent company] SCL, the [U.S. presidential] campaign, Leave.EU and Arron Banks.”


    • ducktree says:

      FWIWOnce, and ONLY once I attempted to create a FB account so that I could continue to follow the commentariat at C.P. Pierce’s blog at esquire.

      Before I’d even filled in a profile, I had “friending” requests from people I had lost touch with years ago. . . for a reason. Including a former co-worker I would have loved to reconnect with.

      Except she’s been dead for two years already.

      • P J Evans says:

        I have a twitter account that I use, very occasionally, to reply to something nonpolitical. Otherwise, I’m logged out.

      • Chris.EL says:

        never had a FB account, the whole thing feels creepy. In movie Social Network, Z. starts out by hacking dorm photos and comparing relative individual beauty/attractiveness; sometimes to farm animals. Nice. Socially uplifting.

        Back in March I was picking up on fear and anxiety from people I was dealing with. It didn’t make sense to me. It was out of place within our face to face interaction.

        They must have been processing the fears that FB was directing at them.
        Off topic? Why doesn’t Trump have to comply with subpoenas??

        Quoting bmaz: …”Grand juries and trial courts depend every day on the enforcement of subpoenas. The entire justice system does.” …

Comments are closed.