Prosecutor Kravis breaks his silence

[Jonathan Kravis, a federal prosecutor for 10 years who resigned from the DOJ,] broke his silence Monday to denounce the DOJ’s recent move to drop charges against former Trump adviser Michael Flynn.

[Kravis] was a member of the four-person prosecution team that withdrew from [Roger] Stone’s case earlier this year after top DOJ officials overruled career prosecutors to seek a lighter sentence against Stone. Kravis took the extraordinary step of quitting the department entirely.

On Monday he commented publicly for the first time about his decision to leave the DOJ, highlighting what he sees as an alarming trend of the department putting “political patronage ahead of its commitment to the rule of law.”

“I feel compelled to write because I believe that the department’s handling of these matters is profoundly misguided, because my colleagues who still serve the department are duty-bound to remain silent and because I am convinced that the department’s conduct in the Stone and Flynn cases will do lasting damage to the institution,” Kravis wrote in a Washington Post op-ed.

  The Hill

Since my resignation, I have not commented on the Stone sentencing; it is not easy for me to do so now. Prosecutors are trained to make their cases in the courtroom and let the results speak for themselves.

[...]

[Stone] was tried and convicted of obstruction of Congress, false statements and witness tampering, based on evidence that he had lied repeatedly to a congressional committee investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, and then threatened a witness who could have exposed those lies.

In February, the Justice Department filed a sentencing memorandum, signed by all four prosecutors in the case, recommending a sentence of seven to nine years, within the range set by the U.S. sentencing guidelines. In my experience, the Justice Department staunchly defends sentences within the guidelines range, particularly for defendants (such as Stone) who are convicted at trial, and especially for defendants (such as Stone) who repeatedly demonstrate disrespect for the judicial system.

The next morning, the president posted a tweet criticizing the sentencing recommendation as a “miscarriage of justice.” Later that day, the Justice Department submitted a revised memo revoking the original recommendation and proposing that Stone receive a much shorter sentence. All four career prosecutors who had tried Stone withdrew from the case. I resigned because I was not willing to serve a department that would so easily abdicate its responsibility to dispense impartial justice.

Last week came an equally appalling chapter: the department’s motion to drop the Flynn case. Flynn pleaded guilty to the crime of making false statements in connection with lies he told in an FBI interview about his contacts with the Russian ambassador. Flynn twice admitted under oath that he had committed this crime, and the trial judge issued a lengthy opinion upholding the plea.

Nevertheless, after public criticism of the prosecution by the president, the department moved to dismiss Flynn’s case, claiming that new evidence showed that the plea had no basis. None of the career prosecutors who handled Flynn’s case signed that motion.

In both cases, the department undercut the work of career employees to protect an ally of the president, an abdication of the commitment to equal justice under the law.

[...]

Indeed, the department chose to assign these matters to a special counsel precisely to avoid the appearance of political influence. For the attorney general now to directly intervene to benefit the president’s associates makes this betrayal of the rule of law even more egregious.

The attorney general’s public comments worsened matters. William P. Barr gave nationally televised interviews in which he disparaged the work of prosecutors and agents who handled these cases, criticizing the Stone prosecutors for losing “perspective” and the Flynn team for becoming “wedded to a particular outcome.”

As the attorney general knows, those career prosecutors and agents cannot respond. The department prohibits employees from talking to the media about criminal cases without high-level approval. Department lawyers are ethically bound to protect the confidences of their client. Barr’s decision to excuse himself from these obligations and attack his own silenced employees is alarming. It sends an unmistakable message to prosecutors and agents — if the president demands, we will throw you under the bus.

  Kravis @ WaPo

Which is exactly the message Barr wants to send.

The task of repairing this damage will fall to the department’s career agents and prosecutors, and it is for them that I write this. Your work of investigating and prosecuting criminal cases is hard, and it becomes even harder when witnesses and jurors start to believe that the Justice Department’s handling of these cases is infected by politics. Your service during these times is a credit to the department. And you will be at your posts, serving justice, long after this attorney general is gone.

We hope.

Impeach Barr.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Sad to watch

Judge Amy Berman Jackson on Tuesday said attacks from President Donald Trump and commentary from conservative media are part of a campaign of intimidation and harassment of jurors in Roger Stone's criminal case.

Jackson read the President's tweet attacking the Stone jury forewoman, as well as commentary from InfoWars' Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson from Fox News, to a federal courtroom, in deciding to hear testimony from jurors while protecting their identities after Stone asked for a retrial.

[...]

"In a highly publicized political climate ... the risk of harassment and intimidation of any juror" who may testify to the court today "is extremely high."

"While judges may have volunteered for their positions ... jurors are not volunteers," Jackson said. "They are deserving of the public's respect."

The hearing is ongoing, and at least one juror may be called to testify Tuesday afternoon in a closed courtroom.

Trump has in fact tweeted about the Stone juror during the hearing.

  MSN

In a decision this weekend to dey Stone's attempt to remove her from the case, Jackson noted Stone's recent requests of the court may be more publicity stunts than legal pleadings.

[...]

"At bottom, given the absence of any factual or legal support for the motion for disqualification, the pleading [asking for the Jackson's recusal] appears to be nothing more than an attempt to use the Court's docket to disseminate a statement for public consumption that has the words 'judge' and 'biased' in it," she wrote.

[...]

Questions over the jury forewoman have allowed Stone and Trump to publicly try to muddy his conviction. Stone has pursued the request for a new trial in court and unsuccessfully tried to remove Jackson from handling his case, while Trump has commented on the case several times in recent days, regarding both the judge and the forewoman.

[...]

Trump has attacked the jury forewoman multiple times publicly, calling the juror's unanimous findings of Stone's guilt on all seven charges he faced "tainted."

"You have a juror that is obviously tainted. She was an activist against Trump. She said bad things about Trump and bad things about Stone," the President claimed over the weekend. "She somehow weaseled her way onto the jury and if that's not a tainted jury then there is no such thing as a tainted jury."

[...]

At the start of Stone's November trial, both prosecutors and Stone's defense team were then able to question potential jurors and challenge them from sitting on the jury. They questioned the jury forewoman, Tomeka Hart, about her background and her ability to judge Stone impartially, according to a transcript of the trial's first day. Before the judge, she told them she could evaluate the evidence in the case fairly. Stone's team didn't challenge her from being seated on the jury.

If the country ever gets rid of this abusive, unfit POS, we will still have to go through serious recovery from the trauma, like when a woman finally divorces an abusive husband and escapes with her life and her children. The damage done may be permanent.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

Nobody's checking his spelling now

He can spell any way he wants.  And soon, you may have to start spelling his way.

"Who's" and "you're"...but, let's go on...

Correctly, Judge Jackson denied a new trial.  Stone will probably appeal.

David, the trial was of Roger Stone, not Donald Trump. Are we going to have to allow only jurors who favor this VIP or that to sit on juries?   Don't be a dotard, too.

Also, the president of the United States should not be bad-mouthing a federal judge.  Alas, the asshole can't be presidential.  It's not in his nature.

(#Trunt.  LOL)

Federal judges call emergency meeting today

A national association of federal judges has called an emergency meeting Tuesday to address growing concerns about the intervention of Justice Department officials and President Donald Trump in politically sensitive cases, the group’s president said Monday.

Philadelphia U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe, who heads the independent Federal Judges Association, said the group “could not wait” until its spring conference to weigh in on a deepening crisis that has enveloped the Justice Department and Attorney General William Barr.

[...]

Tuesday, the federal judges are set to convene via a conference call involving 15 to 20 officers and members of the association's executive committee, Rufe said.

  USA Today

Could make it tough for Billy Barr to do his job.

Rufe, nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush, said the group of more than 1,000 federal jurists called for the meeting last week after Trump criticized prosecutors' initial sentencing recommendation for his friend Roger Stone and the Department of Justice overruled them.

Trump also took a swipe at the federal judge who is set to preside at Stone’s sentencing hearing Thursday.

[...]

Rufe said the judges' association is “not inclined to get involved with an ongoing case,” but she voiced strong support for [Stone trial judge Amy Berman] Jackson.

“I am not concerned with how a particular judge will rule,” Rufe said, praising Jackson's reputation. “We are supportive of any federal judge who does what is required.”

[...]

More than 2,000 former Justice Department officials called on Barr to resign Sunday, claiming his handling of the Stone case "openly and repeatedly flouted" the principle of equal justice.

"Although there are times when political leadership appropriately weighs in on individual prosecutions, it is unheard of for the department’s top leaders to overrule line prosecutors, who are following established policies, in order to give preferential treatment to a close associate of the president, as Attorney General Barr did in the Stone case," the letter reads.

[...]

Last week's move in the Stone case was followed by Friday's disclosure that Barr had appointed an outside prosecutor to review the criminal case of Trump's former national security adviser, Michael Flynn. He is awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Ages ago. There has already been interference at some level in order to keep him from being sentenced. He has been filing motions along the way, but it's been three years since he was found guilty.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

He IS the law!

And his rights are absolute.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Impeach the motherfucker again

Abuse of power.  Interfering in the legal process.  And a dozen other counts.

From the Guardian:

Stirring up the rank(s)

Trump supporters on Twitter exploded with allegations of jury bias in Roger Stone’s case. One of the jurors, a woman named Tomeka Hart, wrote a Facebook post defending the four prosecutors who withdrew from the case in protest.

[...]

The instant Hart outed herself, conservative journalists combed through her social media history and found that she’s not just a Democrat, she’s a former Democratic congressional candidate, a frequent donor to Democratic campaigns, and before the trial tweeted multiple times not just against Trump but also about the Mueller investigation. President Trump immediately weighed in:

  The Dispatch

Are you paying attention, Billy Boy?  Your services are required, and you're still getting the "Trump treatment".

Neither the law nor the known facts support the claim. At least not yet. The law does not require judges to sideline potential jurors who have strong political beliefs. Democrats can sit in judgment on Republicans, and Republicans can sit in judgment on Democrats. The key question isn’t whether a person is partisan but rather whether they’re capable of setting aside political bias to decide questions of fact fairly and impartially. And, believe it or not, this happens all the time in the United States of America.

Anyone who ever served on a jury knows it.

Moreover, the jury selection process (called voir dire) provides attorneys with a limited number of peremptory challenges—which permit attorneys to strike jurors without showing cause—and ample opportunity to challenge jurors for cause. In the Stone case, the trial court struck at least 40 jurors for cause (38 in response to the defense team’s initial requests and two more after a request for reconsideration).

[...]

If the prospective juror discloses all relevant material facts in response to questions from the judge and/or opposing counsel, and the judge is still satisfied that the juror can set aside any political bias to render a fair verdict, their decision will rarely be reversed. If, however, the juror is deceptive in voir dire, then the defendant may well be denied a fair trial.

[...]

Did Hart truthfully answer every material question on voir dire? If so, then these “revelations” aren’t revelations at all, and the likelihood that they could form the foundation of a new trial are slim to none. Fortunately, there’s a transcript of the oral voir dire, and the transcript does not help Roger Stone.

Hart (identified only as Juror 1261, but identifiable by her statement that she ran for Congress and other biographical details) was questioned by the trial judge and by defense counsel. After first asking questions about Hart’s prior service on a grand jury, the judge asked a series of key questions:

THE COURT: You've also indicated a fair amount of paying attention to news and social media including about political things? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

THE COURT: And when we asked what you read or heard about the defendant, you do understand that he was involved in Mr. Trump's campaign in some way?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

THE COURT: Is there anything about that that affects your ability to judge him fairly and impartially sitting here right now in this courtroom?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Absolutely not.

THE COURT: What is it that you have read or heard about him?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: So nothing that I can recall specifically. I do watch sometimes paying attention but sometimes in the background CNN. So I recall just hearing about him being part of the campaign and some belief or reporting around interaction with the Russian probe and interaction with him and people in the country, but I don't have a whole lot of details. I don't pay that close attention or watch C-SPAN.

THE COURT: Can you kind of wipe the slate clean and learn what you need to learn in this case from the evidence presented in the courtroom and no other source?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

THE COURT: You actually have had some interest in Congress yourself?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

THE COURT: Does the fact that this case involves allegations of not being truthful to Congress, is that something that you think that the nature of the allegations alone would make it hard for you to be fair?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

The prosecution declined to ask Hart any questions. Then, defense counsel had its turn:

MR. BUSCHEL: Did you ever work for anyone in Congress?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

MR. BUSCHEL: You've worked on campaigns for Congress people running for Congress?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I ran for Congress.

MR. BUSCHEL: You ran for Congress?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I worked on my own campaign.

MR. BUSCHEL: And you have friends who worked for other congressmen?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

MR. BUSCHEL: Do you have any political aspirations now?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don't know, not federal.

MR. BUSCHEL: What might they be?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My home state in Tennessee. No local.

MR. BUSCHEL: Just recognize that there might be some media— What are your aspirations?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I served, can I just say I served in political office in Memphis in a local office on the school board. So I, one day I wake up and say I run for, you know, office again in Memphis to impact education. One day I wake up and say no way in the world would I do that. So I don't have an immediate plan to run for office.

MR. BUSCHEL: The fact that you run for an office, you're affiliated with a political party. Roger Stone is affiliated with the Republican party, Donald Trump. You understand what I'm saying and getting at?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I do.

MR. BUSCHEL: How do you feel about that?

MR. KRAVIS: Objection.

THE COURT: Can you make that question a little bit more crisp? Is there anything about his affiliation with the Trump campaign and the Republican party in general that gives you any reason to pause or hesitate or think that you couldn't fairly evaluate the evidence against him?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

MR. BUSCHEL: Thank you, ma'am.

THE COURT: All right, you can step out.

R. BUSCHEL: Thank you, ma'am.

THE COURT: All right, you can step out.

(Prospective juror leaves courtroom.)

THE COURT: Mr. Buschel, you have a motion?

MR. BUSCHEL: No.

THE COURT: Okay, let's bring in the next juror.

So let’s recap. Stone’s lawyers knew that she was generally familiar with Stone, they knew she ran for Congress, they specifically asked about political bias, and then refused to seek her removal.

[...]

Let me add an important caveat. I’ve not seen her responses to the jury questionnaire, and the Stone jury questionnaire was far more comprehensive than in most federal cases:

Thus, it’s possible that there were material omissions in her written answers, but again—Stone’s lawyers knew she ran for Congress and they still didn’t initially seek to strike her.

The trial judge has already rejected Stone’s request for a new trial on the basis of alleged bias of a different unnamed juror, and unless Hart lied in response to written voir dire, it’s unlikely Stone would be awarded a new trial based on Hart’s alleged bias.

It'll still stir up the MAGAts, and they're dangerous.

Under Barr's leadership, it's becoming that way.  

UPDATE:

Too little, too late

Some Republicans are trying to salvage their reputations.

Some Republican senators said on Wednesday that President Trump shouldn't weigh in on pending sentences after he publicly criticized an initial recommendation from the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the case of Roger Stone.

[...]

"I don't like this chain of events where you have a ... proceeding, a sentencing, a recommended sentence, the president weighs in and all of the sudden Justice comes back, says 'change the deal.' I think most people would look at that and say 'hmm, that just doesn't look right.' And I think they're right," Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told reporters.

  The Hill

Ooooh, Lisa doesn't like it.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told reporters that Trump "should not have gotten involved."

"I think the president would be better served by never commenting on a pending federal investigations. I said that back when the Mueller investigation was going on, and it's certainly the case when you're at a sentencing stage," Collins said.

Ooooh, Susan is "concerned".

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he didn't think Trump was trying to "bully" the judge who will ultimately decide Stone's sentence. But, he added, he didn't think the president should be publicly weighing on pending sentences either.

"I don't think he should be commenting on cases in the system, I don't think that's appropriate," Graham told reporters.

Why is anybody still asking Lindsey Graham about anything?

And lest we thought Mitt Romney had found his backbone...

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who has emerged as a chief Trump critic within the Senate GOP caucus, stopped short of directly criticizing the president on Wednesday.

"The judge will make a decision and I have confidence in the independence of the third branch," Romney told reporters. "[But] I can't begin to spend time discussing the president's tweets. That would be a full-time job."

Asked if he didn't think there was political interference, Romney added, "I certainly hope not, and I think the appearance is unfortunate."

The top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee said Wednesday it would not be appropriate for the military to take disciplinary action on Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman for his testimony during President Trump’s impeachment.

“His career needs to proceed based on his talents and abilities,” Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) told reporters about Vindman.

Pressed by The Hill if that means he thinks it would be inappropriate for the military to take disciplinary action against Vindman, Thornberry said, “based on his testimony before, yeah.”

“My point is, treat him just like anybody else,” Thornberry added.

[...]

On Wednesday, Thornberry suggested it was Trump’s prerogative to remove Vindman from the NSC.

“The NSC staff is the president’s personal staff and if he wants to change somebody out that’s obviously his ability, and I think given the circumstance of this, it would obviously be uncomfortable,” Thornberry said.

Still, Thornberry said the “potential danger” of “any president” weighing in on military disciplinary issues is that career progress could be affected by something other than “objective factors.”

  The Hill

That's not exactly saying it wouldn't be appropriate for the military to take disciplinary action. And removing Vindman from the NSC is not entirely dispositive of what Trump did. He had the man publicly marched out of the White House a couple of days before he was going to be leaving anyway, along with his brother as well.

At a news conference Friday, Esper told reporters that “we protect all of our persons, service members, from retribution or anything like that. We’ve already addressed that in policy and other means.”

Thornberry said he’s “counting on” Esper to keep his word.

“I’m counting on Esper to do what he said, and that is ensure there is no retribution,” Thornberry said.

How long will Esper be keeping his job?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Too little, too late

Horowitz is one tweet away from being fired as it is.

From December:

Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael Horowitz said Wednesday that he found no evidence the FBI wiretapped anyone other than former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in connection with its Russia investigation.

Horowitz’s comments at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing refuted a series of tweets sent by President Trump in March 2017 in which he claimed that Obama had his “wires tapped” at Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign.

  The Hill

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

It will only get worse

Also...

Instances of white nationalist literature or other propaganda found on college campuses nearly doubled last year, according to a new study.

Data released to The Hill by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) indicated that white nationalist recruitment on U.S. college campuses is rising, with a total of 433 schools in 43 states and Washington, D.C. reporting incidents in 2019.

The report found a total of 630 instances of white nationalist propaganda distribution efforts across the reporting schools, an increase of 96 percent from 320 reported in 2018.

[...]

“White supremacists see propaganda distribution – including fliering, leafleting and stickering – as a convenient and practically anonymous way to promote their messages of hate and intolerance,” ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said in a statement.

“While we know extremists and hate groups are emboldened by the current environment, this surge in fliering and propaganda distribution powerfully demonstrates how bigots are able to spread their message without compromising their anonymity,” Greenblatt added.

  The Hill

I wonder if Robert Mueller sleeps well.

UPDATE:

Any bets?

source

She is absolutely right.

Don't hold your breath, though.

UPDATE:



We'll see.

Make that all four prosecutors on the case

The Justice Department took the extraordinary step Tuesday of scaling back its own sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone after President Trump slammed the proposed prison term as “very horrible and unfair," prompting all four prosecutors on the case to withdraw in apparent protest.

[...]

In light of the new recommendation, Jonathan Kravis, Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed and Michael Marando — veteran prosecutors who spearheaded the Stone prosecution — abruptly announced in court filings that they were withdrawing from the case entirely.

Zelinsky and Kravis noted in their filings that they were also resigning from the Justice Department “effective immediately.”

[...]

Trump denied speaking to Attorney General William Barr or other Justice Department officials before they overruled the Washington U.S. attorney’s office — though he claimed he could have.

“I have the absolute right to do it," the president told reporters at the White House. "I stay out of things to a degree that people wouldn’t believe, but I didn’t speak to them.”

Bruce Rogow, an attorney for Stone, said the Justice Department did not reach out to him or his client prior to the sentencing reduction. Stone is expected to be sentenced on Feb. 20.

  NY Daily News

He may have talked to them. He lies. But he wouldn't have had to. His tweets tell his sycophants and henchmen what to do.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) vowed to send the Justice Department inspector general a formal request for an investigation into the Stone overruling.

“The president seems to think the entire Justice Department is just his personal lawsuit to prosecute his enemies and help his friends,” Schumer said. “The Justice Department is being totally perverted to Donald Trump’s own personal desires and needs.”

Maybe he needs to be impeached again. And Barr, too.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

There goes another one

A second US attorney pulling out of the Roger Stone case.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

He pissed off Trump, right?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:  Well, at least Trump is publicly backing Roger.

It's Sunday

LOL x 1,000.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

The list

UPDATE:

Verdict in the Roger Stone trial

So...that's guilty then.

These are the counts:

He has proven himself to be unable - more than once - of  following that order, though.

Add Stone to Trump's long list of convicted friends.

UPDATE:

Trump tweets his response.

With friends like this

Jurors will start deliberating Thursday after hearing testimonies over the past week. A guilty verdict could send the longtime GOP operative to prison and will make him the sixth Trump ally to be convicted of a crime as a result of the special counsel investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election.

  Yahoo

Six Trump associates convicted, but Trump is innocent. Sure.

During closing arguments Wednesday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Kravis told jurors that Stone obstructed a congressional investigation to help Trump and his campaign. Stone lied to lawmakers repeatedly, depriving them of evidence they needed as they pursued their own investigation into Russia and possible ties to the Trump campaign, Kravis said in a packed federal courtroom.

"A person who is acting in good faith would not say and do the things that Roger Stone said and did ... It shows you exactly what was in his head all along: to obstruct the committee’s investigation," Kravis told jurors.

[...]

Stone faces seven charges: one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five counts of false statements and one count of witness tampering.

The allegations stem from Stone's interactions with the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016, around the time that WikiLeaks, an anti-secrecy group, began publishing troves of damaging emails about the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton, Trump's presidential rival.

The key word is "recollection"

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

The Roger Stone trial

Richard Gates, who is facing up to ten years in prison under a plea agreement for various fraud charges, testified in Stone's criminal trial on Tuesday, saying that the longtime Trump associate was telling the campaign about WikiLeaks's plans as early as April 2016, months before the DNC had announced it was hacked.

[...]

Gates testified that there were high-level campaign meetings to discuss WikiLeaks releases and that there was a "state of happiness" among aides over the damaging information about their rival.

"There were a number of us who felt that it would give our campaign a leg up,” Gates said of the DNC leak.

[...]

A little over a week after WikiLeaks released the trove of DNC emails on July 22, 2016, Stone had a phone conversation with Trump. Gates told the jury on Tuesday that the candidate "indicated that more information would be coming” after speaking with Stone.

That's similar to what Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen, who's currently serving a three-year prison sentence, told Congress in February. He indicated that Stone had led the campaign to believe he was speaking directly with Julian Assange, the head of WikiLeaks.

[...]

Stone's attorneys have argued that he never intended to mislead Congress about his efforts to contact WikiLeaks and that he never in fact had any inside information about the organization as he had claimed publicly in the latter half of 2016.

  The Hill

What are they going to claim this time? That Stone was updating the campaign with shit he made up?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.