Censored Beyond Words

By Roger Stone

How Twitter Transformed Itself from a Frivolous Online Message Board into the Leading Digital Innovator of 21^st Century Techno-Fascism, Turbocharging Censorship from the Mere Deletion of Words Into Erasing Human Beings Entirely

“The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.”    Samuel Adams, October 14, 1771

I always liked Twitter. It was lively, snarky and always challenging to get your bon mot into 140 characters. My feed was not for the faint-hearted. It was pungent, pugnacious and sometimes risqué. Not as over the top of the hordes on twitter who have threatened to kill me, my wife, my kids and my dogs but then Twitter doesn’t seem to care about banning them. The imbecile Keith Olbermann drops the F-bomb on President Trump daily but Twitter looks the other way. Twitter, it seems, holds me to a different standard.

Only by the grace of the Lord God Almighty that Twitter’s murky star chamber of sneaky, faceless censors, and the craven, disingenuous corporate autocrats behind it, were not around when the likes of Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and many more brave rebels chose to publicly revolt against constant royal subjugation.

Given how boldly those men defied convention and correctness, rejecting sanitized platitudes in favor of incendiary, seditious, do-or-die rhetoric, it is a safe bet they would have been quickly and summarily silenced, suspended in secret by Twitter’s selective political minders and disappeared without a trace, had they found themselves at the mercy of the Twitter content police.

Harsh, insulting, profane, indelicate, over-the-top and even outright nasty public rhetoric in the heat of partisan combat is an inherent and arguably-healthy feature of a centuries-old American political tradition.

In other words, Americans engage with our political opponents, no matter how ugly it might get. We have traditionally eschewed any resort to disingenuous offence-taking or phoney outrage or any other species of whining victimhood as a proxy for cheap point-scoring or advantage-taking over opponents.

What Americans do not do is try to censor or silence our opponents, or our opponents merely for not agreeing with our own ideology or for not conforming with some arbitrary restriction someone might try to put on our rhetoric to pre-empt full-throated engagement of any opponent.

No segment of the American political spectrum has been better acquainted with, and more prolific in, the use of mockery, profanity, contempt and, yes, hatred as means to go after opponents than the American political left.

One need not look past the instant stream of non-stop hatred, abuse and defamation that has been spewed about me, and to me, in the reply comments of nearly every Tweet I ever posted in the last two years, to see how true this is.

It is also true, and certainly curious, that none of this endless torrent of hatred and invective towards me has ever resulted in any action by Twitter against of the cyber-lynch mobsters that viciously assault me on a daily basis.  It would seem that if one is a good little leftist and attacks the right people (or wrong people, as the case may) then no assault is too nasty to overlook.

Totalitarian Corporate Thought Police

It is perplexing, to say the least, how it is that Twitter treats certain public figures on their platform as though they are delicate snowflakes in need of Twitter’s special vigilante protection from big bad meanies like me.

Yet, I am treated by Twitter like a human punching bag with a target painted on it, with open season for any sort of attack to be launched against me, no matter how repugnant or hate-filled it is on the face of it, without need to stretch one’s imagination to suss a “micro-aggression.”

If Twitter’s passive inaction towards hatred spewed my way by its fellow traveler members on the screeching nasty left is any indication of its “standards” for policing offensive words toward public figures like myself, then it is absolutely within the realm of acceptability to take salty pot shots at nationally-known network “news” personalities who not only choose to be public figures but are also handsomely paid for it.

If one adds to this the overarching fact that these personalities deceitfully masquerade as reporters or journalists, of some sort, while effectively acting every bit the partisan propagandists one would expect to find as low-level hired campaign hacks, then the notion that I must be turned into a non-person in order to protect them from my salty expressions of contempt is beyond laughable, totally bizarre, and extreme to the point that there is simply no other valid explanation for it than the partisan animus of the creeps behind the Twitter star chamber.

Aside from the inherently extreme and patently discriminatory nature of my being instantly turned into a non-person by Twitter over mere insults that contained no threats or really anything of any consequence at all, except perhaps to the delicate feelings of the partisan media hitmen it was directed towards, the attempt to justify this cyber beheading by resort to “Twitter’s Rules” is too cynical and disingenuous to stomach.

Only the sneakiest and most craven of corporate fascist bullies would actually hide behind a bunch of vague, if not totally-undefined, “rules” that they alone can summarily change in any way at any time…that they alone impose whenever they want for whatever reasons they want, selectively, yet arbitrarily, without warning, hearing, or even explanation.

The plain truth is that anyone who doesn’t immediately recognize that totalitarian leftist orthodoxy is what is really at play here, maniacally intent on suppressing undesirables and their “hate” speech, is paying absolutely ZERO attention.

Regardless of who or what is involved, on any level, Twitter’s thought police are never going to qualify as some sort of high, holy tribune of rule enforcement and the maintenance of supposed “standards”.

They are clearly discriminatory, dishonest partisans who saw their chance to drive a truck through an insulting, but effectively harmless, few Tweets to run it right over me in a calculated partisan takedown.

The Twitterati, however, will soon find the runaway truckload of bullshit they ran me over with headed straight for them…..with the pedal to the metal.

from
https://stonecoldtruth.com/censored-beyond-words/

Twitter Bans Stone: Bring Him Back, SIGN OUR PETITION

After a weekend of epic and blunt truth-telling about CNN reporters, the censorship police at Twitter have banned the official Roger Stone account. He exposed their hypocrisy on the Russia collusion hoax, and questioned the intelligence of on-air talent like Don Lemon and the dreadful Ana Navarro.

He said what we were all thinking, courageous enough to hold these scum accountable for their lies about President Trump and the millions of Americans who put him in the White House.

***SIGN THE PETITION NOW***

The ban, pushed by insane leftists Keith Olbermann, was originally supposed to last a little over three hours, but has been extended to a PERMANENT BAN, according to several news outlets.

However, thousands of Twitter users are petitioning Twitter HQ to reinstate Stone, citing examples of Olberman’s deranged tirades at President Trump and other conservatives. Use #GetMeRogerStone to join the cause.

You see, free speech is a right that the alt/tech left only want for themselves. Thankfully, according to Politico, Mr. Stone will be pursuing legal action against Twitter.

We know where the enemy stands, and now we need to know where the #GetMeRogerStone army stands.

By adding your name to our petition and sharing on your social media accounts, Roger will have no doubt about your loyalty and dedication to free-speech, a constitutional right.

***SIGN THE PETITION NOW***

from
https://stonecoldtruth.com/twitter-bans-stone-bring-him-back-sign-our-petition/

IS IT THE PODESTA’S TIME IN THE BARREL YET?

By Roger Stone (Part 1)

I once tweeted that “John Podesta’s time in the barrel will come.”

Well, friends, at the risk of having my barrel comments absurdly interpreted as some of sort of obscure racist slur as General John Kelly’s comment about Congressional cowgirl Frederica Wilson was this past week, put on your polka shoes because it may be time to roll out the barrel…or roll out the barrels, I should say: one for John Podesta and another for his brother and business partner, Tony Podesta.

The two Podestas – the “Podestae”, if you will — have run a highly-lucrative influence peddling shop since the first days of Bill Clinton’s presidency, and continued their nefarious self-enrichment orgy at public expense well through the Obama reign.

Just yesterday it was revealed that special counsel Robert Mueller is now investigating Tony Podesta, brother of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Of course, it was this inevitable scrutiny of the Podestas’ underhanded business dealings that my “time in the barrel” referred to and not, as some have quite falsely claimed, to the hacking and publication almost two months later of John Podesta’s emails.

Factcheck.org reported the plain truth that there is absolutely no evidence anywhere in the substantial public record of campaign 2016 to substantiate the cynical partisan allegation by, among others, California Democrat and ranking member of the House Intelligence committee, that I predicted the Podesta email hack.

In a House hearing on March 20, 2017, Schiff stated:

“[I]n August, Stone does something truly remarkable when he predicts that John Podesta’s personal emails will soon be published. “Trust me,” he says, “it will soon be Podesta’s time in the barrel, hashtag #CrookedHillary.” In the weeks that follow, Stone shows a remarkable prescience. “I have total confidence that WikiLeaks and my hero, Julian Assange, will educate the American people soon,” he says, hashtag, “#LockHerUp.” “Payload coming,” he predicts. And two days later, it does. WikiLeaks releases its first batch of Podesta emails. The release of John Podesta’s emails would then continue on a daily basis up until the election.” [Emphasis added.]

Schiff continued his allegation by asking, “Is it a coincidence that Roger Stone predicted that [Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman] John Podesta would be a victim of a Russian hack and have his private emails published, and did so even before Mr. Podesta himself was fully aware that his private emails would be exposed?”

Schiff’s defamatory claim is a conclusory leap that simply does not hold to any honest, logical or factual scrutiny. He simply assumes for his own purposes that my August 21 Tweet about “Podesta’s time in the barrel” had to have been a reference to the release of Podesta’s emails by WikiLeaks two months later.

On ABC’s “This Week” on March 26, I flatly denied that I predicted Podesta’s emails would be hacked, adding — correctly — that nothing in the Tweet, “made any reference to John Podesta’s email.” Nothing in the context of my Twitter feed in which the Tweet was posted would support Schiff’s claim either.  I told ABC’s This Week that my Tweet referred to Podesta’s business dealings with Russia, and the expectation that it would become a news story, before too long.

But inexplicably Factcheck.org, rather negating the whole purpose of having an organization by that name, posted a note saying “just because there is no proof whatsoever that something happened doesn’t mean it didn’t.”  Thankfully we haven’t sunk quite to the point in which this passes for an evidentiary standard.

It is important to understand the context of that Tweet. Paul Manafort, who is one of my oldest friends in politics and usher in my wedding to Nydia Bertran de Espinosa (Stone), was being hounded in a media frenzy based on financial records of the political party Manafort was then legally working for being splashed all over page one of the New York Times.

We now know that a ledger reportedly showing payments to Manafort of $12 million were a forgery.  The Ukrainian prosecutor handling the Manafort investigation debunked the purported ledger entirely, saying that Manafort is not a target of any impending indictment.  You will not, however, read this fact in the New York Times.

Nonetheless, if Manafort’s business activities in the region were going to get scrutiny it was only fair that the Podesta Brothers’ adventures also be exposed to the public.

The Clintons were obsessed with Manafort’s reputation as a hyper-organized hard-driving political operative with extensive national experience. Those of us in the Trump Camp new that the Clinton political operation was scouring Russia and Ukraine to find negative dirt on my fellow Connecticut native, Manafort.

In Ukraine, these matters were handled by Ukrainian intelligence at the direction of Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, who essentially paid the Clinton Foundation so much money that he was able to overturn the democratically-elected and U.S.-recognized government of Ukraine in a coup.

The Podesta brothers’ extensive business dealings were first revealed in the “Panama Papers”, published in January 2016, as reported by the Observer in “Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin Connection”, published on April 7, 2016.

Around August 1, 2016, Dr. Jerome Corsi briefed me in a conversation in which he detailed the extent and breadth of the Podesta’s business dealings. I asked Corsi to memorialize his outline in a memo. I must again stress that all of this had been reported and was public information, available to anyone who knew where to look.

Both Manafort and the Podesta’s retroactively-filed reports pursuant to the Foreign Agent Registration Act, though I think it can be fairly argued that neither was actively engaged in any lobbying.  There are some lawyers who argue that attempting to effectuate public opinion in the United States while being paid by foreign entity requires registration. Presumably out of an abundance of caution both Manafort and the Podestas filed.

Back in August 2016, CNN reported that the FBI was investigating Paul Manafort’s ties to Russia and the Podesta Group to the Ukrainian government and the alleged corruption by the party of former Ukranian president Victor Yanukovych.

On August 19, CNN further reported that the Podesta Group issued a statement affirming that the Group had retained the Washington-based boutique law firm of Caplin & Drysdale “to determine if we were misled by the Center for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with potential ties to foreign governments or political parties.”

The Podesta Group statement to CNN continued: “When the Center became a client, it certified in writing that ‘none of the activities of the Center are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party.’ We relied on that certification and advice from counsel in registering and reporting under the Lobbying Disclosure Act rather than the Foreign Agents Registration Act.”

“We will take whatever measures are necessary to address this situation based on Caplin & Drysdale’s review, including possible legal action against the Center,” concluded the Podesta Group’s statement.

That same August 19, Buzz Feed reported that the Podesta Group and Manafort’s D.C. political firm were working under contract with the same group advising Yanukovych and his Ukrainian Party of Regions – namely the non-profit European Center for a Modern Ukraine based in Brussels.

Way back in 2013, Reuters reported the European Center for a Modern Ukraine paid $900,000 to the Podesta Group for a two-year contract aimed at improving the image of the Yanukovych government in the United States and that the Podesta Group told Reuters that they were implementing the contract via their contacts with key congressional Democrats.

Mainstream media attention has focused on the contract Manafort’s K-Street firm of Davis, Manafort & Freedman had from all the way back in 2007 with Yanukovych’s political party, Ukraine’s Party of Regions to perform an “extreme makeover,” re-positioning the party from being perceived as a “haven for Donetsk-based mobsters and oligarchs” into that of a legitimate political party.

On February 21, 2014, Russian leader Vladimir Putin helped then-President Yanukovych to flee violent protests seeking to oust him from office, flying him out of Ukraine and then traveling through Crimea, to arrive in Russia, where he has remained, trying desperately to restore himself to power back home in Kiev.

Just as the Trump/Russia collusion propaganda continued making headlines, the Manafort/Russia investigation was churning away, despite its lack of any evidence and documentation.  In Manafort’s case, opponents have failed to demonstrate that Manafort ever received $12.7 million in some 22 previously-undisclosed cash payments from Yanukovych’s pro-Russian party, as purportedly documented by entries in a “black ledger” revealed by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau.

Yet, this dubious, unverified “evidence” was sufficient for New York Times reporters to conclude that Manafort had hidden back-channel ties to Putin, financed by under-the-table payments arranged via Ukraine.

Ironically Putin has little use for Manafort because Manafort strongly urged Yanukovych to take Ukraine into the European Union, a move obviously opposed bitterly the Russians. Manafort did evidently briefly represent Russian oligarch and Putin crony, Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska, but it was none other than U.S. Senator John McCain who met privately with Deripaska during McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, despite being warned twice by the FBI that Deripaska was a Russian asset.  A source has informed me that McCain solicited money from Deripaska for the Republican Institute McCain controlled and which was legally able to accept foreign funds.

This is how the Democrat Party builds a “case” against President Trump, layering one unproven accusation on top of another, forming a chain of “evidence” that, at least to them, looks like an open-and-shut case, but in truth is nothing but a string of unsubstantiated innuendo that wouldn’t make it past the desk of any honest prosecutor or court of law.

Mainstream media, led by the drain-swirling New York Times serially reports every loose allegation and partisan leap to convenient, albeit false, conclusions and suddenly, BAM, it is news!  This is what they do. This is why the term “fake news” has become a truer description than President Trump ever thought when he first coined it in the national lexicon.

Following the initial “charge”, the Democratic Party narrative charges alleges that Manafort never registered as a foreign agent with the U.S. Justice Department, which that  would only have been required if he was contracted with the Ukrainian government, not with a political party in the Ukraine, and further that Manafort transferred his close relationship with Putin (via Yanukovych) to the Trump campaign. 

From there, the Democrat narrative keeps going, suggesting that Manafort’s close relationship to the Kremlin allowed him to position the Trump campaign to receive a dump of embarrassing Clinton campaign hacked exposing the efforts Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as chairman of the DNC, took to rig the primaries for Hillary, and distinctly disadvantage her challenger, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders.

But this entire Democrat Party narrative is thrown into disarray if it turns out the Podesta brothers, via the Podesta Group, have tighter and better-documented financial ties to Russia, involving far more numerous and tangled contacts than have ever been suggested to tie Manafort to Russia via Ukraine.

Among the revelations made public through the 11.5 million documents leaked by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists detailing the legal and financial arrangements behind secretive off-shore banking transactions dating back to the 1970’s was the disclosure that Russia’s largest bank, the state-owned Sberbank, uses the Podesta Group as its registered lobbyist in Washington.

“Sberbank (Savings Bank in Russian) engaged the Podesta Group to help its public image—leading Moscow financial institutions not exactly being known for their propriety and wholesomeness—and specifically to help lift some of the pain of sanctions placed on Russia in the aftermath of the Kremlin’s aggression against Ukraine, which has caused real pain to the country’s hard-hit financial sector,” wrote former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer John R. Schindler in an article entitled “Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin Connection” published by the Observer on April 7, 2016.

On April 17, 2014, the Moscow Times reported Ukraine opened criminal proceedings against Sberbank and 13 other banks on suspicion of “financing terrorism.”  Schindler noted the Ukrainian criminal investigation concluded Sberbank had distributed millions of dollars in illegal aid to Russian-backed separatists fighting in eastern Ukraine, with the bank serving as “a witting supporter of Russian aggression against Ukraine.”

On April 5, 2016, Lachlan Markay, reporting in the Washington Free Beacon, published the lobbying registration form the Podesta Group filed with the U.S. government proving Sberbank had contracted with the Podesta Group to advance their interests with banking, trade, and foreign relations.   It doesn’t end there.

On Aug. 20, 2016, Breitbart reporter Jerome Hudson documented that the Podesta Group was paid a total of $180,000, according to public records, for the consulting work done under contract with the Russia-controlled firm Uranium One in 2012, 2014, and 2015.

As first documented in Peter Schweizer’s bestselling book “Clinton Cash,” and confirmed in Jerome Corsi’s bestselling book “Partners in Crime: The Clinton’s Scheme to Monetize the White House,” Uranium One directed millions to the Clinton Foundation as the Russian government gained ownership of the company.

Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million.  Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons; despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”

The Daily Caller reported on April 29, 2015, that the Podesta group was to lobby the State Department while Hillary was secretary of state, with $40,000 of the total paid to lobby the State Department, the Senate, and the National Security Council on “international mining projects.”

According to a New York Times report published August 13, 2013, in 2011 a wave of mid-level program staff members departed the Clinton Foundation, “reflecting the frustration of much of the foundation’s policy personnel with the old political hands running the organization.”

Around that time, in 2011, Bruce Lindsey, then the Clinton Foundation’s CEO, suffered a stroke, underscoring concerns about the foundation’s line of succession. Who stepped in to replace Lindsey for several months as temporary chief executive?  None other than John D. Podesta, a chief of staff in William Jefferson Clinton’s White House, stepped in.

It’s not hard to realize that the links between Podesta and Russia are well documented and go back many years.

from
https://stonecoldtruth.com/is-it-the-podestas-time-in-the-barrel-yet/

Judicial Watch: FBI Recovered 72,000 Pages of Clinton Records

State Department Tells Court It Processed only 32,000—And Has Yet to Review 40,000 Clinton Records

Courts Orders Explanation on Processing

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that the State Department revealed in a federal court hearing that it has yet to process 40,000 of 72,000 pages of Hillary Clinton records that the FBI recovered last year. The revelation came during a federal court hearing in Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails that were sent or received during her tenure from February 2009 to January 31, 2013 (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00687)). The case is before Judge James E. Boasberg.

The hearing focused on the State Department’s progress on processing the tens of thousands of emails Clinton failed to disclose when she served as Secretary of State, some of which were emails sent by Clinton aide Huma Abedin that were found on the laptop of her estranged husband Anthony Weiner. The State Department has processed 32,000 pages of emails so far, a small number of which have been released, but 40,000 pages remain to be processed.

Judicial Watch asked the court to require the State Department to identify any records from the seven FBI discs that it intends to withhold, and why, in a timely manner. The State Department disclosed to the Court that it was adding extra resources to its FOIA operation but would not commit to a faster production of the Clinton emails. On October 19, Judge Boasberg ordered the State Department to “explain how its anticipated increase in resources will affect processing of records in this case and when the processing of each disk is likely to be completed.” Surprisingly, the Tillerson State Department and Sessions Justice Department previously argued to the court that there was diminished public interest in the Clinton emails.

In November 2016, the State Department was ordered to produce no less than 500 pages of records a month to Judicial Watch, emails of which the FBI found in its investigation into Clinton’s non-government email system. The State Department has produced 23 batches of documents so far. At the current pace, the Clinton emails and other records won’t be fully available for possible release until at least 2020.

Clinton attempted to delete 33,000 emails from her non-government server. The FBI investigation recovered or found a number of these missing emails, many of which were government documents.

The lawsuit was originally filed in May 2015.

“Secretary Tillerson should be asked why his State Department is still sitting on a motherlode of Clinton emails,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is disheartening that an administration elected to ‘drain the swamp’ is stalling the release of documents to protect Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.”

In a related lawsuit Judicial Watch recently revealed that the State Department admitted it received 2,800 Huma Abedin work-related documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that were found on her estranged husband Anthony Weiner’s personal laptop. The State Department expects to complete its review and production of the FBI records by December 31, 2017.

###

This article originally appeared on Judicial Watch.

from
https://stonecoldtruth.com/judicial-watch-fbi-recovered-72000-pages-of-clinton-records/

REXIT: Roger Stone Predicts RINO Purge

Roger Stone believes that President Donald Trump will purge Rex Tillerson by December, and reveals that the current Secretary of State is letting Bush-era neocon Condie Rice rule the state department with other Bush/Obama/Clinton gloablists.

WATCH NOW AND SHARE:

from
https://stonecoldtruth.com/rexit-roger-stone-predicts-rino-purge/

STONE: WHY I URGED TRUMP TO RELEASE JFK ASSASSINATION FILES

JAMES COMEY, ROBERT MUELLER ALL GUILTY OF PROSECUTORIAL IMPROPRIETIES, SAYS FORMER ASST. US ATTORNEY

Attorney Sidney Powell also accuses Bharara of prosecutorial impropriety in conviction of multi-millionaire Billy Walters

By Jerome Corsi

WASHINGTON, D.C. – “Why did U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara prosecute Billy Walters?” Infowars.com asked attorney Sidney Powell, a former Assistant U.S. attorney and Appellate Section Chief whose 2014 book Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice, is an exposé of prosecutorial impropriety she maintains runs rampant today among Department of Justice prosecutors, including Bharara, as well as among the lawyers recruited to Special Counselor Mueller’s team.

“Because Billy Walters was a famous and hugely successful sports gambler,” Powell answered. “Because he was a multi-million-dollar investor who owned a $17 million-dollar private jet. Because Preet Bharara had suffered a series of appeals court set-backs and he valued bagging Billy Walters so he could have a new trophy to put on his wall.”

Powell explained she was not shocked at the Infowars.com exposé that Preet Bharara first convicted Walters in the press.

She noted that trial judge in Billy Walters case, U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel forced Bharara to admit FBI Special Agent David Chaves had engaged in a systematic pattern of illegally leaking grand jury information against Walters to the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, starting two years before Bharara indicted Walters.

“Again, doesn’t surprise me at all that prosecutors and agents in such a high-profile case leaked information,” Powell responded. “Federal prosecutors often try to convict in the press before the indictment or trial.”

“Many top federal law enforcement officials including James Comey – and it appears Robert Mueller as well – are willing to engage in illegal acts to win convictions,” she stressed.  “They convince themselves or believe that someone is guilty of something, and then the end of obtaining any kind of conviction justifies whatever needs to be done to get that conviction.”

She continued: “Bharara, Comey, and Mueller – all three are far too political and have great powers of rationalization.  Some have called them ‘Dirty Cops.’”

Preet Bharara: “The Scourge of Wall Street”

As a result of FBI leaks over a four-year period between FBI Special Agent David Chaves and reporters from the Wall Street Journal and New York Times, stories began to appear in 2014 that implicated Billy Walters in what the newspapers alleged was an FBI investigation into insider trading.

On May 30, 2014, Wall Street Journal reporters Susan Pulliam and Michael Rothfeld published a story with a headline that read as follows: “FEC, SEC Probe Trading of Carl Icahn, Billy Walters, Phil Mikelson.”

The next day, May 31, 2014, the New York Times published an article by reporters Ben Protess and Matthew Goldstein, entitled “Authorities Find Insider Trading Case Tied to Phil Mikelson Is Slow to Take Shape.”

The articles boosted the reputation of Preet Bharara, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, increasingly known as the “scourge of Wall Street,” who had won notoriety with a February 2012 cover story in Time Magazine portraying him as the “top cop busting Wall Street.”

Since 2009, when he was first appointed by President Obama to be U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, Bharara built his career with a series of high-profile political prosecutions, including a conviction against the Speaker of the New York State Assembly, Sheldon Silver, a Democrat, and the Majority Leader of the State Senate, Dean Skelos, a Republican.

“While we all favor ridding government of corruption, it makes it worse when the prosecution itself is corrupt,” Powell cautioned.

On Nov. 4, 2013, the Washington Post ran a story entitled “Meet Preet Bharara, who just won the biggest insider trading case ever” that put readers who do not typically pay much attention to Wall Street legal intrigue on notice that Bharara was “worth keeping an eye on after his term expires next year”

The case involved Bharara successfully hitting Raj Rajaratnam, the billionaire founder of the Galleon Group hedge fund, with a $157 million fine, after prosecuting him on 14 counts of criminal conspiracy and fraud in a high-visibility case involving co-conspirator Rajat Gupta, the former Managing Director of management consultancy firm McKinsey & Company.

That the Clorox case did not materialize into insider-trading criminal charges did not discourage Bharara from continuing to pursue Billy Walters, even though dropping the Clorox case meant the criminal case against Walters would lack the star appeal of also being able to implicate in the case an investor as famous as Carl Icahn and a professional golfer as famous as Phil Mikelson.

But that did not discourage Bharara.

For two more years, Chaves kept the case alive in the press by continuing to leak information to the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, until finally, Bharara cobbled together a case to indict Walters for trades Walters made in Dean Foods, a leading U.S. milk distributor.

Appeals Court stalls Bharara steam-roller

Powell added that Bharara’s determination to convict Walters at any cost was likely fueled also by setbacks he had begun getting in his insider trading convictions, involving reversals from U.S. Courts of Appeal that brought into question both Bharara’s effectiveness as a prosecutor and the legality of his prosecutorial tactics.

“Bharara, Comey, and Mueller all suffer from the same problem,” Powell stressed. “There is little the three won’t do, including ignoring the law, to obtain a high-profile conviction.  After Bharara suffered two insider cases overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals, he was desperate to convict somebody, and with the help of FBI Agent Chaves, Bharara managed to cook up a case by bending the rules to win against Billy Walters.”

On Dec. 10, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed two insider trading cases that Bharara had prosecuted, tarnishing his reputation as an effective federal prosecutor.

The first case involved Todd Newman, a portfolio manager at Diamondback Capital Management, and Anthony Chiasson, a portfolio manager at Level Global Investors, who Bharara had convicted for participating in an insider trading scheme allegedly trading securities on inside information obtained by a group of securities analysts.

“We agree that the jury instruction was erroneous because we conclude that, in order to sustain a conviction for insider trading, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the tippee knew that an insider disclosed confidential information and that he did so in exchange for a personal benefit,” the Court of Appeals decided.  The point was that Bharara had failed to provide sufficient evidence to sustain a guilty plea against Newman and Chiasson.

This appellate court decision also imperiled a milestone insider trader conviction Bharara obtained against Michael Steinberg of SAC Capital – another conviction the Court of Appeals felt need to be overturned because Bharara had steered Steinberg’s case to Judge Richard J. Sullivan, the same judge who had handled the cases of Newman and Chiasson, because Bharara believed Judge Sullivan would give the Steinberg jury the same flawed jury instruction he had given the jury at the trial of Newman and Chiasson.

Sidney Powell served in the Department of Justice for ten years in Texas and Virginia and has devoted her private practice to federal appeals for the past twenty years.  She was the youngest Assistant United States Attorney in the country and the youngest elected Fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, for which she also served as President.  She has been lead counsel in more than 500 appeals for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, resulting in more than 180 published opinions, and was President of the Bar Association of the Fifth Federal Circuit.

This is the fourth in a series of exclusive Infowars.com reports detailing how government impropriety in U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara’s Manhattan office prosecution of William T. Walters has contaminated Special Counselor Robert Mueller’s “Russia Collusion” investigation – another FBI-driven investigation plagued by a systematic pattern of illegal leaking to the press.

 The first article, entitled “Why U.S. Attorney’s Criminal Leaks Threaten to Derail Mueller’s Russia Probe: FBI special agent leaked secret grand jury info to New York Times and Washington Post,” was published last on Oct. 12, 2017, and can be read here.

 The second article, entitled “Obama Lawyer Hid FBI Leaking to Get Insider Trading Conviction; Under Bharara, FBI in New York systematically leaked grand jury secrets to the New York Times and Wall Street Journal,” was published Monday, Oct. 16, 2017, and can be read here.

 The third article, entitled “Obama Prosecutor Used FBI Leaks to Plant ‘Fake News’ in Insider Trading Case: Mainstream media reported as true FBI leaks about Bharara’s fishing expedition,” was published Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2017, and can be read here.

from
https://stonecoldtruth.com/james-comey-robert-mueller-all-guilty-of-prosecutorial-improprieties-says-former-asst-us-attorney/

Guccifer 2.0 Not A Russian Hacker

Roger Stone: The Real Reason Why Sen. Corker Resigned

Roger Stone Reviews Whiplash!

Even some pinko-lefties might get something out of this one because they would better understand the libertarian component of American conservatism.

Roger Stone reviews Whiplash! From JFK to Donald Trump, A Political Odyssey by Arnold L. Steinberg by Arnold L. Steinberg 

**This is a special discount for Stone Cold Truth Readers**

My detractors likely will boycott any book I endorse. That’s probably because mostly the books I push are my own. Not really. Every so often, I insist you buy someone else’s book, like this one: Whiplash! From JFK to Donald Trump, a Political Odyssey by Arnold L. Steinberg.

First, check out the title. I can’t say that I knew JFK. But I do know Donald Trump and Arnie Steinberg and this book got it right.

JFK would be persona non grata in today’s Democrat Party. At home JFK favored tax cuts to stimulate the economy; abroad he favored a strong national defense against communism. Trump is a tax cutter who, like JFK, wants to “get America moving again.” And Trump backs the military to kick ass against radical Islamists. Unlike Democrats today, JFK was a true pro-American patriot who believed in this country. So does Donald Trump, but Trump is not an indiscriminate nation builder. That’s where the Bushies and their fellow travelers went wrong.

I’m from New York and was a volunteer in the 1970 campaign to elect Jim Buckley U.S. Senator, and I recall with glee Jim Buckley’s victory, in large part the handiwork of Arnie Steinberg, with whom I would work a couple of years later when I was at the Committee to Re-elect the President (Richard Nixon), and Arnie, three years older than I (but still very young) was helping run Sen. Buckley’s office on Capitol Hill.

Arnie was close to the Buckleys, notably the godfather of the conservative movement, Wm. F. Buckley, Jr., and Bill Buckley had written a book back in 1954 contending that the critics of Sen. Joe McCarthy were more guilty of excess than McCarthy; Bill Buckley, starting with that research, formed a life-long friendship with McCarthy’s aide Roy Cohn, who I got to know quite well. Much maligned, to be sure, of Roy’s name in certain precincts in Manhattan, gets teeth gnashing and spit flying.

Roy introduced me to Donald Trump, who adopted Roy’s “never settle, countersue” approach. I mention all this because of Bill Buckley’s National Review, which tried to crush Trump during the primaries, is a shadow of its influence during Buckley’s heyday. And I agree with Arnie’s conclusion in the book, that in the general election, Bill Buckley would have backed Trump. And it may even be that NR’s political savvy publisher, and Bill Rusher a political conservative with a populist, streak despite his own background would have backed Trump even during the primaries.

Pre-Buckley, Arnie had been immersed in the tumultuous fighting against the leftist thugs on campus. In this new book, he compares the leftist devotees of Herbert Marcuse in the 1960s with the politically correct malcontents of today. But there’s more in this very unusual book, with a novel style, equally political…(a) autobiography and history, (b) philosophy and ideas, and (c) insights and a campaign manual.

Though Arnie is known as a master political strategist, often behind the scenes, he never sold out to the Republican Establishment. I still must atone for my years as a Washington lobbyist. So it’s fitting that I write this review on Yom Kippur.

I now know the enemy. But Arnie was always skeptical of, even hostile to, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Tobacco Institute, and the crony capitalists. His suspicion of Wall Street started when the financial establishment opposed Jim Buckley’s election in 1970, and then, according to Arnie, after Jim Buckley’s victory, the Wall Street whores sent campaign checks pre-dated before the election.

This book has lots of new information you won’t read elsewhere, certainly not in the mainstream media. And whether you’ve been around for a long time, or you’re new to politics, or you just want a book for your grandchild in college, this interesting read explains, in an anecdotal way, how the conservative movement developed, and all its factions.

Read this, and you’ll understand how conservatives – not liberals — were behind ending the draft in this country, and how they continue to lead the movement for criminal justice reform. Yes, conservatives – including the late Bill Buckley – wanted to end the ridiculous War on Drugs and decriminalize marijuana. And the true conservatives are more into Main Street than Wall Street.

Read this book. Don’t watch Don Lemon and his CNN colleagues. They are CLUELESS about what “Left” and “Right” are. And when they keep calling people who believe in liberty “fascists,” you know they are screwed up. And they sure got it wrong about Trump.

Arnie was one of the first to see that Trump could win the Republican nomination, partly because he knew the sycophants running the opposition campaign. Just after Jeb Bush announced, Arnie predicted Bush had no chance to win, the same with Scott Walker, and some of the others. And Arnie provided behind the scenes counsel to Trump’s general election campaign against Hillary.

This is a very unusual book because the author uses his personal journey as a way to understand contemporary political history, especially the American conservative movement, and traditional, libertarian and populist divisions. My only complaint is that although Arnie goes after the sellouts in the intelligence community, and he is no fan of the CIA, where I instinctively see conspiracies, Arnie sees mainly bumbling incompetents. Get this book, anyway. (Actually, we’re both right – they are conspiring boobs—see my statement last week before I testified in private before the House Intelligence Committee and that clown Adam Schiff, who Arnie has criticized for Schiff’s sellout on the Iran deal.

Whiplash! is long, with digressions that provide useful context. It’s fascinating and you’ll learn a lot. Read it cover to cover, but don’t loan it to a friend. You may not get it back.
http://www.jbooksinc.com/

from
https://stonecoldtruth.com/roger-stone-reviews-whiplash/

JFK FOES UNITE FOR RECORD DUMP

By Roger Stone

Roger Stone and Gerald Posner, two New York Times bestselling authors who are polar opposites about who killed JFK, join in urging Donald Trump to release all the remaining classified files on Kennedy’s assassination.

About 3,100 files are still sealed in the National Archives. Under the 1992 JFK Records Act, the Archives have until October 26 to decide which of those files to publicly disclose.

Some of the classified documents include a CIA personality study of Oswald, top-secret testimony of former CIA officers to congressional committees, transcripts of interrogations with Soviet defector and Oswald handler Yuri Nosenko, letters about the case from J. Edgar Hoover and Jackie Kennedy, the CIA file on Jack Wasserman, the attorney for New Orleans mob boss Carlos Marcello, and the operational file of E. Howard Hunt, career spy and Watergate burglar.

Roger Stone, in his bestselling 2013 The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ, set forth the case that LBJ was the mastermind of a plot that included the CIA, the Mob and Big Texas Oil to kill Kennedy.

Gerald Posner, in his 1993 bestselling finalist for the Pulitzer for History, Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK concluded that the Warren Commission conclusions are correct and Oswald acting alone had killed Kennedy.

While they might not agree on who killed Kennedy, Stone and Posner are longstanding advocates for the release of all the government files on the assassination.

“These files should have been released long ago,” says Posner. “The government does this all the time, over classified documents and then holds on to them for decades under the guise of ‘national security.’ All the secrecy just feeds people’s suspicions that the government has something to hide and adds fuel to conspiracy theories.” Posner is convinced the case will still be closed when the last document is made public.

”I know CIA Director Pompeo is urging the President to delay the release of these records for another 25 years, said Stone. “They must reflect badly on the CIA even though virtually everyone involved is long dead ” Stone believes the evidence supporting the case in his book is still hidden somewhere in government files.

Both authors called on President Trump – who is empowered to make the final decision should the National Archives or CIA balk on releasing all the files – to opt for transparency.

Contact Stone@stonecoldtruth.com

from
https://stonecoldtruth.com/jfk-foes-unite-for-record-dump/

Roger Stone To Headline FL Medical Cannabis Conference

The event will feature a keynote address by Trump advisor Roger Stone and Congressman Matt Gaetz.

By Jacob Engels

According to a press release from the American Medical Marijuana Physicians Association, the Clermont based group is bringing a physician focused annual conference October 6th-8th.

AMMPA is the nation’s largest medical cannabis physician’s organization, and aims to teach attendees important compliance techniques and how to transition patients from opioids to medical cannabis at next weekend’s conference.

Packed with over 20 physician lead educational seminars, and offering 15.75 AMA PRA CME approved credit hours, hundreds from around the state are expected to gather for the three day event.

“With the passing of Amendment 2 and subsequently Senate Bill 8-A, the framework for the new regulatory structure in Florida was created, however the details of that structure still need to be promulgated in rule by the Department of Health and the Board of Medicine,” said Savara Hastings, Executive Director of the American Medical Marijuana Physicians Association.

“Our conference in October will help bridge the triangular gap between physicians, patients, and the Florida Department of Health.”

Congressman Matt Gaetz, who authored the 2014 Medical Marijuana law in Florida will speak about that experience, and his federal legislation that would reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III.

Longtime Trump advisor and NYT bestselling author Roger Stone, a longtime drug reform advocate, will share his ideas about how to help shape the Trump administration’s policy on marijuana in the coming years.

Surterra Wellness, Alternate Health, and Knox Medical are sponsoring the conference, with dozens of other cannabis related businesses and organizations.

AMMPA Chairman and Co-Founder, Dr. Jason Pirozzolo, discussed what sets this conference apart from other national conferences relating to medical marijuana.

“Most medical marijuana conferences offer seminars on how to grow your own marijuana, how to get rich quick, how to make marijuana infused pudding, and how marijuana will both cure cancer AND convince Kim Jong Un to turn over the key to his nuclear weapons at the same time.

The fact is, medical marijuana may have incredible value in the treatment of certain medical conditions, however, we need to proceed vigilantly as more studies need to be completed.”

from
https://stonecoldtruth.com/roger-stone-to-headline-fl-medical-cannabis-conference/