Revelations from the first day of the Roger Stone trial seems to indicate that Donald Trump lied to Robert Mueller.

By |2019-11-07T06:30:35-09:00November 7th, 2019|Categories: News|Tags: , , , , , |19 Comments

Oh, this could be big.

Courtesy of Mother Jones

Prosecutors have revealed new information about how Trump tried to benefit from the Russian operation during the 2016 campaign that hacked the Democratic National Committee’s servers. And they are producing material undercutting Trump’s claim to Mueller that he has no recollection of talking to Stone during the campaign about WikiLeaks. This information also presents a new wrinkle in the Trump-Russia scandal: Trump might have thought in 2016 that his campaign, in effect, was colluding with WikiLeaks. That’s because the campaign was communicating with Stone about WikiLeaks’ plans and intentions and campaign officials (and perhaps Trump) believed Stone was in contact with WikiLeaks.

“The evidence in this case will show that Roger Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee because the truth looked bad,” lead prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky said in his opening statement on Wednesday. “The truth looked bad for the Trump campaign and the truth looked bad for Donald Trump.”

One of the key points Mueller investigated was whether the Trump campaign had interacted with WikiLeaks or Russian intermediaries in 2016 when Moscow was using WikiLeaks for its operation to subvert the US presidential campaign (which was mounted in part to help Trump win). Trump refused to be questioned in person by Mueller and his investigators. Instead, he agreed to answer written questions on a limited number of subjects. Several of the queries Mueller submitted to Trump focused on whether he was ever told Stone had been in touch with WikiLeaks and whether he or anyone associated with his campaign had spoken to Stone about WikiLeaks. In his written response, Trump replied, “I do not recall being told during the campaign that Roger Stone or anyone associated with my campaign had discussions with any of the entities named in the question regarding the content or timing of release of hacked emails.” He also noted, “I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with [Stone], nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign.” And Trump, who has boasted of possessing a prodigious memory, claimed to have “no recollection of the specifics of any conversations I had with Mr. Stone between June 1, 2016” and Election Day. The impression Trump provided: as far as he knew, he and his campaign had had nothing to do with Stone and WikiLeaks.

Mueller’s report characterized Trump’s responses as “inadequate.” Zelinsky’s opening statement suggests Stone’s trial could show Trump’s statements were false.

Now I think we all essentially assumed that Trump lied to Mueller.

But if it can be proven in court I think the House impeachment inquiry may have just received a whole new angle to investigate.  

What I am not sure of is whether the written responses are considered to be under oath or not?

About the Author:

This blog is dedicated to finding the truth, exposing the lies, and holding our politicians and leaders accountable when they fall far short of the promises that they have made to both my fellow Alaskans and the American people.


  1. anonymous November 7, 2019 at 11:44 am - Reply

    stating that it “must suck” to be as “dumb” as her.

    Pelosi has repeatedly defended the impeachment inquiry, saying last week that the probe is not about Trump’s personality or policies.

    “That’s for the election. This is about the Constitution. This is about defending our democracy,”

  2. can't see the hatchet in my forehead November 7, 2019 at 12:06 pm - Reply

    Maybe when faced with the prospect of a jail cell he will have a moment of clarity and suddenly remember a different version of events.. Kinda like that Sondland guy. Lying to the FBI seems kinda serious to this rube.

  3. anonymous November 7, 2019 at 1:20 pm - Reply

    Nobody wanted a picture of Donald Trump, so he illegally bought it himself with foundation money.

    The story perfectly sums up the ego, neediness, and criminality that swirl together to make the psyche of Donald Trump.

    • Anonymous November 7, 2019 at 3:26 pm - Reply

      Well I guess it’s going to be awkward to cruticize Bristol for using her kids to promote herself and sell poop tea.

      • Whatevs November 7, 2019 at 4:40 pm - Reply

        Non sequitor, Alicia. Look it up. ANd I beelive her name is spelled B-I-T-C-H-T-O-L

      • Anonymous November 7, 2019 at 9:12 pm - Reply

        please give a definition of this word, it is enough the so called leader of our country is illiterate, I don’t want to be exposed to it on blogs also.

  4. anonymous November 7, 2019 at 1:24 pm - Reply

    Trump Is Planning On Returning To The Apprentice If He Loses In 2020

    • Anonymous November 7, 2019 at 2:57 pm - Reply

      I thought I just read he wants to do a WH version of the apprentice, can he sink our country any lower?

    • Anonymous November 7, 2019 at 9:11 pm - Reply

      Is Burnett willing to film in the federal penitentiary?

      how will it work with the contestants, do they have to be fellow traitors, cabinets members, members of congress and inmates? Does this mean donnie jr and Ivanka will be also in prison?

      Instead of your fired, is he going to pardon them or give them early parole ?

  5. anonymous November 7, 2019 at 1:28 pm - Reply

    Adam Schiff Stops Devin Nunes From Turning Impeachment Hearings Into A Circus

  6. anonymous November 7, 2019 at 1:31 pm - Reply

    ‘Uncharted territory’: US judge sounds the alarm on Trump’s lawlessness — and gets a standing ovation

    “We are in unchartered territory,” he said. “We are witnessing a chief executive who criticizes virtually every judicial decision that doesn’t go his way and denigrates judges who rule against him, sometimes in very personal terms.”

    Friedman then told the audience that Trump’s attacks are “not normal” and said that “this kind of personal attack on courts and individual judges violates all recognized democratic norms.”

    • anonymous November 7, 2019 at 1:42 pm - Reply

      ‘Rotted to the core’: MSNBC’s Morning Joe rips Lindsey Graham and GOP for helping Trump do Russia’s bidding

      “Everyone goes around talking about quid pro quo, quid pro quo,” Scarborough said. “Let’s just make this simple: What we’re talking about is the president of the United States twisting and perverting U.S. foreign policy to get dirt on a domestic political rival.”

      Then he explained how Trump’s extortion scheme also served Putin’s interests.

      ‘Epic nonsense’: GOP demolished for newest excuse why Trump is innocent in Ukraine scandal

      “With the impeachment inquiry heading into its public phase, Republicans are road-testing yet another deeply absurd defense of President Trump: They are conceding that, yes, there may have been a quid pro quo, but there’s no proof Trump himself was behind it,” wrote Sargent, noting that Trump’s EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland laid the foundation for this excuse by claiming to not know the source of the scheme. “Here are four facts revealing this new line to be epic nonsense.”

      Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent told congressional investigators last month that Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani relied on multiple hosts at Fox News to amplify his “campaign of slander” against former United States ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.

      In a transcript of testimony released on Thursday, Kent recalled how a coordinated campaign attacking Yovanovitch started ramping up this past March, starting with an editorial in The Hill by conservative John Solomon. From there, he said, “both the Hannity Show and the Laura Ingraham show covered this topic extensively.”

  7. Anonymous November 7, 2019 at 3:00 pm - Reply

    What I am not sure of is whether the written responses are considered to be under oath or not?
    I am fairly sure they put some kind of statement that the answers you are giving are the truth when you sign the document. That would be considered under oath.

  8. puck November 7, 2019 at 3:22 pm - Reply

    big surprize. thump would lie to God or his grandma.

  9. mOTOrboater November 7, 2019 at 6:32 pm - Reply

    “Kirschner said:

    If Rudy Giuliani is charged, there’s nowhere to go but up, and I have to believe, rather than running the risk of ending up in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, where he put so many people when he was a U.S. Attorney, he’s going to sing.

    State?>Sing Sing or

    Guile Giuli Giuli
    Riders Island?…

  10. Anonymous November 7, 2019 at 7:41 pm - Reply

    Not necessarily. If Trump said he had no recollection, how do you prove he did? Sure, he talked to Stone. But you can’t prove he remembered the conversation or that it was about Wikileaks or anything else. Trump has dementia. Trump can’t remember what he says from one day to the next or even one hour to the next. He says something and within the same conversation says the exact opposite.

    So you can’t prove perjury. But you can sure as hell prove collusion, obstruction, extortion, violation of the emoluments clause, etc. He violated his oath of office. That alone should be enough.

  11. Anonymous November 7, 2019 at 9:15 pm - Reply

    Seems to me rudy guiliani was involved in this also because he was making the rounds of the television shows or on twitter bragging something big was going to be released.

  12. Kimberly Guilfoyle Is A Repulsive Lizard November 7, 2019 at 9:37 pm - Reply

    That’s it.

Leave A Comment