Bannon and Gates, in their testimony against Stone, pave the way for a Trump perjury charge

Donald Trump said yesterday that he would “strongly consider” providing written testimony in the House impeachment inquiry.

Coincidentally, at just around the same time that he said this, news broke that Doug Letter, the lead attorney for House Democrats, was in federal appeals court pursuing an investigation into whether or not Donald Trump had lied to Special Counsel Robert Mueller in his written testimony during the investigation into 2016 Russian election interference.

Ironic, right?

As for why House investigators are looking into Trump’s having lied to Mueller now, it would appear as though we have former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon and Trump 2016 Deputy Campaign Chairman Rick Gates to thank.

Both of them, you see, not only testified in the case that brought down long-time Republican operative Roger “rat-fucker” Stone last week for lying to Congress and witness tampering, but, in so doing, they also shed light on the President’s role in the WikiLeaks scandal, pointing to the very real possibility that he’d perjured himself in his written testimony to Mueller. Here’s more from the Washington Post.

…Rick Gates, who served as Trump’s deputy campaign chairman, testified Tuesday that Stone began discussing Clinton leaks with the campaign in April 2016 and that from May onward Gates understood Stone to be the campaign’s intermediary with WikiLeaks. By July 2016, Gates testified, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort said he was updating Trump and others regularly and directed Gates to keep following up with Stone. After Trump ended one phone call from Stone at the end of that month, Gates testified, the future president said to Gates that “more information would be coming”…

[As you’ll recall, WikiLeaks is the Russian front organization that released the hacked Democratic emails in order to disadvantage the Clinton campaign in the run up to the 2016 election.]

Well, you see, this isn’t what Trump relayed in his sworn testimony, when he said, “I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with him. Nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign.” And, now, we might have yet another charge – one of perjury – to add to the articles of impeachment.

Here’s Trump’s sworn testimony.

This entry was posted in Politics, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. John Brown
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 7:53 am | Permalink

    Russia if you’re listening, we’re gonna string him up. Using Ukraine as a cover story for your stooge asset is about the least original ruskie ruse you could possibly come up with.

    And all you agent orange supporting traitors complicit with the ruskies – repent for your treason.

  2. dogmatic dolt
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 8:06 am | Permalink

    Aloha, People are so deep down the rabbit hole of Russiagate that they no longer care in the least about reality. Stone was convicted of perjury. What was his perjury? He told the House Committee that he had a back channel to Assange and wikileaks. This was a lie. He is going to jail for telling this lie. This lie is the basis of the Trump-Russian collusion. Since it was a lie, there is now no basis for maintaining the Trump-Russian collusion. The second reason Stone is going to jail is for witness tampering. The witness he is guilty of attempting to intimidate is Randi Credico. He is the one who was the alleged “back-channel”. It is Credico’s testimony that is putting Stone in jail. People just don’t get how fucking stupid Trump is. Stone is some one who was attempting to make himself a player again. So he told everyone lies to pump up his own importance.
    Russiagate is what it has always been, an attempt to entrap Trump.
    Still wondering how we are going to get those 20 Republican Senators on board, doubt that lying about some one telling you lies is going to be very persuasive.

  3. dogmatic dolt
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    Aloha, I don’t read the CIA mouthpiece organizations. Those of you that do, please let me know how or if the NY Times or Washington Post covers this

    key quote from article, “It was determined that the evidence was simply not strong enough to file an indictment, and that interviewing Julian Assange regarding the case would not change this assessment.” 7 years of persecution for a case that the evidence was not strong enough to even file an indictment. Currently this journalist / editor / publisher is being tortured in Belmarsh prison at the behest of our “intelligence community”.

  4. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    Russian front organization! That is hilarious.

  5. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 9:43 am | Permalink

    Vindman sucks. Listen to him read.

  6. Frosted Flakes
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    “What was his perjury? He told the House Committee that he had a back channel to Assange and wikileaks. This was a lie.”—DD

    It is a red flag, imo, that DD is one of the few people on the worldwideweb who is capable of articulating this simple fact in a straightforward way. I am not going to pretend like I know everything that is going on. This is getting complicated but can’t we agree that the reporting is weird? So weird it ought to be a red flag…Almost every report makes it seem, through strange wording that “Stone lied about not having a back channel to Wikileaks”. IMO news outlets are going way out of their way to make the opposite of reality to sound like reality. Why?

  7. site admin
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    I guess “Russian propaganda organization” would have been better than “Russian front group.” I can change it if you like.

  8. Frosted Flakes
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    Propaganda? Has Wikileaks published things that were later proven to be untrue, false, forgeries, or inauthentic?

  9. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    Isn’t this blog nonstop propaganda? Bark’s rag is soaked in three year old pee. If you breathlessly “report” on what turns out to be a disgusting political/intelligence smear on the President don’t you have to own it? Why try to bury it and keep going in the wrong direction? Why be a CIA dupe?

  10. dogmatic dolt
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    Aloha, folks are so trusting of our “intelligence community” that they simply ignore the numerous wikileaks publications exposing Russian “new art of war-Ukraine” released in 2014 and 2015. “Russia’s masterplan to Break the Trans-Atlantic Alliance” again published in 2015. The list of Russian “secrets” exposed by wikileaks is quite lengthy–but remember our “intelligence community” which we have given authority to engage in propaganda on us, would never engage in mis-information.

  11. Frosted Flakes
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    As a little experiment try to google search “Roger Stone guilty of lying”. How many consecutive articles Do you need to go through before you find one that does not, in a very odd ways, and using very strange wording in ways that effectively hide /veil the simple fact that Stone lied about actually having the back channel to Wikileaks? I quit after scanning the first 20 articles. It is weird, no?

  12. dogmatic dolt
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    Aloha FF, If you search, “What lie did Roger Stone tell that resulted in guilty verdict” you will find articles that way deep into the articles will actually indicate the lies,
    “Prosecutors said Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts to push for the release of those emails. They said he lied about the identity of the person who tipped him off about WikiLeaks’ plans – his so-called intermediary. They said he falsely denied talking to the Trump campaign about what he learned and falsely told Congress he did not have text messages and emails in which he talked about WikiLeaks.”

    What they do not say, is that it is these lies that form the basis of the “collusion” argument, and that Stone just made the shit up. At some point the whole Russian hacking lie will also unravel, because just like the Stone story, it is a whole cloth made up lie. Kinda like Obama’s Kenyan citizenship. Time to go back to watching the Reality Show

  13. John Brown
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    WOW look at these ruskie stooges on MM fluffing each other over minimizing the Rat Fucker….. apparently Russia is indeed listening.

  14. dogmatic dolt
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    Aloha JB, sorry I’ve been neglecting my pp duties. I realize now that my not giving you any Russian approved propaganda to debunk has probably cut into your company stipend, (those Yale boys are so cheap and only pay by the post I suspect). Glad I can help your income.
    Is anything I’ve said about Roger Stone wrong? Surely the company has given you talking points beyond “The Ruskie stooges”.

  15. Frosted Flakes
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    Minimize from what though? If J Bro wants to educate us, then J Bro should explain the appropriate significance of the Roger Stone guilty judgment. I admit I am not sure how it all fits but I am noticing some red flags in the reporting so I mentioned it. I have never had the sense J Bro really understands much of anything. Here is your chance to educate us, J Bro. Do it! I am all ears.

  16. dogmatic dolt
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    Aloha, this is a video from 3 years ago giving some background to the events around us. Shahid Buttar of the Electronic Frontier Foundation explains some of the workings of the surveillance state. Shahid is currently running in the Democratic primary against Pelosie. If you want to support the peoples take over of the Democratic party, send him a couple bucks.

  17. John Brown
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    I understand Fashy Flakes is complicit in treason and Dimitri Dolt is either a ruskie troll, or a perfect target demographic for ruskie trolls.

    As far as Stone, I’d be fine with him being locked up for to many unpaid parking tickets in front of the russian social club. The feds were perfectly happy to get Al Capone on tax evasion, but I doubt anyone, even as complicit or naive or duplicitous as Fashy and Dima would doubt he had some fellas whacked….

  18. Frosted Flakes
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    But you just failed to say anything, J Bro. You said we minimized the greater significance of the Stone verdict. Ok— I accept your judgment now please give me us your assessment of the appropriate significance of the Stone verdict.

  19. Sad
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    This impeachment seems like a waste of time.

    Except I think it’s got to hurt Biden. I can’t believe they just let his son cash in on his name like that. Disgusting.

  20. iRobert
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    Yeah, this thing seems to be damaging Biden pretty good. I wonder at what point he will be abandoned by the party leaders and replaced with a different choice. I also wonder if any of the other declared candidates would even be considered, or if they would field a whole new option.

  21. iRobert
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    I feel bad for John Brown, being the only person left here who isn’t a Russkie troll. It must be lonely.

  22. Sad
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    You just can’t accept it’s going to be Mayor Pete?

    He’s the complete opposite of Trump.

    Isn’t that what we want?

  23. iRobert
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    I don’t have any serious problems with Mayor Pete. I think he’d be a pretty tough sell in the general against Trump.

  24. iRobert
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    But what does everyone here think of the prospect of Trump being charged for perjury?

  25. Sad
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    Mayor Pete v Trump would be the showdown of the century.

    I’ve been amazed by the diversity of people that like Pete.

    You need to get out more iRobert.

  26. dogmatic dolt
    Posted November 19, 2019 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    Aloha, I like the idea of charging him with bribery, violations of the ennoulments clause of the constitution, violation of numerous treaties–they are the law of the land, self-dealing etc. Will St. Nancy allow it? In any event, I still don’t see where there is any where near enough votes to remove–so this is all kabuki theater to demonstrate how tough the Corp. Dems are. Nothing will change until the election and then only if the Dems have a candidate that mobilizes new and disaffected voters to come to the polls. Other wise a replay of 2016.

    By the way did anyone notice how St. Nancy is busy ramming through an extension of the Patriot Act while all of this is going on. You know the Act that gives our treasonous President almost unlimited authority to spy on US citizens.

  27. stupid hick
    Posted November 20, 2019 at 8:19 am | Permalink

    Stone continues to obstruct justice by not revealing his actual conduit to WikiLeaks. His trial reveals that contrary to his lies, and other lies told on the record to the FBI, including Donald Trump’s, that the Trump campaign had foreknowledge from Stone of the DNC hack and WikiLeaks possession of the stolen content, before it was public, and months before they claimed to. All of that was known by the FBI and redacted from the Mueller Report because Stone’s trial was pending. By now, anyone who can not see how dirty Trump and Barr are, and anyone who has been anywhere near him, is an utter moron or evil.

  28. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted November 20, 2019 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    So if your reality jumps a track and it turns out Assange is correct and Crowdstrike lied then you have to wear the evil moron mantle you try to foist on others, right?

  29. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted November 20, 2019 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    Is that how it works in your world or no? That’s how I do it. That’s why I am much more careful with what I say about others.

  30. iRobert
    Posted November 20, 2019 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    If a small town mayor is the nominee of the Democratic Party for president, winning will be a long shot. If Mayor Pete is ushered through the primaries to receive the nomination, it will be by interests outside of the Democratic Party and against their strategists’ wishes. Mayor Pete has a lot of obstacles, but not as formitable as those that Tulsi faces.

  31. dogmatic dolt
    Posted November 20, 2019 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Aloha SH, Assange was willing to testify to the Mueller people. Republican, lying about the Iraq war to Congress, shill for the elite Mueller did not want Assange’s testimony to get in the way of the correct narrative. All the testimony, from Gates and Bannon was based on information Stone told them–ie. he was lying to everyone. Get it. It is as real as the made up meeting between Assange and Manafort. Complete fabrication, kinda like Obama being born in Kenya don’t ya know.

  32. John Brown
    Posted November 20, 2019 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    Hick, how right you are. Further, that they can’t see the straight forward quid pro quo between pootin and agent orange is astounding. Those stooges who bragged publicly about abundant Russian money, now hiding their financials, and delivering pootin the goods at every turn.

  33. Frosted Flakes
    Posted November 20, 2019 at 10:11 am | Permalink


    I have never heard a conspiracy theory put forth that involves Crowdstike but I still have questions about Crowdstrike. Why? 1) A close reading of the Mueller report reveals that Mueller introduced qualifying language, in ways that were not there previously, when they make the (seemingly less certain) claim that Russia hacked the DNC; 2) Assange was never interviewed despite claiming he had proof that Crowdstrike had it wrong; 3) As far as I can tell Mueller just accepted Crowdstrike’s findings as a given.

    Do you dispute these facts? Do you think that small collection of facts are not enough to cause someone to question the findings of Crowdstrike—which is at the foundation of the Trump/ Russia collision story that flopped horribly?

    You really should drop your “J Bro lite act” you are smarter than that.

  34. Frosted Flakes
    Posted November 20, 2019 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    Haha. I wrote that last post prior to reading J Bro’s last comment. Congratulations SH you are in a foxhole with J Bro now. Let us know when you start questioning the wrong choices you made that put you on the path that led you to J Bro’s fox hole.

  35. Jean Henry
    Posted November 20, 2019 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    A reminder here from 1992 that Barr has a long history of supporting an Imperial presidency, especially if that increases his opportunities for power. He’s been power seeking and corrupt for a very long time.

  36. dogmatic dolt
    Posted November 20, 2019 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    Aloha JH, don’t forget that one of his first jobs was with the CIA. Does it not seem just a little interesting that so many of these folks are from the “intelligence community” ?

  37. Bob
    Posted November 20, 2019 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    This parade of Democrats testifying under oath against President Trump is shameful. Oh, wait. They’re all Republicans with stellar resumes. Some of them are even decorated military veterans. Whoops.

  38. stupid hick
    Posted November 20, 2019 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

    Some of you seem so emotionally invested in finding any possible interpretation, no matter how implausible, no matter how many times Trump’s defenders explanations change, that Trump is innocent. So I will repeat the facts that were proven in Stone’s trial to refocus your attention.

    Trump’s campaign knew about the DNC hack and what Wikileaks was going to do in April 2016. Months before it was public knowledge. Months before Wikileaks took any action. Trump’s campaign learned about it from Stone. Stone lied to the FBI about who his contact was, and he unsuccessfully tried to get Credico to lie about it too. He threatened his false source to pretend he was the source. It’s was proven Stone could not have possibly obtained information from Credico, as he claimed, because of the timeline that the FBI established. It remains unexplained how Stone was able to share information about the DNC hack with Trump’s campaign in April, months before any other American is known to have known about it. We don’t know because Stone lied about it to obstruct the FBI’s investigation. And we may never know for sure, unless Stone or his source has a change of mind and confesses, but think about it, who could it possibly serve to refuse to tell the truth, even when faced with prison?

    Trump told the FBI in writing he was unaware of any foreknowledge, any interaction between Stone and his campaign about Wikileaks. That despite proof that Bannon, Kushner, Manafort, were all interacting with Stone about how to maximize the impact of the Wikileaks revelations, before they happened. Trump told the FBI he doesn’t remember any conversations with Stone about it and is unaware anyone on his campaign knew. Testimony by Bannon and Gates refutes that.

    All of that was known by the FBI and was in Mueller’s report, but it was redacted because Stone’s trial was still pending. We now know that Barr knew all of this when he prematurely pulled the plug on the Mueller investigation. Before it would all become public knowledge from Stone’s trial. Which casts an even more dubious light on Barr’s mis-characterization of what the FBI had found up until the plug was pulled on the investigation. Barr knew what was redacted. Barr is dirty as hell.

    I have come to believe a majority Trump’s cult members realize he is a brazen liar and dirty as hell, but that’s what they love about him. They think it’s awesome Trump is a malicious and dishonest asshole, as long as his bad-faith actions are weaponized against those they perceive as foes. It’s embarrassing how lost, how dishonorable, so many self-described conservatives who continue to defend him have become.

  39. dogmatic dolt
    Posted November 21, 2019 at 12:25 am | Permalink

    Aloha, I agree with you about these two statements “Trump’s campaign knew about the DNC hack and what Wikileaks was going to do in April 2016. Trump’s campaign learned about it from Stone” .

    “It remains unexplained how Stone was able to share information about the DNC hack with Trump’s campaign in April, months before any other American is known to have known about it”.
    This statement is obviously in error. The DNC knew in April that a Russian operation had hacked into some of their systems as early as 2015–see DNC lawsuit against Assange, Wikileaks, Donald Trump and others.

  40. Hyperian Warlock
    Posted November 26, 2019 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    Wired is discredited bullshit. Roger Stone’s source must have been Seth Rich. This video shows they probably met at Comet Ping Pong in 2014 before Trump was even a candidate! How do you explain this away?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative VG 3D