The Arrest of Roger Stone - More Nothing

Long time political consultant and friend to Donald Trump was arrested today. Here is a link to the actual indictment.

Washington Post - Indictment.

The first thing that is unusual about the indictment is that in it's introduction it makes claims; but, does not make them as statements of fact. Why? Well because if it states a thing as a fact, they have to prove the fact. Beyond that, lets consider what the story they make in the introduction is. Basically, it says that Mr. Stone found out WikiLeaks had dirt on Hillary Clinton. Later of course it turned out Wikileaks had the DNC emails, not Clintons. It claims that Mr. Stone wanted to get copies for the RNC. Why does this matter? If true it would not be a crime. Remember it was not a crime for Hillary to pay a former English spy to get information from Russian officials to use against Trump. By the way, the indictment does not charge him with any crime for trying to get information nor does it claim it would have been a crime to do so.

The first claim in the indictment that Mr. Stone had documents related to the hacking is false and no facts showing that were presented in the indictment. The false analogy that seeking to get the documents does not relate to their being hacked. Two different issues. None of the documents presented even discuss where the documents came from or how Wikileaks obtained them. Everybody knew Wikileaks had the DNC documents, what is still at question is how they received them.

Here is what is really going on. Mueller wants to convict Stone of anything and have Trump pardon him. At that point Mueller wants to claim obstruction of justice for pardoning Stone. At no point in the indictment is it even claimed that Stone was involved in request anyone hack the DNC. At no point in the indictment is it claimed that any of Mr. Stone's attempts to get documents or information about what Wikileaks had was illegal or that they in fact gave him anything. This is a joke. EVERY reporter wanted to get advance notice of what was going to be released and every politician wanted to know. NONE of this shows any misdeed by Trump or his campaign. NONE of this shows any collusion with the Russians nor is it claimed in the indictment.

Roger Stone is a big mouth and a dirty trickster and has openly admitted so for 40 years. The Mueller investigation will end one day and they will have failed to have proven that Trump colluded with Russia to hack the DNC, the real issue. I actually do not believe Russia even hacked the DNC and to this day nobody has proven that. Mueller's team has all of Stones documents, texts and very likely had his phone tapped and yet not one thing is presented in the indictment claiming or showing that Stone even ever spoke to a Russian.

On a side note. Roughly 20+ FBI agents showed up at Stone's house at 6 in the morning in full tactical gear with bulletproof vests and high powered rifles while CNN filmed it. CNN claims they acted on a hunch, sure why not. The FBI says they came early in the morning to take Stone by surprise and prevent him from destroying evidence. Sure, why not. Why in full tactical gear? Did they think he was Tony Montana from Scarface? They didn't find any guns in his house. Why was the arrest so flashy? Wait, the FBI knew CNN was there even if they didn't tell CNN to be there. In fact, the FBI would have been monitoring the street before going in. Why did they do it on a Friday? That is to make it the story of the weekend with non-stop speculation to follow.

UPDATE:

If Mueller had anything about Russia, why didn't he have it in the indictment? Mueller states as fact that Stone tried to find out what Wikileaks had and he didn't get any advance knowledge. He didn't get anything. IF Wikileaks worked for Russia then why didn't they give the information of what they were going to release to the Trump campaign in advance? Mueller in this indictment has managed to prove that Trump didn't collude with Russia or get anything from them. Obstruction of Justice requires that you are preventing the government from finding proof of an actual crime.