Prosecutors: Roger Stone lied because ‘truth looked bad’ for Trump | TribLIVE.com
Politics Election

Prosecutors: Roger Stone lied because ‘truth looked bad’ for Trump

Associated Press
1910818_web1_1910818-9b2c2f330b5c4fb798127433c008eea3
AP
Roger Stone arrives at Federal Court for the second day of jury selection for his federal trial, in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 6, 2019. Stone, a longtime Republican provocateur and former confidant of President Donald Trump, goes on trial over charges related to his alleged efforts to exploit the Russian-hacked Hillary Clinton emails for political gain.
1910818_web1_1910818-6acfbaca530d42b8a0a8b6e1c1b81540
AP
Roger Stone and his wife Nydia arrive at Federal Court for the second day of jury selection for his federal trial, in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 6, 2019. Stone, a longtime Republican provocateur and former confidant of President Donald Trump, goes on trial over charges related to his alleged efforts to exploit the Russian-hacked Hillary Clinton emails for political gain.

WASHINGTON — Prosecutors in the trial of Roger Stone told jurors Wednesday that the longtime Donald Trump confidant repeatedly lied to Congress “because the truth looked bad” for the president.

The opening arguments in the case against Stone, a longtime Republican operative and provocateur, made clear that the president will be a central figure in the trial, even though the charges aren’t directly related to his interactions with Trump. Stone is accused of lying to Congress, tampering with a witness and obstructing the House investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to tip the 2016 election.

Stone was indicted in January as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian electoral tampering. Mueller found that Russia tried to help Trump’s candidacy, but there wasn’t enough evidence to support criminal charges that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.

“The evidence in this case will show that Roger Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee because the truth looked bad for the Trump campaign and the truth looked bad for Donald Trump,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Aaron Zelinsky told jurors in a Washington courtroom.

The Trump connection was also highlighted by the first prosecution witness, Michelle Taylor, a former FBI agent who had served on Mueller’s team. She listed a flurry of phone calls between Stone and then-candidate Trump — including three calls on July 14, 2016 — the day that a massive hack of the Democratic National Committee’s servers was reported. But Taylor said she did not know what was discussed on those calls.

Zelinsky, also a veteran of Mueller’s team, cast the case against Stone in stark, simple terms. Stone, he said, categorically denied any written communication with anyone regarding Julian Assange, the founder of the anti-secrecy site WikiLeaks, which published the stolen emails. Then Zelinsky showed half a dozen emails and text messages with Stone discussing Assange with different people. One email, asking an associate to try to contact Assange, came an hour after Stone and then-candidate Trump spoke on the phone.

Government lawyers later showed several interviews in which Stone claimed that he had “back-channel communication” with Assange and that they had “communicated through a trusted mutual friend.”

Defense attorney Bruce Rogow didn’t deny that Stone had said things that were untrue before the House committee. Rogow described his client as a natural braggart whose claims of insider information didn’t match reality.

“He did brag about his ability to try to find out what was going on,” Rogow said. “There was no intermediary between Mr. Stone and Julian Assange. It’s made-up stuff.”

Rogow repeatedly focused on Stone’s “state of mind” and intentions heading into the hearing. He said his client offered to testify willingly and contended that lawmakers misled Stone into thinking the hearing would focus solely on Russian interference, then ambushed him with questions about WikiLeaks.

“We think the evidence will show that there was no corrupt intent in whatever was said or done by Mr. Stone,” Rogow said. “He went without a subpoena. That’s not the usual way that people go about things if they’re intending to lie.”

Zelinsky said jurors would hear testimony from Steve Bannon, the former White House chief strategist, and from Rick Gates, the associate of Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort who pleaded guilty to charges in Mueller’s investigation and has agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.

The trial is expected to last two to three weeks.

Categories: News | Politics Election
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.