Lindsey Graham Calls on FBI to Explain Highly Aggressive Arrest of Roger Stone
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) sent a letter on Wednesday calling on FBI leaders to explain the very aggressive way in which Roger Stone was arrested.
President Donald Trump has been at the center of a federal investigation by a special prosecutor; Stone became a person of interest, having previously served as a political adviser for the president.
He was arrested last week on charges of obstruction, making false statements and witness tampering in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Stone and others were quick to denounce the way in which law enforcement arrested him. Stone said police stormed his house in an unnecessarily aggressive show of force that terrorized his wife and his dogs.
Graham is now hoping to get an explanation.
“I have supported special counsel Mueller’s ability to conduct his investigation without interference,” Graham wrote in his letter. “I am leery that a subject of the special counsel’s investigation, who had retained counsel , had publicly stated that he believed that he would at some point be indicted, and was apparently willing to surrender voluntarily, was arrested in a pre-dawn raid at his home.”
Stone claimed after his arrest that authorities made no attempt to contact him or his lawyer beforehand and that he would have voluntarily turned himself in if they did.
He pleaded not guilty to the charges on Tuesday. He also said he does not plan to accept any plea deals to cooperate with the special counsel.
“The American public has had enough of the media circus that surrounds the special counsel’s investigation,” Graham wrote. “Yet, the manner of this arrest appears to have only added to the spectacle. Accordingly, I write to seek justification for the tactics used and the timing of the arrest of Mr. Stone.”
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been leading the special counsel investigation; his team is looking into whether or not the president or his associates colluded with Russian interests to influence the presidential election of 2016.
The special counsel investigation has long focused on Stone as well as other former associates of the president.
The special counsel team has taken down a handful of former associates since launching its investigation in May 2017.
But it has yet to connect the president himself to any collusion allegations.
Some of the former associates have been cooperating with investigators as part of their own plea deals.
Stone had previously worked with the president as a casino business lobbyist.
By Connor D. Wolf | January 30, 2019
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
86 visitors
The only real question is will the Senator get an answer?
Dear Friend Vic Eldred: Let me take a bash at providing an answer which is law enforcement protocol, not political in nature to Senator Graham's inquiry.
To date, Mr. Stone has not been convicted of any crime.
That would place him in the first time potential offender category.
Each citizen is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The reason to get him to court was for a non-violent offense allegation.
Without any other intervening factor, typically a summons would be served to Mr. Stone to appear in court.
If he did well and fine.
If he no showed, a bench warrant would be issued, and he would be arrested when found.
So, why the predawn raid?
There is documented evidence Mr. Stone made a lethal (death) threat to intimidate a witness from not testifying at a Federal trial.
The law enforcement protocol in all cases at every level of court proceedings is this.
That when a witness is intimidated with a lethal (death) threat to them, their family, and/or anyone else to whom they are close they are to be arrested by an overwhelming show of force, engaging the element of surprise.
The reason for this protocol is to motivate the suspect to surrender themselves passively. That way no one on any side gets hurt by force having to be used.
This policy has been used by law enforcement in many similar cases.
Law enforcement officials, not limited to FBI swear an oath and are duty bound to enforce the law, following established procedures.
Whatever their political affiliation, and politics in this and similar cases are not relevant.
Bringing a suspect peacefully into custody who is rebuttibly presumed to be a clear and present danger, by virtue of a proven use of death threat(s) is.
The FBI was following established mandated techniques here.
I hope this sheds light on why things played out as they did.
On a personal note, I hope 2019 goes maximally well for you and yours.
The site is blessed by your presence and contribuitions.
I am glad you are active here.
Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.
Enoch.
Most agents involved were there to process search warrants not to effect the arrest...
Hello Enoch, I hope you are doing well.
It seems odd that he would be released on bond if he was a serious threat to anyone.
His bond was fairly low, so he is not a flight risk either.
Law enforcement must react with pre-defined procedures, judges use their own discretion.
Law enforcement must assume worst possible circumstances for their, and the subject's safety. Judges don't have that worry.
Law enforcement also had to be ready in case the subject attempted to destroy any evidence that existed in that location, something Mueller specifically highlighted with this warrant.
Thank you Enoch. I can only hope the FBI or somebody from the Mueller team will provide the same information in a timely manner.
I think five agents could of handled it just fine.
And you decided that AFTER THE FACT. the good ole 20/20 hindsight huh?
True, but they DID get his hard drives, cellphones, tablets and documents because he didn't get any advanced warning, because this was a arrest not a simple subpoena. Subpoenas give you all kinds of time to get rid of things.
Stone was almost disappointed that he didn't get subpoenaed, look how much happier he is now flashing the Nixon victory sign with a big smile but his mouth might give the investigators a few clues, he does love to talk so. I wonder how happy he'll be adding up the prison years for what all they will eventually charge him with.
Which is process crimes, all that it comes down to.
Would you care to provide us all a list of which crimes you feel it is okay for people to violate, and which ones you feel law enforcement should enforce? You seem to imply that some people should not have to obey certain laws.
Thanks for pointing out the standard procedure for a pre-dawn raid. The Lindsay Graham would prefer they make an appointment.
I believe that justice is supposed to be applied equally. Where are the perjury charges for Andrew McCabe, James Brennan, James Clapper and Christopher Steele? Where are the charges of being an unregistered foreign agent for Tony Podesta? Where are the charges of leaking classified information for James Comey, Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin?
"he would have voluntarily turned himself in if they did."
But Mr. Stone....the "Russian Collusion" SHOW
..... Must go on ! 
After destroying any or all evidence he could get a hold of.
Really reaching there Wally. Every criminal knows that there is a good chance someone is coming for them, that doesn't mean that they don't wait for the police to be knocking on the door before they act. Most criminals don't have POTUS trying to block for them either.
7 months ago, Roger Stone stated he expected to be indicted and repeated that every single appearance he had on “The Daily Ledger” on One America News Network. If the fears of him destroying evidence were legitimate, why did Mueller wait 7 months before seeking a warrant for Stone’s arrest and search warrants for his property? Don’t you think most of not all evidence would have been destroyed in the past 7 months if that was going to be the case?
That's what he claimed, and that got him his first 15 minutes of fame on FoxNews. But when you have POTUS blocking for you, you have to ask yourself if he really believed it, or he was just trying to make headlines and show Trump that he was loyal to him above all other things.
I’ve seen Stone on The Daily Ledger multiple times and each time in the past 6 months he repeated that he expected to be indicted and would voluntarily turn himself in should that happen. After his arrest, Stone pointed out that he had plenty of time to destroy the evidence, since he believed this would happen months ago. Stone, if you actually watch him in interviews, comes across as a planner and a strategic thinker. That means he makes contingencies for just about everything from spilling a cup of coffee to being arrested for murder just by walking out of his house. Do you think a person like that is going to wait until the last possible minute to destroy evidence?
Yes!!! As you stated, he has been making that claim for 6 months, and would continue to make the claim for another 6 months. Because he knew he broke the law, but the evidence had value to him, so he wasn't going lose all that value unless he absolutely had to.
If the man was going to leave and disappear, he would have done it months ago.
Mueller is such a drama queen.
I do not believe that Mr. Graham has much credibility left since the demise of His better half. But I would pose this question: Who cares how a criminal was taken down, I would have tased the sphincter.
Another comment about homosexuality. Mr. Graham has made a public statement saying he was not gay. It shouldn't really matter to my progressive friends.
Who cares how a criminal was taken down
Decent people. These were process crimes, despite all the heavy breathing about conspiring with wikileaks in the "report"
Except if that statement was a lie. People don't like hypocrites.
Why has his sexual orientation been brought up by the left and 3 people here. Do you have anything against gays? If so, why? What are they doing to harm you?
It's typical liberal hypocrisy. They try to shame gays on the right and use misogynistic language about conservative women. It clearly demonstrates that they have no actual principles but only act to further their partisan power.
Outing gays is the new liberal hobby? That's pretty disgusting.
I have something against hypocrites. I don't like them.
Only the closeted bigots..........
It appears that the LGBT community was useful to progressives at election time, otherwise I see no real genuine concern.
So immoral actions are OK with you if you don't like the target? That's pretty evil. Not surprising but evil.
Exactly. Remember that their outrage is faux outrage. The hypocrisy has been demonstrated very clearly here.
I never said that being gay is immoral because it isn't. I don't like hypocrites who use the power of their office to permit discrimination toward others.
Hillary has never a progressive and she has never been a friend of the LGBT community. The HRC lost many supporters when they endorsed her instead of Bernie, who has been a long time supporter of the LGBT community.
Obama?
[deleted]
I was referring to His friend Mr. McCain, there was no implication of sexual orientation as one should care less.
Funny how the DECENT folks seem to stay mum whenever some poor soul from the hood gets shot in the back when fleeing.
Prove it
You mean the decent folk who are usually victimized by the THUGS from the hood?
[ Deleted ]
[ ]
[Flag a comment you feel is a violation, and let the mods take it from there.]
Neither he nor anyone else is obligated to tell you anything about his sexuality.
What are you talking about?
How is that any of your business?
What is that supposed to mean anyway?
The decent folk I was thinking of would be the decent black people who live in those inner city neighborhoods and are the primary victims of those inner city thugs. Thugs means thugs of any color or ethnicity.
Thanks for playing.
What's funny us that the Thugs that created the word were professional murderers and thieves from India and Pakistan. They would dress up as travelers often in Hindu and Muslim garb, then attack their targets at night. Most people actually use the word properly to mean someone out to rob or murder someone.
It doesn't need to. Homophobia is endorsed here. By the left.
Um-hum....The first known use of the word was in 1810, long before America's issues with inner city crime.
According to Merriam-Webster:
Definition of thug
: a brutal ruffian or assassin : GANGSTER , TOUGH
This kind of raid is typically reserved for suspects who are flight risks, dangerously violent, or for when police fear the suspect will destroy evidence if given warning of the arrest. Neither applies in this case. Roger Stone is a 66 year old man with no current passport and no weapons. Any evidence against him is already in the possession of prosecutors. None of the crimes he is charged with is a violent crime.
This raid unnecessarily infringed on his rights, endangered the lives of officers and the surrounding community, and probably cost way more money than is justifiable. On those bases alone, there should be an accounting.
Furthermore, there is the question of how CNN could have been present with cameras. This speaks to an illegal leak in the special prosecutor's office or elsewhere in the FBI. That, too, should be investigated.
Or good journalists using police scanners and recognizing the streets that the local Police were asked to block off. I understand it happens "frequently".
His rights? If he was no threat, how was anyone endangered, by FBI working unpaid through a shut down?
OK, I get your point, it was overkill. But I would bet money that Roger himself called CNN. It totally fits his MO.
Thank you for verifying my best guess. . .
I think we all know that by now. Be sure to thank him for me, for his service.
And wolverines make good house pets.
But I would bet money that Roger himself called CNN.
You mean he is clairvoyant? You realize CNN was there before the FBI arrived.
No, but he is well connected and the King of Dirty Polics. Do you think he doesn't have someone on the inside at his local police station?
And what pray tell, does that prove? Or matter?
That they (CNN) were sitting on his house for days? Weeks? Stone himself expected this.
To get hardly visible pictures of agents in FBI windbreakers, dozens of local police and squad cars? A few storm troopers and small forensic army?
Think any of those police cars reported they "were in position" and had not been followed by local reporters?
How does the local police hide a large multiple car deployment from the local reporters at the Police Department?
They obviously did not do a very good job.
Bullshit and you know it. CNN was tipped off and most likely from that team of anti-Trump lawyers that Mueller assembled.
Enjoy your conspiracy theory. It was simply good investigative journalism - the grand jury activity was one hint.
Ya, I know, CNN has a zillion TV crews stationed everywhere they have a hunch
There were several giveaways that tipped them off, especially what happened the last time the special counsel met on a Thursday instead of a Friday. It's already been answered, no conspiracy theories necessary. Good investigative journalism which any other news outlet could have figured out if they had bothered. C'mon Tacos, you don't strike me as the type of person who only reads right wing propaganda. The question has been answered.
"Any evidence against him is already in the possession of prosecutors"
It wasn't at the time of the raid; it is now, due to the search warrants executed at the time of the raid. The paperwork says that concerns about Stone destroying evidence were among the reasons for the raid.
It wouldn't be the first time cops or prosecutors have been wildly full of shit in their paperwork. This guy has been under investigation for a long time and the charges against are basically about things he said on the record. He could have destroyed evidence a long time ago if he wanted. The prosecutor already had electronic evidence like emails and texts and so on. I find it very hard to believe that he still had something in danger of being destroyed. Also, there is no evidence I am aware of to indicate he is a person likely to be destroying evidence in the first place.
Do you know him personally?
I'd imagine that everyone is considered likely to destroy evidence when they're facing charges like this. Even though some of your right wing brethren try to brush them off using the Fox term "process charges" as if that makes everything hunkey dorey. Crimes are crimes.
Yep. If you google it, it's not even a term. Basically it means, if a Trump supporter breaks the law, it shouldn't be considered a crime. The one true thing Trump said was that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and his supporters wouldn't care. If they think a Dem does something wrong, though, the Dem should be locked up without due process.
And he's a liar, so why wouldn't they assume he would try to destroy evidence?
Do I need to? I said only that I am unaware of evidence indicating he would be likely to destroy evidence. I never declared that he would never do it. That means I assume any person is law-abiding until I have a reason to believe otherwise.
Why?
Legally, it's not assumed that everyone is likely to destroy evidence. If that were true, we wouldn't even need the knock and announce rule. Cops could literally just break down the door of any place for which they had a search warrant. There has to be a reason officers would suspect that evidence will be destroyed if they don't give the occupants a chance to open the door themselves.
In this case, agents did knock on his door and announce themselves twice, whereupon Stone himself answered the door. This restraint tells me they weren't too worried about anyone destroying evidence inside the house.
Just a couple of years ago, self-proclaimed liberals actually cared about the levels of force on display by law enforcement. Now they celebrate the overwhelming use of force with military style weapons. Especially to arrest senior citizens with the wrong politics.
Are they? So we should always have law enforcement respond this way? Entering the country illegally is a crime. Should we have 29 federal agents armed with AR-15s raid the homes of illegal immigrants at 6am? Crime is crime, after all.
Let's play Reading Comprehension. It's a fun game. First, read my comment that you responded to:
And then read the question you asked in response.
See the problem?
What about them?
I never said there was no evidence in the house. I said we haven't heard a reason why he would destroy that evidence right at that moment. I also indicated he has had many months to destroy such evidence because he has known he was being investigated. In fact, he knew very well he stood a good chance of being indicted at some point. He has had ample opportunity and warning to destroy evidence if he was so inclined.
I have no idea what self-proclaimed liberals care about, not being one myself. I don't view a display of force the same as using force; nobody tased him or anything like that. I do agree this seems like an excessive number of people - but I can see why they didn't allow him to turn himself in. While he's clearly a liar and I would therefore expect him to try to destroy evidence, that much display of force would seem to indicate that they thought he was a physical threat, and there's no indication that I've seen of that. And apparently they did feel there was a reason to suspect that evidence would be destroyed if he were given the chance. With all the evidence they collected, he wouldn't have had time to destroy it before answering the door. Perhaps he thought he'd have more advance notice and was therefore in no rush to get rid of it.
The "crimes are crimes" is in response to those who keep saying these are just "process crimes" - a term that Fox news apparently just invented - in an attempt to brush them aside as no big deal. Funny, it was a big deal when Bill Clinton lied to Congress, but now I've learned that since it was just a "process crime" he shouldn't have been impeached.
Honestly, at the time, I thought we should just leave Bill alone. I think it's perfectly reasonable human nature to lie about illicit sexual encounters and that it had nothing whatsoever to do with his job as president.
The thing about the Stone arrest and all the drama is not a police brutality issue, really. It just has the optics of making the whole thing look political.
It is also bizarre to see liberal media applauding the show of force, but the same media will look at a few ICE agents arresting an illegal alien and be horrified.
Caught on video: Father arrested at gunpoint by ICE officers with riot shield
Oh no! Gunpoint! A riot shield! And it was all done in front of his family. Oh, the shame! Here, it's terrible. For Stone? Totally appropriate.
Bill Clinton was impeached because he lied to a grand jury (committed perjury) and not for lying to Congress and
You don't see the irony.
CNN producer David Shortell and photojournalist Gilbert De La Rosa were the only media members on scene to witness and record the pre-dawn FBI raid in Fort Lauderdale. The network said Shortell and De La Rosa were “staking out” Stone’s home because the special counsel’s activity over the past week suggested an indictment may have been approaching.
This isn't complicated.
Oh, there you go trying to destroy their conspiracy theories. It won't work, though - Trump fans and acceptance of facts seem to be mutually exclusive.
Lyndsay Graham is a bigger snowflake than even Stone.
Sen. Lindsey Graham and President Trump Prove That a White Man's Arrest Is Worse Than a Black Man's Death
Fail to understand Sen. Graham's consternation. After all, Stone was eased into the vehicle to assure his head was not hit. And this is apparently against the desires of the Trump.
I wonder if he would like to know about all the other 'highly aggressive' arrests they make?
When John McCain was alive Lindsey Graham was in his hip pocket 24/7 and agreed with everything McCain said or did
Now that McCain has walked on, Graham cowers between Trumps legs and shines Trumps shoes for him 24/7.
Not surprising at all, more like disgusting. He obviously does not have the courage, or conviction, to stand on his own two feet and face his own decisions. I guess like many other congress people, he is afraid he won't get re-elected if he does not have someone else to take the blame.
I would not trust Lindsey Graham with a paper doll, or a monopoly dollar.
I am quite sure that the FBI had good reason to arrest Jones as they did, and they don't need to justify it with Graham or anyone else. For all they knew, Jones could have been a flight risk instead of a voluntary surrender. The charges against Jones obviously wanted arrest or they would not have done so. Why do they need to wait around until Jones either decides to voluntarily surrender or skip the country?
Just my own opinion.
Because Stone has acted like a mafioso The law considers witness tampering to be a serious offense.
And even threats to commit violence:
Roger Stone referenced ‘Godfather’ to intimidate witness
After Credico pleaded the Fifth to the House Intelligence Committee, he texted Stone in late 2017, “You should be honest w fbi” about his alleged knowledge of WikiLeaks’ dump of Democratic National Committee emails.
Months later, Stone fired off texts blasting Credico:
“You are a rat. A stoolie.
You backstab your friends-run your mouth my lawyers ie dying Rip you to shreds,” he wrote on April 9, 2018, according to court documents.
Stone also threatened that he would “take that dog away from you,” referring to Credico’s white Coton de Tulear therapy dog, Bianca.
The same day, Stone declared war. “I am so ready. Let’s get it on. Prepare to die [expletive],” he texted.
Many incidents over the years have Stone to have no respect for the law, and to be mentally unstable. But as the excerpt above shows-- he's made death threats. So yes, here was a good chance the man was armed and dangerou... and law enforcement has a duty not only to protect themselves from this lunatic, but also any innocent people who were in the vicinity!