Was Roger Stone “Flynned” By Partisan Mercenaries Posing as Prosecutors?… Why Did Steve Bannon Throw Stone Under the Bus?

During confirmation hearings for President Reagan’s Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, Democrats engaged in the unconscionable defamation of a good man and an even more impressive Constitutional scholar.  They successfully destroyed his nomination.  The process became known as getting “borked.”

Future SC nominees Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, both conservative, were similarly discredited without the presentation of a shred of legitimate evidence.  Unlike Bork, their nominations survived confirmation, if only barely.

It’s the only political weapon proven to work for Democrats whose policies can’t win national elections unless their opponents’ can be portrayed so unfavorably that they are viewed as unelectable.

This is, of course, only possible when the national media is willing to join in the trashing of quality human beings… something they’re all too prepared to do when the attack is against a conservative.

Lt General Michael Flynn was unjustly targeted in a similar manner.  

The difference was Flynn wasn’t only targeted by the media and Democrats opposed to his appointment as NSA.  Flynn was targeted by the government, specifically the intelligence community corrupted by eight years of Obama appointees.

The government’s case was so egregiously biased that Attorney General Barr ordered the charges against Flynn be dropped.  This new level of political warfare… the weaponization of government… might be described as being “Flynned.”

Roger Stone was Flynned.  And, he’s continuing to be Flynned because he’s guilty of being an ally of President Trump.

Flynn was targeted because he represented a threat to Obama’s Middle East plan to develop a full alliance with Iran throughout the Middle East and North Africa.”  

As a former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama, Flynn knew where every Obama skeleton was hidden.  As Trump’s incoming NSA his takedown was important in preserving the Obama “legacy.”

The mere fact that he was associated with the incoming president was an added bonus.

Roger Stone posed a similar threat.

The handpicked partisan mercenaries whose ideological profiles were decidedly anti-Trump, when performing in their roles as prosecutors, would stop at nothing… would destroy anybody… who got in the way of protecting Obama’s legacy. 

Stone was charged with being the conduit between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks.  Whatever his relationship with Wikileaks was, or wasn’t, this was an area of inquiry that Obama-defending rogue prosecutors needed to shut down to preserve their charges of Russian interference.

Stone, like Flynn, was victimized by the need to silence him in order to promote the “Russia interfered on behalf of Trump” narrative that we now know had no basis in fact.

In what could only be viewed as an example of gross prosecutorial misconduct, Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange was never questioned about either how he came to possess the emails or who he had released them to.

It was left to the jury to decide who they wanted to believe.  The judge in the case, as well as the jury were severely partisan… not in Stone’s favor.

Here’s the testimony of Shawn Henry, president of Crowdstrike, the private contractor hired by the DNC to create a narrative blaming Russia for hacking the DNC network and relying on Wikileaks to disseminate incriminating emails…

Henry testified to the House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI) that there was no proof that Russia had anything to do with “infiltrating” the DNC server.  Now we can surmise why FBI Director James Comey allowed a private contractor to do the forensic examination that should have been done by the FBI… plausible deniability…

As with the recently released Flynn transcripts that proved he said nothing inappropriate when talking with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, there was no evidence tying Russia to the hacked DNC server.

Transcripts of General Flynn were only made public when President Trump finally got a Director of National Intelligence who had no interests in protecting the criminal cabal aligned against the president.

Similarly the need to continue the special counsel charade of Russia, Russia, Russian and scoring scalps of those surrounding President Trump to create negative fallout for political reasons, led to the prosecution of Roger Stone.

Tying Stone, considered to be a close ally of President Trump, to Assange and Russia became important as Special Counsel Robert Mueller attempted to implicate the president in his entrapment.

We’ve long surmised that Mueller was more intent on goading the president into committing obstruction than proving Russian collusion because he realized early on there was none.

Regardless, Mueller couldn’t very well abandon the pretext of Russian involvement lest he have no pre-textual reason to keep his office open.

To that end, transcripts of the man positioned as Stone’s accuser Steve Bannon were suppressed by Russian hoaxer Adam Schiff.  

(Reuters) President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign CEO Steve Bannon delivered potentially damaging testimony on Friday against Roger Stone, describing communicating with Trump’s longtime adviser about WikiLeaks despite Stone’s later denials and saying he believed Stone “had a relationship” with the website’s founder.

Bannon testified that he had viewed Stone as the “access point” between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks, which disclosed numerous stolen Democratic emails in the months before the 2016 election that were damaging to Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton.

A read of the article reveals a flimsy ‘maybe’ connection – “I was led to believe he had a relationship with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange,” Bannon said of Stone, referring to the WikiLeaks founder – but nothing definitive.

Ultimately, the rogue prosecution team settled on prosecuting Stone for lying.  But did he?  Or, did Bannon perjure himself to the extent he suggested Stone might have had some connection to Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange.

You decide. Here’s Bannon’s testimony to the HPSCI…

Roger Stone’s attorneys are pursuing an appeal.  Now that Steve Bannon’s transcript has been released showing he had no knowledge of any connection between Stone and Julian Assange, one would expect Stone to be on a clear path to acquittal.  

Waiting to see what else the “Deep State” comes up with following the pandemic and the orchestrated Marxist insurrection…