White House: Roger Stone’s indictment has nothing to do with President Trump

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 6:55 AM PT — Friday, January 25, 2019

The White House has responded to the recent arrest and indictment of President Trump’s ex-adviser Roger Stone.
While speaking outside the White House Friday, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said the special counsel’s latest indictment has nothing to do with the president or the administration.
When asked if President Trump encouraged Stone to make false statements, Sanders said the implication is absolutely ridiculous and insulting and simply not true.
The press secretary said she hopes the same standards applied against Stone will also be applied to others who have been accused of lying under oath to Congress, and named off James Comey, James Clapper and Hillary Clinton.
Stone was arrested Friday morning in Florida and has been indicted on a number of charges, including lying during his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee.
According to a 24-page indictment released by the special counsel Friday, he was arrested on one-count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five-counts of making false statements, and one-count of witness tampering.
Indictment on Roger Stone

Roger Stone

He has been under investigation by Mueller for his alleged ties to the WikiLeaks document dump ahead of the 2016 presidential election. Stone has adamantly denied all accusations of wrongdoing, and has blasted the Mueller probe as a “witch hunt.”

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders listens to a question as she speaks with reporters outside the White House, Friday, Jan. 25, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)

Roger Stone may be a ‘BS artist,’ but indictments don’t prove collusion: Byron York

Republican operative Roger Stone is the latest in President Trump’s inner circle to face criminal charges in the Mueller probe, but his alleged crimes have nothing to do with Russia collusion, Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron York argued Friday.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller charged the former Trump campaign adviser with seven felonies -- including obstruction, making false statements, and witness tampering. The FBI sent more than two-dozen armed agents to arrest Stone in his Florida home before the crack of dawn Friday.
On the "Special Report" All-Star panel, York -- along with National Journal political editor Josh Kraushaar and Washington Free Beacon editor-in-chief Matthew Continetti -- weighed in on the political and legal ramifications of the latest indictments from Mueller.
York began by pointing out that Stone’s communications regarding WikiLeaks took place after the site published emails from the Democratic National Committee. York said he thought this suggested that “there was no knowledge beforehand” and that the facts don't support “any collusion scheme or conspiracy” involving the Trump campaign and Russia.
“The main thing to remember reading this indictment is, Roger Stone has always been a kind of a BS artist. He brags about all sort of dirty deeds, some of which he hasn’t even done, and he was doing that in connection to this case in public. And then the House had him come for an interview and asked him about those statements under oath and he allegedly lied about it all and it has all kind of caught up with him. But as far as revealing some sort of scheme or conspiracy, it just doesn’t do it,” York told the panel.
Continetti said that because the indictments Stone is facing are “process crimes,” the Trump administration is able to “create some space” between the former adviser and the president.
Kraushaar, however, felt differently, telling the panel that it “feels like the walls are closing in” at the White House regarding its connections with Russia and WikiLeaks. The political fallout, if it takes place, would occur after Mueller releases his final report.

Democrat ends 2020 presidential bid -- 11 days after quitting state Senate to run

Richard Ojeda, a Democratic candidate for West Virginia's 3rd Congressional District, watches election results during his campaign's watch party at Special Occasions in Yuma, W.Va., Nov. 6, 2018. (Associated Press)

Former West Virginia state Sen. Richard Ojeda ended his 2020 presidential bid Friday, just 11 days after he left his seat to focus on his White House bid.
In an hourlong Facebook video, the tattooed Army veteran said he couldn’t see himself accepting money from people struggling to get by for a race “that’s not going to be able to get off the ground.”
“When I was a kid in grade school, my teachers always said that anyone could grow up and become president,” Ojeda said. “Unfortunately, what I’m starting to realize is that unless you have wealth, influence and power, it’s not gonna happen.”
Ojeda -- a Democrat who voted for Republican Donald Trump in 2016 -- announced his presidential run in November after losing a congressional race to Republican Carol Miller. On Jan. 14, he submitted his resignation from the state Senate, WOWK-TV in Huntington, W. Va. reported
As a lawmaker, he sponsored successful legislation to make medical marijuana legal and stressed health care and economic issues.
He also came under fire in September 2018 for allegedly threatening state delegate Rupie Phillips in a Facebook message: "When I'm done with you, you will beg me to ease up. I’m going to make you famous… and it’s not going to be in a good way."
In December, an attack he called politically motivated left him in the hospital with multiple fractures.
In his announcement, Ojeda did not say what he would do next.
“I want you to know though that my fight does not end! I may not have the money to make the media pay attention but I will continue raising my voice and highlighting the issues the working class, the sick and the elderly face in this nation."

Rep. Ilhan Omar facing new scrutiny over past effort to win leniency for 9 men accused of trying to joining ISIS

Embattled congressional freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., once asked a judge to show leniency toward a group of Minnesota men accused of trying to join the Islamic State terror group.
“The best deterrent to fanaticism is a system of compassion," she wrote at the time. "We must alter our attitude and approach; if we truly want to effect change, we should refocus our efforts on inclusion and rehabilitation."
The nine Minnesota men were facing decades in prison after being accused in 2015 of making plans, including buying fake passports, in an effort to travel to Syria and fight for ISIS, which was at its peak level of activity and held territory in Syria and Iraq.

“The best deterrent to fanaticism is a system of compassion. We must alter our attitude and approach; if we truly want to effect change, we should refocus our efforts on inclusion and rehabilitation."
— Rep. Ilhan Omar, while a state lawmaker, arguing for leniency for nine terror defendants

Omar, who was then a Minnesota state representative, was part of a group that sent letters to Judge Michael Davis urging him to give shorter sentences, arguing that harsher penalties would only lead to more people joining the terror group.
“Incarcerating 20-year-old men for 30 or 40 years is essentially a life sentence. Society will have no expectations of the to-be 50- or 60-year-old released prisoners; it will view them with distrust and revulsion,” read Omar’s letter to the judge, as obtained by FOX 9 of Minneapolis-St. Paul.
“Such punitive measures not only lack efficacy, they inevitably create an environment in which extremism can flourish, aligning with the presupposition of terrorist recruitment,” she added.
Omar’s letter seeking more lenient sentences resurfaced on social media amid criticism over her attack on Sen. Lindsey Graham, Covington Catholic High School students, and the endorsement of socialist Venezuelan dictatorship.
One of the men in particular, Abdirahman Yasin Daud, was facing over 30 years in prison for trying to join the terrorist group. He admitted in court that he wasn’t trying to enter Syria on humanitarian grounds, but rather to participate in the activities of ISIS.

“I was not going there to pass out medical kits or food. I was going strictly to fight and kill on behalf of the Islamic State.”
— Abdirahman Yasin Daud

“I was not going there to pass out medical kits or food. I was going strictly to fight and kill on behalf of the Islamic State,” he said.
But Omar told the judge that the best way counter extremism was with empathy rather than punishment.
“A long-term prison sentence for one who chose violence to combat direct marginalization is a statement that our justice system misunderstands the guilty. A restorative approach to justice assesses the lure of criminality and addresses it.”
According to media reports, almost all the men on trial received lengthy sentences, with Daud serving 30 years in prison after he was found guilty of trying to provide material support to ISIS and conspiring to commit murder overseas.

Bye Bye Dems Cartoons

MAGA caps under fire as Trump-haters blame his supporters

Now it's about the hats.
That is, people who despise Donald Trump are now aiming their anger at those who wear the red caps in support of the president.
This is dangerous stuff, and not just because of the absurdity that fashion has become the latest political battleground.
The sudden burst of invective aimed at those wearing "Make America Great Again" hats crosses an important line.
If Trump's liberal critics want to call him racist, fascist, incompetent, unhinged or all the other highly charged insults hurled at him, have at it. He's the president, he's fair game, and he obviously doesn't hesitate to slam his opponents.
But when they're denouncing people in MAGA hats — and this is obviously an outgrowth of the Covington controversy — they are blaming people who support Trump. They are saying that anyone who likes this president is, by definition, a racist.
In short, they are denouncing the 63 million Americans who voted for Trump, regardless of their choice of haberdashery.
COVINGTON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT'S MOM SPEAKS OUT ABOUT VIRAL VIDEO ENCOUNTER
CNN contributor Angela Rye went there the other day, saying she is "triggered" by the hats.
"This 'Make America Great Again' hat is just as maddening and frustrating and triggering for me to look at as a KKK hood," she said. "That is the type of hatred his policies represent."
Think about that. It's like a hood. She is comparing people who back Trump to members of the Ku Klux Klan. They are, in this view, just out-and-out, torch-bearing racists.
Actress Alyssa Milano, a leader of the #Me-Too movement, is also in this camp. She tweeted that "the red MAGA hat is the new white hood." Not much nuance there.
Writing on The Wrap, Milano complained that "right-wing pundits and anonymous trolls alike screamed for my head — literally and figuratively. My husband received death threats on his cell phone. Many demanded an apology."
I don't condone threats of any kind, but when you make that kind of inflammatory accusation, you should expect some pushback.
But Milano insists she was right: "I won't apologize to these boys. Or anyone who wears that hat."
The reason why the hats have become intertwined with the national uproar over the Covington Catholic High School students from Kentucky is clear. If some of them hadn't been wearing the MAGA hats, this never would have become a story. The video of their standoff with Indian activist Nathan Phillips would never have gone viral. The narrative was that Trump-loving kids were harassing this Native American elder.
NATIVE AMERICAN ACTIVIST IN VIRAL VIDEO CONFRONTATION NEVER DEPLOYED OVERSEAS, MARINES SAY
Of course, we now know it was Phillips who initiated the confrontation, changed his story several times and falsely claimed to be a Vietnam veteran (though he did serve in the military). But never mind: we're still debating the hats.
The ugliness directed at Trump supporters has its roots in the campaign. As I point out in my book Media Madness, the Huffington Post ran a post-election headline that said: "A VOTE FOR TRUMP WAS A HATE CRIME." Lovely.
During the debate over ObamaCare, some respected liberal pundits said they hoped Trump supporters wound up losing their health insurance, that it would serve them right. Again: If you back the president, you deserve an awful fate.
Robin Givhan, the provocative Washington Post fashion critic, went off on the hats yesterday, saying they have been "transformed into an open wound, a firestorm of hate and a marker of societal atavism. An aesthetically benign baseball cap is a 21st-century grotesquerie."
Givhan, who is African-American, makes her feelings about Trumpism clear. While the MAGA cap's definition has evolved, she writes, "there’s nothing banal or benign about the hat, no matter its wearer's intent. It was weaponized by the punch-throwing Trump rallygoers, the Charlottesville white supremacists, Trump’s nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, Kanye West and proponents of the wall, the wall, the wall.
"The hat has become a symbol of us vs. them, of exclusion and suspicion, of garrulous narcissism, of white male privilege, of violence and hate."
I've never worn a hat with a political statement, unless you include a Yankees cap. But it's really no different than a bumper sticker or T-shirt with a message.
Imagine what liberals would say if there was a backlash against people who wore a sweatshirt with the famous Obama "HOPE" logo.
The message from some on the left is now clear: if you associate with President Trump in any way — especially with a visible red cap — we will brand you a KKK-style racist. And yet they don't see themselves as fueling the divisiveness in America.

Minnesota's Rep. Ilhan Omar gets $250G book deal amid uproar over her comments

U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, a freshman Democratic lawmaker from Minnesota, has entered a book deal worth up to $250,000 for a memoir chronicling her path from refugee to congresswoman.
The book by Omar, the first Somali American to serve in Congress, has the working title, “This Is What America Looks Like,” and will be published by Dey Street. It will touch upon Omar's upbringing in Somalia, her years as a refugee in Kenya and her subsequent arrival in the United States.
HARD-LEFT DEM ACCUSED OF 'BREATHTAKING BIGOTRY' AFTER CLAIM THAT LINDSEY GRAHAM IS 'COMPROMISED'
According to Forbes, which first reported the book deal, the agreement is listed as a “good deal” – meaning Omar will be getting between $100,000 and $250,000.
“Her voice on the page is very much as it is in real life — fresh and positive even when she is tackling serious issues, with real empathy and deep knowledge,” Dey Street executive editor Alessandra Bastagli told the outlet.
“Her story counters everything we keep hearing from the current administration and the right-wing media about refugees, immigrants, Muslims and women. This memoir presents an urgent and important counter-narrative.”
But the book deal came in the wake of a series of controversies involving Omar. A day before the deal, the congresswoman was forced to explain comments she made that were deemed homophobic and bigoted, after she repeated a far-left conspiracy theory that U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is somehow being blackmailed into supporting President Trump.
Her baseless remark came the same day that MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle came under fire for implying that Graham was being blackmailed by Trump over “something pretty extreme.”
Omar also came under fire more recently after she falsely accused Covington Catholic High School students from Kentucky of taunting “5 black men,” despite video evidence showing the men were part of the Black Hebrew Israelites – a known hate group – who shouted hateful comments toward the students.
“The boys were protesting a woman's right to choose & yelled 'it's not rape if you enjoy it' ... They were taunting 5 Black men before they surrounded Phillips and led racist chants ... [student Nick] Sandmann's family hired a right wing PR firm to write his non-apology,” she wrote in a now-deleted tweet.

Washington Post Fact Checker defends column after Ocasio-Cortez callout: ‘She’s wrong’

A Washington Post fact checker defended his "three-Pinocchio" rating of comments made by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in response to her claim on Twitter that his column relied on a study that served corporate interests.
The New York Democrat claimed that columnist Glenn Kessler relied on a "Walmart-funded" study when he analyzed her statements from earlier this week that the vast majority of the country doesn't earn the minimum wage.
"If the point of fact-checking is to enforce some objective standard, why would @GlennKesslerWP use a Walmart-funded think tank as reference material for wage fairness? That’s like citing the foxes to fact-check the hens. Here’s 4 Geppettos for your contested Pinocchios," she wrote.
In his response, Kessler tweeted a screenshot of an addition to his story that said Jason Furman - the author of the study – previously served as the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under former President Barack Obama, before telling his followers "don't always believe what you see on Twitter."
In his Thursday column, Kessler took issue with her math.
"Ocasio-Cortez would have been fine if she had said “more than a third” or even “almost half.” Instead, she said “a vast majority," Kessler wrote. “Ocasio-Cortez deserves credit for using her high profile to bring attention to income inequality. However, she undermines her message when she plays fast and loose with statistics.”
He also said the congresswoman's assertion that companies like Walmart and Amazon "essentially experience a wealth transfer from the public, for paying people less than a minimum wage” was not true. He cited Amazon's support of raising the minimum wage and that entry-level workers at Walmart are paid $11 per hour, not including benefits. Amazon pays its employees at least $15 an hour.