Documents show CNN was tipped off on Roger Stone Arrest by 29 FBI Armed Agents

*** Title modified to fit ***

EXCLUSIVE: DOCUMENTS SHOW CNN WAS TIPPED OFF on Roger Stone Arrest by 29 FBI Armed Agents – Leaked by Deep State!

Roger Stone Attorneys Provide Evidence of Justice Department Special Counsel Leak Ahead Of Conservative Author and Activist’s Arrest
Just over a week after his televised arrest was carried exclusively by CNN, attorneys for the longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone have sent a letter to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees detailing how some reporters may have received an early draft copy of the indictment.

Documents obtained exclusively by The Gateway Pundit show a copy of the draft indictment without the PACER filing number or official stamps of the court, with metadata on the document identifying it as being authored by “AAW”, who is suspected to be lead Special Counsel prosecutor Andrew Weissmann.

Click link for article...

So apparently Weissman tipped off CNN on the raid on Stone. The issue here is not just the tip off but also what was provided to CNN - a copy of the indictment before it was filed and unsealed. CNN was directed to be outside Stones home on a certain date and time. CNN arrived just short of 0500 am. Around 0600 am FBI showed up with 29 agents and proceeded to knock on Stones door. When Stone answered the door gents pulled Stone out on the front porch and arrested him, allowing the CNN crew to get their photographs. Shortly after that the FBI instructed CNN to move their vehicle, which was parked in front of Stones residence, directly across the street.

Metadata was obtained showing an email was sent to CNN that supposedly belongs to Weissman. This information has been turned over to the FBI Director as well as Sen. Grassley on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The desperation coming from the SC is becoming more and more pronounced and obvious. Over the last 2 weeks I have seen Democratic operatives going on the left wing media outlets trying to dampen down expectations regarding Muellers report and Trump-Russia collusion (IE no evidence of collusion has been found). It would certainly make sense then for the SC to go balls to the walls to find anything they could in a last ditch effort before this comes to an end.

As for the reports of the SC ending its investigation it is curious regarding the timing of it. Mueller got a 6 month renewal for his Grand Jury only to reverse course on ending the investigation the moment the new nominee for AG was announced and appeared at hearings. When the acting AG made the comment he felt the SC was coming to an end the left went bonkers. The acting AG may have very well been referring to the incoming AG shutting it down if he finds it broke the law.

Couple this with the fact Corsi just released a statement that the info being used against Stone, which supposedly claimed Stone contacted Corsi to have him contact Wikileaks to get Clinton's emails out sooner than planned (supposedly Coris made this statement to the SC) was in fact not accurate or factual. This means the governments star witness against Stone just contradicted what the government is claiming Corsi told them.

Like sand thru the hour glass....

Link below contains actual letter sent to Wray and Grassley outlining the timeline.
Other Sources -
* - theconservativetreehouse.com... eissman-giving-heads-up-to-cnn-for-roger-stone-arrest/

Was kind of obvious the way it all went down.

CNN in kahoots with gov insider leftovers and implanted operatives.

😎

originally posted by: xuenchen
Was kind of obvious the way it all went down.

CNN in kahoots with gov insider leftovers and implanted operatives.

😎

Makes you wonder if this was done for a reason -

2013 NDAA - U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans

For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts. So what just happened?

Until this month, a vast ocean of U.S. programming produced by the Broadcasting Board of Governors such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks could only be viewed or listened to at broadcast quality in foreign countries. The programming varies in tone and quality, but its breadth is vast: It’s viewed in more than 100 countries in 61 languages. The topics covered include human rights abuses in Iran, self-immolation in Tibet, human trafficking across Asia, and on-the-ground reporting in Egypt and Iraq.

The restriction of these broadcasts was due to the Smith-Mundt Act, a long-standing piece of legislation that has been amended numerous times over the years, perhaps most consequentially by Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright. In the 1970s, Fulbright was no friend of VOA and Radio Free Europe, and moved to restrict them from domestic distribution, saying they "should be given the opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics." Fulbright’s amendment to Smith-Mundt was bolstered in 1985 by Nebraska Senator Edward Zorinsky, who argued that such "propaganda" should be kept out of America as to distinguish the U.S. "from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity."

a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, your article says "may have" when will Trump supporters on ATS learn, "maybe" "perhaps" "might have" in no way means it's a fact!!

originally posted by: iplay1up2
a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, your article says "may have" when will Trump supporters on ATS learn, "maybe" "perhaps" "might have" in no way means it's a fact!!

Wonder how cnn knew to be there with a film crew?
There is only one way I can think of.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It is pretty apparent that CNN is an extension of the 'deep state' and acts as a propaganda wing for factions in government. Most legacy media can fall into this category. Even up here in Canuckistan the media is very biased and often spews propaganda which suits certain party's narrative.

But CNN is quite an extreme. I remember the media coverage of the first gulf war that mainly CNN provided. Many of us were glued to our sets and were in awe of the images captured. They were a tool of the state then and if anything they have become more brazen in their attempts to manipulate the public narrative. But I am nothing but a Russian bot to them so my opinion is nil in the sum of things.

a reply to: iplay1up2

That does not change the documents.
You should read up on AW.
He has cost the taxpayers previously.

originally posted by: iplay1up2
a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, your article says "may have" when will Trump supporters on ATS learn, "maybe" "perhaps" "might have" in no way means it's a fact!!

ROFLOL sure it was all just a coincidence combined with good journalism 🤣

originally posted by: iplay1up2
a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, your article says "may have" when will Trump supporters on ATS learn, "maybe" "perhaps" "might have" in no way means it's a fact!!

How about when CNN MSNBC NBC and the other bird cage liners, learn what a FACT is.

Des

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: iplay1up2
a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, your article says "may have" when will Trump supporters on ATS learn, "maybe" "perhaps" "might have" in no way means it's a fact!!

Wonder how cnn knew to be there with a film crew?
There is only one way I can think of.

I am not saying CNN did not get a tip. What I have a problem with is people saying it's a fact, when there is nothing to back it up.

When I say something regarding something I think, may be true I don't say its fact.

Case and point, I thought JR called Trump during the Tower meeting, I never said it was a fact , I stated I thought it was Trump he called.

Now am probably wrong about the phone call, but I did not make a thread stating it was a fact Jr called Trump.

I am sure I could find a news source that states Jr "may have" called Trump.

originally posted by: iplay1up2
a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, your article says "may have" when will Trump supporters on ATS learn, "maybe" "perhaps" "might have" in no way means it's a fact!!

This is a legitimate criticism so long as the right levels the charge at the left.

I agree with you, that is not the same as fact, they are suggestions.

Everything we do with it from here on out is speculation. So long as everyone is aware of that, then the conversation shouldn't require any other qualifiers.

We good?

a reply to: Xcathdra

This just in... Grass is green. Both Faux and CNN are terrible. Trump doesn’t play 4D chess and this country isn’t as polarized as this website makes it seem.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: iplay1up2
a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, your article says "may have" when will Trump supporters on ATS learn, "maybe" "perhaps" "might have" in no way means it's a fact!!

ROFLOL sure it was all just a coincidence combined with good journalism 🤣

The article does not say that is what happened. You can't accept that. If CNN, did get a tip, and I am sure they did, it has NOT BEEN CONFIRMED!

originally posted by: iplay1up2

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: iplay1up2
a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, your article says "may have" when will Trump supporters on ATS learn, "maybe" "perhaps" "might have" in no way means it's a fact!!

ROFLOL sure it was all just a coincidence combined with good journalism 🤣

The article does not say that is what happened. You can't accept that. If CNN, did get a tip, and I am sure they did, it has NOT BEEN CONFIRMED!

WELL OK THEN !!

ROFLOL 🤣

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: iplay1up2
a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, your article says "may have" when will Trump supporters on ATS learn, "maybe" "perhaps" "might have" in no way means it's a fact!!

This is a legitimate criticism so long as the right levels the charge at the left.

I agree with you, that is not the same as fact, they are suggestions.

Everything we do with it from here on out is speculation. So long as everyone is aware of that, then the conversation shouldn't require any other qualifiers.

We good?

We are absolutely good! Thank you!!

a reply to: iplay1up2

I agree with you that we don't know who tipped off cnn.
But the fact still remains that the FBI leaked the raid to somebody and cnn was the only one there.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: iplay1up2

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: iplay1up2
a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, your article says "may have" when will Trump supporters on ATS learn, "maybe" "perhaps" "might have" in no way means it's a fact!!

ROFLOL sure it was all just a coincidence combined with good journalism 🤣

The article does not say that is what happened. You can't accept that. If CNN, did get a tip, and I am sure they did, it has NOT BEEN CONFIRMED!

WELL OK THEN !!

ROFLOL 🤣

Your OP reads "documents confirmed! That is false. How am I wrong, when your article says nothing of the kind? Even though I am sure they were tipped off. Your post doesn't confirm it.

originally posted by: iplay1up2
a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, your article says "may have" when will Trump supporters on ATS learn, "maybe" "perhaps" "might have" in no way means it's a fact!!

The same can apply to anonymous sources. Or we can just look at Schiff and Feinstein, who repeated the lie regarding who Trump jr called after the meeting with Clinton campaign / russian assets to set him up. Those 2 kept claiming he called DJT when in reality they never did.

So you will excuse me if I am done with anonymous sources and senior democrats from the House/Senate intel committee's who are blatantly lying because of their Trump Derangement Syndrome.

But by al means refute the facts presented. As another posted pointed out, how did CNN know? They already have the info and as I pointyed out that info was turned over to the committee for review.

a reply to: iplay1up2

Except their is evidence to back it up, as outlined in the article, and this info was sent to the committee and FBI Director Wray.

originally posted by: iplay1up2

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: iplay1up2
a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, your article says "may have" when will Trump supporters on ATS learn, "maybe" "perhaps" "might have" in no way means it's a fact!!

ROFLOL sure it was all just a coincidence combined with good journalism 🤣

The article does not say that is what happened. You can't accept that. If CNN, did get a tip, and I am sure they did, it has NOT BEEN CONFIRMED!

Actually coincidence with good journalism is the exact reason CNN gave. They maintain they werent tipped off. The evidence presented says they were tipped off.