Roger Stone – INDICTMENT The Grand Jury for the District of Columbia charges

Roger Stone – INDICTMENT The Grand Jury for the District of Columbia charges

Roger Stone – Indictment – The Grand Jury for District of Columbia Charges.

Remember the DNC related wiki leaks? Want to read where it started? Here’s all the legal documentation, text messages, that relate to Roger Stone and others to come…

Well said Roger Stone.

1. By in or around May 2016, the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (“DCCC”) became aware that their computer systems had been compromised by unauthorized intrusions and hired a security company (“Company 1”) to identify the extent of the intrusions.

2. On or about June 14, 2016, the DNC—through Company 1—publicly announced that it had been hacked by Russian government actors.

3. From in or around July 2016 through in or around November 2016, an organization (“Organization 1”), which had previously posted documents stolen by others from U.S. persons, entities, and the U.S. government, released tens of thousands of documents stolen from the DNC and the personal email account of the chairman of the U.S. presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton (“Clinton Campaign”).

a. On or about July 22, 2016, Organization 1 released documents stolen from the DNC. b. Between on or about October 7, 2016 and on or about November 7, 2016, Organization 1 released approximately 33 tranches of documents that had been stolen from the personal email account of the Clinton Campaign chairman, totaling over 50,000 stolen documents.

4. ROGER JASON STONE, JR. was a political consultant who worked for decades in U.S. politics and on U.S. political campaigns. STONE was an official on the U.S. presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign”) until in or around August 2015, and maintained regular contact with and publicly supported the Trump Campaign through the 2016 election.

5. During the summer of 2016, STONE spoke to senior Trump Campaign officials about Organization 1 and information it might have had that would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign. STONE was contacted by senior Trump Campaign officials to inquire about future releases by Organization 1. 6. By in or around early August 2016, STONE was claiming both publicly and privately to have communicated with Organization 1. By in or around mid-August 2016, Organization 1 made a public statement denying direct communication with STONE. Thereafter, STONE said that his communication with Organization 1 had occurred through a person STONE described as a “mutual friend,” “go-between,” and “intermediary.” STONE also continued to communicate with members of the Trump Campaign about Organization 1 and its intended future releases.

7. After the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (“HPSCI”), the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (“SSCI”), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) opened or announced their respective investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, which included investigating STONE’s claims of contact with Organization 1.

8. In response, STONE took steps to obstruct these investigations. Among other steps to obstruct the investigations, STONE: a. Made multiple false statements to HPSCI about his interactions regarding Organization 1, and falsely denied possessing records that contained evidence of these interactions; and b. Attempted to persuade a witness to provide false testimony to and withhold pertinent information from the investigations. Other Relevant Individuals

9. Person 1 was a political commentator who worked with an online media publication during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. Person 1 spoke regularly with STONE throughout the campaign, including about the release of stolen documents by Organization 1.

10. Person 2 was a radio host who had known STONE for more than a decade. In testimony before HPSCI on or about September 26, 2017, STONE described Person 2 (without naming him) as an “intermediary,” “go-between,” and “mutual friend” to the head of Organization 1. In a follow-up letter to HPSCI dated October 13, 2017, STONE identified Person 2 by name and claimed Person 2 was the “gentleman who confirmed for Mr. Stone” that the head of Organization 1 had “‘[e]mails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication.’” Background STONE’s Communications About Organization 1 During the Campaign

11. By in or around June and July 2016, STONE informed senior Trump Campaign officials that he had information indicating Organization 1 had documents whose release would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign. The head of Organization 1 was located at all relevant times at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, United Kingdom.

12. After the July 22, 2016 release of stolen DNC emails by Organization 1, a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other damaging information Organization 1 had regarding the Clinton Campaign. STONE thereafter told the Trump Campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by Organization 1.

13. STONE also corresponded with associates about contacting Organization 1 in order to obtain additional emails damaging to the Clinton Campaign.

a. On or about July 25, 2016, STONE sent an email to Person 1 with the subject line, “Get to [the head of Organization 1].” The body of the message read, “Get to [the head of Organization 1] [a]t Ecuadorian Embassy in London and get the pending [Organization 1] emails . . . they deal with Foundation, allegedly.” On or about the same day, Person 1 forwarded STONE’s email to an associate who lived in the United Kingdom and was a supporter of the Trump Campaign.

b. On or about July 31, 2016, STONE emailed Person 1 with the subject line, “Call me MON.” The body of the email read in part that Person 1’s associate in the United Kingdom “should see [the head of Organization 1].”

c. On or about August 2, 2016, Person 1 emailed STONE. Person 1 wrote that he was currently in Europe and planned to return in or around mid-August. Person 1 stated in part, “Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I’m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.” The phrase “friend in embassy” referred to the head of Organization 1. Person 1 added in the same email, “Time to let more than [the Clinton Campaign chairman] to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC. That appears to be the game hackers are now about. Would not hurt to start suggesting HRC old, memory bad, has stroke – neither he nor she well. I expect that much of next dump focus, setting stage for Foundation debacle.”

14. Starting in early August 2016, after receiving the August 2, 2016 email from Person 1, STONE made repeated statements about information he claimed to have learned from the head of Organization 1.

a. On or about August 8, 2016, STONE attended a public event at which he stated, “I actually have communicated with [the head of Organization 1]. I believe the next tranche of his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation, but there’s no telling what the October surprise may be.”

b. On or about August 12, 2016, STONE stated during an interview that he was “in communication with [the head of Organization 1]” but was “not at liberty to discuss what I have.”

c. On or about August 16, 2016, STONE stated during an interview that “it became known on this program that I have had some back-channel communication with [Organization 1] and [the head of Organization 1].” In a second interview on or about the same day, STONE stated that he “communicated with [the head of Organization 1]” and that they had a “mutual acquaintance who is a fine gentleman.”

d. On or about August 18, 2016, STONE stated during a television interview that he had communicated with the head of Organization 1 through an “intermediary, somebody who is a mutual friend.”

e. On or about August 23, 2016, Person 2 asked STONE during a radio interview, “You’ve been in touch indirectly with [the head of Organization 1]. . . . Can you give us any kind of insight? Is there an October surprise happening?” STONE responded, “Well, first of all, I don’t want to intimate in any way that I control or have influence with [the head of Organization 1] because I do not. . . . We have a mutual friend, somebody we both trust and therefore I am a recipient of pretty good information.”

15. Beginning on or about August 19, 2016, STONE exchanged written communications, including by text message and email, with Person 2 about Organization 1 and what the head of Organization 1 planned to do.

a. On or about August 19, 2016, Person 2 sent a text message to STONE that read in part, “I’m going to have [the head of Organization 1] on my show next Thursday.” On or about August 21, 2016, Person 2 sent another text message to STONE, writing in part, “I have [the head of Organization 1] on Thursday so I’m completely tied up on that day.”

b. On or about August 25, 2016, the head of Organization 1 was a guest on Person 2’s radio show for the first time. On or about August 26, 2016, Person 2 sent a text message to STONE that stated, “[the head of Organization 1] talk[ed] about you last night.” STONE asked what the head of Organization 1 said, to which Person 2 responded, “He didn’t say anything bad we were talking about how the Press is trying to make it look like you and he are in cahoots.”

c. On or about August 27, 2016, Person 2 sent text messages to STONE that said, “We are working on a [head of Organization 1] radio show,” and that he (Person 2) was “in charge” of the project. In a text message sent later that day, Person 2 added, “[The head of Organization 1] has kryptonite on Hillary.”

d. On or about September 18, 2016, STONE sent a text message to Person 2 that said, “I am e-mailing u a request to pass on to [the head of Organization 1].” Person 2 responded “Ok,” and added in a later text message, “[j]ust remember do not name me as your connection to [the head of Organization 1] you had one before that you referred to.”

i. On or about the same day, September 18, 2016, STONE emailed Person 2 an article with allegations against then-candidate Clinton related to her service as Secretary of State. STONE stated, “Please ask [the head of Organization 1] for any State or HRC e-mail from August 10 to August 30—particularly on August 20, 2011 that mention [the subject of the article] or confirm this narrative.”

ii. On or about September 19, 2016, STONE texted Person 2 again, writing, “Pass my message . . . to [the head of Organization 1].” Person 2 responded, “I did.” On or about September 20, 2016, Person 2 forwarded the request to a friend who was an attorney with the ability to contact the head of Organization 1. Person 2 blindcopied STONE on the forwarded email.

e. On or about September 30, 2016, Person 2 sent STONE via text message a photograph of Person 2 standing outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where the head of Organization 1 was located.

f. On or about October 1, 2016, which was a Saturday, Person 2 sent STONE text messages that stated, “big news Wednesday . . . now pretend u don’t know me . . . Hillary’s campaign will die this week.” In the days preceding these messages, the press had reported that the head of Organization 1 planned to make a public announcement on or about Tuesday, October 4, 2016, which was reported to be the ten-year anniversary of the founding of Organization 1.

g. On or about October 2, 2016, STONE emailed Person 2, with the subject line “WTF?,” a link to an article reporting that Organization 1 was canceling its “highly anticipated Tuesday announcement due to security concerns.” Person 2 responded to STONE, “head fake.”

h. On or about the same day, October 2, 2016, STONE texted Person 2 and asked, “Did [the head of Organization 1] back off.” On or about October 3, 2016, Person 2 initially responded, “I can’t tal[k] about it.” After further exchanges with STONE, Person 2 said, “I think it[’]s on for tomorrow.” Person 2 added later that day, “Off the Record Hillary and her people are doing a full-court press they [sic] keep [the head of Organization 1] from making the next dump . . . That’s all I can tell you on this line . . . Please leave my name out of it.”

16. In or around October 2016, STONE made statements about Organization 1’s future releases, including statements similar to those that Person 2 made to him. For example:

a. On or about October 3, 2016, STONE wrote to a supporter involved with the Trump Campaign, “Spoke to my friend in London last night. The payload is still coming.”

b. Also on or about October 3, 2016, STONE received an email from a reporter who had connections to a high-ranking Trump Campaign official that asked, “[the head of Organization 1] – what’s he got? Hope it’s good.” STONE responded in part, “It is. I’d tell [the high-ranking Trump Campaign official] but he doesn’t call me back.”

c. On or about October 4, 2016, the head of Organization 1 held a press conference but did not release any new materials pertaining to the Clinton Campaign. Shortly afterwards, STONE received an email from the high-ranking Trump Campaign official asking about the status of future releases by Organization 1. STONE answered that the head of Organization 1 had a “[s]erious security concern” but that Organization 1 would release “a load every week going forward.”

d. Later that day, on or about October 4, 2016, the supporter involved with the Trump Campaign asked STONE via text message if he had “hear[d] anymore from London.” STONE replied, “Yes – want to talk on a secure line – got Whatsapp?” STONE subsequently told the supporter that more material would be released and that it would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign.

17. On or about October 7, 2016, Organization 1 released the first set of emails stolen from the Clinton Campaign chairman. Shortly after Organization 1’s release, an associate of the highranking Trump Campaign official sent a text message to STONE that read “well done.” In subsequent conversations with senior Trump Campaign officials, STONE claimed credit for having correctly predicted the October 7, 2016 release. The Investigations

18. In or around 2017, government officials publicly disclosed investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible links to individuals associated with the campaigns.

a. On or about January 13, 2017, the chairman and vice chairman of SSCI announced the committee would conduct an inquiry that would investigate, among other things, any intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns, as well as Russian cyber activity and other “active measures” directed against the United States in connection with the 2016 election.

b. On or about January 25, 2017, the chairman and ranking member of HPSCI announced that HPSCI had been conducting an inquiry similar to SSCI’s.

c. On or about March 20, 2017, the then-director of the FBI testified at a HPSCI hearing and publicly disclosed that the FBI was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible links and coordination between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government.

d. By in or around August 2017, news reports stated that a federal grand jury had opened an investigation into matters relating to Russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, including possible links and coordination between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government. STONE’s False Testimony to HPSCI

19. In or around May 2017, HPSCI sent a letter requesting that STONE voluntarily appear before the committee and produce: Any documents, records, electronically stored information including e-mail, communication, recordings, data and tangible things (including, but not limited to, graphs, charts, photographs, images and other documents) regardless of form, other than those widely available (e.g., newspaper articles) that reasonably could lead to the discovery of any facts within the investigation’s publicly announced parameters. On or about May 22, 2017, STONE caused a letter to be submitted to HPSCI stating that “Mr.Stone has no documents, records, or electronically stored information, regardless of form, other than those widely available that reasonably could lead to the discovery of any facts within the investigation’s publicly-announced parameters.”

20. On or about September 26, 2017, STONE testified before HPSCI in Washington, D.C. as part of the committee’s ongoing investigation. In his opening statement, STONE stated, “These hearings are largely based on a yet unproven allegation that the Russian state is responsible for the hacking of the DNC and [the Clinton Campaign chairman] and the transfer of that information to [Organization 1].” STONE further stated that “[m]embers of this Committee” had made certain “assertions against me which must be rebutted here today,” which included “[t]he charge that I knew in advance about, and predicted, the hacking of Clinton campaign chairman[’s] email, [and] that I had advanced knowledge of the source or actual content of the [Organization 1] disclosures regarding Hillary Clinton.”

21. In the course of his HPSCI testimony, STONE made deliberately false and misleading statements to the committee concerning, among other things, his possession of documents pertinent to HPSCI’s investigation; the source for his early August 2016 statements about Organization 1; requests he made for information from the head of Organization 1; his communications with his identified intermediary; and his communications with the Trump Campaign about Organization 1. STONE’s False and Misleading Testimony About His Possession of Documents Pertinent to HPSCI’s Investigation

22. During his HPSCI testimony, STONE was asked, “So you have no emails to anyone concerning the allegations of hacked documents . . . or any discussions you have had with third parties about [the head of Organization 1]? You have no emails, no texts, no documents whatsoever, any kind of that nature?” STONE falsely and misleadingly answered, “That is correct. 11 Not to my knowledge.”

23. In truth and in fact, STONE had sent and received numerous emails and text messages during the 2016 campaign in which he discussed Organization 1, its head, and its possession of hacked emails. At the time of his false testimony, STONE was still in possession of many of these emails and text messages, including:

a. The email from STONE to Person 1 on or about July 25, 2016 that read in part, “Get to [the head of Organization 1] [a]t Ecuadorian Embassy in London and get the pending [Organization 1] emails . . . they deal with Foundation, allegedly.”;

b. The email from STONE to Person 1 on or about July 31, 2016 that said an associate of Person 1 “should see [the head of Organization 1].”;

c. The email from Person 1 to STONE on or about August 2, 2016 that stated in part, “Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I’m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.”;

d. Dozens of text messages and emails, beginning on or about August 19, 2016 and continuing through the election, between STONE and Person 2 in which they discussed Organization 1 and the head of Organization 1;

e. The email from STONE on or about October 3, 2016 to the supporter involved with the Trump Campaign, which read in part, “Spoke to my friend in London last night. The payload is still coming.”; and

f. The emails on or about October 4, 2016 between STONE and the high-ranking member of the Trump Campaign, including STONE’s statement that Organization 1 would release “a load every week going forward.”

24. By falsely claiming that he had no emails or text messages in his possession that referred to the head of Organization 1, STONE avoided providing a basis for HPSCI to subpoena records in his possession that could have shown that other aspects of his testimony were false and misleading. STONE’s False and Misleading Testimony About His Early August 2016 Statements

25. During his HPSCI testimony on or about September 26, 2017, STONE was asked to explain his statements in early August 2016 about being in contact with the head of Organization 1. STONE was specifically asked about his statement on or about August 8, 2016 that “I’ve actually communicated with [the head of Organization 1],” as well as his statement on or about August 12, 2016 that he was “in communication with [the head of Organization 1]” but was “not at liberty to discuss what I have.”

26. STONE responded that his public references to having a means of contacting Organization 1 referred exclusively to his contact with a journalist, who STONE described as a “go-between, as an intermediary, as a mutual friend” of the head of Organization 1. STONE stated that he asked this individual, his intermediary, “to confirm what [the head of Organization 1] ha[d] tweeted, himself, on July 21st, that he ha[d] the Clinton emails and that he [would] publish them.” STONE further stated that the intermediary “was someone I knew had interviewed [the head of Organization 1]. And I merely wanted confirmation of what he had tweeted on the 21st.” STONE declined to tell HPSCI the name of this “intermediary” but provided a description in his testimony that was consistent with Person 2.

27. On or about October 13, 2017, STONE caused a letter to be submitted to HPSCI that identified Person 2 by name as the “gentleman who confirmed for Mr. Stone” that the head of Organization 1 had “‘[e]mails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication.’”

28. STONE’s explanation of his August 2016 statements about communicating with the head of Organization 1 was false and misleading. In truth and in fact, the first time Person 2 interviewed the head of Organization 1 was on or about August 25, 2016, after STONE made his August 8 and August 12, 2016 public statements. Similarly, at the time STONE made his August 2016 statements, STONE had directed Person 1—not Person 2—to contact the head of Organization 1. And Person 1—not Person 2—had told STONE in advance of STONE’s August 8 and August 12, 2016 public statements that “[w]ord is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps,” including one in October. At no time did STONE identify Person 1 to HPSCI as another individual STONE contacted to serve as a “go-between,” “intermediary,” or other source of information from Organization 1. STONE also never disclosed his exchanges with Person 1 when answering HPSCI’s questioning about STONE’s August 8 and August 12, 2016 statements. STONE’s False and Misleading Testimony About Requests He Made for Information from the Head of Organization 1

29. During his HPSCI testimony, STONE was asked, “[W]hat was the extent of the communication with [the intermediary]?” STONE replied, “I asked him to confirm . . . that the tweet of [the head of Organization 1] of the 21st was accurate, that they did in fact have . . . Hillary Clinton emails and that they would release them.” STONE was then asked, “Did you ask [the intermediary] to communicate anything else to [the head of Organization 1]?” STONE falsely and misleadingly responded, “I did not.” STONE was then asked, “Did you ask [the intermediary] to do anything on your own behalf?” STONE falsely and misleadingly responded, “I did not.”

30. In truth and in fact, STONE directed both Person 1 and Person 2 to pass on requests to the head of Organization 1 for documents that STONE believed would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign. For example:

a. As described above, on or about July 25, 2016, STONE sent Person 1 an email that read, “Get to [the head of Organization 1] [a]t Ecuadorian Embassy in London and get the pending [Organization 1] emails . . . they deal with Foundation, allegedly.”

b. On or about September 18, 2016, STONE sent a text message to Person 2 that said, “I am e-mailing u a request to pass on to [the head of Organization 1],” and then emailed Person 2 an article with allegations against then-candidate Clinton related to her service as Secretary of State. STONE added, “Please ask [the head of Organization 1] for any State or HRC e-mail from August 10 to August 30— particularly on August 20, 2011 that mention [the subject of the article] or confirm this narrative.”

c. On or about September 19, 2016, STONE texted Person 2 again, writing “Pass my message . . . to [the head of Organization 1].” Person 2 responded, “I did,” and the next day Person 2, on an email blind-copied to STONE, forwarded the request to an attorney who had the ability to contact the head of Organization 1. STONE’s False and Misleading Testimony About Communications with His Identified Intermediary

31. During his HPSCI testimony, STONE was asked repeatedly about his communications with the person he identified as his intermediary. STONE falsely and misleadingly stated that he had never communicated with his intermediary in writing in any way. During one exchange, STONE falsely and misleadingly claimed only to have spoken with the intermediary telephonically: Q: [H]ow did you communicate with the intermediary? A: Over the phone. Q: And did you have any other means of communicating with the intermediary? A: No. Q: No text messages, no – none of the list, right?

A: No. Later during his testimony, STONE again falsely denied ever communicating with his intermediary in writing:

32. Q: So you never communicated with your intermediary in writing in any way? A: No. Q: Never emailed him or texted him? A: He’s not an email guy. Q: So all your conversations with him were in person or over the phone. A: Correct. In truth and in fact, as described above, STONE and Person 2 (who STONE identified to HPSCI as his intermediary) engaged in frequent written communication by email and text message. STONE also engaged in frequent written communication by email and text message with Person 1, who also provided STONE with information regarding Organization 1.

33. Written communications between STONE and Person 1 and between STONE and Person 2 continued through STONE’s HPSCI testimony. Indeed, on or about September 26, 2017—the day that STONE testified before HPSCI and denied having ever sent or received emails or text messages from Person 2—STONE and Person 2 exchanged over thirty text messages.

34. Certain electronic messages between STONE and Person 1 and between STONE and Person 2 would have been material to HPSCI. For example:

a. In or around July 2016, STONE emailed Person 1 to “get to” the head of Organization 1 and obtain the pending emails.

b. In or around September 2016, STONE sent messages directing Person 2 to pass a request to the head of Organization 1.

c. On or about January 6, 2017, Person 2 sent STONE an email that had the subject line “Back channel bs.” In the email, Person 2 wrote, “Well I have put together timelines[] and you [] said you have a back-channel way back a month before I had [the head of Organization 1] on my show . . . I have never had a conversation with [the head of Organization 1] other than my radio show . . . I have pieced it all together . . . so you may as well tell the truth that you had no back-channel or there’s the guy you were talking about early August.” STONE’s False and Misleading Testimony About Communications with the Trump Campaign

35. During his HPSCI testimony, STONE was asked, “did you discuss your conversations with the intermediary with anyone involved in the Trump campaign?” STONE falsely and misleadingly answered, “I did not.” In truth and in fact, and as described above, STONE spoke to multiple individuals involved in the Trump Campaign about what he claimed to have learned from his intermediary to Organization 1, including the following: a. On multiple occasions, STONE told senior Trump Campaign officials about materials possessed by Organization 1 and the timing of future releases. b. On or about October 3, 2016, STONE wrote to a supporter involved with the Trump Campaign, “Spoke to my friend in London last night. The payload is still coming.” c. On or about October 4, 2016, STONE told a high-ranking Trump Campaign official that the head of Organization 1 had a “[s]erious security concern” but would release “a load every week going forward.” Attempts to Prevent Person 2 from Contradicting STONE’s False Statements to HPSCI

36. On or about October 19, 2017, STONE sent Person 2 an excerpt of his letter to HPSCI that identified Person 2 as his “intermediary” to Organization 1. STONE urged Person 2, if asked by HPSCI, to falsely confirm what STONE had previously testified to, including that it was Person 2 who provided STONE with the basis for STONE’s early August 2016 statements about contact with Organization 1. Person 2 repeatedly told STONE that his testimony was false and told him to correct his testimony to HPSCI. STONE did not do so. STONE then engaged in a prolonged effort to prevent Person 2 from contradicting STONE’s false statements to HPSCI.

37. In or around November 2017, Person 2 received a request from HPSCI to testify voluntarily before the committee. After being contacted by HPSCI, Person 2 spoke and texted repeatedly with STONE. In these discussions, STONE sought to have Person 2 testify falsely either that Person 2 was the identified intermediary or that Person 2 could not remember what he had told STONE. Alternatively, STONE sought to have Person 2 invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. For example:

a. On or about November 19, 2017, in a text message to STONE, Person 2 said that his lawyer wanted to see him (Person 2). STONE responded, “‘Stonewall it. Plead the fifth. Anything to save the plan’ . . . Richard Nixon.” On or about November 20, 2017, Person 2 informed HPSCI that he declined HPSCI’s request for a voluntary interview.

b. On or about November 21, 2017, Person 2 texted STONE, “I was told that the house committee lawyer told my lawyer that I will be getting a subpoena.” STONE responded, “That was the point at which your lawyers should have told them you would assert your 5th Amendment rights if compelled to appear.”

c. On or about November 28, 2017, Person 2 received a subpoena compelling his testimony before HPSCI. Person 2 informed STONE of the subpoena.

d. On or about November 30, 2017, STONE asked Person 1 to write publicly about Person 2. Person 1 responded, “Are you sure you want to make something out of this now? Why not wait to see what [Person 2] does. You may be defending yourself too much—raising new questions that will fuel new inquiries. This may be a time to say less, not more.” STONE responded by telling Person 1 that Person 2 “will take the 5th—but let’s hold a day.”

e. On multiple occasions, including on or about December 1, 2017, STONE told Person 2 that Person 2 should do a “Frank Pentangeli” before HPSCI in order to avoid contradicting STONE’s testimony. Frank Pentangeli is a character in the film The Godfather: Part II, which both STONE and Person 2 had discussed, who testifies before a congressional committee and in that testimony claims not to know critical information that he does in fact know.

f. On or about December 1, 2017, STONE texted Person 2, “And if you turned over anything to the FBI you’re a fool.” Later that day, Person 2 texted STONE, “You need to amend your testimony before I testify on the 15th.” STONE responded, “If you testify you’re a fool. Because of tromp I could never get away with a certain [sic] my Fifth Amendment rights but you can. I guarantee you you are the one who gets indicted for perjury if you’re stupid enough to testify.”

38. On or about December 12, 2017, Person 2 informed HPSCI that he intended to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination if required to appear by subpoena. Person 2 invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege in part to avoid providing evidence that would show STONE’s previous testimony to Congress was false.

39. Following Person 2’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify before HPSCI, STONE and Person 2 continued to have discussions about the various investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election and what information Person 2 would provide to investigators. During these conversations, STONE repeatedly made statements intended to prevent Person 2 from cooperating with the investigations. For example:

a. On or about December 24, 2017, Person 2 texted STONE, “I met [the head of Organization 1] for f[i]rst time this yea[r] sept 7 . . . docs prove that. . . . You should be honest w fbi . . . there was no back channel . . . be honest.” STONE replied approximately two minutes later, “I’m not talking to the FBI and if your smart you won’t either.”

b. On or about April 9, 2018, STONE wrote in an email to Person 2, “You are a rat. A stoolie. You backstab your friends-run your mouth my lawyers are dying Rip you to shreds.” STONE also said he would “take that dog away from you,” referring to Person 2’s dog. On or about the same day, STONE wrote to Person 2, “I am so ready. Let’s get it on. Prepare to die [expletive].”

c. On or about May 21, 2018, Person 2 wrote in an email to STONE, “You should have just been honest with the house Intel committee . . . you’ve opened yourself up to perjury charges like an idiot.” STONE responded, “You are so full of [expletive]. You got nothing. Keep running your mouth and I’ll file a bar complaint against your friend [the attorney who had the ability to contact the head of Organization 1].”

COUNT ONE (Obstruction of Proceeding)

40. Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

41. From in or around May 2017 through at least December 2017, within the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant ROGER JASON STONE, JR., corruptly influenced, obstructed, impeded, and endeavored to influence, obstruct, and impede the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry and investigation is being had by either House, and any committee of either House and any joint committee of the Congress, to wit: STONE testified falsely and misleadingly at a HPSCI hearing in or around September 2017; STONE failed to turn over and lied about the existence of responsive records to HPSCI’s requests about documents; STONE submitted and caused to be submitted a letter to HPSCI falsely and misleadingly describing communications with Person 2; and STONE attempted to have Person 2 testify falsely before HPSCI or prevent him from testifying. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1505 and 2.

COUNTS TWO THROUGH SIX (False Statements)

42. Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 43. On or about September 26, 2017, within the District of Columbia and elsewhere, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the Government of the United States, the defendant ROGER JASON STONE, JR., knowingly and willfully made and caused to be made materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations, to wit:

Count False Statement 2 STONE testified falsely that he did not have emails with third parties about the head of Organization 1, and that he did not have any documents, emails, or text messages that refer to the head of Organization 1.

3 STONE testified falsely that his August 2016 references to being in contact with the head of Organization 1 were references to communications with a single “go-between,” “mutual friend,” and “intermediary,” who STONE identified as Person 2.

4 STONE testified falsely that he did not ask the person he referred to as his “go-between,” “mutual friend,” and “intermediary,” to communicate anything to the head of Organization 1 and did not ask the intermediary to do anything on STONE’s behalf.

5 STONE testified falsely that he and the person he referred to as his “go-between,” “mutual friend,” and “intermediary” did not communicate via text message or email about Organization 1.

6 STONE testified falsely that he had never discussed his conversations with the person he referred to as his “go-between,” “mutual Count False Statement friend,” and “intermediary” with anyone involved in the Trump Campaign.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001(a)(2) and 2. COUNT SEVEN (Witness Tampering) 44.

Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

45. Between in or around September 2017 and present, within the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant ROGER JASON STONE, JR., knowingly and intentionally corruptly persuaded and attempted to corruptly persuade another person, to wit: Person 2, with intent to influence, delay, and prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(b)(1).

Robert S. Mueller, III Special Counsel U.S. Department of Justice

A TRUE BILL: Foreperson 23


This is a copy of the Indictment, blogged here at tylergarrett.com. Found here on CNN.

Copied and pasted to my website for you to read through and understand more about Roger Stone, without having to flip through CNN’s impressions generator. Which let’s cut to the chase. This guy looks like a villain in a movie. But actually will likely be the start of a domino effect that will continue beyond today.

To keep track, I will update this with visuals, to better help explain the visual steps on the calendar, and how events progressed visually.

Let’s begin, I will update the pasted material from the Indictment – with lists, and spacing, to better help the readability. Also, I make a few corrections in the indictment.

Indictment misspelled “publiclyannounced” for example…

Share-able link? http://bit.ly/Roger-stone

Date: January 24, 2019

Calm before the storm, Government Shutdown

Calm before the storm, Government Shutdown

The calm before the storm, the grumbling of millions of American people, and the protest of a government shutdown.

Meanwhile, France is taking it to the streets.

And bringing entire cities to a standstill.

Poetic. And we are the ones who like to “fight for what is ours.”

American’s have always been the big kid on the play ground, teaching everyone how to play fair and nice.

Yet, we shutdown over a wall, a device used to help Trump remember parts of his speech because he wasn’t good at memorizing anything.

The wall was a gimmick used to help Trump remember to talk about immigration. He instead used it to hype his low IQ crowd. It stuck, now it’s going to help him win another election, and keep his 1% benefactors happy.

The only thing the president is good at, is reading from a teleprompter and wearing a suit.

2019, January, The 1st Government Shutdown

In 2019, January, we are celebrating our 1st government shutdown!

We should be protesting but it doesn’t seem to be a high priority for our citizens. So, they have taken to social media.

Luckily, or unluckily, 800k government employees are going unpaid. These employees know exactly what to do to protest. It’s a good start…

But… is protesting what we need at this point?

We are protesting but is this what we need?

Is it too late?

Is it effective?

  • France protesters bring the entire city to it’s knees.
  • American protesting gets a few likes on Facebook.

Did we miss our chance?

Is this the calm before the storm… 

A government shutdown, not “the government shutdown.”

Calling it “the government shutdown” would mean to say we think the government will only shutdown this one time.

It’s likely we will see this happen every time Trump wants his way.

Remember, the biggest voting class of people today are voting for someone that logically makes my brain hurt.

Here’s what everyone voted to keep in office, and this is what Americans are not really protesting very much against today…

Here it is… When Trump doesn’t get his way, millions of people starve.

The calm before the storm… That feeling when we know we pressed our luck, spent all the money, and shut it down. The reason all the media is going to show you a lot of other insane content, is to keep you from following the 1% billionaire class. These are the people giggling as we fight each other over emotional media.

This feels like the calm before the storm.

Do you think we are going to protest our way out of the wall, 2 years after the election?

Good grief we need to open up or American history books, don’t we?

We think things like “a wall” will be a solution.

Boy are we wrong. A wall to the government is a symbol of dominance over the lowest IQ bracket in our country.

Gender, age, hobbies, etc.. data…

All at the finger tips of every politician that knows to outsource to smart people.

Census data, scraping web pages, paid data subscription, or using Facebooks illegal data harvesting tools too. Oh, and Facebook got away with this too, they did this 100% legally as of right now, they gave away your sensitive private data for years and now, all of a sudden, are completely immune to being fined or consequences.

GDPR does not seem to care about Facebook right now, they are scared to go to war with Facebook, but seems to be picking on Google as of this week.

But what does all this data have to do with the wall?

Well a wall isn’t exactly gerrymandering – but it is similar.

The wall is giving the uneducated, media fueled, or media enriched class of people, fear.

Fear and for those who support the wall, hope.

When you mix fear, and hope, you get American media.

The wall has become a tool to earn more votes and lure unsuspecting low IQ voters into a emotionally fueled rant on the internet.

Fake media is being pushed into the eyes of every home, every television around the United States is tuned into hear more about children dying

I like to call this current media fad, the calm before the storm, play with your emotions while bigger problems are relevant.

We know this story, this hat.. But do you know it’s a distraction? A school who lets their students paint black faces on their face during basketball games.

If you think these events are bad, or crazy, you have another thing coming.

We live in a world of “this is what they want you to see.”

The information is going to blur your vision when it hits the fan, this is not the event, these are not the big events, these are the light hearted events before the storm.

The Government Shutdown

Think about the cause of the problem in America, or most countries.

Media has generated false narratives at every corner, and most of the world thinks the TV is the biggest invention of their life time, most of that world votes and the rest do not vote.

The youth have not shown up to vote, and still are coming in at very low numbers.

Even though the youth out number the adults, they still lack thought leadership that goes beyond pouring a beer on a Lamborghini.

It’s what rich people do.

Not knocking 50cent, rather I’m using 50cent as an example of a good thing gone bad. 50cent has every right to pour beer on his tax right off, but at the same rate – he could be telling his 22million followers about something that would progress their lives positively. But at the top of his game, this is as far as he has gotten. 22million fans and zero progressive thought leadership.

But Tyler, 50cent gives money to charities.

Yeah, 50cent gives money to charities as a tax write off, so that he can enjoy his free toys VS paying the government taxes. Giving money to a charity is a loop hole for rich people to skip paying taxes, making buying this Lambo at the end of the year, right before giving money to the charity, a smart investment in a depreciating asset.

(which isn’t smart but his fans will never understand the difference)

They want you to be distracted by the “effects” today…

They want you to get excited about 50cent, his 22million followers, and his thought leadership towards spending money and partying. He’s the perfect tool for rich Americans to distract everyone.

They want you to get excited about the football game.

They want you to focus on the latest Netflix series.

They want you to ignore the fact that the Government is the cause of the problem.

They are spending a lot of time painting a different narrative.

A false hope narrative.

The cause is right under your nose.

But you’re busy with all the distractions.

People in power made a rapist a lifetime member of the Supreme Court.

It’s the label of every show on TV, “Government… Shutdown.”

The Government failed, and if you think it shutdown because it needed a wall, then you don’t know how the government works.

And that’s the major issue we have today, we have a group in the governing body that does not know how the government works today.

But the effects make our emotions perk up and say WTF is this… and share, click, impressions…

yellow vest movement
yellow vest movement

What’s next with big media?

The big storm that catches everyone by surprise is coming down the pipeline. You know it’s coming, so stop kidding yourselves that this is as bad as the news will get. It’s likely we will have another 4 years of this because when it came time to vote again, people simply did not show up and vote.

So, do you think we are ready?

Are you ready for an event as big, or bigger than 9/11?

It’s about that time. It’s time for the war machines to cash in.

Did you know we sent nearly 60 missiles at a country?

Did you know the president owns a part of the company.

Did you know that they could not tell where most of the missiles landed?

Did you know that other countries said our attack was ineffective.

According to the claims of Russian defense ministry, the “combat effectiveness” of the attack was “extremely low”;[45][46] only 23 missiles hit the base destroying six aircraft, and it did not know where the other 36 landed.[47][48]

wiki article

As a society, we just gave a lot of money to a small, tiny percentage of people and took away vital services to help those who need the help.

The government shutdown is the most ironic action any president could take to build a wall but the national security does not seem to be a problem in the eyes of the current president.

The government being shutdown is a massive threat to our national security on a thousand different levels.

That’s the problem. Cause or effect? National security under threat, 800k people without a paycheck, and more numbers to come…

Always… more we will find out eventually..

So much of it most people will never comprehend.

It’s about that time and it’s easy to forecast these events.

When was the last time we has a major war, school shooting, unexplained event… It’s about that time.

I hope my family and I are far from these events. Yours too. 2019 is going to be a bumpy road.

By tylergarrett

Having a baby, we both know when we are pushing it too much…

Like when we both know we are pushing the limits of his nap time or his baby patience.

It’s cool, I’m also not very patient as a person.

800k people not being patient is about to be very different.

Keep track of the news.. It will change quickly.

People are currently protesting outside of McConnell’s office.

But what does that mean?

If they can’t control the narrative, what does that mean for our near future. Remember media is for profit, paid news…

So what is there we can take for truth?

Other than numbers?

800k is a big number. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of contractors not being paid. These people play vital roles. And now can’t feed their children.

News about the shutdown should not be something to profit about but it is right now…

People, 800k are now being starved from work. Paychecks. Bills.

Food is going to be something people will consider protesting about.

In some countries now, there’s a lot more protesting happening than media is willing to admit.

You can search about what’s happening with yellow jacket protestors

But before you leave my blog…

It’s 1/24/19 – I predict something very big is going to happen during this shutdown. Be safe. I would not recommend flying because it’s clearly a completely unresolved issues with the American government.

Something much bigger than the current wall conversation.

The wall is a media fueled agenda, it’s good for votes, and a wall has never been a solution.

It’s for profit. Not for the people.

The calm before the storm. This year is going to get bumpy.

EU yellow jacket photograph.
AI is Not Scary, Yet | Fear the Developers

AI is Not Scary, Yet | Fear the Developers

AI, Artificial Intelligence, is not scary and I want to set you at ease.

Right now, the only fear you have is the developer using artificial intelligence for bad.

Simple enough, right…

Consider the available technology. Video recognition using basic web cams, automated roaming robots in a maze, and all kinds of cool stuff.

Scary yet?

… Relax, this isn’t that movie.

AI, or artificial intelligence, is a mission based application.

It’s not scary, yet.

The AI, or application, performs a task or set of tasks.

It stores data, in a database, or in memory.

It gets smart or it does not get smart. I know that sounds weird but most things don’t really work and we live in a world of failure.

End of story.

Don’t be scared of AI…

Learn AI.

AI learning is free.

The basic application of AI can be exposed by looking at how a developer at google uses tensorflow, a machine learning library in python, and teaches a video game to shoot a basketball – perfectly.

AI… It’s like saying, we want to get better at basketball…

There’s a lot of options when it comes to getting good at one sport. Let’s take away all the granularity of the sport and only talk about one aspect of the game…

We want to get better at SHOOTING.

We want to make a computer, get better at shooting a fake basketball, and that’s not scary.

But we don’t want to worry about actually playing the sport.

AI is like basketball, sorta

We want to reap the benefits of understanding exactly how hard to throw the basketball, to earn points. Because that’s the point of life right?

Computers can speed up the process, learn from mistakes, and learn from success data.

In computer scienceartificial intelligence (AI), sometimes called machine intelligence, is intelligence demonstrated by machines, in contrast to the natural intelligence displayed by humans and other animals. 

What is wiki?

An application spamming basketball shots, only keeping track of the good shots, would eventually learn exactly how to shoot the basketball.

Computer science defines AI research as the study of “intelligent agents“: any device that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chance of successfully achieving its goals.

What is wiki?

Unless someone starts programming the robot dog to bark up the wrong tree, then we may need to worry.

AI could be scary if…

If we used image recognition and built AI to make killing people a successful mission. AI could be very scary if it could reason with attacking humans and use video to identify humans, using image recognition, and instead of opening doors for people, maybe it squishes their skull.

If the developer generates this possibility, it could happen.

Today, opening the door is what the robot dog does.

It makes an action, based on decisions it has been programmed to make. It is programmed to open a closed door. And if that program was set to recognize someones face, get close, and squish the face…

That would suck.

Robots will fuck up a watermelon.

Some robots are doing other things… Like…

Some robots are built to do other fun things. They are utilizing existing technology to have a bit of fun.

Watch this competition about not squishing peoples faces.

Artificial intelligence has a ways to go before we need to stress because programming a robot to make a decision to destroy it’s master would not likely be something any developer would be interested in doing.

We should avoid technology related to weaponizing robotics, and avoid the rare chance of military grade decision making robots, attacking people based on video rendering. If it goes wrong, we could quickly see some of this biggest killing sprees the world has ever seen.

artificial intelligence
– by tyler

Perfectly executed face squishing would not be ideal.

Seriously look at this bad ass robot dog picture below…

Imagine it’s built to squish humans. Okay, now you understand what we don’t want to consider training these robots to do…

And if anyone hears of weaponizing robotics, we should do everything we can to consider regulating and avoiding little walking terminators.

Kubernetes for Dumbies – VM Containers, Web Services, etc..

Kubernetes for Dumbies – VM Containers, Web Services, etc..

It’s likely learning Kubernetes isn’t your priority, that’s good because I’m not going to teach you Kubernetes in this blog post! My goal is to talk about Kubernetes from 1000 feet in the air. The Blimp view for dumbies, like me.

My goal is to explain what Kubernetes can accomplish, the basics, and links to dive deeper. I’m doing an interactive tutorial online w/o a setup/install with Kubernetes right now, and I believe that can be saved for another tutorial.

Kubernetes

Kubernetes is a portable, extensible open-source platform for managing containerized workloads and services, that facilitates both declarative configuration and automation. It has a large, rapidly growing ecosystem.

But like most things, it’s not error resistant.

Good to know @christianposta!

by tyler garrett, a complete moron.

Anyways… Google open-sourced the Kubernetes project in 2014. Check out github for hacks, free code, easy access to making life less error prone.

Yeah, and… Kubernetes builds upon a decade and a half of experience that Google has with running production workloads at scale. (docs)

Say Goodbye to your IT professional?

No, not necessarily. A lot of these systems and best practices are still unknown to the business units and it’s likely you won’t see any “non-technical” teams sprinting away with Kubernetes. Although, with the right amount of training, an analyst could be very independent to solve using micro services.

Wtf are micro services?

Dr. Peter Rodgers introduced the term “Micro-Web-Services” during a presentation at the Web Services Edge conference in 2005.

Microservices is a specialization of an implementation approach for service-oriented architectures (SOA) used to build flexible, independently deployable software systems. The microservices approach is a first realisation of SOA that followed the introduction of DevOps and is becoming more popular for building continuously deployed systems.

Microservices – also known as the microservice architecture – is an architectural style that structures an application as a collection of services that are (source)

  • Highly maintainable and testable
  • Loosely coupled
  • Independently deployable
  • Organized around business capabilities.
  • https://microservices.io/

Wiki defines it as…

Microservices are a software development technique—a variant of the service-oriented architecture (SOA) architectural style that structures an application as a collection of loosely coupled services. In a microservices architecture, services are fine-grained and the protocols are lightweight. The benefit of decomposing an application into different smaller services is that it improves modularity. This makes the application easier to understand, develop, test, and become more resilient to architecture erosion. It parallelizes development by enabling small autonomous teams to develop, deploy and scale their respective services independently. It also allows the architecture of an individual service to emerge through continuous refactoring. Microservices-based architectures enable continuous delivery and deployment.

Sure we can’t axe IT today but if we could, I think most of the industry would have a considerable amount of “free time”… thus we find projects like – https://kubernetes.io

by Tyler Garrett

Kubernetes – modern web serivces

With modern web services, users expect applications to be available 24/7, and developers expect to deploy new versions of those applications several times a day.

Modern website deployments are now managed on similar container environments, optimized for the type of website. Like my website, musicblip.com, is on a containerized installation at siteground. (if u need a good host, DM me on twitter for a discount @ siteground, happy to help!)

By Tyler Garrett

Containerization helps package software to serve these goals, enabling applications to be released and updated in an easy and fast way without downtime.

End goal here is “helps” your smart people with “easy” and “fast” ways to solve project goals or problems, with less setting up, optimizing, or overall playing the bullshit game that is IT checks and balances on legacy systems.

By Tyler Garrett

Kubernetes helps you make sure those containerized applications run where and when you want, and helps them find the resources and tools they need to work.

Kubernetes is a production-ready, open source platform designed with Google’s accumulated experience in container orchestration, combined with best-of-breed ideas from the community.

At the end of the day, we have a bunch of data now living a breathing all over our microservices, and I rather enjoy what Cadenas was saying in 2006 about AI in theory w/ building micro services or new perspectives.

“We implement perspectives as new services, installed directly on the data source by the users.”

By Cadenas, L.E., Hernandez, E., 2006, in IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, Volume 217, Artificial Intelligence in Theory and Practice, ed. M. Bramer, (Boston: Springer), pp. 189-198.

Each new service, now may contain a potential of failure, as our landscape evolves quickly… What’s next? How do we solve for the future if we have no clue what these tools do?

http://eventuate.io/
Solving distributed data management problems in a microservice architecture

Luckily, I found Chris discusses solving this new landscape of managing distributed data. Which starts to call into account ACID accompliance, which I must say, most people in analytics today have no idea what ACID compliance means, so fun fact… Throw that around next time you need some brownie points.

Here’s what Chris discusses & offers eventuate as a solution to the major challenges ahead.

“Microservices accelerate development and enable businesses to innovate faster and stay ahead of the competition. But one major challenge with the microservices architecture is the management of distributed data. Each microservice has its own private database. It is difficult to implement business transactions that maintain data consistency across multiple services as well as queries that retrieve data from multiple services. (source)”

by Chris

Not done learning yet? More to go! And I will be adding on as I learn everything too.

But wtf is a web server?

A web server, as covered in this article, basically has two purposes.

#1. To serve static web sites, usually consisting of HTML, JavaScript and CSS plus images etc. ((no dynamic functionality, no backend, no database))

#2. The other is to act as a reverse-proxy to web application backends. The three servers I just mentioned have a combined market share of 94.7 % (according to this statistic) and are named Apache 2 (or httpd) (written in C), nginx (say “engine ex”) (also written in C) and Microsoft IIS (written in C++). 

The term web service is either

  • (generic) a service offered by an electronic device to another electronic device, communicating with each other via the World Wide Web, or
  • (specific) a web service implemented in the particular technology or brand, W3C Web Services.

In a web service, the Web technology such as HTTP—originally designed for human-to-machine communication—is utilized for machine-to-machine communication, more specifically for transferring machine-readable file formats such as XML and JSON.

In practice, a web service commonly provides an object-oriented web-based interface to a database server, utilized for example by another web server, or by a mobile app, that provides a user interface to the end user. Many organizations that provide data in formatted HTML pages will also provide that data on their server as XML or JSON, often through a web service to allow syndication, for example Wikipedia’s Export. Another application offered to the end user may be a mashup, where a web server consumes several web services at different machines, and compiles the content into one user interface. (source)

Typos by Tyler Garrett, founder of a Tableau Consultancy.

SOHN’s BBC Radio 1 – Broadcast #1 – Track list

SOHN’s BBC Radio 1 – Broadcast #1 – Track list

SOHN’s first BBC radio show was an utter classic. You have hits from Deadbear, Caribou, Fantastic Mr. Fox, and many more. Find a full track listing & links to the artist/song, below the embedded player.

You can use the embedded player below or jump to souncloud here.

Track playlist, by SOHN, and links documented by Tyler Garrett.

  1. KRNE x TastyTreat – Clouds
  2. Deadbear – Snow in Tokyo
  3. Caribou – Our Love
  4. Seinabo Sey – Pistols at Dawn
  5. BANKS – Alibi
  6. Flying Lotus – Never Catch Me (feat. Kendrick Lamar)
  7. Allan Kingdom – Wavey (feat. Spooky Black
  8. Jacuzzi – Curtain Call (P A T H REMIX)
  9. Fantastic Mr. Fox – You-Turn (Feat. Kid A)
  10. Arca – Thievery
  11. Fyfe – Solace
  12. TOKiMONSTA – Realla (feat. Anderson Paak)
  13. Шура – Just Once (HONNE Remix)
  14. SBTRKT – Higher (feat. Raury)
  15. Les Sins – Bother
  16. Oceaán – Grip

These tracks helped inspire what I built at musicblip.com, which is essentially manually generated loops and samples on analog synthesizers. Our goal is to rank for free loops on google. It’s 100% non-profit, just trying to get some high quality content in the world of producers. Already adopted in every country. Feel free to check it out! Or DM me on twitter, if you get stuck.