Is Roger Stone really broke?

In My Humble Opinion
1

(I thought this was too rambling for the Elections forum. Mods, move as you see fit.)

Long time Trump confidant Roger Stone has been under investigation in relation to Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. This thread talks about his arrest last month.

I took it with a grain of salt the first time Roger claimed his lawyer bills were crippling him financially. A legendary political operative for Republican presidents and foreign despots, Roger has for decades flaunted his wealth as evidence of his expertise (and to piss off liberals and Democrats). New Republic ran a cover story on him listing his income at $450,000 a year – in 1984. When the consulting firm Black Manafort Stone Kelly was sold in the 1990s, Roger’s share as a founding partner was supposed to be millions. More recently (IIRC, in response to investigators) he claimed that his consulting income was $47,000 per month.

Suddenly, he’s describing himself as “not a wealthy man by any means”. He says that he’s having trouble “putting food on the table”, and is selling personally autographed $10 paperweights. He started a “Go-Fund” me page for his legal bills, and his wife recently sent an email (to the fundraising list of kindred spirit Newt Gingrich) asking for donations.

I had thought this was all posing, to make himself out to be a victim of over-zealous investigators. Roger’s carefully cultivated image as one of those Bond-villainesque guys who has millions stashed in safe deposit boxes around the world might not endear him to the lower middle class Trump base that he now relies on, so he’s pleading poverty. While that strategy makes some sense, it could also backfire if those people start to think of him as a loser. He recently claimed that his consulting income has taken a hit because of the investigation. Yeah, right. Dictators have such respect for the rule of law, and would never consort with criminals. They’re no doubt shocked – SHOCKED!

But I see now that he and his wife are trying to rent out their Ft. Lauderdale house and have moved into more modest digs. If that’s also an act, it’s a more convincing act.

I know you can’t believe a word Roger Stone says. But actions may be more reliable.

Is this on the level - is the Bond villain finally getting buckled?

I’m reminded of a poem in *Mad *Magazine back in the 1960s:

When Onassis goes broke
When the H-bomb’s a joke
When bookies no longer take bets
When bacon is kosher
Then Leo Durocher
Will take seven straight
From the Mets

I would also paraphrase Homer Simpson (from the episode “Bart Carney”): “If a state of the art sleazeball* can go broke, it can happen to any of us!”

*Term coined by author Jacob Weisberg in the 1984 New Republic article.

2

I know nothing of his personal circumstances but if he was making $47,000 per month beforehand, I wouldn’t at all be surprised if 1) his income is now basically $0 and 2) his lawyers’ fees are thousands (if not tens of thousands) per month. You’d think he’d have more savings but he’s also lived an extravagant lifestyle and is the sort of person who thinks the money will never stop rolling in, so it’s not implausible that he’s suddenly finding himself stretched for cash while trial expenses add up.

3

A couple of points -

No matter how much you make, you can spend more than you make. Think of all those poor Hollywood types, rappers, sports figures, who overspent.

Sorta like the boy who cried wolf, he (like some others I can think of) has spent his whole life makin’ sh*t up for fun and profit, why should we believe anything he says now? But, could be a real wolf this time? Sucks, it does.

4

Sure, some people can waste large amounts of money. But …

Some people realize they can stash their wealth overseas and out of sight, so if Something Bad happens they can claim poverty.

Given the long term evilness of this … “person”, I pick the latter.

“Follow the money.”

5

Years ago, I had this idea that folks of liberal ways tended toward spendthrift habits and that conservatives were more cautious with their money - the whole “personal responsibility” thing and all. Then a very conservative brother-in-law of mine (who loved to boast about his possessions and exploits) lost his job and my now-ex was worried sick that they were ruined. It seems that the “personal responsibility” that he griped about didn’t come home as hard as he portrayed. A scan of some other conservative figures, like John Wayne, revealed figures who may have preached fiscal restraint, but who were often much closer to the line than they let on. A friend of mine who works as a financial advisor/planner has likewise regaled me with stories of retired executives who went through their nest eggs with great relish and were peeved with him when he told them they needed to scale back or face real consequences.

It’s not impossible that Stone went through his money as fast as he took it in. It’s more likely, however, that he’s full of shit.

6

Mmmm, nest eggs with relish.

7

Supposedly he has a net worth somewhere around $20 million. All the various sources I found were similar.

8

Yes, Stone is morally and ethically bankrupt.

9

I loved the way The Onion put it in 2002 when the Boston archdiocese filed for bankruptcy protection: “So, now they’re *financially *bankrupt as well?”

10

A while back, there was a criminal trial in which a Baltimore-area woman had developed a secret cocaine problem. She had told a neighbor (an ex-Ravens player) that she had terminal cancer, and asked him for $10,000, which presumably went up her nose.

The judge ordered her to repay the money and gave her a five-year suspended prison sentence.

I was surprised at the time that her actions violated any laws. I assumed that deadbeats with sob stories were a fact of life, and buyer beware.

My question: if it’s illegal to falsely claim you have cancer to get a handout, is it illegal to claim you’re broke like Roger is doing?

11

At one stage of my legal career, I had the pleasure of interacting w/ several folk who by all appearances were quite wealthy, yet when attempting to collect on judgments against them, they “owned” essentially nothing. You get a judgment against Joe Blow, founder and president of Joe Blow Co., lives in a mansion, drives luxury cars, trots the globe. Yet on paper, he owns NOTHING personally.

If you have not has such experiences, you might not appreciate the lengths to which people go - legally - to protect their assets against collection, judgment, etc. I imagine the choices are either: A. he was living paycheck to paycheck to support an unsustainable flamboyant lifestyle, and the income has dried up; or 2. He distributed/hid his wealth in a way that he can “appear” to have few assets. May think crying poor may earn him some sympathy or something.