The Stone Indictment: Mueller Continues To Build A Case Of Non-Collusion

Below is my column in USA Today on the Roger Stone indictment. I have been frankly astonished by the coverage, which has focused on simply the fact that he was charged as opposed to what he was charged with. Once again, the indictment’s significance has been uniformly over-played with little objective analysis of the specific counts themselves. From any objective perspective it is underwhelming in both the underlying conduct and the scope of the allegations.

Here is the column:

The arrest of Roger Stone by Special Counsel Robert Mueller could not have been more dramatically presented. The pre-dawn raid of Stone’s house by a contingent of heavily armed, body-armored agents could easily have fit the arrest of El Chapo rather than an elderly crank with a Nixon fetish. 

Despite the breathless media accounts, the actual indictment of Stone is most notable for what it does not include. This was supposed to be the long-rumored linchpin to Russian collusion: The Russians fed information to Wikileaks which fed the information to Stone who fed the information to the Trump campaign. 

The raid on Stone’s home clearly made for great television, but the Stone indictment hardly makes for a great collusion case. Let’s be honest. After more than a year of investigation, Mueller nailed a gadfly on false statements, witness tampering and obstruction rather than illegal collusion with Russia. 

That’s what has been happening all along. Mueller has almost exclusively charged non-Russian defendants with either false statements or other process crimes. 

Maybe Mueller has more evidence

This does not mean that Mueller cannot reveal a wealth of evidence of collusion in the final scene like some Agatha Christie novel. Yet, coverage has been saturated with speculation on possible collusion angles without observing that little evidence has been raised in numerous and lengthy indictments since July 2017.

This is not to say that Mueller was wrong to pursue and ultimately indict Stone. There was ample reason why Mueller targeted Stone initially. After all, Stone suggested to others that he was the conduit of hacked information from Wikileaks but he later insisted that he was not actually speaking to Julian Assange and that he had no direct knowledge that Russians were responsible for the Democratic hacks. 

Mueller had every reason to pursue Stone, but it quickly became evident that Stone is a clown-like figure who reveled in the attention of scandal. He was someone who publicly admitted to being a trickster and still admires Richard Nixon (whose image in tattooed on his back).

Moreover, some of these charges are obviously well-founded. Stone said that he did not write to key individuals. He did. He allegedly spoke directly to a potential witness and pressured him to change his account. Like Paul Manafort’s contacting potential witnesses through his monitored phone (while under house arrest), stupidity alone might justify a prison stint. 

Mueller however seems to have a strikingly inconsistent approach to these targets.  With some targets, Mueller followed the common practice of allowing them to surrender. For Manafort and and Stone, Mueller carried out heavy-handed raids. With Michael Cohen, Mueller matter-of-factly in a footnote noted that he made various false statements but was allowed to simply correct them.With Stonethe allegedly false statements were all related to part of his congressional testimony regarding the meaning of prior public statements and past written communications with Wikileaks.

Sensational style, not criminal intent

In some ways, the Stone prosecution could highlight an element of the defense that could used by Trump himself.  Many of the most sinister statements by Stone are consistent with this sensational style of speech and there is a question of intent. 

Stone for example told one witness to “Stonewall it. Plead the fifth. Anything to save the plan’ . . . Richard Nixon.”  The Special Counsel also recounts how Stone told a “You are a rat. A stoolie. You backstab your friends-run your mouth my lawyers are dying Rip you to shreds.” He also allegedly threatened the man’s dog and said that he would “take that dog away from you.”  Hardly nice, but Stone is likely to point out that he spoke publicly in the same fashion and he is known for such colorful language. 

In the end, however, Stone could have talked himself into an indictment just as Trump could well tweet himself into an impeachment.

The main issue however remains the lack of objectivity of the coverage of the indictment. Stone has featured prominently in theories seeking “smoking gun” evidence of collusion. There is nothing smoking in this indictment. There is no suggestion of involvement or knowledge by Stone in the hacking. Stone has suggested that he was a conduit of hacked information from Wikileaks but he later insisted that he was not actually speaking to Julian Assange and that he had no direct knowledge that Russians were responsible for the Democratic hackings. The indictment does not contradict that later account. 

The indictment clearly states that Stone told multiple campaign officials that he had such information and the question is who “directed” campaign officials to reach out to Stone. Obviously, many will want to know if that person was President Trump or his close aides. On the other hand, it also references people like Steve Bannon as not even returning his calls.

The important thing is that, even if Stone and the campaign did seek the email information, it would not be a crime. The crime is the conspiracy to hack the email system. Campaigns often seek confidential information obtained by journalists, leakers, whistleblowers and others. Indeed, the Clinton campaign (while denying its role before the election) funded the Steele dossier investigation to dig up dirt on Trump, including dirt from Russian intelligence figures. Even if Stone implicated Trump in seeking the information, it would merely establish the type of dirty politics that Stone expressly embraced as his curious calling and talent.

Nailing Roger Stone on false statements was hardly a challenge. Stone could not give an interview without contradicting himself on national television. The question is, without Stone, what is left of the hack-and-attack conspiracy between the Russians and the Trump campaign? Like the Trump Tower meeting, the Stone angle seems to have fizzled out. On closer examination, there clearly appears to be dirty politics but nothing that can be fairly described as a criminal conspiracy. 

Mueller has been unrelenting in pursuing Stone. Now he has him. For whatever it is worth.

Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley.

187 thoughts on “The Stone Indictment: Mueller Continues To Build A Case Of Non-Collusion”

  1. The charges are a bad joke and in analyzing them they are worthless and stupid. Any one who supports them is a liar and a dirtbag. I can’t believe how pathetic, petty, illegal, and corrupt the whole SC is and Mueller and his set of angry democrat hacks belong in prison and anyone who has paid attention understands the top tier of DOJ, the FBI, and the Obama admin also belong in prison for these scandalous crimes a thousand times worse than watergate in action early and probably before the nomination was secured by Trump.
    These idiots have turned the USA into a disheveled criminal bananas circus of insanities. It doesn’t appear we will see justice in this matter, the shame of it all is unbearable as a real US Citizen – and as far as believing in this Nation anymore – these goofballs have completely destroyed that prospect until they are kissing the jail cell walls from the inside, which it appears is not going to happen.
    One used to be able to believe and to be proud of the right and sensible actions taken in our name. Wow, now dirtbag lying criminals who knowingly subvert the laws and justice rule the roost of this disgraceful years long fraudulent plot of entrapment and the decadent dishonest scandalous lying media subverts justice right along with them.
    Seeing that no one has taken them down is shocking, a truly unbelievable disappointment.


    “Extramarital affair with Kamala Harris? Former San Francisco mayor, 84, admits it happened.

    Former San Francisco mayor claims extramarital affair with Kamala Harris

    Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown is claiming he had an extramarital affair with Kamala Harris 20 years ago.
    Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown addressed his past extramarital relationship with U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris in his weekly column Saturday, saying he may have boosted the presidential hopeful’s career.
    “Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago,” Brown wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle.
    “Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was [California] Assembly speaker. And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco.”
    Brown appointed Harris — about 30 years younger than Brown and just a few years out of law school – to two well-paid state commission assignments on the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission, the Washington Free Beacon reported.
    The former mayor also connected Harris with campaign donors, which helped her outraise her opponent for San Francisco district attorney, Business Insider reported. Brown’s involvement in her election raised questions as to how Harris would remain impartial, given his enormous political clout.
    Questions about Brown’s relationship with Harris began anew after she announced her 2020 presidential bid on Martin Luther King Day.
    During his two terms as mayor of San Francisco, Brown was known for his charm, arrogance and ego, according to a 1996 profile in
    Named one of the world’s 10 sexiest men by Playgirl magazine in 1984, Brown sometimes attended parties with his wife on one arm and a girlfriend on the other, according to a reporter quoted by the magazine.

    Brown and Harris broke up in 1995 but remained political allies.

    This reporter contacted Harris’ office for a response to Brown’s claims but did not receive a response.

    For the past decade or so, Brown has reportedly been linked with Sonya Molodetskaya, a Russian refugee and socialite. He is said to be separated from wife Blanche Vitero, whom he married in 1958.

    Brown and Vitero have three children, while Brown also fathered a child in 2001 with his former fundraiser, Carolyn Carpeneti, according to the Chronicle.”

    – WND

    1. She’s not a bad looking woman, can you blame a guy for taking her up on an opportunity?

      I would say, focus on her policies instead, which are terrible.

      1. She looks like a camel. She’s not a “natural born citizen.”

        She is a traitor committing treason when she supports unconstitutional central planning, control of the means of production (i.e. regulation), redistribution of wealth and social engineering. The current extant principles of communism in America have already led to insolvency and she launched a presidential campaign on the promise of adding an exponent to the debt figure.

        The American Founders claimed “Taxation Without Representation.”

        45% of Americans pay no income tax.

        Those American parasites enjoy “Representation Without Taxation.”

        Hysteria and incoherence hold dominion since the imposition of the wholly unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments,” ratified under the duress of post-war military occupation, and their irrational corollary, the 19th dumbmendment.

        The thesis of the Constitution is: Freedom and Self-Reliance.

        President Trump, a la “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, must now grab the bull by the horns and impose corrective action to reestablish and re-implement the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.




    They lied to the public for months before Donald Trump was elected — and then repeatedly after he took office.

    They lied to Congress as lawmakers sought to investigate Russia’s attack on American democracy in 2016.

    And they lied to the FBI, even when they knew lying was a crime.

    In indictments and plea agreements unveiled over the last 20 months, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has shown over and over again that some of President Trump’s closest friends and advisers have lied about Russia and related issues.

    On Friday, Mueller laid out a new allegation: that longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone lied to Congress and obstructed its probe of Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign.

    [Longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone indicted by special counsel in Russia investigation]

    What Roger Stone’s indictment means for the Russia investigation

    The Fix’s Aaron Blake analyzes Roger Stone’s indictment and what it means for special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia probe. (JM Rieger/The Washington Post)
    Trump and his associates have dismissed the serial deception as a sideshow that has little to do with the central question of the Mueller investigation: whether his campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia.

    Following Stone’s indictment on Friday, Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani scoffed, “Another false-statement case? God almighty.”

    But it is unclear if the special counsel shares that view. While Mueller has not accused any American of criminally coordinating with Russia, the lies meticulously unspooled by his prosecutors over 20 months have not been mere quibbles.

    They have documented various falsehoods by Trump advisers that masked efforts by people in his orbit to develop inroads with Russia and leverage that country’s hacking of Democratic emails.

    The remaining question — for both Mueller’s team, as it works on a final investigative report, and for the American people — is why.

    Edited from: “Trump Advisors Lied Over And Over Again, Mueller Says. The Question Is Why?”


    1. Several weeks ago, Mr. H lodged a typically mild-mannered complaint against having been called upon to defend Bette Midler–who, evidently, Mr. H is not exactly keen on defending. FTR, neither am I especially keen on defending Bette Midler. And yet . . . I now have it within my power to gag Mr. H with a spoon. It will no doubt be grotty to the max. I fear that I may end up losing Mr. H as an ally hereafter. But, damn it, it’s in me and it’s got to come up out of me. So brace yourself Mr. H. Here it comes:

      Did I ever tell you you’re my hero?
      You’re everything, everything I wish I could be.
      Oh, and I, I could fly higher than an eagle,
      ’cause you are the wind beneath my wings,
      ’cause you are the wind beneath my wings.

      1. Thanks, Late4Dinner. After posting this I got very busy and haven’t been back here since.

        1. here let me give you another lesson. in the old days a lot of Democrats were also “civil liberterians” and did not need to know the answer to the simple question but it appears the current generation of Hillary loving authoritarians needs a lesson on the Fifth amendment and the practicalities being revealed by Mr Meuller on WHY

          1. Mr. Kurtz:

            Why would anyone talk to the FBI under any circumstances? They’re hardly apolitical nor interested in anything besides gotcha.

            A few years ago, I remember being asked to give a few remarks at a retirement party for a friend of mine who climbed high in the FBI hierarchy. All the muckety-mucks were there except Jim Comey who begged off the event in Alexandria, Va. (Disclaimer: Jim Comey was my neighbor in RVA and our kids went to school together). I opened the roast by mentioning that the assembled G-men and G-women were about to see something unheard of in their circles: a Dago voluntarily talking to a group of FBI-types without a deal or his lawyer present.

            Not one cracked a smile. Why? ‘Cause they knew damn well it was in comoediae veritas.

    2. wait here let me explain

      they are experts and try to catch you in petty miss-statements on purpose.

    3. Or, taking a different perspective, let’s say perhaps what the average investigator would think, perhaps, just maybe:

      Meuller is screwing things up for regular investigations (regular meaning NOT politically motivated witch hunts like his) messing up them up and making them harder by putting on the school of experience on tv; by reminding all the garden variety criminals out there why they should not talk to the police.

      hey Mr Meuller, the world of criminals in business thanks you for the object lesson!

      1. “Meuller is screwing things up for regular investigations (regular meaning NOT politically motivated witch hunts like his)”

        Kurtz, you are absolutely correct. Memebers at the FBI such as Comey and McCabe destroyed the reputation of the FBI and now Mueller has demonstrated there is no recourse for bad FBI behavior. This leaves the public with a bad taste and even those supporting Mueller if on a jury will not accept the testimony of an FBI agent like one might have done before all this happened. Not good for the FBI especially since it will likely spread to all law enforcement.

        Thanks for the video. It was very revealing though even as a law abiding citizen I have had my questions about the FBI for many years.




    A passage in the indictment unsealed on Friday suggested that someone was telling Corsi not only about WikiLeaks’ intentions, but also about messaging for use against Clinton. Specifically, Corsi began to recommend to Stone that Clinton needed to be portrayed as unhealthy.

    “Would not hurt to start suggesting HRC old, memory bad, has stroke — neither he nor she well,” he wrote on Aug. 2, according to the indictment. “I expect that much of next dump focus, setting stage for Foundation debacle.”

    In fact, neither Clinton’s health nor the Clinton Foundation were the focus of the next WikiLeaks release, but a messaging campaign based on Clinton’s supposed ill health took off in August 2016.

    Russia’s state-controlled RT news site mentioned Clinton’s “bad health,” the National Enquirer published a piece about it, Fox News host Sean Hannity discussed it on TV, and then Trump himself was warning about Clinton’s fitness by Aug. 18.

    What action did the Trump campaign take based on its alleged communications with WikiLeaks?

    Stone took credit, according to the indictment unsealed Friday, for telling the Trump campaign beforehand about the Oct. 7, 2016, release by WikiLeaks of emails stolen from Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta.

    He has said since that he didn’t have any inside information and he was just puffing up his own importance — taking things Assange was saying publicly and making it appear to Trump’s campaign that Stone had learned them through some kind of inside line.

    Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, said in December that Stone hadn’t given the campaign a heads-up but that even if he had — as prosecutors now allege — that isn’t a crime. Giuliani compared it to getting a tip that a newspaper is about to run a story before it appears.

    And Stone, as he and others observed on Friday, isn’t facing criminal charges related to the actions he took in 2016, but rather the accounts he has given about them afterward to Congress and other related activity.

    1. So there is a rumor that “STONE MAY HAVE SPREAD RUMOR”.😉😒😊😂
      The damning “evidence” just continues to snowball.



      So what? His opinion is not a crime. I don’t think she is that healthy. Will Mueller now send 19armoured men to my home and arrest me for that opinion?

      You really make one wonder about your competence.

      1. Spreading rumour with the intent of planting negative information in order to influence other peoples opinion in order to do damage to that person is an actionable slander is it not? And how would thier soeculation about anyones health be supported ? Did they break HIPAA laaws and look at her medical records? What is obvious is the complete disregard and disrespect this mob has for the law and other peoples rights. That one is in the office of President is frightening

        1. “Spreading rumour with the intent of planting negative information in order to influence other peoples opinion in order to do damage to that person is an actionable slander is it not?”

          No, not when it is proposed as one’s opinion especially when the person in question is a public figure.

          The mob is on the left. Who is threatening violence? The left. Who has closed down talks at universities? The left.

          “That one is in the office of President is frightening”

          By your standards what you said is libel.

          1. Got to beef up security if one of the left wing fascists got into the Oval and two is unacceptable. You are talking about Pelosi and Schumer are you not.

        2. Clearly you have NO idea what slander is. But you DO know that you hate Trump, so you’ll twist whatever you can to support that, won’t you?
          The sheer irony of you talking about other people’s rights, and slander, given the actions of the Clinton cabal, would be funny if it weren’t so obvious so many of you fools buy into that crap.

          1. I don’t hate Trump. Not at all. I even agree with some of what he says. It’s just that sometimes he then unsays it so I have no clue WTF he stands for….and as far as slander goes….he may just be guilty of it. But that’s just MY opinion! Of course I’m not alone….

            1. “I even agree with some of what he says.”

              That sounds reasonable. I even disagree with some of the things he says.

              Becka, focus on the things that you think are most important and then critically evaluate those things in depth. You can then agree or disagree with a reasonable basis. No one can fault you for your opinion that has a reasonable basis.

              One doesn’t have to agree with any movement. You may not like some of the stupid things he says. That is fine but I think you might be more concerned with his accomplishments or blunders using the big picture view.

              Do you like the fact that more people have jobs and the salaries have gone up. I think you do.
              Do you like the fact that our GDP has risen. I think you do.
              Do you want illegal immigrants replacing American workers? I don’t think you do.
              Do you want illegal immigrants to keep the salaries of American workers down? I don’t think so.
              Are you willing to pay taxes to help the country and other people? I think you are.
              Are you willing to waste the taxpayer’s money? I don’t think you are.
              Do you want our trade policies to be fair to all parties concerned? I think you do
              Do you think our policies should *encourage* outsourcing that leaves Americans without jobs. I think you don’t.

              These are a few of the more important points that we should be discussing instead of playing political games. I don’t care which party does the right thing. I just want the right things done. One doesn’t get hurt when they deal with important issues that affect American citizens. They only get hurt when those issues are polliticized.

        3. Sound and profound legal reasoning from Woosty. Maybe Woosty can assist in the lawsuits involving “actionable slander”.

  5. Obergruppen Fuhrer Mueller of the Feminazi Gestapo is struggling mightily, like 90% of the recently returned federal “workers” who do nothing, with the possible exception of perpetuating the principles of communism in America, to justify his appointment to investigate nothing.

    Has anyone noticed that America, enveloped in a fog of incoherence and hysteria, has fallen into the abyss of the Communist Manifesto as its thesis of freedom and self-reliance is maliciously and treasonously expunged?

    “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

    – William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987

    The entire American, communist, welfare state is false.

    Mueller is false.

  6. 1. First you say:
    ‘There was ample reason why Mueller targeted Stone initially. After all, Stone suggested to others that he was the conduit of hacked information from Wikileaks’

    2. Then you say:
    ‘The important thing is that, even if Stone and the campaign did seek the email information, it would not be a crime.’

    Which is it? BTW if 1 is true there is ample reason cubed for Mueller to examine the DNC server & talk to Assange the direct recipient who says it was a leak not a hack to establish the underlying crime.

    Notice at the start of the indictment Mueller states Hillary vendor CrowdStrike determined Russians hacked the DNC. The rest of the indictment simply refers to them as ‘stolen’ emails. The reader is intended to join those 2 dots, the first of which Mueller doesn’t assert himself, hasn’t proven and hasn’t investigated.

  7. [Facetious Argument Alert]:

    If you’d like–(you don’t have to if don’t like it)–but if you did, you could re-conceptualize the special counsel’s investigations as a security-clearance background check on The POTUS, Trump. If Trump fails that security-clearance background check, then the worst that could happen to Trump is that Trump would have to run for re-election to a second-term of office as President under an incredibly dense, dark cloud of suspicion with nothing but MAGA cultists waving their MAGA hats frantically in the air whilst sputtering maniacally But, But, But . . . Lock Her Up to try to disperse the overcast.

    Congress shall pass no laws infringing the right of the people freely to speak . . . [edit] . . . nor abridging the freedom of the press.

    1. what cloud? Where does it say in the Constitution that a security clearance is required to run for President. I found place of birth and age but not one smidgen about security clearance. Quit making stuff and proving your a phony socialist regressive who cannot take the Oath of Office without lying four times. They do not have the magic sentence in their Oath of Office that protects a President and when used will make these idiots trying to impeach stupid, foolish and themselves impeachable. you don’t know that particular part dembo? Your problem and the way to get rid of a bunch of you and banned from holding office ever again.

      Did you figure it out yet.

      It’s only six words long.

      It saved the asses of the asses such as Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, and Obama but won’t save Hilary the Second.

      Just six words.

      Then you have to figure out who those six words really protect and protect from whom and what.

      1. Even funnier are those who are not protected. Paybacks are a mother father and compromise something .. best served cold but what the hey any temperature will do if the gooses get cooked.

      2. Mr. Aarethun, when someone posts the following–[Facetious Argument Alert]–you might want to double-check, or triple-check the [Facetious Argument Alert] before you dive in head first with the most obvious refutation of the [Facetious Argument Alert]. There could be bigger game afoot, Michael. For instance, are you at all familiar with the mass incantation “Crooked H; lock her up?” Just saying.

        1. That one isn’t in the Constitution either but as a harbinger of a future fate? Quite Possible.

      3. Excerpted from the Constitution of the United States of America:

        Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

        Repeated for excessively literal emphasis: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office . . .

        Repeated yet again for the sake of interminably literalistic pin-headedness: Before he . . . his Office . . .

        1. Oopsie daisy. I forgot one masculine pronoun. Gee I wonder why. Oh well, never mind. Here comes yet again emphatically literally ad nauseum:

          “Before he . . . his Office . . . he shall . . .”

        2. ‘to the best of my Ability’ The magic six words afforded only to Presidents. And how many remember the half baked home cooked psychoeyeatrists who determined from a distance he was unsuitable and incapable. Well you got your chance now. The magic six words are there to provide another check and balance meaning He or She whom the voters elect are deemed suitable. End of Conversation 55 to 45 percent of the valid legal vote. Try that with your popularity poll method.

          1. Uff da, you appear to be suggesting that incompetence is a defense for failure to “. . . preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

            Out of curiosity, Michael, which President did you have in mind when you discovered those six little magic words? All of them? Or just a few? Or just one in particular?

      4. Natural born citizen. A citizen born of two citizen parents. Obama didn’t qualify. That’s how far this clown show from DC has fallen.

    2. The points raised in the Facetious Argument Alert are related to the issues of opposition research, as well as the poor financial condition of the DNC.
      I’ll review what I’ve brought up before; the so-called “security clearance background check” on Trump is now 2 1/2 years old.
      There is no real need to string this thing out for another 2 1/2 years, since the opposition research supplied by the OSC need only continue for merely another c. 21 months or so up until the time of the 2020 election.
      This is a boon to the cash-strapped DNC, which might otherwise have to rehire and pay a Fusion GPS-like firm to collude with British and Russian contacts in an attempt to get the dirt on Trump.
      At a minimum, this marathon, so-called “security clearance background check” on
      Trump can keep him ” under an incredibly dense, dark cloud of suspicion”.
      And by calling the operation “an OSC investigation” , or “security clearance background check”, the DNC won’t even have to disclose this free opposition research as a campaign contribution.

      1. So the special counsel’s investigation is free opposition research for a campaign that does not yet even exist and, therefore, a supposed violation of The Hatch Act–not a campaign finance violation. Hmmmm. . . . Well at least you’ve got the spirit of facetious argument way deep down in you blood and in your bones, Gnash. You will suffice as a replacement for Don Pablo. Someday, you might even surpass your dementor.

        1. The campaign/crusade have been going on since July 2016.
          To pretend that this is “a campaign that does not yet even exist” is an indication of L4B’s lack of attentiveness, or willfully selective awareness.
          Enforcement of The Hatch Act seems to have been greatly watered, but L4B’s mention of it could bring closer examination of that topic.
          In fact, the OSC probably is looking into it at this very moment; I’m sure that it would be among the OSC’s highest priorities.

          1. Doesn’t matter she’s an illegal anyway. The Hatch Act is a curiousity of history and ignored by everyone except those who read it for the first time, If applied Kerry would be the first one charged, arrested and indicted. So someone got elected who has never read the Constitution and it’s children then lied while taking the oath of office. She’s going to make a great coffee gofer but little else.

          2. Damn three am and I mistook OSC for AOC. but neither one is relevant any way.

      2. Much ado about less than nothing There is no such requirement in the Constitution to become President. If there was Obama would never have made it

      3. What cloud of suspicion. He was vetted by the citizens themselves with a solid majority and there is not requirement in the Constitution such as security clearance vetting to be President. Similarly. No requirement for a Scotus candidate to be anything but ‘nominated’ then ‘confirmed’ and religious questions are banned another section –, or after sworn in to be comatose like Gizzard Burger .

    3. Who wants to read your “[Facetious Argument Alert]” when your non facetious arguments don’t make any more sense?

      1. There were, however, some signs of a breakthrough in her comment that she was ” too far gone”.
        Many others here have recognized just how far gone she’s been for months on end; some have even been rude enough to openly comment about her ” going around the bend”, “loonytoon comments”, “self-deluded prophesies”, etc.
        But I don’t think she has ever indicated that she had any self-awareness of what others already knew.
        I think she may be making some progress after all. I can’t say that this is “highly probable”, but it is “not impossible” to sense a turning point for her.

        1. Tom, I cannot believe it is any more than a downward progression with intermittent improvement, but never enough to change the direction.

          1. Well, that’s where we differ, Allan.
            I prefer to see the cauldron as half-full, but you’re seeing the cauldron as half-empty.😉

            1. Look up entropy. Take note of the direction. Build a sand castle on the beach where the water is rising. The decay continues despite the fact that you are able to throw more sand on it. Eventually you stop and all is gone.

Comments are closed.