Mueller’s Roadkill Trophy: A Hunt For Collusion Bags A Circus Clown

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the Stone memorandum and the specific counts indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Notably, after investigating Stone for much of two years, Mueller ended up indicting Stone overlapping false statements from a transcript that he secured just weeks ago from Congress. The coverage has been wildly out of sync with the substance of the indictment. There were many people, including journalists, who were trying to review the Wikileaks materials. That is not a crime. The stated desire to see any Wikileaks material is neither surprising nor illegal. Moreover, we already knew that Stone wanted to see the Wikileaks material and that he was seeking information from Wikileaks. He stated so publicly.

Here is the column:

Years ago I read about a Wisconsin man named John Longo who found a dead deer on the road, took it home, ate it, and then mounted the head as a trophy. It was never clear why he valued his roadkill to mount it, or why state game wardens went to court to recover it. The story came to mind with the indictment of Donald Trump associate Roger Stone by a grand jury in the special counsel investigation. Stone is charged with false statements, obstruction based on those false statements, and witness tampering.

This is not the big game that Robert Mueller was hunting when he began his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Despite the breathless news coverage, the indictment is underwhelming and far from what many predicted. As for the media, it seems to be only counting heads of Trump associates indicted, as opposed to what they were actually charged with. The media has long described Stone as the possible Trump campaign conduit to WikiLeaks and the Russians, citing his presumed communications with Julian Assange and his advance knowledge of the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign email hacks.

Yet, none of that was confirmed or even suggested in the indictment. There was no charge of collusion. No hint of meetings or arrangements with Assange. Not even a charge as an unregistered foreign agent of the Russians. Just collateral crimes with nary a mention of collusion and a defendant who alternatively presents himself as the tragically comic and the comically tragic figure mired in the special counsel investigation.

Indeed, if a deer could run over itself, then Stone is the ultimate roadkill defendant. Mueller has relentlessly pursued him for almost two years, and Stone has equally relentlessly taunted him and his team. Various grand jury witnesses recounted being questioned about Stone and theories of collusion for months. Mueller worked every evident angle before bringing down this indictment in what could be the final charging stage of his investigation. It was only last month that Mueller asked for the transcript of the testimony of Stone before Congress. Largely based on alleged false statements, the entirety of the indictment comes out of that transcript.

Of course, this is the same Roger Stone who described politics as little more than “performance art” and himself as an “agent provocateur.” Accusing him of false statements is akin to charging a circus clown with reckless driving, as Stone contradicts himself even in short interviews. Mueller has now pulled over this clown car, and what comes out may be entertaining but it is hardly consequential in proving Russia collusion.

A close review of the indictment reveals there is less than meets the eye to both Stone and his alleged crimes. The indictment contains the same collateral crimes used against every person who is not Russian charged by Mueller with false statements or unrelated crimes. Stone was charged on five overlapping claims of false statements in an indictment of seven counts. For example, Mueller alleges that Stone lied when he denied communicating through texts or emails with a WikiLeaks intermediary.

Since Stone must have known his texts and emails would be reviewed by the special counsel, it is certainly plausible that he simply did not recall such written messages since he admitted that he had communicated with the individual. Mueller also charged that Stone lied about having written messages referencing Assange. Notably, these were not communications with Assange but simply communications that refer to Assange. However, Stone admitted to wanting to contact Assange in public, told others that he did so, and only denied having written communications, which Mueller would ultimately review with the rest of the archived records for Stone.

Likewise, Stone is accused of falsely denying possession of emails with other people, or of lying about the intended meaning of prior statements about contacting Assange. Indeed, the falsity of some of his statements is not entirely clear. The third count states that Stone testified falsely that his August 2016 references to being in contact with the head of WikiLeaks were references to communications with a single intermediary who Stone identified as “Person Two.” The indictment does not allege such specific contacts with Assange. Thus, either Mueller is alleging that Stone told the truth the first time in claiming to contact Assange, or that he bizarrely lied about his lying about contacting Assange. Mueller then reused the false statements to add a redundant obstruction charge to the indictment.

Finally, Mueller charged Stone with witness tampering because he told a witness not to cooperate with the special counsel investigation, which falls into the same type of statements that Stone was making publicly. That witness also was speaking to Stone about his testimony, but Stone was the one making outlandish statements to stonewall Mueller. The witness, identified as “Person Two,” is believed to be New York comedian Randy Credico. In 2017, Stone told Credico to pull a Frank Pentangeli, the character from “The Godfather II” who refused to incriminate the mob boss and declared, “I don’t know nothing about that.” It was a uniquely stupid communication and seen as the most serious of the allegations.

Whether Stone is found guilty of lying to investigators or tampering with witnesses, nothing in the indictment suggests he took part in Russia collusion. Nevertheless, some commentators proclaimed the indictment was precisely what it clearly was not. House Judiciary Committee member Ted Lieu of California declared that, if the indictment is true, there is now unmistakable proof of collusion and Mueller “has the goods.” Speaking as a former prosecutor, Lieu said that this all “looks like collusion” because Stone spoke to Trump campaign officials and a senior Trump campaign official “was directed to contact Stone about any additional releases.”

That theme was picked up by other news outlets, which declared that communications between Trump campaign officials and a leading Trump supporter on the WikiLeaks material is finally the long awaited proof of a conspiracy. That is wrong. Stone has previously admitted to wanting to see WikiLeaks material, as did Trump himself on the campaign trail. Many reporters also wanted to see the WikiLeaks material during this period.

Seeking the WikiLeaks material is not illegal. Both campaigns actively sought dirt on each other, including from Russian sources. What is illegal is conspiring to hack a computer system or steal files, and Stone is snot accused of any such actions. None of that makes this indictment invalid. There are indeed conflicts in his testimony before Congress. However, a conviction of Stone will not yield much of a winning trophy for Mueller.

Of course, Mueller now must deal in federal court with someone who has long maintained that “if you are not controversial, you will never break through the din of all the commentary.” Well, Stone certainly has broken through the din, right into a criminal prosecution. This will be the final episode of what he once called the “Stone Zone.” His trial will include the challenge of proving a witness tampering charge based on a conversation between a comedian and a clown. Now that will be true performance art.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

205 thoughts on “Mueller’s Roadkill Trophy: A Hunt For Collusion Bags A Circus Clown”

  1. Why Was Stone Arrested Instead of Being Asked to Surrender?
    by Alan M. Dershowitz
    January 29, 2019 at 3:00 pm
    https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13649/roger-stone-arrest

    If there was no legitimate reason for the arrest and handcuffing of this presumed innocent defendant, what was the illegitimate reason? The illegitimate purpose of the arrest was to intimidate the potential witness — namely Stone — into not invoking his constitutional right to remain silent, rather than to testify as a government witness.

    As Judge T.S. Ellis, III, who presided over the Manafort trial observed: “You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud – what you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”

    The ACLU has been absolutely silent in regard to the questionable tactics employed by Mueller. They, too, would have been up in arms had these tactics been employed against their favorite candidate and mine, Hillary Clinton. Their silence speaks volumes about their partisanship and lack of neutral standards of civil liberties.

    Congress must act to prevent these abuses from recurring.

    Judge T.S. Ellis (right), who presided over the first Manafort trial, observed that flipped witnesses sometimes have an inducement not only to “sing” but to “compose” — that is, to embellish. (Image source: Fox News video screenshot)

    The reasons given thus far for Roger Stone’s pre-dawn arrest by armed FBI agents are utterly unconvincing. He was not a flight risk, as evidenced by the low bail and easy conditions of release set by the judge without objection from the government. Stone knew he was going to be indicted and if he wanted to flee, he had plenty of time to do so. The same is true of destroying evidence, wiping his electronics or doing anything else that would warrant an arrest rather than a notice to his lawyer to appear in court at a specified time. A search was conducted of various residences pursuant to a search warrant. No arrest was necessary to conduct these searches.

    So, if there was no legitimate reason for the arrest and handcuffing of this presumed innocent defendant, what was the illegitimate reason? To paraphrase the indictment against Stone, the illegitimate purpose of the arrest was to intimidate the potential witness — namely Stone — into not invoking his constitutional right to remain silent, rather than to testify as a government witness.

    The arrest was nothing more than a show of toughness — a foretaste of what Stone could expect if he did not cooperate with Mueller. Police do this all the time: “Look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way.” The tough arrest with handcuffs and shackles was a demonstration of the hard way.

    Prosecutors have enormous power and discretion whether and how to use it. All too often they use it the way Mueller has been using it during this investigation: to pressure witnesses to testify against Trump. As Judge T.S. Ellis, III, who presided over the Manafort trial, observed: “You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud — what you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”

    Judge Ellis also pointed out the dangers of this tactic: “This vernacular to ‘sing’ is what prosecutors use. What you got to be careful of is that they may not only sing, they may compose.”

    If Hillary Clinton had been elected president and if a special prosecutor had arrested one of her associates in the rough and demeaning manner by which Stone was arrested, civil libertarians would be up in arms. They would correctly argue that to marshal dozens of armed FBI agents to arrest an elderly man accused of non-violent crimes is an abuse of authority and a waste of FBI resources. They would complain that it constitutes intimidation and violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. But because the arrest is of a Trump associate and the purpose is to get evidence against President Trump, we have not heard from fair-weather civil libertarians who use civil liberties and constitutional rights as tactics to serve their partisan political agendas.

    The ACLU has been absolutely silent in regard to the questionable tactics employed by Mueller. They, too, would have been up in arms had these tactics been employed against their favorite candidate and mine, Hillary Clinton. They would have demanded an explanation as to why the extraordinary power of arrest, which is supposed to be reserved only for cases warranting this use of force, was employed in this case. Their silence speaks volumes about their partisanship and lack of neutral standards of civil liberties.

    The American public is entitled to an honest explanation of why Stone was arrested. We have not received the truth. Congress should hold a hearing and call as witnesses those who ordered the arrest and demand they explain and justify it. It is unlikely that a plausible and credible explanation will be offered, but Mueller and his FBI agents should at least have an opportunity to set the record straight. Maybe there is a good reason for why the arrest was necessary, but if so, we have not heard it and it is unlikely that the reason involves national security or other secrets. These hearings should lead to legislation setting enforceable standards for when the kind of arrest to which Stone was subjected should be permissible. The power to arrest, using armed FBI agents, handcuffs and shackles must not become a tactic to be used by law enforcement for impermissible reasons. Nor should it become routine. Congress must act to prevent these abuses from recurring.

    Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law

  2. In spite of Muller’s multimillion dollar roadkill hunging expedition, Dims know they are in really big trouble. Look at the panic

    “Dems fear Trump re-election if ex-Starbucks CEO Schultz runs”
    https://apnews.com/0a2b5a89587e44568481c133356f262c

    “Don’t help elect Trump, you egotistical billionaire!” a protester shouted before being ejected by security.”

    Ahhhh, you gotta love their open minds, tolerance and outright fear to their blue blue blood! LOL

    Run, Schultz, Run. The Dims welcome all competitors since they know Trump is a moron, a dolt and a clown…..who beat Hillary anyways! 😜

    1. “By the way, I stand with President Nicolis Maduro of Venezuela & with Russia & China”

      Diane, if Stalin were alive you would stand with him as well.

      1. Allan, you dolt, you. That’s not an authentic L4D comment. That’s someone putting words into L4D’s mouth that L4D would never say. Allan does the same thing to pretty much everybody on a daily basis. Do you know anything about who posted that fake L4D comment, Allan?

        1. “Allan does the same thing …”

          Diane, that someone else tries to imitate you doesn’t change the fact if Stalin were alive you would stand with him.

          I never changed your alias or your icon. You did and that provides a problem for the reader or in this case, you.

          By the way, I frequently quote what others say so I am not putting words in their mouth. Their words are clearly there or in black and white just above my response.

          1. Not only does L4B rewrite and distort what others write, she claims that she didn’t write things she actually wrote.
            These are real handy stunts for anyone wanting to “revise” comments, so that those comments comply and cooperate to meet a particular goal.

            1. Tom, as I have said before Diane’s comments today conflict with her comments said yesterday and most of what she says is fantassy.

  3. A bit of humor for those scientifically inclined:

    “A major research institution has just announced the discovery of the densest element yet known to science. The new element has been named Pelosium. The chemical symbol of Pelosium is Pu. Pelosium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 311. These particles are held together by dark particles called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

    Pelosium’s mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons within the Pelosium molecule, leading to the formation of isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientist to believe that Pelosium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass.

    When catalyzed with money, Pelosium activates MSNBCobnoxium and CNNadnausium, both elements that radiate orders of magnitude more energy, albeit as incoherent noise, since they have half as many peons but twice as many morons as Pelosium.

    Since it has no electrons, Pelosium is inert. However, it can be detected chemically as it impedes every reaction it comes in contact with. According to the discoverers, a minute amount of Pelosium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete when it would have normally occurred in less than a second. In the presense of anti-morons, Pelosium can be extremely corrosive. Botox seems to distort and smooth it’s surface, without impeding it’s ongoing decay.

    Pelosium has a normal half-life of approximately two years, at which time it does not decay, but instead undergoes a transmutation, appearing in a new location but displaying the same properties. In this process, assistant neutrons, vice neutrons and assistant vice neutrons exchange places. Some studies have shown that the atomic mass actually increases after each transmutation.

    Research at other laboratories indicates that Pelosium occurs naturally in the atmosphere. It tends to concentrate at certain points such as government agencies, large corporations, universities, and anywhere there is news coverage occurring. It can usually be found in the newest, best appointed, and best maintained buildings.

    Scientists point out that Pelosium is known to be toxic at any level of concentration and can easily destroy any productive reaction where it is allowed to accumulate. Attempts are being made to determine how Pelosium can be controlled to prevent irreversible damage, but results to date are not promising.

  4. Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller of the Feminazi Gestapo and his protege of 20 years, Andrew Weissmann, have been colluding to criminally conduct “malicious prosecutions” since the bloody murder by Weissman et al. of Arthur Andersen during the Enron scandal. Arthur Andersen, its professional and well-respected partners and 85,000 employees, were destroyed and have never recovered as a result of criminal acts by these Schutzstaffel, brown-shirt thugs. As was Mike Nifong of Duke Lacrosse notoriety, Mueller, Weissman et al. must be prosecuted with extreme prejudice for egregious and treasonous abuse of power and “malicious prosecution” etc.

    1. The Stone arrest/indictment was supposed to be exclamatory off-ramp for Muler’s charade of an investigation. Herr Muler and his team envisioned an intimidated Stone to go quietly and be just another pelt of investigation whereby the brownshirts could boast of having put away another “bad guy’ to justify witch hunt. The schoolyard bully did not calculate that the flamboyant kid was ready to fight to the death and expose bully’s tactics to the world. Stone has pulled back the curtain on Muler and over the next year or so will continue to expose Muler and the frauds who rallied behind the illicit investigation. Stone is wortst nightmare for Muler and Muler’s faux legacy. Good riddance Herr Muler.

  5. These deep state dirt bags want to peddle this Russia Hoax to muddy the waters for the 2020 election so that they can install or bless the next puppet for President.

  6. TURLEY CRIME STORIES OFTEN FEATURE CLOWNISH CRIMINALS

    ROGER STONE IS ONE OF THEM

    Stone revels in his roots as a ‘Nixon dirty trickster’. Stone wears a tattoo of Nixon’s face. His New York apartment is a museum of Nixon memorabilia. And Stone emerged from Federal Court last week with arms up in the Nixon victory salute.

    Stone’s worship of Nixon compelled the Nixon Foundation to issue a statement noting that Stone was only 20 years old when he worked on Nixon’s re-election campaign. Therefore Stone is, indeed, the clown Professor Turley portrays him as.

    But it appears that Donald Trump has had a 40 year friendship with Roger Stone. They were introduced to each other by infamous mob lawyer Roy Cohen, a onetime mentor to Trump. And it seems that Stone has been Trump’s consigliere. Over the years Trump has sought Stone’s advice on many political matters.

    During the earliest stages of Trump’s campaign, Roger Stone may have been Trump’s principal advisor. Stone, on the surface, would be well-qualified; having been a successful Washington lobbyist for many years. Stone’s longtime partner in lobbying was Paul Manafort, in fact. Stone, no doubt, recommended Manafort as Trump’s Campaign Manager.

    Stone, one suspects, filled Trump with ‘big ideas’ on how to conduct a presidential campaign. Ideas that captured Trump’s imagination. The entire ‘free-wheeling’ style of Trump’s campaign may have been heavily influenced by Roger Stone.

    Here we must pause to note that Trump’s longtime attorney, Michael Cohen, tended to be an ‘extra-legal’ lawyer. Michael Cohen serves a reference point regarding Donald Trump’s judgement regarding legal matters. Stone, one imagines, appealed to Trump’s judgement. They are kindred spirits, so to speak.

    Therefore when Professor Turley writes columns to minimize the charges against Roger Stone, one must look at Stone as the clownish longtime friend and advisor to Donald Trump. Which begs the question, “Why has Donald Trump continually surrounded himself with sleaze balls and clowns?”

    PH

    1. DONALD AND ROGER

      THE TRUMP-STONE RELATIONSHIP CHRONICLED

      Stone met Trump in 1979. The matchmaker was the infamous Roy Cohn, and the context was the fledgling Ronald Reagan presidential bid. Just 27 at the time, six years younger than Trump, Stone was in New York working as the campaign’s regional political director. He needed people to help raise money. Trump was a Jimmy Carter donor but joined Reagan’s finance committee as well. “We hit it off immediately,” Stone recalled.

      Ever since, off and on, but mostly on, Stone has been to Trump a lobbyist, an adviser, a strategist, a consultant, and something like a friend. In the long life of the current president—a man whose disposition tends toward isolation and whose relationships typically are transparently transactional and ephemeral—this always has made Stone stand out.

      The basis of this Cohn-stoked bond was plain. They shared an ideology of expedience, a stated disdain for elites, a disregard for convention, a core belief in the animal power of publicity. A taste for havoc. An overall and abiding approach to life defined by bottomless reservoirs of cynicism and shamelessness.

      “I would never take a job in government,” Stone once said. “I’m interested in politics.” Politics, in the estimation of Stone, are a Machiavellian combination of combat and showmanship. And they definitively, in his mind, are not about “uniting people”—they are about “dividing people.” One of Stone’s favorite quotes? The Joker in Batman. “Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order and everything becomes chaos. I’m an agent of chaos.”

      In Trump, almost immediately, he saw a potential president. He was, Stone thought, “a prime piece of political horseflesh.” He was a star. He was a brand. He had “the look.” He had the size—not just height and heft but the ability to fill a space and never not be at the center. And he possessed an uncommon kind of temerity. “He’ll say and do anything,” Stone told me last year. And he thought all of this well before Trump for president became what almost everybody else considered a recurring wink-wink tabloid gag.

      Edited from: “Roger Stone’s Last Dirty Trick”

      POLITICO, 1/26/19

        1. The poor schnooks are all getting a bit too bat guano again. Aren’t they?

          Did you know that Nixon’s supporters were like that, too? I wonder how many of Trump’s Troupers are haggard Nixonistes?

          1. When it comes to getting “too bat guano”, L4B is the undisputed champion.
            The attempted comparison of Trump supporters to Nixon supporters doesn’t hold water; L4B does not recognize that things are different than they were 45 years ago.

            The cast of characters is a lot different as well.
            She’s likely old enough to have witnessed events in the Watergate era, but given that her memory is shot, the characteristics of Watergate are lost to her.

      1. Peter, why not tell us what Hillary was doing with Robert Creamer a convicted criminal who returned to politics to continue playing games including inciting violence and likely voter fraud.

          1. Peter I thought the subject was tricksters like Stone and my example Robert Creamer who worked for Hillary after he was released from prison so he could do more dirty tricks that seemed to include formenting violence and voter fraud.

            Suddenly you have changed the subject. Do you have ADHD or another problem that prevents you from following the discussion?

            1. ‘I’ changed the subject..??

              ‘YOU’ changed the subject from Stone to Creamery. That’s the whole concept of ‘What bout Hillary?’ comments. They’re intended to change the subject.

              1. Yes, you did change the subject Peter. You were talking about one particular trickster as if this type of person only polluted one candidates offices. One has to make sure that you understand that tricksters are commonplace in politics, but tricksters such as the ones used by Hillary along with their tactics were far more dangerous and continue to be far more dangerous to the nation.

                Some of HIllary’s tricksters were in jail before being hired and seemed to be engaged in violent activities and voter fraud. They tie directly into the Hillary campaign and much of this can be seen on video. Stone’s indictment has nothing to do with Trump or his campaign.

            1. “Hey Peter, it’s because they didn’t find anything that rose to that level of actionability….that’s why.”

              Becka, you are again letting politics get in the way of clear thinking. Was there a real investigation of Hillary’s actions? How many people were given immunity and then didn’t provide the information? That happened with Lois Lerner at the IRS as well. In fact it has been happening all over government in various forms and on both sides of the aisle. While you are trying to buddy up to one side both sides of the aisle are stripping the American public naked.

      1. The best clown shoes are Bozo boots. Except when you have to climb stairs. Descending stairs is less problematic. Dancing with a partner is thoroughly impractical. Has anyone ever seen Trump dancing with Pence? They say Trump dances with Putin. Maybe Trump changes his shoes for that. Hockey skates? Or red slippers?

          1. The Army/Navy Surplus Store doesn’t sell Bozo boots. They’re against regulation even for second-hand, civilian use. I am not about to be caught out of uniform while standing in line at the food pantry. They card you for that.

      2. Fishy:
        “Hey, don’t judge a man like Trump until you have walked a mile in his clown shoes.”
        ***********************
        Thrilling how you denigrate a man eons more successful than you; obviously more important than you; and infinitely more likeable than you. Green sure looks good on you.

    2. Robert Creamer was Hillary’s trickster and he was in jail before she hired him. He did a lot of bad things that you never mention and some of what he did was captured on tape. That led to his necessary dismissal by the Hillary campaign. He pushed a bunch of violent activities and likely was involved in voter fraud.

      He is a criminal who the first time paid his debt to society being given significant jail term but was released early due to his political connections including being married to a Democratic Congresswoman. He fits the Democratic mold quite closely.

      Yet, you call Stone a criminal who has never spent a day in jail and whose charges are dubious at best. That is the type of person you are. You call people on the right criminals whether or not they are. That is jerky, but then we are dealing with Peter Shill.

      1. Haha. More wackjobbery from one of the gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees and grifters on the make. Obstruction of Justice in no way is a “dubious” crime; further, I don’t think that the federal jurors will believe so, either, were this nutcase take this to trial.

        this is to “ya, but being an open traitor is also dubious according to hannity” allen / allan

        1. “Obstruction of Justice in no way is a “dubious” crime;”

          Mark, you said something of value. Hillary’s trickster didn’t perform a “dubious” crime, he actually performed one that led to him being jailed. It is such nice people that you hang around with.

          It’s nice to watch our resident fool pop in and out of these discussions lending a hand to the ignorant whose thoughts like his own fall flat in the face of reality.

          1. Huh? Pro tip: when you wake up drunk, don’t post without an actual adult proofing it for you.

            this is to “ya, it’s impossible for most people, but I understand it, I think” allan / allen

            1. “Huh? Pro tip: when you wake up drunk, don’t post without an actual adult proofing it for you.”

              Mark, are you too drunk or drugged to realize that what you wrote to me was a reminder you wrote to yourself? Get yourself to rehab.

    3. Mr. H asked, “Why has Donald Trump continually surrounded himself with sleaze balls and clowns?”

      Trump needs people who can be leveraged with kompromat. Trump calls that by the name of loyalty. The one’s who can’t be leveraged with kompromat either quit or get fired. Trump calls them disloyal. Sometimes the loyal one’s who could be leveraged with kompromat get fired because they got indicted or embroiled in some other sort of scandal. If they turn against Trump, then out comes the kompromat.

  7. I swear whenever I see the above photo of Mueller, I feel like he’s about to break into a verse of “I Feel Pretty” from West Side Story!

    1. Have you ever seen an Easter Island monolith? That’s what Mueller looks like. And, even more to the point, that may well be what Mueller is. Carved from a single, massive block of stone–crags and all. To draw an analogy between Mueller and Natalie Wood is . . . (What’s the word?) . . . FUBAR!!! Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition.

      1. Late4Din……….a brief Broadway and film tutorial re WSS:
        Carole Lawrence played Maria in the original Broadway production.
        Natalie Wood played Maria in the film version, but her singing voice was dubbed by Marni Nixon.
        You’re welcome.

        1. You’re suggesting that Carole Lawrence looks like Mueller? Is it Marni Nixon’s singing voice that sounds like Mueller’s? Or does Natalie Woods sing voice that sounds like an Easter Island monolith?

          Tutorial? Really? Who are you, Bragg? And who the blazes does Bragg think she is? Stephen Soundheim? Or Leonard Bernstein?

          1. “Who are you, Cindy Bragg?”

            That’s exactly what Saul/Paul asked Jesus. Only in my translation, instead of “Cindy Bragg”, he substituted “Lord”.

        1. Trump is the spitting image of Doris Roberts who played Marie Barone in the sitcom Everybody Loves Raymond. Trump talks like Marie Barone. Trump walks like Marie Barone. Trump’s body language is a dead ringer for Marie Barone’s body language.

          If you didn’t know better, you’d think that Trump was the first woman president of the United States.

                1. More catechresis. Let’s review: According to Gnash, L4D is a witch, a squirrel, an engine block, Edith Bunker and Norman Bates dressed as Mother.

                  No wonder Mueller’s picture makes you people think that Mueller supposedly feels pretty.

                  Meanwhile, Trump is almost as effeminate as Richard Simmons.

                  1. L4B has never denied being witch, and has, in fact, openly admitted that.
                    I did not actually say that she was an engine block…..I said her block was cracked.
                    I did compare her to Edith Bunker; people can decide for themselves if that is a valid comparison.
                    There is a better comparison that I might post a bit later, time permitting.

                  2. “More catechresis. Let’s review: According to Gnash, L4D is a witch, a squirrel, an engine block…”

                    Diane, there is nothing wrong with Tom’s use of catachresis (spelled with an a not an e) when dealing with an alias whose owner is unstable and lives in a fantassy world. Sometimes there are no good words to describe that person and that is why a catachresis may be used.

    2. Cindy:

      Brava. Lol, The image is priceless and unforgettable:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgHtBxOs4qw

      MARIA
      I feel pretty,
      Oh, so pretty,
      I feel pretty and witty and gay! (bright!)
      And I pity
      Any girl who isn’t me today. (tonight.)

      I feel charming,
      Oh, so charming
      It’s alarming how charming I feel!
      And so pretty
      That I hardly can believe I’m real.

      See the pretty girl in that mirror there:
      Who can that attractive girl be?
      Such a pretty face,
      Such a pretty dress,
      Such a pretty smile,
      Such a pretty me!

      I feel stunning
      And entrancing,
      Feel like running and dancing for joy,
      For I’m loved
      By a pretty wonderful boy!

      GIRLS
      Have you met my good friend Maria,
      The craziest girl on the block?
      You’ll know her the minute you see her,
      She’s the one who is in an advanced state of shock.

      She thinks she’s in love.
      She thinks she’s in Spain.
      She isn’t in love,
      She’s merely insane.

      It must be the heat
      Or some rare disease,
      Or too much to eat
      Or maybe it’s fleas.

      Keep away from her,
      Send for Chino!
      This is not the
      Maria we know!

      Modest and pure,
      Polite and refined,
      Well-bred and mature
      And out of her mind!

      MARIA
      I feel pretty,
      Oh, so pretty
      That the city should give me its key.
      A committee
      Should be organized to honor me.

      GIRLS
      La la la la . . .

      MARIA
      I feel dizzy,
      I feel sunny,
      I feel fizzy and funny and fine,
      And so pretty,
      Miss America can just resign!

      GIRLS
      La la la la . . .

      MARIA
      See the pretty girl in that mirror there:

      GIRLS
      What mirror where?

      MARIA
      Who can that attractive girl be?

      GIRLS
      Which? What? Where? Whom?

      MARIA
      Such a pretty face,
      Such a pretty dress,
      Such a pretty smile,
      Such a pretty me!

      GIRLS
      Such a pretty me!

      ALL
      I feel stunning
      And entrancing,
      Feel like running and dancing for joy,
      For I’m loved
      By a pretty wonderful boy!

      1. mespo….LOL….. thanks for that!
        When you have time, try to find Little Richard’s version on youtube.. It’ll knock you out….And I think Bob might like it, too, because, ya know how he honors diversity…..LOL

  8. Some are digging in a garbage heap to find out why Trump won when the answer is very simple but requires a very short amount of their time. To get the answer one might listen to a Canadian who was Prime Minister of Canada three times. It’s a very simple answer and doesn’t require partisanship.

    https://www.prageru.com/videos/why-trump-won

      1. Thanks Kurtz. There are a lot of short excellent videos at https://www.prageru.com . They are good videos for both the right and the left even if the person on the left disagrees. It permits that person to develop logical and persuasive argunments against the right since the major points are played out. In fact many of these video’s would have been part of the left’s positions not that long ago especially the ones that discuss the rights of each American.

    1. Trump “won” the election, despite losing the popular vote, because of about 30,000 votes in a few key precincts in a few key states, to which Russian hackers directed propaganda against Hillary Clinton. Did you ever wonder why they wanted polling information?

        1. Have you ever wondered why Trump publicly stood with Putin and against American intelligence agencies on the matter of Russian hacking of the 2016 election? Or, why he wants to lift sanctions on Russian oligarchs? How about why his son and members of his campaign committee had such lose ties and relationships with Russians?

          BTW: neither Turley nor anyone else on this blog have any idea of the extent of evidence that Mueller has.

          1. And Natacha supposedly does “have an idea of the extent of evidence that Mueller has”.
            Now we have at least two “experts” here who pretend to have a direct pipeline into the operations of the OSC.

            1. It doesn’t seem to occur to either of them that the McCabe – Mueller crew have been spinning their wheels filing mickey-mouse charges for 30 months because they have nothing better to do. Because stupid.

          2. Have you ever wondered why Trump publicly stood with Putin and against American intelligence agencies on the matter of Russian hacking of the 2016 election?

            1. There was no hackng.

            2. The notion that the intelligence agencies discovered such hacking was James Clapper’s PR fraud.

            Do try to keep up.

            1. Every last single federal judge who has reviewed the un-redacted renditions of Mueller’s memoranda has stepped aside, gotten out of the way and allowed Mueller to proceed apace. Even the current SCOTUS has declined an expedited hearing for the so-called “mystery appellant”–a foreign-owned bank that filed a sealed motion to quash a subpoena from SCO for bank records that are relevant to the special counsel’s investigation.

              I would love to see what’s behind the redactions. It can’t be nothing. It has got to be something. You cannot seriously believe at there’s just a bunch of black magic marker lines with nothing but blank page behind them. Have you ever heard the sound of a steel string gradually being tightened until . . . ???

                  1. No, YNOT is too stupid to grasp it.
                    But at least YNOT can form a complete sentence, though not a complete thought.

                    1. Tom, in all the time you have been on this blog has YNOT ever been able to provide any value to a discussion? I don’t think so and I don’t think he has the capability. That is why all his responses are saying essentially the same thing, nothing. Have pity on the guy that lacks a brain.

                    2. Still waiting for your point – should have remained anonymous; why acknowledge your pointless?

                    3. No, Allan. Most trolls don’t have any intention of participating in or contributing to an actual discussion.
                      Additionally, there is the lack of capabilty you mentioned in SNOT’s case to comprehend what’s going on in the exchanges.

          3. The one that seems to have had the most connections to the Russian government is Hillary. Where do you think a lot of the information on the Steele Dossier came from? Russians.

          4. Do you wonder why you still believe that they supposedly hacked anything when it is full well known to have been a DNC insider who downloaded the emails onto a thumb drive?

            https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

            See i have posted that like 30 or 40 times over the past months so there is no chance you’ve missed it. IT is technologically impossible that the downloaded DNC things came over the wire. They could only have been downloaded onto a thumb drive. William Binney has explained this many times. He knows a thing or two about computers and hacking. Look him up. Do the letters NSA mean anything to you?

            So You know That the “Russians hacked the DNC” thing is a lie. You just make the willful suspension of disbelief your theme as do many others because it is their deemed best too to screw trump.

            But it begs th question, concerning political screwings, do you ever take responsiblity for Hillary Screwing over her opponent in the primary?

            Keep it up! bring another lame candidate forth from a fixed Democratic primary, I welcome it!

        2. TIAx2:
          Natacha’s commentary would have the same effect on me if I bothered to think about them. One wonders the depths of illusion you have to plumb to come up with this worldview.

          1. Becka, is “emotional pain” always bad?

            Previously I suggested some serious discussion on topics where one didn’t have to commit to any politician. I was surprised that you didn’t respond to ideas when you respond so frequently to justified trite remarks. I’m not interested in proving you right or wrong rather I am only interested in what your specific considered desires are for this nation.

      1. Natacha, get over it Trump won the election based on the law which counts electoral votes rather than the popular vote. If the law was different he would have gone after the popular vote and likely won that as well. If the fraudulent votes weren’t counted Trump might have even prevailed in the popular vote.

        In the end Trump is President and you have to wait until 2020 or impeach him. I prefer for you to impeach him so that he is more likely to win in 2020.

        Why are you such a cry baby?

        1. Some of the Super Bowl games have been decided by a few points, or less.
          I don’t think it’s right to give the winning team the SuperBowl trophy and call them NFL champions when they win by narrow margins like that.

        2. I regret to inform you, sir, but with the exception of the gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make, the Pursuit of Justice causes all patriotic Americans to wish godspeed on the Special Prosecutors Office to fully weed out the nest of traitors and criminalistic-cabal in or attached to the White House. Keep wearing that jacket though, it looks good on you.

          this is to “ya, I finally figured out what that ticking sound is” allan / allen

          1. Again Mark you add a comment of value: “Pursuit of Justice causes all patriotic Americans to wish godspeed on the Special Prosecutors Office to fully weed out the nest of traitors and criminalistic-cabal…”

            That is perhaps what Muellers job was. Unfortunately Mueller is a bit clumsy and only able to look at one side of the coin leaving the real perpetrators out of his discovery that just so happen to have close ties to him and the people he hired. That sounds like a “criminalistic-cabal” where most things seem to lead to Hillary.

            Mark, our resident fool, doesn’t seem up to the job he has created for himself.

          2. i guess Glenn Greenwald is not patriotic enough for you
            allow him to explain himself about some of the concerns for these things

            https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1084844716636733440?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

            but liberty is an ideal. many do not share it.

            as I get older I care less about ideals. I say, loook at this Meuller witchhunt. Well, whatever the outcome, these players will eventually leave the stage and others will take their places. And whatever the persecutorial standards are, at that time, they are always tools, just a matter of who holds them. So once a witch hunt is established as acceptable then it can be turned a different direction.

            The border situation will get worse. That is guaranteed. Perhaps Venezuela goes into a full blown civil war soon? Well it’s a long way off but it will build more pressure pushing north into Columbia and Panama and Honduras and Mexico etc.

            or how about global warming, later? The experts say lots of Central American coastal areas will get flooded. With serious population migration effects. Where will they go? Same answer: North

            So like it or not, border fence or not, that’s going to get worse. And thus there will come a time not long when the border issue will be reckoned like this: why do the Democrats collude with narcotrafficking gangs to try and maintain a weak border? This requires a counterintelligence investigation. Maybe Pelosi has been coopted by foreign actors? Like her Chinese spy chauffeur? Maybe by her Mexican connected voter base? Better spy on all her phone calls etc.

            One day, maybe we will be glad the FBI was re-politicized.

      2. NUTCHACHA,

        Hysteria and incoherence are your forte! President Donald J. Trump is President Donald J. Trump precisely because he won the “popular vote” in a majority of 50 state elections, exactly as prescribed by the Constitution. Have you heard, this country is the United States of America? Winning the popular vote in a minority of states makes the candidate a national loser.

  9. Or, as Roger Stone put it while being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on his ABC show over the weekend:

    “My lawyers told me that Mueller’s indictment is as ‘Thin as Piss on a Rock’ !!!

    That interview was a trip…

    1. Stone is practically begging for a gag order. I say ABJ gives it to him. And when Stone violates the gag order, he gets a jail cell in The District of Columbia. Won’t that be swell?

Leave a Reply