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. You can’t trust the FBI anymore and here’s Mueller costing people their livelihood defending themselves what’s this country coming to?

  2. This is what the whole game is about and why Congress is roadblocked:

    “Van Jones: John Lewis, Sheila Jackson Lee Opposed Criminal Justice Reform Because ‘They Just Didn’t Want Trump To Have A Victory’”

  3. So many heinous and diabolical high level crimes exist and the public is forced to pay for the investigation of bogus issues like “Russian Collusion”, “Whitewater”, “Hilary’s emails,”, Monica Lewinski, the oppression, torture, prosecution, and imprisonment of whistle blowers. Known war criminals nevertheless remain well-protected.

    1. “of bogus issues ”

      Samantha, Hillary’s emails were a national security issue and when subpoenaed she destroyed the evidence. Both are serious crimes and the latter was planned with intent where no excuse would be valid.

  4. Dear Becka Gee: Muler’s contribution to take down of Arthur Anderson led to thousands of innocent Anderson employees losing their pensions, retirement accounts, jobs etc.

    1. Gosh, just think if they take down a mob boss…the poor wee mobsters will be lost….. Maybe blame the criminals for their behavior in endangering their employees instead of blaming law enforcement for attempting to end an illegal situation that is hurting many others as well. What do you think about trafficking? Leave it alone or those people will have to resort to rape or picking up their own dirty socks????

  5. I don’t understand why the FBI (who are the hallmark at investigating) see a pack of liars whose indiscriminate (or not…) lies and slander leave a trail of damaged people and lives in their wake….and you see an innocent dear trying to cross the road??? What roads do you travel????

    1. Normal people that question their understanding would review what they believe they know to be true, reevaluate the facts that have led to that understanding, and then adjust their understanding to where it is no longer in question. Abnormal people begin with an understanding and look for facts to support it. That would be an example of confirmation bias and that is why you will never understand much of anything.

      1. Chief, the cards that have already been turned face up on the game table are not the only cards in play. In fact, new cards can still be drawn from the deck at any time. Until Mueller folds, his hand remains incompletely known.

        1. There is an increasing call for the OSC to put up or shut up; the investigators have been given a lot of leeway, time-wise and in other ways, to get to the point of the investigations.
          If someone is called and refuses to show his hole cards, all hell is apt to break loose.
          An indefinate delay in showing those hole cards is just about as bad.
          I know of 3 murders in the history ( 1950s-1990s) of a small city that arose out of conflict from poker games.
          I would advise L4B to never play poker. When called, I don’t think she could stop herself from playing games, maybe delivering a lecture instead of showing the hole cards.

          1. Trump can answer all of Mueller’s questions whenever Trump wants to get this thing over and done with. You don’t get to call the hand without matching the bet. If Trump wants to call Mueller’s hand, then Trump has to answer all of Mueller’s questions to match the bet.

            1. Mueller has not even graded or returned the homework that Trump handed in a couple of months ago.
              Because of that, and other factors, Trump isn’t likely to extend himself cooperating with the OSC.
              A suspect is under no obligation to communicate with his interrogators.
              That does not mean that a suspect therefore forfeits his right to a speedy trial.
              You have, and would continue to, claim that this drawn out soap opera is only because Trump won’t roll over to your satisfaction and in short order.
              Nice try, but it doesn’t work that way. In L4D’s bizzaro world everything would be just fine if every suspect told every prosecutor exactly what the prosecutor wanted to hear.
              Maybe after you’re finished assisting Mueller with your proprietary knowledge of incriminating evidence, you can go to work revising the entire criminal justice system to your satisfaction.
              In the meantime, keep making the same lame excuses for the OSC dragging out this farce.

              1. Both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton gave video-taped testimony to grand juries impanelled by either a special counsel or an independent counsel. Trump won’t do it because he can’t without taking the fifth.

                A president who demands that a crime should be proven before he’ll deign to answer questions about that crime is fine reason for scrapping the DoJ regulations that prohibit the indictment a sitting president.

                1. Clinton gave testimony because he knew that he was likely to subpoenaed if he refused to testify.
                  How did that work out for him?
                  It’s unknown if Mueller has plans to subpeona Trump; maybe he’ll make that decision sometime over the next 2 1/2 years.
                  If Mueller goes that route, then we’ll see what the courts say.

        2. He is a scurrilous dog. This political sabotage from day one is a shameful episode in American history

      2. Dangerous and ugly people use name calling and undermining tactics like slander and lies to make and score points to bolster their own insecure egos and resort to weird levels of analysis of other people from long distances with very little actual knowledge and fact. Just sayin ;P Plus, what is YOUR definition of normal? Because you are calling me abnormal for reviewing and gathering data to question an understanding??? You are a chaos demon who doesn’t really like normal, do you?

        1. Gee Becka wrote, “Dangerous and ugly people use name calling and undermining tactics like slander and lies ….”

          On Bill “the rapist” Clinton treatment of women:

          “Treatment of women involved in Lewinsky scandal ‘American tragedy’ of the 1990s”

          “We live in a very different era, especially in terms of the way we treat human beings,” Starr said. “The treatment that was afforded by the Clinton White House — and by the president himself — to women who had come into his orbit, into some kind of relationship with him … to demean and to challenge and to attack them in these very mean-spirited ways was a part of, I think, the American tragedy that we experienced in the 1990s.”

          https://www.yahoo.com/gma/kenneth-starr-treatment-women-involved-lewinsky-scandal-american-115212517–abc-news-topstories.html

        2. Plus, what is YOUR definition of normal?

          So Boo Hoo Becka, this is going to blow your mind. This may even seem a bit deja vu(ish), but here ya go:

          Normal people that question their understanding would review what they believe they know to be true, reevaluate the facts that have led to that understanding, and then adjust their understanding to where it is no longer in question.

          Now mind you that was my basic definition; here is a better definition that gets to my point:

          Critical thinking is that mode of thinking — about any subject, content, or problem — in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing it. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities, as well as a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.

          1. What has that lil sidecar got to do with the question of “Plus, what is YOUR definition of normal?”

            I didn’t ask how you thought normal people should or do think….but while we are on that subject, if you are critically thinking regarding a supposition or belief, are you careful to relate your outcomes to the initial input or do your horses just run willy nilly from every spook?

            ps: (I don’t think that all ‘normal’ people ‘think’ in the same cookie cutter fashion)….do you?

            1. You bring up a valid point. Normal is a poor choice of words. Instead I would use the term critical-thinkers. I especially like this part of the last sentence:

              as well as a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.

    2. i see a guy who did not violate any laws and is the victim of a witchhunt because he has a nixon tattoo and liked trump.

      i also see teeming hordes of criminals getting away with serious crime and the mass media instead focused not on that but on a whole lot of nonsense to “get trump” by any means they can.

      Americans have noticed this, and revile the legacy media now.

  6. So after 2 years we have one side alleging Trump is guilty of something because he won an unwinnable election and no innocent person would have a special prosecutor investigating him. On the other side we have Clinton who is alleged to be innocent because she lost an unloseable election and because the head of the FBI said she had no intent to violate the laws the evidence demonstrates she clearly violated.

    Clown show would be appropriate if it weren’t so damned serious.

  7. The prime objective of the FBI and the Mueller probe were to cover up the many crimes of Obama and Clinton by projecting their crimes on the opponents. That fact has been made clear in the destruction of evidence by both Mueller and the Comey/ Rosenstein gang of thugs.

    1. The indictment shows that Stone and Corsi were eager to take credit for the timing of the Wikileaks email release that followed within hours of the Access Hollywood tape release and that a senior adviser to the Trump campaign promptly gave them that credit via the text message, “Well done.” However, the critical items of evidence showing knowledge of the Russian dissemination of hacked emails through Wikileaks on the part of members of the Trump campaign are still being held back to protect ongoing investigations into both pending indictments and future superceding indictments.

      1. However, the critical items of evidence…are still being held back to protect ongoing investigations into both pending indictments and future superceding indictments.

        Thank you Johnny. Of course all of Mueller’s documents have been hermetically sealed, but that is no match for the the great seer, soothsayer, and sage, Carnac the Magnificent (aka, L4D/Annie/Inga/Diane). Or is it Punxsutawney Phil?

        1. I have no idea whether Mueller can prove that members of the Trump campaign knew that the GRU disseminated the hacked emails through Wikileaks. All I know is that evidence that would show such knowledge on the part of the Trump campaign would be the key to alleging Conspiracy to Defraud the United States against members of the Trump campaign. No psychic powers are required to perceive the significance of such prospective evidence. And rubbing lemon juice on Mueller’s redactions still does not work at all.

          1. All I know is that evidence that would show…

            Where have we seen this strategy before? That’s right; the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. Imagine a crime, supply the verdict, and then go begging for evidence. Brilliant!

            1. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States is not an imaginary crime. Seeing as how no members of the Trump campaign have been charged with ConFraudUS related to the Russian hack and leak operation, no verdict has yet been rendered either. Until Mueller unveils his redactions and his grand jury information, begging for evidence is the best that anybody who is not a grand juror or a member of the SCO can do.

              Even Trump, himself, is begging for a peek at Mueller’s evidence before Trump will agree to answer any more of Mueller’s questions. Imagine if anybody and everybody could demand discovery of grand jury information before they agreed to testify before a grand jury. Just because DoJ regulations claim that a sitting president cannot be indicted doesn’t mean that being sworn in as POTUS is a grant of immunity from investigation as well as prosecution while in office.

              If there were nothing but blank page behind Mueller’s redactions, then do you really think that Judge Ellis, Judge Sullivan, Judge Berman Jackson, Judge Howell and Judge Friedrich would just ignore the supposed blank page behind the redactions and allow Mueller to proceed apace with his investigation?

              1. “begging for evidence is the best that anyone who is not a grand juror or a member of the SCO can do”.
                That is not correct; L4B has proved that she is capable of inventing/ manufacturing evidence that does not exist.
                Given her capabilty and willingness to do that for the greater good of scoring points in these exchanges, there is no need for her to beg.

              2. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States is not an imaginary crime.

                I said imagine a crime, not imagine an imaginary crime. Of course you knew that. And as per your methods, you blatantly twist the true context to fit your false argument.

                Seeing as how no members of the Trump campaign have been charged with ConFraudUS related to the Russian hack and leak operation, no verdict has yet been rendered either.

                LOL! So you say there’s a chance. After 2 years of searching for evidence that the Left’s imagined crime ever happened, at least by President Trump and his entourage, you are doing your best Motel 6 impersonation and keeping the light on.

                begging for evidence is the best that anybody who is not a grand juror or a member of the SCO can do.

                Don’t beg, it’s unbecoming. You’ve been lying to yourself and others. If you and your ilk truly were concerned with conspiracies, frauds and crimes against the American people, you would be demanding justice for crimes that are supported with evidence, regardless of who committed them. Instead, you pathetically cling to hope for an outcome you imagined; like that little girl growing up, that when you finished pulling petals off the dandelion ending by saying he loves me not, you would turn to look at the yard full of weeds and with a smile say: I still have a chance.

                Yes, cute as a child, pathetic as an adult.

    1. Excerpted from the document linked above:

      Law enforcement believes that publicity resulting from disclosure of the Indictment and related materials on the public record prior to arrest will increase the risk of the defendant fleeing and destroying (or tampering with) evidence. It is therefore essential that any information concerning the pending indictment in this district be kept sealed prior to the defendant’s arrest.

      [end excerpt]

      Obviously, since Stone has been arrested, and since the Stone indictment is in the public record, now, the motion to seal the indictment of Stone is, itself, no longer under seal.

    2. Uh oh….here comes the lefty loon Shiite storm from Late4Yoga spinning wheels to defend the indefensible zealot Muler. Look for voluminous cutting and pasting, excessive puffery, inference, wishful thinking, circular logic, etc. Take your dramamine if you dare to try to follow her thought process.

      1. The motion to seal the Stone indictment was filed on Thursday January 24th, 2019. Stone was arrested on Friday January, 25th, 2019. The motion to seal was granted for one day so that ” . . . publicity resulting from disclosure of the Indictment and related materials on the public record prior to arrest [would not] increase the risk of the defendant fleeing and destroying (or tampering with) evidence.”

        1. Yes, unrecognizable Stone with expired passport was a flight risk. And despite two years of publically known Feds digital surveillance of Stone, a 17+ vehicle SWAT team operation was required to prevent Stone from burning his shoe box full of notes. #Late4YogaIsFullOfShiite.

          1. A squirrel doesn’t drop his acorns until the very last moment before the hounds run him up the tree trunk. A rat-stupper does not burn his shoe-boxes full of kompromat until the very last moment before the federal agents take him and his shoe-boxes full of kompromat into custody. If you think that Stone kept no shoe-boxes full of kompromat on his own fellow rat-stuppers, then you don’t really think at all.

            BTW, digital surveillance of Stone might give the Feds a rough idea of how many vehicles they’ll need to schlepp off all of those shoe-boxes full of acorns.

            1. Yeah that shoe box probably has valuable evil conspiracy notes scribbled on cocktail napkins, match books, back of envelopes, etc. Also, Feds might also be looking for a push pin yarn diagram with pictures on the wall of Stone’s man cave that would lay out case for Feds. The world is a safer place now that Stone has been arrested Gestapo-Style by Herr Muler.

              1. Don’t be so literal. A shoe box full of cocktail napkins could be a metaphor for tape recordings, for instance. Just to mention one metaphorical possibility.

                BTW, it’s possible that Stone and Corsi were given advance copies of the Podesta emails. Corsi is already on record complaining about Mueller’s ability to read emails that Corsi had already deleted from his computer. And that’s just one more metaphorical acorn in a shoe box that the federal hound-dogs may have seized.

                1. Yes, Stone probably tape recorded conversations using real tape cassettes. And let’s not forget sleepless nights when he might have scribbled out all his evil thoughts on yellow legal pads, And oh yeah the hard copies of Podesta emails. Hopefully the Feds checked for micro fiche taped to the bottom of Stones’ dogs’ bowls.

                  1. You seem to have overlooked Corsi’s complaint that Mueller can read the keystrokes of emails that Corsi had already deleted from his computer.

                    P. S. Andrew Miller already produced a substantial number of documents the SCO had subpoenaed, many of which were said by Miller, himself, to be related to his work as an accountant for Roger Stone. Once Miller loses his appeal to quash Mueller’s subpoena to testify before the grand jury, we should have somewhat clearer picture of Stone’s connections to various sources of dark money. Unless the shoe-boxes full of acorns seized from Stone reveal those connections before Miller loses his appeal.

                    1. I’m not sure what Corsi said about “Mueller can read the keystrokes of emails that Corsi had already deleted from his computer.” The statement doesn’t sound correct. The keystrokes can be recorded and deleting things from the hard drive doesn’t necessarily mean those things cannot be read in the future. That is why Hillary had an expert help her and bleach along with a hammer was used.

                    2. The person who deleted the emails was given immunity in exchange for testimony. That person did not testify to anything that incriminated Clinton. Mueller has not granted immunity to anyone in exchange for testimony.

                      https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-investigation.html

                      Sep 8, 2016 … WASHINGTON — A computer specialist who deleted Hillary Clinton’s emails despite orders from Congress to preserve them was given …

                    3. Excerpted from the article linked above:

                      According to the F.B.I. documents, Mr. Combetta told the bureau in February that he did not recall deleting the emails. But in May, he told a different story.

                      In the days after Mrs. Clinton’s staffers called Platte River Networks in March 2015, Mr. Combetta said realized that he had not followed a December 2014 order from Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers to have the emails deleted. Mr. Combetta then used a program called BleachBit to delete the messages, the bureau said.

                      In Mr. Combetta’s first interview with the F.B.I. in February, he said he did not recall seeing the preservation order from the Benghazi committee, which Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, Cheryl D. Mills, had sent to Platte River. But in his May interview, he said that at the time he made the deletions “he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton’s email data” on the Platte River server.

              2. I don’t question L4Dinner’s credentials involving the subject of her fellow squirrels and nuts.

                1. Gee. Thanks Ptom. However . . . and FTR . . . Witches lack the enzymes necessary to metabolize acorns. And that’s why the squirrels have to be tossed into the cauldron along with the nuts. And that, in turn, is why we Sisters need federal hound-dogs to catch the little rat-stupping squirrels for us.

                2. L4D has her pistons pumping at full throttle since her nutty purfessor David Benson has been blocked…. thankfully.

                  1. Dr. David B. Benson’s comments are being sent to Mr. Smith’s bit bucket blockade because Paul C. Schulte is dead and because Mr. Smith is a corrupt referee.

                  2. It’s a bad idea for her to pump her pistons and race the engine with a cracked block.

                    1. It’s official. Ptom Gnash has mastered the art of catechresis (look it up). According to Gnash, L4D is, by turns, a witch and a squirrel and an engine block with an eerie resemblance to Edith Bunker.

                      Ptom is spiraling out of control like a . . . Sharknado from Kansas.

      1. Remember that the GRU hacked the DNC data analytics from the AWS cloud storage on, IIRC, September 24th, 2016. Stone had previously told Guccifer 2.0 [a.k.a. the GRU] that the DNC data analytics that they had previewed to Stone in August of 2016 were “pretty standard.” If Stone knew that Guccifer 2.0 was the GRU, and if Mueller seized any communication evidence in the raid on Stone that shows what kind of DNC data analytics Stone was looking for from Guccifer 2.0 [a.k.a. the GRU]. then Turley might get his public wish for Mueller to bag a big-game trophy kill for conspiracy to hack.

          1. OFCOLA, Kurtz. Even Reddit and Binney and Drake have given up the ghost on The Forensicator’s fabricated meta-data nicompoopery:

            https://www.reddit.com/r/ActiveMeasures/comments/94vl76/breaking_the_vips_report_that_attributed_the_dnc/

            The VIPS report about how the DNC hack was actually a “leak” has now been completely discredited, now that it’s been revealed it … On inspecting the full data analysis, Binney agreed: “It’s clear G2 is messing with the data.”

            1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

              A month after visiting CIA headquarters, Binney came to Britain. After re-examining the data in Guccifer 2.0 files thoroughly with the author of this article, Binney changed his mind. He said there was “no evidence to prove where the download/copy was done”. The Guccifer 2.0 files analysed by Leonard’s g-2.space were “manipulated”, he said, and a “fabrication”.

              [end excerpt]

              Guess who The Forensicator really is? That’s right. The GRU. Binney, McGovern and Lawrence all got punked by Russian intelligence. The Nation got punked by Binney, McGovern and Lawrence. Kurtz got punked by The Nation. Now go read the linked article at Reddit. Or ask Oky1 to bring you up to speed.

      1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

        A spokesperson for the special counsel’s office declined to comment on the investigation or the uptick in sealed indictments.

        Sealed indictments are often used in cases where a defendant is overseas and U.S. prosecutors don’t want to tip off their target before they have a chance to make an arrest. But they can also be used to pressure someone to flip on a more important target, according to Kendall Coffey, who served as U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida in the mid-1990s, “especially if there was someone who presented the hope of providing proactive assistance – undertaking conversations, especially recorded conversations with other suspects in the investigation.”

        Repeated for emphasis: “especially if there was someone who presented the hope of providing proactive assistance – undertaking conversations, especially recorded conversations with other suspects in the investigation.”

        1. Did you know that George Papadopoulos offered to record telephone conversations with various Russians that George knew as well as with other members of the Trump campaign? It was one of the reasons that Papadopoulos was sentenced only to 14 days in jail. Curious. No?

          1. Diane, Let us hear this story with recorded facts rather than the ravings of a mad woman. Please leave out ‘anonymous persons have said that…’.

    3. When Stone’s case was assigned to Judge Amy Berman Jackson, the docket listed as related case involving 18 cr 215–which just so happens to be the hacking indictment against the !2 GRU officers. One of the rules for listing related cases involves pending investigations. But another rule for listing related case involves superceding indictments. And still another rule involves cases linked by a common wiretap.

      So much for the nothing-burger theory of the Stone indictment.

    1. Of course it’s peachy. Hillary got off scot free and she lied. Democrats said who cares about Bill lying about his affair with Monica, what’s the big deal?

      The outrage rings false.

      1. Oh, and never mind the crickets when Clapper gave his least untrue statement.

        1. You know damned well that Anonymous (original anonymous) wanted Clapper to be charged with lying to Congress just as much as Turley did.

          1. Democrats in general.

            I should have been more clear that I was responding to the idea of Democrats in general. Democrats in general are hypocrites when it comes to calling out and prosecuting liars.

            I don’t keep track of ‘who’ Anonymous is or exactly what Anonymous says since there have been several incarnations over the years by different people. Elaine would have wanted Clapper prosecuted for perjury, if that is who this Anonymous is.

            I am an Independent disgusted with the overwhelming majority of both parties. The idealogues have taken over and the blind partisanship is tiresome. No giving anyone the benefit of the doubt and no meeting anyone halfway. Heaven forbid anyone try to consider things fairly. I am quite tempted by the idea of Schultz running for President. If he won, it’d be the Democrats’ and Republicans’ just desserts.

            1. Yes. In this particular case, the Anonymous at issue was the commenter whom Nick Spinelli occasionally accused of being Elaine. I call her original anonymous, now. Both her style and the content of her comments are readily identifiable. Ditto for Tom Nash and a few others who occasionally forget to type the name that their mothers gave them.

    2. Anonymous asked, “What has happened to Turley now lying is peachy! Turley justifies “it’s okay if you are Republican.”

      In lieu of Dr, David B. Benson, who evidently remains in Mr. Smith’s penalty box, I must observe that lying is not “impeachy” if you are Republican.

      1. Jill Stein is a green and she supposedly colluded with the Russians too in the fairyland that the Hillary refuseniks inhabit

        1. You have to get yourself elected in order to become “impeachy” even if you’re not a Republican.

  8. Bob Muler is modern day Eliot Ness – PR/power whore with no substantive achievement resulting from his crusade/charade.

      1. Becka, just because a person behaved admirably in the earlier parts of his life doesn’t mean he can’t turn and become a skunk. We have seen that happen often to people on either side of the aisle and even to people that aren’t political. This is something you should recognize. People can change for the better or for the worse. Mueller’s record in the military seems far better then his record later in his life.

        1. I do recognize it. I also recognize that Mr. Mueller has certainly not turned and he is hardly a skunk. The nature of his work right now is partially forensic….he is operating around the past to bring light to the future. Is there a reason that you feel the need to judge something before it is complete? Let me introduce you to

          1. Becka if you read what I wrote more carefully you will discover that I didn’t call Mueller a skunk rather I generalized a statement using a generic person so that you could see how wrong your prior statement was.

            I withhold final judgement on Mueller. However, I have to observe who he hired for his investigative team including those people that were dismissed and whose text messages disappeared. I also have to think about his prior involvement with the FBI and how that involvement along with present knowledge conflicts with the idea that Mueller is doing a non-conflicted investigation in an attempt to find the truth and protect the nation. Much of what Mueller has done appears to be an effort to protect specific people and perhaps innappropriate actions by the FBI under the Obama administration. At the same time it appears his goal is to aid others in destroying the Trump administration. That is not how a good American acts. I care for the truth not the destruction of either Trump, Hillary or Obama. I care for a justice department that is fair to all and is not weaponized and a department that admits when mistakes have been made instead of hiding them behind immunity and passing the blame onto others.

            No one that looks at what has been happening in a fair manner can conclude that what has occurred is impartial even if they hate Trump.

      1. That’s Kurtz, above. Kurtz is onboard with Putin’s long-range plan thoroughly to discredit US sanctions against Russia by showing just how easily those sanctions furnished the opportunity for rent-seeking expropriation to be practiced by a selectively ignorant but supremely arrogant American real-estate developer running for President of the United States.

        Selective ignorance? Yes. Trump is not ignorant about US tax laws. Trump is not ignorant about US bankruptcy laws. And yet, Trump is going to need everybody to believe that Trump is somehow ignorant of US sanctions laws against Russia. Maybe he is. Maybe he isn’t. But a person who negotiates a $300 Million real-estate deal with sanctioned Russian banks whilst running for President of the United States had damned well better have been completely and totally ignorant of US sanctions laws before he became POTUS.

  9. I wonder if Mueller is just old and has a touch of senility and forgot what his investigation is supposed to be about? Russia,Russia,Russia.

  10. Wildly out of synch jibes perfectly with their anti-wall pro drug use attitude. but it’s a too ofen dead giveaway to one of the more unacceptable parts of the left’s platform.

    1. It is all lefty loon anti-Trump default setting: resist no matter how reasonable/logical.

    1. Watch the 6/27 episode of Life, Liberty and Levin and how Mueller was involved with the Enron prosecution and how he took down Arthur Anderson. He did the same thing with process crimes. It’s really frightening how much power he has to destroy people.

        1. Becka, how can it be a blessing when Mueller can’t separate the crooks from the rest of the crowd?

            1. Becka, I will ask the question again: “…how can it be a blessing when Mueller can’t separate the crooks from the rest of the crowd?”

                1. I guess Becka you aren’t able to provide an answer so you are forced to rely on the work product of someone else without any discussion of what the video strip means to you and this discussion.

                  1. Do your own homework. My answers are perfect for that question. Here’s one for you; Why do you think Mr. Mueller can’t tell a crook from the rest of the crowd? Can you cite examples of ‘non-crooks’? Apply your understanding to the following list:
                    Paul Manafort , Rick Gates , Edward Snowden , Manuel Noriega, John Gotti ,Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI, Ray Rice , George Papadoupolos , Michael Cohen , Alfred Zehe , W. Samuel Patten , Alex van der Zwaan , Richard Pinedo , Konstantin Kilimnik , ‘Russia’ , Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi…..

                    Have a Nice Smear-Free Day! 🙂

                    1. “Do your own homework.”

                      Becka, you want me to answer the question for you. That demonstrates a person that doesn’t know her own mind.

                      “Why do you think Mr. Mueller can’t tell a crook from the rest of the crowd?”

                      The Russia inquiry involves a lot of people at the FBI and in the Democratic Party that have not been investigated which is what the Special Prosecuter is supposed to to. Additionally over and over again others have mentioned the different investigations that Mueller flubbed. That he has arrests under his belt after all these years (not necessarily by him) is not disputed. You have to look at those convictions that were overturned along with the innocent lives that were overturned by Mueller and there were many. These lives have been discussed over and over again on this blog so there is no need to repeat them. I will start your search off with one name, Richard Jewell and one company Arthur Anderson. I will also point you to the ties Muellers lead investigator Weissman has with the Clintons who were involved with the Steele Dossier.

                      If you wish to close your eyes do so, but don’t expect others to remain quiet when you write nonsense.

Comments are closed.