What Roger Stone’s Latest Lies Tell Us about Mueller’s Investigation into Him

As I disclosed last month, I provided information to the FBI on issues related to the Mueller investigation, so I’m going to include disclosure statements on Mueller investigation posts from here on out. I will include the disclosure whether or not the stuff I shared with the FBI pertains to the subject of the post. 

After a puff piece in the NYT over the weekend, Roger Stone took to the Daily Caller to attack Mueller’s case against him. As bad as the Daily Caller is, it actually ends up being far more informative than the NYT because Stone is so bad at telling lies they’re informative for what they mirror.

So assuming, for the moment, that Stone’s piece reflects some kind of half-accurate reflection of what witnesses have said they were questioned about him, here’s what we learn.

Mueller is examining conduct that goes back 10 years

Obviously, statutes of limitation have probably tolled on any crimes Stone committed more than five years ago, but this suggests witnesses are being asked about conduct that goes back further, ten years.

Mueller is running a criminally abusive, constitutionally -unaccountable, professionally and politically incestuous conspiracy of ethically conflicted cronies colluding to violate my Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights and those of almost everyone who had any sort of political or personal association with me in the last 10 years.

Given the involvement of Peter Jensen and Kristin Davis in Stone’s recent rat-fucking, perhaps as an explanation of more recent rat-fucking we’ll finally get an accounting of Stone’s role in taking out Eliot Spitzer ten years ago. (h/t Andrew Prokop for Jensen tie to Spitzer op)

Mueller is considering charging Stone with ConFraudUs

I assume this reference to ConFraudUs comes from a friendly witness passing on what a subpoena described were the crimes being investigated.

Mueller and his hit-men seek to frame some ludicrous charge of “defrauding the United States.”

This is, of course, based on a false and unproven assumption that Assange is a Russian agent and Wikileaks is a Russian front — neither of which has been proven in a court of law. Interestingly Assange himself has said, “Roger Stone has never said or tweeted anything we at Wikileaks had not already said publicly.”

As described, it looks like how I envisioned Stone might be charged with ConFraudUs back in June.

As Mueller’s team has itself pointed out, for heavily regulated areas like elections, ConFraudUs indictments don’t need to prove intent for the underlying crimes. They just need to prove,

(1) two or more persons formed an agreement to defraud the United States;

(2) [each] defendant knowingly participated in the conspiracy with the intent to defraud the United States; and

(3) at least one overt act was committed in furtherance of the common scheme.

Let’s see how evidence Mueller has recently shown might apply in the case of Roger Stone, Trump’s lifelong political advisor.


Stone repeatedly entertained offers from foreigners illegally offering dirt that would benefit the Trump campaign — Greenberg, Guccifer 2.0, possibly Peter Smith’s Dark Web hackers. He may even have exhibited a belief that Australian Julian Assange had and could release the latter dirt, possibly with the knowledge they came from Russians.

So we’ve got Stone meeting with other people, repeatedly agreeing to bypass US election law to obtain a benefit for Trump, evidence (notwithstanding Stone’s post-hoc attempts to deny a Russian connection with Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks) that Stone had the intent of obtaining that benefit, and tons of overt acts committed in furtherance of the scheme.

Stone appears to address just one conspiracy with a foreigner — Julian Assange — to obtain something of value, by insisting (though less strongly than he has in the past!) that Assange is not a Russian asset. Except, foreign is foreign, whether Australian or Russian, so making a weak case that Assange is not Russian won’t get you off on ConFraudUs.

Moreover, now that I’ve reviewed some dodginess about Stone’s PACs, I suspect there may be two levels of ConFraudUs, one pertaining to depriving the US government from excluding foreign influence on the election, and the other pertaining to depriving the US government of the ability to track how political activities are being funded.

That is, Mueller’s reported focus on Stone’s finances may well pertain to a second ConFraudUs prong, one based on campaign finance violations.

Stone thinks Mueller wants him to flip, rather than to punish him for the case in chief

In spite of the abundant evidence that Stone is a key target of this investigation, Stone appears to believe that Mueller only wants to charge him to get him to flip on Trump.

Mueller’s hit team is poking into every aspect of my personal, private, family, social, business and political life — presumably to conjure up some bogus charge or charges to use to pressure me to plead guilty to their Wikileaks fantasy and testify against Donald Trump who I have known intimately for almost 40 years.

Side note: I appreciate the way Stone — an unabashed swinger — worked that word “intimately” into his description of his relationship with Trump.

Which is one of the reasons I’m so interested in how he describes hiring a new lawyer, a nationally known one who used to work for Trump.

I have been ably served by two fine lawyers Grant Smith and Rob Buschel who won dismissal of a harassment lawsuit based on the same Wikileaks/Russian conspiracy theory by an Obama directed legal foundation in D.C. last month. No evidence to support this false narrative was produced in court other than a slew of fake news clippings from lefty media sites.

I have recently reached agreement to retain a highly respected and nationally known attorney who has represented Donald Trump to join my legal team and lead my defense.

Possibly this is just a hint that some operative like Victoria Toensing or Joseph DiGenova is going to take on Stone’s propaganda case. Possibly it reflects a recognition from Trump that Stone now presents as big a risk to him as Manafort does. Whichever it is, I look forward to learning how serious a lawyer Stone has and whether — Stone claims reports that he has $20 million are false, but if he has been engaging in epic campaign finance violations, who knows? — Trump is paying for his defense going forward.

Stone doesn’t understand how stored communications work

As I pointed out the last time Stone claimed he was targeted by a FISA order, what likely happened instead is Mueller obtained the contents of his phone along with four or nine others in a probable cause warrant on March 9. But that doesn’t stop Stone from claiming he was targeted under FISA again, explaining that his emails, text messages, and (this is less credible) phone calls have been seized going back to 2016.

Even more chilling is the fact that I have learned that — in this effort to destroy me — the government began reading my e-mails and text messages and monitoring my phone calls as early as 2016.

I believe that I, like Carter Page and Paul Manafort, was subject to an illegal FISA warrant in 2016, as the New York Times reported on January 20, 2017. The New York Times published this claim in a page-one story on the same day as President Trump’s inauguration ceremony.

A whistleblower has told my lawyers where my name and the fact that application had been made for a FISA warrant on me was redacted from the stunning Carter Page FISA warrant application released by the FBI last week with 300 of 400 pages blacked out.

What Stone’s dumbass “whistleblower” was pointing to instead was a passage describing the other people being investigated in October 2016, when Page was first targeted. But being investigated is not the same as being targeted under FISA, and what Stone is really trying to obscure here is that Mueller (probably) already showed a judge, back in March, he had probable cause that Rog committed some crimes back in 2016.

Another witness Stone would like to discredit by calling an informant

Back in June, Stone tried to spin the fact that he willingly accepted a meeting with yet another Russian offering dirt on Hillary by noting (correctly, it appears) that the Russian had served as a source for the FBI on Russian organized crime before — just like Felix Sater, whom the Trump folks are all still peachy with. In spite of the fact that it was so obviously bunk the last time, he’s trying again, hinting at a second informant working against him.

We also now know that at least one FBI informant in the United States on an informant’s visa approached me in May 2016 in an effort to entrap me and compromise Donald Trump. I declined his proposal to “buy dirt on Hillary.” There is now substantial evidence that a second FBI informant may have infiltrated my political operations in 2016. Stand by.

Who knows whether this is another person — like the Russian dealing dirt on Hillary, “Henry Greenberg,” is just someone who has worked his way out of legal trouble by serving as an informant — or whether there’s some other reason Stone is calling him or her an informant. Most likely, Stone is trying to suggest a perfectly ordinary witness cooperating with the government against him is an informant, to inflame his people. Possibly, this is prepping a claim that Randy Credico set up Roger.

Jeannie Rhee is leading the questioning of Stone witnesses

In tandem with Trump’s attacks on Mueller prosecutors with Hillary ties, Stone states that Jeannie Rhee led the questioning of his witnesses, and claims it’s a conflict.

Incredibly, leading the questioning of witnesses before the Grand Jury about me is Jeannie Rhee, who in private practice represented the Clinton foundation in the Hillary e-mail scandal that is front and center in the special prosecutor’s investigation of me! Can you say conflict of interest?

Of course, he gets the attack wrong: Rhee represented the Foundation, not Hillary’s email defense, and she did so against a nutbag Republican challenge, not with DOJ.

But in telling us that Rhee is leading this inquiry, Stone is (helpfully) telling us that a person who has led the Russian side of the inquiry is leading the inquiry into … oh my! Roger Stone!

Even with all his prevarications, it turns out, a Stone column might be more informative than a NYT puff piece!

62 replies
  1. K-JAM says:

    Agreed re: the Spitzer take-down. I have strong belief that his hands are all over Schneiderman (although he clearly WAS A MONSTER) Stone has spent his life collecting dirty details for Trump so, if things get hot- he can pull the lever. Conjecture or not, I think Stone is behind Sen. Franken and all of the hourly deluge early this year on the Men-behaving-criminally-or-badly. Notice it all abruptly stopped? There was a vested interest in targeting Schneiderman and Franken- the rest of starts, etc was just to give appearance of it not being an obvious operation.

    I hope Mueller has already subpoenaed Leeann Tweeden.

    Trump, Stone and Manafort will ultimately be brought down by the decades of criminal conduct. The stupidest thing Trump could have done was run for office.

    No one @me. This, in no way is meant as dismissive to #MeToo or #TimesUp. These are entirely separate matters.

    • Kevin Finnerty says:

      My fear remains that there will be a “surprise” regarding Cuomo in the late fall (assuming he wins the primary). Not necessarily a metoo allegation, but perhaps something related to corruption, or just general ratfucking to depress enthusiasm among the left similar to how Sanders supporters were targeted in 2016.

      Given that so many of the Trump administration are exposed to NY state crimes, picking up the governorship would be a powerful insurance policy.

    • Allison Holland says:

      franken was definetly run out of office over absolutely nothing. he was causing a lot of harm to republicans on the judiciary committee and especially so against the attorney general sessions. i hated that he gave up but i suppose he thought it was his patriotic duty.  if stone was behind that then his treason goes deeper than i ever imagined. and im bipolar.

  2. Bob Conyers says:

    I’m not sure I see in your parts (1) (2) and (3) where the foreign connection is spelled out. Can ConFraudUS charges be brought if just Americans are involved?

    • pseudonymous in nc says:

      Sure. The way Mueller has been using it, as EW noted in her original ConFraudUS post, is in relation to areas specifically under federal authority where the oversight and enforcement powers have been eroded, and while they’ve been related to foreign influence up to now, it would also encompass domestic ratfucking funded by money sluiced from PAC to law firm to 527 to PAC. Money is fungible.

      We’re not going to know whether Jeannie Rhee’s team was in charge of the GRUccifer 2.0 indictment, but it would be an obvious extension to look at Stone’s interactions, and any previous shit would be a long-delayed reckoning.

      • Bob Conyers says:

        Thanks to you and jf-fi for clarifying. So it’s not that the conspiracy law requires a foreign component, it’s just that Mueller is focusing on a conspiracy where the core violations are of laws against foreign actions.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          It’s the objective of the conspiracy, not the nationality of the conspirators that’s at issue.

  3. jf-fl says:

    >Can ConFraudUS charges be brought if just Americans are involved?

    Yes they can… one of the famous ‘conspiracy to defraud US’ cases was people sending out materials suggesting to other citizens to not pay income taxes. Still need least two people to charge a conspiracy though.

    Potentially since we believe the individual known as guicifer (sic) has already been indicted with a bunch of other russians- stone could be viewed as simply joining that already existing conspiracy and furthering it (which counts same as if he was there from beginning).

    Since we know stone was communicating with guiciffer directly (stone was unnamed in this indictment), it’s a fair assumption this is more than enough to add him (though mueller almost certainly knows much more than what is public).

    Probably EW has more thoughts on this. This is consensus from lawyers I follow on twitter tho.

  4. Yette says:

    I love the duplicity of these Trump acolytes, people that disclose about Trump are “leakers” and need to be prosecuted, those that help Roger Stone are “whistle blowers”.

  5. Manqueman says:

    Just a reminder to all:

    The Times is now an all-in Republican propaganda sheet. It’s not just a complicit group of water carriers in the DC bureau, it’s throughout the paper. See, their coverage of Dems including tarring some as socialists for being New Deal Dems. Too, per the Times, there’s no alternative to lawless, rapacious capitalism: No limits needed.

    Bonus: Contrary to last week’s reportage, the Times’ Q2 numbers were awful. And the Trump bump subscriber growth died awhile ago. Or maybe those who signed up expecting worthwhile reportage realized they were wrong. (Actually, the Q2 reportage was, mmm, flawed; the Times’ press release made things clear.)

  6. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Stone appears to believe that Mueller only wants to charge him to get him to flip on Trump.

    Stone’s approach would maximize Trump’s interest in Stone’s case.  It also appeals to the concerns voiced by Ellis in the EDVA trial of Manafort – that the government was prosecuting Manafort for being rich, working for other rich people, and to get at another rich guy, Trump.  Stone would be betting other judges share Ellis’s concern.

    It wouldn’t mean that Stone believes it or that it’s true, just that it’s useful.  He is one of the most experienced rat-fuckers alive today.


  7. earlofhuntingdon says:

    I’m delighted Mueller is reaching back ten years or more.  Many of the relationships here go back even farther: Trump, Stone, Manafort, for example.

    Earlier crimes, past their statutes of limitation, could not be prosecuted, but they could generate useful leads that might help unravel later crimes.  They might suggest how and why later crimes were committed and by whom.  Useful relationships and techniques would be replicated.

    A good bag man, money launderer, bent tax adviser, accountant or banker, a good ruse or exculpatory argument.  All could be used again without having to reinvent and test the resource. Patterns are important sources of information and confirmation.

    • Bob Conyers says:

      Is the longer look into the past an indication that Mueller thinks there’s a conspiracy (or other crime) which continues so that the statute of limitations hasn’t switched off the lights yet? Trump’s birtherism started over seven years ago, and it seems at least feasible that Russian hanky panky goes back at least that far, and Stone’s history makes it seem possible that he’d be a guy who would be there at the birth of a conspiracy.

      I realize the public facts are way too few to support that guess — is there anything we know that would make to rule it out right now?

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Seems without doubt that Mueller thinks any conspiracy might have continued for some time, well within the statute of limitations.  He would consider it and investigate it, and may feel he has sufficient proof of it/them.

    • pseudonymous in nc says:

      If the intent is to circumvent the legally-prescribed powers of federal authorities, then failure to report when reporting is mandated goes some way towards establishing intent.

  8. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Paulie’s attorneys rest their case without calling witnesses.  I think bmaz predicted that possibility.  Can’t wait for the closing arguments and judge’s instructions.

    • Kick the darkness says:

      I think bmaz predicted that possibility.

      Yes they did! Pretty good.  What I gathered from a previous post was that it might be a dicey effort to plant the idea with the jury that, as I understood it, “the case against our client was so weak we don’t even need to fight it”.  It seems hard for me to believe that will fly, but who knows.  Or could it also be some kind SOS signal to Trump -“we’re counting on you”?  Don’t know, but on the surface it does seem funny for somebody to be footing what must be a large legal bill for what would appear to be a minimalist defense.

  9. earlofhuntingdon says:

    MSM commentators, mostly former DoJ, not FBI, repeating that it was not a bad decision to fire Strzok.  They had to do what’s best for the FBI, not Strzok, regardless of how painful, etc.

    That ignores that Wray and Bowdich overruled the OPR recommendation to suspend Strzok for 60 days and to demote him.  The top two dogs overruled their professional and HR managers “to do what’s best for the FBI.”  That suggests that presidential politics more than management issues influenced their decision.

    • bmaz says:

      Yeah. Also blows up Wray’s promise that he would follow the advice of the process and professionals. So, it is quite clearly a decision based on political pressure from the WH and its stooges in Congress.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Another day, another batch of manufactured consent.

      Separately, it does not appear that Paulie’s lawyers’ problem is that they have no defense witnesses.  More likely, they have none whose story would help Paulie or stand up to cross-examination.

      • bmaz says:

        As I have said repeatedly, can’t put Manafort on the stand, and if you put up banking and/or tax experts, they will get shredded. There is just nothing they had that was potentially net favorable.

    • Desider says:

      Ratf*ckers rool, for the moment (news cycle), it appears. Somehow I doubt the testimony of all these FBI heads will be discredited due to dodgy IG and HR actions. But if Trump gets the right judge (not jury) and his Darkness at Nunes house support holds firm, well, that’s where he’s headed – more pixie dust tossed in eyes as he tries another getaway.

  10. Peterr says:

    Whichever it is, I look forward to learning how serious a lawyer Stone has and whether — Stone claims reports that he has $20 million are false, but if he has been engaging in epic campaign finance violations, who knows? — Trump is paying for his defense going forward.

    Trump would not be the only possible funder here. Anyone who provided Stone with the donations as a way of skirting campaign finance laws would also have an interest in keeping those donations out of public view, now exponentially increased because of the steps they took to skirt the law. The threat of Stone flipping on them — or even just Stone not fighting tooth-and-nail to keep their names secret — is not something they’d like to contemplate. Indeed, it might make them rather happy to contribute to Stone’s defense fund.

    Once you do business with someone like Stone, he owns you.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Like Paulie, Stone would have collected lots of dirt on lots of dirty people over the past several decades.  Lots of them might lend a hand if it keeps him quiet.  Many would probably like to curry favor with the Don, too.

  11. Jon b says:

    Is the Manhattan madam grand jury testimony an inquiry into how ratfckers conduct their rat business ie how Spitzer was brought down.? Or something specific to his Assange conversations?

    • pseudonymous in nc says:

      Not something we’ll know unless / until the GJ returns indictments. But if you’re investigating the ringmaster, you talk to the clowns.

    • emptywheel says:

      Probably both. Certainly she described what she claimed to be knowledge of both last night on MSNBC, even if she thought what she knew to be exonerating.

  12. Frank Probst says:

    Prosecution rests in Manafort trial.  What I was most interested in was what Judge Ellis would do with the motion to dismiss.  I thought dismissal of all counts was exceedingly unlikely, but Ellis has been pretty engaged in the trial and highly critical of the prosecution (although many have noted that this is typical of him), so I was wondering if he might throw out a few of the counts just for show.  He didn’t.  The defense resting without calling a single witness isn’t terribly surprising, but I’m curious as to how they’re going to handle closing arguments.  They didn’t present any evidence that any of the documents were fake, so I’m wondering how far Ellis will let them go with anything like “His e-mail was hacked.” or “He didn’t actually sign that document.”  This is where, as a juror, I have trouble with the instruction that you can’t draw any inferences from a defendant’s decision not to testify.  If the defendant doesn’t testify, and there are no witnesses for the defense to dispute the authenticity of the documents presented by the prosecution, then there’s no evidence that he didn’t send the e-mails or sign the documents, right?

    • pseudonymous in nc says:

      @Popehat made the opposite argument: presenting a defence can sometimes give the jury the impression that the defendant has a burden of proof.

      I assume that Downing et al. will close with “well, Gates admitted tampering with documents and forging Paulie’s signature, how can you be certain that doesn’t apply to all the other stuff?” and it’ll be up to the prosecution to show the holes in that argument.

      The materiality aspect of the TFSB charges might end up in appeal — if Calk was going to make the loan no matter what, does that count as bank fraud, or just as conspiracy to commit, or both?

    • Peterr says:

      and there are no witnesses for the defense to dispute the authenticity of the documents presented by the prosecution

      That’s the key part of your last sentence.

      The problem for Manafort with the jury would not be that Manafort didn’t testify, but that the defense could not (IMO) refute the documentary evidence in any meaningful way.

      Their choice was to simply rest, to set the stage for closing argument that says “the government failed to prove its case.” The defense does not have to convince the jury of some alternative explanation for what the prosecution alleges. All they have to do is convince the jury that what the prosecution alleged in the charges was not supported by the evidence presented.

      Of course, in some cases, that “all they have to do” is harder than in others.

      In this case, with the testimony about paying vendors directly from foreign accounts and the paper trail of emails and documents showing how these accounts were and were not acknowledged to different folks, as well as how Manafort’s finances were misrepresented in various ways to different prying eyes, I’d say it will be very very hard for the defense to succeed in that task.

    • SpaceLifeForm says:

      Defense *only* asked for 4 of 32 counts to be dropped.

      Seems to be a lot of concern about Calk.

      Not about their ‘client’.

      Maybe that is because their client is not really Manafort.

      • bmaz says:

        Bullshit. You make your arguments where you have cognizable ones, and hope that, if granted, the jury thinks the whole case is bad because certain counts disappeared. Seriously, you ought to refrain from opinions on legal things, you have no clue in the world what you are talking about.

        • Frank Probst says:

          Is the motion to dismiss–and the judge’s response–done in the presence of the jury, or are they out of the room when this happens?  I honestly don’t see any reason to keep them out of the courtroom for it.  If you’ve watched any American legal TV drama, you know that there’s always a motion to dismiss.  If all of the charges are still there when the case goes to the defense, you know that motion has failed for all of the charges.

        • bmaz says:

          It is actually a motion for directed verdict, depending on the local vernacular. And, no, that is absolutely done outside of the presence of the jury. And for good reason.

          And, no, the jury does not know squat about that, because they, rightly, do not hear about it at all.

  13. RWood says:

    Has Mueller ever hinted at anything that would tie Pence up in this mess?

    Odd thought to go with that: If you were Paul Ryan, would you be quietly looking for a connection between Pence and Trumps ConFraudUS team?

  14. Frank Probst says:

    Replying to RWood, above:

    It depends on how you define “anything that would tie Pence up in this mess”. Remember, the reason Trump picked Pence to be his running mate was because Paul Manafort convinced him to. I think Pence has done a great job at seeming not to have any part of anything related to Russia. Hell, he’s seems like he’s not part of anything related to anything. He’s like the anti-Jared. Responsible for nothing. But I always come back to the fact that he was Paul Manafort’s choice, and it’s hard for me to imagine Manafort to pick someone who he knew wasn’t dirty.

  15. RWood says:

    @Frank Probst

    That was my thought as well. With Omarosa in the news lately I couldn’t help but remember her quote about Pence:

    “As bad as y’all think Trump is, you should be worried about Pence,” she told her housemates on CBS’ Big Brother: Celebrity Edition. “Everybody that’s wishing for impeachment might want to reconsider their life. We would be begging for days of Trump if Pence became president, that’s all I’m saying. He’s extreme.”

    Laughing, the minister’s wife added, “I’m Christian, I love Jesus, but he thinks Jesus tells him to say things. I’m like, ‘Jesus didn’t say that.’ ”

    If Mueller can link Pence to this Drumpster fire, will he be facing impeachment/charges as well?

    President Paul Ryan. Say that out loud without flinching.

  16. Trip says:

    Craig Unger was featured on MSNBC about his book on Trump. If he followed Trump’s many years long money trail, I’m sure Mueller’s team has too. If not, I suppose they should buy this book, it looks interesting. (I will wait until it hits the library). He traces the connections (to Russian mafia) all the way back to Trump’s start…in the 70s. I had thought the approach was later, especially after money troubles.

    House of Trump, House of Putin
    The Untold Story of Donald Trump and the Russian Mafia

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      I’m pretty sure Mueller’s team knows at least as much as is in Unger’s excellent book.  But everybody else should read it.  He and David Cay Johnston have done remarkable work for decades, a good chunk of it exposing Trump’s lies and shady dealings.

      Trump has done business with criminals his entire life.  He sought advice for years from a brilliant, if infamous lawyer and counselor to mob bosses and other celebrities, who traded in and survived on knowing more dirt than the Catholic Church.  He’s wanted every other lawyer he’s used to be Roy Cohn’s clone. 

      Trump is a guy who thinks the smartest thing he can do is lie, cheat and steal, and get away with it. Not that that separates him from many politicians, Trump is just cruder and more blatant in its practice. 

      Trump has become the Republican Party and the party has become him.  They rise and fall together.  Good news is that a receding tide lowers all ships, including the SS Trump.

  17. Joshua88 says:


    Please explain why Sen Franken was such a danger to Trump.
    Other than his talent on the Judiciary Comm, I can’t stretch my imagination further.

    Thank you.

    • Trip says:

      He was highly effective on the judiciary committee; sharp as a tack and relentless in pursuit, unlike many others. The soundbites from his questioning were devastating to the Trump administration, especially when these bits filtered down to local news, where the average joe caught it after work. He was a formidable adversary.

      • RWood says:

        Agree there.

        With his comedic background Franken knew how to work the room/camera. It wasn’t so much what he said as much as it was the delivery. He produced soundbites that resonated.

        As dumb as Drump may be he understood that and recognized it as a problem that needed to be dealt with.

  18. orionATL says:

    O. T.  *****


    major society changing legislation proposed by the only combination of brain, heart, and soul in the national democratic party:


    this legislation must and will be enacted eventually. when it is, this society will have changed direction onto a kinder, wiser path, and begun to renew its sense of “all caring for all” that has been largely missing in national legislation for decades.

Comments are closed.