A New Form of Victim Blaming: Demanding that Rat-Fucker Roger Stone Get to Learn the Defensive Measures DNC Implemented in 2016

Roger Stone’s ongoing effort to float hoaxes rather than mount a credible defense has gotten the left and right denialists into a tizzy about CrowdStrike again. But this time it’s not just an effort to raise doubts about whether Russia hacked the DNC, but an effort to suggest that Democrats can only obtain law enforcement help in response to being hacked if they’re willing to share their own network defenses with the FBI, and do so while their candidate is under active investigation by the FBI.

As I noted back in May, Stone demanded unredacted CrowdStrike reports in the guise of challenging warrants based off a claim that Russia didn’t actually hack the DNC. In the latter motion, Stone claimed to have received three redacted CrowdStrike reports (though as is typical of the sloppy work his lawyers do, they can’t even get that citation correct).

CrowdStrike’s three draft reports are dated [sic] August 8 and August 24, 2016. The Mueller Report states Unit 26165 officers also hacked into a DNC account hosted on a cloud-computing service on September 20, 2016, thereby illustrating the government’s reliance on CrowdStrike even though the DNC suffered another attack under CrowdStrike’s watch. (See Mueller Report at 49-50). [my emphasis]

The government’s response to the Fourth Amendment challenge notes that the fourteen warrant affidavits for hacking (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) violations don’t rely on Russian attribution to establish probable cause, but instead point to Stone’s, WikiLeaks’, Guccifer 2.0’s, and Jerome Corsi’s communications to establish that a hack was committed and Stone’s facilities likely had evidence about it.

In brief, each of these affidavits (at a minimum) states that Stone communicated with the Twitter account Guccifer 2.0 about hacked materials Guccifer had posted. Each affidavit states that on June 15, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 publicly claimed responsibility for the hack of the computer systems of the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”). Each affidavit states that Organization 1 published materials stolen from the DNC in the hack. Each affidavit describes Stone’s communications (including his own public statements about them) with Guccifer 2.0, Organization 1, and the head of Organization 1. Each affidavit submits that, based on those communications, there was probable cause to believe that evidence related to the DNC hack would be found in the specified location.


On the contrary, the 1030 warrant affidavits contain detailed descriptions of Stone’s communications with Guccifer 2.0, Organization 1, and the head of Organization 1, and, in some cases, detailed descriptions of witness tampering and false statements. See, e.g., Doc 109, Ex. 10 at ¶¶ 35-40 (discussing Stone’s communications with Organization 1 and the head of organization 1), Ex. 11 at ¶ 24 (discussing private Twitter message between Stone and Guccifer 2.0); Ex. 18 at ¶¶ 64-77 (relating to Stone’s conversations with Person 2).


The various showings of probable cause in the 1030 warrant affidavits did not depend on the identity of the hacker, but rather were based on evidence showing that Stone communicated with a Twitter account that publicly claimed responsibility for the DNC hack, and that Stone communicated with the very organization that was disseminating materials from the DNC computers in the months after the hack. This evidence established probable cause that searches of the target locations would yield evidence of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030, regardless of whether the Russian state was involved.

If Judge Amy Berman Jackson agrees that those warrant affidavits establish probable cause independent of any attribution, then then entire question of CrowdStrike reports is moot.

Yet the government still had to explain why the CrowdStrike demand was frivolous. In the response to the CrowdStrike demand, then, the government noted that these reports are unrelated to the false statements charges Stone is facing.

The defendant is not charged with conspiring to hack the DNC or DCCC. Cf. Netyksho, Doc. 1. The defendant is charged with making false statements to Congress regarding his interactions with Organization 1 and the Trump Campaign and intimidating a witness to cover up his criminal acts. Any information regarding what remediation steps CrowdStrike took to remove the Russian threat from the system and strengthen the DNC and DCCC computer systems against subsequent attacks is not relevant to these charges. And, in any case, the government does not need to prove at the defendant’s trial that the Russians hacked the DNC in order to prove the defendant made false statements, tampered with a witness, and obstructed justice into a congressional investigation regarding election interference.

But along with that, the government also provides some details about how it came into possession of the CrowdStrike reports — which basically amounts to the Democrats sharing them with the FBI when they informed the FBI of a crime. The government describes that the redacted materials don’t actually pertain to evidence about the hack, but instead pertain to what CrowdStrike did — while their client was trying to win a presidential election, remember, and while the party’s presidential candidate was being investigated by the FBI — to protect the Democrats against further hacking. The government also demonstrates that Stone exaggerates when he claims these are “heavily” redacted.

At the direction of the DNC and DCCC’s legal counsel, CrowdStrike prepared three draft reports.1 Copies of these reports were subsequently produced voluntarily to the government by counsel for the DNC and DCCC. 2 At the time of the voluntary production, counsel for the DNC told the government that the redacted material concerned steps taken to remediate the attack and to harden the DNC and DCCC systems against future attack. According to counsel, no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors. The government has also provided defense counsel the opportunity to review additional reports obtained from CrowdStrike related to the hack.


As the government has advised the defendant in a letter following the defendant’s filing, the government does not possess the material the defendant seeks; the material was provided to the government by counsel for the DNC with the remediation information redacted. However, the government has provided defense counsel the opportunity to review additional unredacted CrowdStrike reports it possesses, and defense counsel has done so. 3

1 Although the reports produced to the defendant are marked “draft,” counsel for the DNC and DCCC informed the government that they are the last version of the report produced.

2 The defendant describes the reports as “ heavily redacted documents,” Doc. 103, at 1. One report is thirty-one pages; only five lines in the executive summary are redacted. Another runs sixty-two pages, and redactions appear on twelve pages. The last report is fifty-four pages, and redactions appear on ten pages.

3 These materials are likewise not covered by Brady, but the government produced them for defense counsel review in an abundance of caution.

This makes it clear that, on top of being totally irrelevant to the probable cause consideration of the warrants for Stone’s communications, Stone is basically arguing that as part of asking the FBI to investigate a crime targeting them — at a time when the FBI was actively investigating Hillary!!! —  the Democrats should have had to share the new network security measures installed in response to the crime. This amounts to demanding that a crime victim who might also be under FBI investigation provide the FBI with investigative benefit — the equivalent of handing over their passwords — just to report the crime.

But what Stone has done is worse. He has demanded that he — modern America’s greatest rat-fucker, and someone against whom the FBI was able to show probable cause for hacking crimes — be informed of the opposing party’s defenses against being hacked for no good reason at all.

And a bunch of chumps are magnifying Stone’s demand, as if it has credibility, because they’re still clinging to some kind of hope that Russia didn’t hack the DNC.

Below, I’ve put a list of all the obvious investigative sources cited in the GRU indictment (cited by paragraph number) and the Mueller Report (cited as MR and page number) aside from CrowdStrike reports on the server activity and the witness reports of Democratic employees (hoaxsters often assume that no one in the Democratic Party conducted their own investigation, which is false). This is a fairly conservative list, and primarily consists of stuff the FBI would obtain from subpoenas for third party records. There are twenty-nine sources of information totally independent of CrowdStrike, and those sources include Google, Facebook,  Microsoft, and AWS — all of which have global visibility and conduct their own tracking of GRU’s hacking for their own security purposes, plus Twitter and WordPress (the latter of which also has superb security resources). The list also includes a server in AZ that I assume the FBI seized; it does not include a server in TX that I’ve also been told got seized in the FBI’s investigation.

And that’s just the unclassified stuff.

The notion that the attribution of the DNC hack to the GRU relies on CrowdStrike reports or FBI possession of the alleged single DNC server has always been nonsense. But that nonsense is now being wielded to demand that victims of a crime turn over to their political adversaries — and not just any adversary but an epic rat-fucker — details of what they did to make sure they would not be victimized in the next election. As Rayne explained in May, this is not just an attempt to obfuscate what happened in 2016; it’s an attempt to continue to damage the Democrats going forward.

And left and right wing denialists are playing along like chumps.

Update: I should have noted something that is obvious to anyone who follows cybersecurity but which hoaxsters pretend not to know: CrowdStrike gave the FBI forensic images of the servers and other affected hardware and software. That is the norm for computer investigations.

  1. URL-shortening service (WADA hack used bit.ly) [Indictment ¶21a]
  2. Gmail, including accounts of victims [Indictment ¶21b, MR 37]; accounts used by GRU [MR 47]; and their own security
  3. Linked In [Indictment 21c]
  4. Probe of DNC’s IP address
  5. Search on open source info on DNC [MR 37]
  6. AZ server — FBI with direct access, possible seizure [Indictment ¶24c, ¶58, MR 39]
  7. Malaysian server [Indictment ¶25, MR 39]
  8. Other redacted servers [MR 39]
  9. Microsoft  [MR 41]
  10. Romanian domain registration site [Indictment ¶¶33b, 35, 58]
  11. ActBlue [Indictment ¶33b]
  12. AWS [personal reporting, ¶34, MR 49]
  13. Smartech Corporation [¶37, MR 42]
  14. Facebook [¶38, MR 42]
  15. Twitter [¶¶39, 44, MR 44]
  16. WordPress [¶¶42-43, 46]
  17. BTC exchanges [¶63]
  18. VPN purchase [¶45a]
  19. gfade147 email account [¶60]
  20. US payment processor [¶62]
  21. Forensic images of DNC servers and traffic logs [MR 40]
  22. Stolen document forensics [MR 47]
  23. Aaron Nevins [MR 43]
  24. AOL [MR 43]
  25. Online archives [MR 46]
  26. Ecuadorian Embassy network [MR 46]
  27. [email protected] email [MR 46]
  28. WikiLeaks email [MR 47]
  29. Clinton personal office domain [MR 49]

As I disclosed last July, 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. 

116 replies
  1. Rayne says:

    I can’t decide if this is how Stone is getting his legal bills paid — by trying to find out through legal machinations related to his case what the DNC is doing to protect its network and data so that some entity/ties can hack the DNC again, or if Stone’s demands are intended to do the damage by harassing the DNC and Crowdstrike so much that their operations are affected.

    EDIT: I should clarify this — to me it feels like Stone has a debt to be paid that he continues to prod at this but at different angles. Like he promised one of these things and he still needs to deliver in order to get whole with somebody.

    • Anvil Leucippus says:

      re: The former —
      Maybe I am just a business, maybe I am a foreign government, but it’s what I would do if I had a budget and a counter-cyber-spy ministry / department! I would give a big bag of money with a dollar sign on the side to Stone.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      It could be both. His conduct would also help keep him in Trump’s good graces for a pardon or commutation he might need.

      • Rayne says:

        I don’t know. It could be but there’s a weird specificity to this I can’t quite get my head around. It took me a quite a while to figure out the harping for the server masked the disruption to DNC operations. This could be the same thing but pre-emptive and yet it doesn’t quite click. I’ll stew on it for a while.

        EDIT: Noting that certain people just happen to pop up repeatedly when certain topics pop might also be setting off my hinky meter. Ahem.

      • klynn says:

        I still keep his recent Brennen instagram threat in mind with Stone’s unredacted demands.

        Why was that not a violation of his gag order btw?

  2. Anvil Leucippus says:

    Exactly! If someone illegally scrapes my AWS servers and gives what they find to my competition, I am making a goddamn call to Amazon! Aaron should sit the hell down.

    • drouse says:

      I’ve been wondering recently just why is it that all these ex-analyst types see deception, false flags and all around skullduggery in everything they look at. McGovern is one but there are a couple of others that stand out. Is it the job they did or just a world view that fosters paranoia.

      • Desider says:

        It’s just a small samplung of 5 or so whackos who get amplified vs 1000s who retired quietly.

  3. pseudonymous in nc says:

    As Juliette Kayyem noted, Volume I is already an election interference manual, absent any desire to countermand it.

    • Rayne says:

      Which is one good reason for Mueller to resist testimony before Congress. Why provide more details open to the public if it only places elections at even greater risk?

  4. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), interviewed on MSNBC, is against impeachment until the facts are thoroughly “pinned down.” Her reasoning is circular. Trump’s continuing obstruction of congressional inquiries prevents Congress from pinning down those facts. A formal impeachment inquiry will be necessary to circumvent that obstruction.

    Ms. Kaptur’s response is simple, “You haven’t convinced me of that.” Her pat comment avoids the issue rather than addresses it. The circularity of her reasoning tells me Dem leadership does not want to address the elephant in the living room.

    Ms. Kaptur had five years seniority, representing her northern Ohio district, when Pelosi first entered Congress in 1987. They go way back. They’re manning Hadrian’s Wall, hoping to keep out change, generally, and the barbarian young turks, specifically. The Republicans and Trump almost seem to be an afterthought.

    • Desider says:

      I don’t know the right timing, but declaring impeachment as the only way of getting cooperation for basic Congressional and federal oversight seems a bad precedent to set, as if impeachment is the only avenue we have, vs holding hearings and winning smaller defining court cases along the way.

      • bmaz says:

        So, you think that the Democratically controlled House of Representatives should NOT use the one most powerful tool they have, the one specifically designated by the Founders in the Constitution, for just this kind of moment? You think that the House members should so disgrace and dishonor their oaths of office?

        Because you are chickenshit that they might actually do their jobs? If not now, what would it take for you to give a damn about the actual intent of the Constitution?

        Also, too, we are only talking about opening an inquiry to facilitate evidence and testimony that is improperly being denied. It is NOT about impeachment articles and Senate trial.

        Please, and I mean PLEASE, tell me why you think the House should not protect the Article I powers, and the Constitution and Separation of Powers itself, and, instead, should lay down in the fetal position and cry? Tell me that.

        • Tom Zeug says:

          I have a question. Trump’s legal argument to quash the various subpoenas is that the House does not have a legitimate legislative purpose for these requests along with complete blanket Presidential privilege. Those are considered a flimsy and losing legal arguments by most. Yet, Trump’s lawyers seem to be betting that SCOTUS will rule for them (or delay the inevitable).
          Wouldn’t it be better for that argument be denied by the courts to prevent it being set as the precedent for future disputes? Wouldn’t starting a impeachment inquiry, make that argument moot and allow the Court to duck the question?
          Even if you assume that SCOTUS agrees with Trump, and narrowly rules on a required legislative purpose, then wouldn’t then an impeachment inquiry be a slam dunk legislative purpose for subpoenas of documents and witnesses?
          My concern is that Trump is arguing that impeachment is a prerequisite to use the Congressional power to investigate and subpoena the Executive. Isn’t it important to not let that happen to the Constitution if possible?
          Then once the court rules, impeach the mofo.

        • bmaz says:

          No. The House has a duty to the public and the Constitution. You go with your strongest argument and get on with it. Waiving that out of some baloney theory is cowardly and a dereliction of duty.

        • Tom Zeug says:

          Didn’t say waive that duty. I said pick your path carefully. Your righteousness is not persuasive. Answer my question please.

        • bmaz says:

          Uh, thanks, I do not take orders from you. I have been answering your simpleton question here for months. Do your own research. And I could care less what you find “persuasive”.

          And, lastly, to be crystal clear, when you could have used a certain argument in litigation, and refuse to do so, you indeed waive it. Them’s the rules.

        • Rayne says:

          First, none of the contributors/moderators/editors here owe you jack. Do you see any ads here? We are beholden to no one.

          Second, the ultimate argument is United States v. Nixon (1974), a unanimous decision which held the President cannot shield himself from producing evidence in a criminal prosecution based on the doctrine of executive privilege, although it is valid in other situations. He cannot claim absolute executive privilege out of a generalized interest in confidentiality, only in case of national security and diplomatic secrets — and the matters under investigation including Trump’s tax returns don’t rise to the latter standard, especially when the House committees justify their demands as legitimate oversight functions under Constitution’s Article I (see also SCOTUS decisions reinforcing Congress’s power to investigate as part of its legislative function in Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 111 (1959), McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174–75 (1927), and Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957)).

          The problem is this, in my personal opinion: United States v. Nixon is the ultimate firewall up to now — the judiciary’s deciding in favor of Congress supports the co-equal powers of the judiciary and Congress to that of the executive. It was unanimous then because the 1974 court understood the importance of limitations on executive power. This particular SCOTUS with sketchy jurists like Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh cannot be trusted to see this decision as settled law. This should not be tested until everything else has been exercised.

          Having said all that, I’m not a lawyer. You’re more than welcome to go and find an answer you’d prefer at some other site.

        • Tom Zeug says:

          First I just asked a question in an effort to understand BMAZ.
          Your answer is well done. However, it is supporting my argument that the firewall is being attacked by Trump who seems to be saying that there are no legitimate House oversight of the Executive functions.
          Clearly, there are plenty legitimate oversight functions in the current litigation, such as the Russian meddling in our elections may require some new funding and laws to address.
          So isn’t it important to keep the Nixon firewall and make it clear and stronger? And not require an official impeachment inquiry to authorize oversight?

        • bmaz says:

          You are still trolling with the same naive bunk. No answer seems to suffice, you are just intent on spewing the same relentless crap. Get lost.

        • Tom Zeug says:

          You seem to be triggered when someone has a different view than you. BTW in the current litigation the option to use a current impeachment inquiry as support for subpoenas is not available. So it isn’t the strongest argument. It isn’t even an argument. So how does starting an impeachment inquiry now help the cause of removing Trump or getting witness testimony and documents from the Trump Administration? Don’t you need evidence to persuade the jury?

        • Rayne says:

          Look, this is chess in progress. There is no one answer right now because there are multiple committees, multiple investigations, and an unpredictable judiciary focused on an even more unpredictable target. All the parts are moving in permutations we haven’t seen before. I gave you my opinion; you pick what you think is the likely answer.

          Now find something else to do.

        • Tom Zeug says:

          Exactly my point. There are many things to consider here.
          So why don’t you hold Bmaz to the same standard? Is he special?

        • Rayne says:

          bmaz and I are on the same team. We don’t see eye-to-eye all the time. I know where he’s coming from after more than a decade here with him. When you have more than ten years getting my back AND experience as a practicing attorney, you might get more cred than somebody with less than a dozen comments who blew in off the streets this week and acted like a prima donna.

        • bmaz says:

          Listen, you want to keep poking at me we can do that. You may not like the result.

          I answered your question, and have answered that same question a hundred times here. You keep asking the same lame question over, and over, and over. Yes, an inquiry makes the legal arguments that much stronger and gives a much faster path through the courts, across the board. If you are too chickenshit to do what is necessary to protect the Constitution and Separation of Powers, then I don’t know what else to say to you, because that is pathetic.

          You seem to think you have some god given right to waltz in here as a new commenter and start bitching at, and being demanding of, the proprietors here. You do not. You are trolling me, and I do not take well to that. Move along or you may find yourself gone.

        • bmaz says:

          And your argument that it would be impossible to amend current legal action to take notice of an opened inquiry may, or may not, be correct. But it is nowhere near the certainty you say.

          Secondly, to argue that an inquiry shouldn’t be opened for all the other litigation on deck, including Hope Hicks situation today, because there are a couple of cases already pending, is ludicrous and asinine. And, yes, again, inquiry IS, without any question whatsoever, the strongest argument and most bulletproof base for litigation. You are an idiot if you do not understand that. You say you want testimony and evidence, this is best and fastest path to it.

        • Democritus says:

          I will say whenever I think bmaz might be coming on strong (while keeping in mind I miss a ton of stuff here) I keep reading and almost always the person reveals themselves to be a gigantic twatwaffle.

          Seriously talking with that degree of condensation to fucking RAYNE. 🥴🤣🤣🤣

          Thanks to all you guys for keeping a site that relentlessly shines a light into the darkness and calls for steps to help us save our republic through the use of our democratic values, like calling congress or fighting for the rule of law and alllllll that good shit.

          I will say at the outset, pre report release, I agreed it was wise to wait and thought Nancy was trying to cleverly time this so that not only could the impeachment harm Trump, but also that it could possibly harm the GOP Senate incumbents, who have far more seats to defend.

          They have been dragging their feet for too long though, and I do agree that it is time to start them. Who says the fix won’t be in for 2020 in the states they can get away with it and that we aren’t blowing our last shot at impeachment l

          Sigh, I also don’t know why I waste all my spoons so to speak, (my arm strength for the day) trying to type out stuff in the old thread that nobody is reading now and I doubt anyone else will. Shrugs…Probably because I usually try not to type, but when I get grumpy or annoyed that go s right out the window.

        • bmaz says:

          If you have the capability, use voice dictation. If you are slow and deliberate, it has gotten to where it mostly works fine. Maybe you have to fix a couple of words here and there, but it might help.

        • Democritus says:


          I really do need to get better with dictation. I have a bad habit of talking quickly when I get going.

        • P J Evans says:

          I know someone who uses “Dragon Naturally Speaking” for comments. He has a disclaimer about typos as his sig line, but the program seems to be pretty well trained at this point. (Other people I know online also use it.)

      • bmaz says:

        Come on Desider. I truly want to know when you care about the Constitution, Separation of Powers, and the very foundation of American democracy more than “holding hearings” (I assume that pissant bunk with John Dean and some MSNBC shills was good for you) and what even you describe as “smaller” court cases, is not enough.

        Oh, and by the way, those “smaller” wins are under appeal and are on far from their firmest footings because there is no inquiry. Is that your chosen path? To work meekly, timidly and pathetically?

        When can Congress protect the Constitution, Desider? When is that?

        • Tom Zeug says:

          Are you even a lawyer? Because instead of addressing a legitimate concern you attack the messenger. “those “smaller” wins are under appeal and are on far from their firmest footings because there is no inquiry” Really? Why does a lack of an inquiry weaken the argument? Are you agreeing with Trump that the House needs a valid legislative purpose like an impeachment inquiry before they have to respond to House subpoenas? That seems to be a pretty big change in the power balance.
          You seem to be too emotional to reason.

        • bmaz says:

          Get lost. Again, that has been answered here repeatedly for months. We do not owe you jack just because you decided to parachute in and start making demands.

        • P J Evans says:

          Start with the investigation. then there’s a lot more evidence for impeachment. Conviction will require convincing the GOP Senators that there’s a real danger to *them* if they leave Tr*mp in office – and, especially, convincing McTurtle and his wife.
          It won’t be easy, and they’re no way to make it certain.
          So YOU are coming out on the wrong side of this.

        • Tom Zeug says:

          Looks like Nancy’s plan is working. Yours is not. Hope Hicks just obstructed justice today. Now the House has actually evidence to open an impeachment inquiry. The question is, can Nancy do it alone, or does she need to have a vote.

        • Rayne says:

          If you are going nanny-nanny-boo-boo here getting petty with community members you’re going to find yourself in moderation.

        • bmaz says:

          You bloody idiot, you have finally admitted and confirmed what I have been saying for months. You magically NOW think there can be a inquiry. What a joke.

          Now can you leave us, please?

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        What precedent would you prefer? For the House to cave in to a self-obsessed caricature of a president, who ignores any law he finds inconvenient, who promotes his continuing in office beyond constitutionally mandated limits, who admits he would break the law to stay in office – knowing he has nowhere to go once out of it?

        An impeachment inquiry is exactly the course the House should take if it doesn’t want that precedent and cares a fig about its own constitutional obligations. This Presidency Is Not Normal. The party behind him is not normal in its thoughtless, abject support for him. This is not politics as usual.

        Trump is not cooperating with legitimate congressional inquiries. He is preventing others from doing so. He is claiming vast presidential powers that are without precedent.

        Ms. Pelosi and her leadership want to ignore all that. Howard Dean’s optimism that Nancy Pelosi has a plan notwithstanding, it appears more like she and her leadership want a simple Hollywood throughline. Remove Trump through electing his Democratic competitor. Ignore all else.

        That avoids the House and the party in charge of it from doing its job. It ignores how much time, how much opportunity for mischief it allows Trump between now and November 2020. If it’s a strategy rather than an aversion to conflict, it’s likely to lose on all counts. If it’s an indirect preference for a Joe Biden middle of the roader, who won’t rock anybody’s boat, it is likely to fail miserably.

    • Rayne says:

      Kaptur needs to be told regularly, frequently by her constituents the obstruction itself is impeachable; obstruction of justice was the basis for one of the three articles of impeachment against Nixon.

      No person is above the law and by allowing Trump to obstruct justice he is not only placing himself above the law but violating his oath of office, failing to “”take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

      By failing to hold Trump accountable, Kaptur herself is failing her own oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same” by exercising the Article I powers of a co-equal branch of government.

      Keep calling, keep trying.

      • Tom T says:

        Off the top of your head name the 10 things that Mueller said “may” have been obstruction of justice. I bet you cant.

        • bmaz says:

          You are just like the most recent and obnoxious demanding troll before you, “Tom Zeug”. I do not know where you, apparently malignant, interlopers get off with your demands. We do not owe you squat. Read our past work, learn how to Google, or just stop. That is not going to work here.

        • Tom Zeug says:

          What evidence does the House have that they can present at the impeachment trial? Does any of that evidence force McConnell to hold a trial? No. Is there the votes to start an inquiry? No.

          So what do you do to change that?

          And hey asshole why are such a baby about this forum? You could just not respond, but instead you insult.

        • Rayne says:

          Oh honey, I am sooo sorry I only came up with nine so far, and I didn’t need the Special Counsel’s Report for all of them. Trump,

          … using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such unauthorized access and use of stolen materials; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

          The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

          1. making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
          2. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
          3. approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
          4. interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of Special Counsel, and Congressional Committees;
          5. approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals;
          6. endeavoring to misuse the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Office of White House Counsel of the United States;
          7. disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;
          8. making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the Presidential Campaign and on the part of the personnel of the executive branch of the United States, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or
          9. endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

          I’ve bundled Trump asking McGahn to change his testimony into item 3.

          I’m vacillating about the tenth — is his refusal to respond to multiple House Committee’s legitimate requests and subpoenas for testimony, evidence and other things separate from number two, in that he is now acting in contempt of Congress?

          I should point out that if this list were to be treated as a criminal indictment there would be multiple counts for each item.

          Now fuck all the way off.

  5. Yogarhythms says:

    Ew, R, Bz,
    Shine on you crazy diamonds. Your love for founders articles are revered and revealed and rarified @ ew.

  6. earlofhuntingdon says:

    The great WilliamOckham has a few words for Ms. Pelosi and her apparent strategy for how to deal with Trump between now and November 2020. He harkens back to similar arguments Dems made when Dick Nixon was up for re-election and, not feeling confident, ordered the break-in of the Democratic national headquarters at the Watergate complex in mid-June 1972:

    Within a couple of days, it was obvious to a middle schooler that Nixon must have ordered it. I mean me. I was 12. And Nixon got re-elected. So spare me the “we need to beat Trump at the ballot box” crap.


      • bmaz says:

        Okay, to be clear for those who have not been around here forever, Mr. Ockham has been around as long as I have, which is literally before the formal start of this blog. It was a joke to Earl, but there are so many people new here since way back then, I thought I should explain.

        We have now been around so long that sometimes the olds here forget. And that totally includes me.

        • Eureka says:

          I recognized the name from comments, but didn’t realize until EoH linked that that he was the same tweeter you rt’d earlier on impeachment (gotta get my eyeglasses out and look at both of the tw names a little more closely I guess).

        • Democritus says:

          As someone who didn’t discover this awesome “speaking truth to power while also calling them out all on their dirty tricks site” until recently,Thank you!

  7. Ollie says:

    Can I bring up something curious about another of the famous ‘ratfuckers’?


    “But last week, Manhattan prosecutors were surprised to receive a letter from the second-highest law enforcement official in the country inquiring about Mr. Manafort’s case. The letter, from Jeffrey A. Rosen, Attorney General William P. Barr’s new top deputy, indicated that he was monitoring where Mr. Manafort would be held in New York.

    And then, on Monday, federal prison officials weighed in, telling the Manhattan district attorney’s office that Mr. Manafort, 70, would not be going to Rikers.”

    So like are the bad guys always going to win? Damn. Sorry for o/t but the common thread I hope is the ratfucker, lol

      • Eureka says:

        Plus Mimi Rocah and Elizabeth de la Vega in reply to @yashar:

        Mimi Rocah‏Verified account @Mimirocah1 5 hours ago

        This is *very unusual. Who directed @TheJusticeDept to intervene on Manafort’s behalf?

        Elizabeth de la Vega‏ @Delavegalaw 5 hours ago

        Why did the state go along with it and what are they now going to do with the rest of the federal prisoners facing state charges?

      • Ollie says:

        Thanks Eureka. I’m usually current on her twitter/and bmaz’s but I got so blown away by the big balls breaking rules every which way that I came here immediately to see if any one had mentioned it. Sorry. It was late and my day had absorbed too much of me. Ollie

        • Eureka says:

          There is too much going on all over the place to keep up– I’d happened to see that one, no worries ;)

          and as a PS: I appreciate your prior stories about making your signs and sitting-out with them (and this is meant as a thankful remembrance– no ‘to-do-list’ suggestion intended). We all do what we can do… I just happened to have seen some tweets.

          Best to you, Ollie– Eureka

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        If I recall correctly, Rikers has a wing for the Feds. So what’s the beef?

        Special intervention on behalf of an individual prisoner by the top brass at DoJ suggests Billy Barr is telling Paulie Manafort that Donny Trump still has his back. Paulie should stay strong and Donny will take care of him.

        That would mean several things: Paulie failed to cooperate in a big way. There are many more beans left to spill. Trump continues to obstruct justice. Bill Barr is doing the same.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          George Conway on twtr seems to think Paulie has been sent to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan. It’s a federal correctional center run by the Bureau of Prisons that holds mostly pre-trial detainees and “holdovers.” It has facilities for all levels of security, from minimum to high security.

          It is colloquially known as the “Guantanamo of New York.” I would guess that depends on what level of security the prisoner is assigned to, though, wouldn’t it Paulie.


        • bmaz says:

          That very well could be. But the Met is not much of an upgrade from Rikers. And I am being understated there, obviously.

        • P J Evans says:

          There’s one in L.A., also – I don’t know what it’s like inside. (The nearest federal prison is the one on Terminal Island.)

        • bmaz says:

          Yep. There are several “Mets” around the country. Mostly in regional big cities. Ironically, despite how big the Phoenix area is, the Feds mostly contract out pre-trial detention to the county. Closest Met is in San Diego or LA.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          The main difference would seem to be who controls the facility. Rikers is run by NYC. MCC is run by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which reports to Barr’s DoJ.

        • orionATL says:

          there are indeed many more “beans that could be spilled” but likely won’t be in any useful time period.

          by far the most important is the kernel of the trump-putin conspiracy, to whit:

          paul manafort did not work with kilimnik just to pay back his personal debt to deripaksa. that story was a cover story. Manafort worked directly with “the kremlin” on orders from donald trump to set up russian assistance to his presidential campaign (and maybe republican congressional campaigns). to the extent the russians actually cared about “payment” (they really most wanted to avoid a clinton presidency and democratic congress), trump paid in promises of sanctions relief. the most immediately obvious manafort efforts sanctioned by trump are the june 9 and aug 2 2016 meetings.

          this is what manafort did to achieve a trump presidency, which presidency is thereby illegitimate. manafort does not dare reveal all this except under greatest provocation since it would mark him for history as a traitor.

          the trump presidency, engineered by stone’s formet business partner paul manafort, is roger stone’s greatest achievement.

          all of this most consequential political skulduggery could be made manifest with a large-scale national investigative effort centered on a patient house of reps inquiry but aided by serious media and academic inquiries.

        • Rayne says:

          The moderation algorithm is triggered by multiple factors. Keywords, links, length of comment and more can result in moderation. If your comment doesn’t go up immediately, please be patient.

  8. Vicks says:

    Most of these lawmakers are violating their oath to protect the constitution, some by giving cover to this administration’s god awful behavior and others by refusing to get their hands dirty.
    John Meecham recently said “if we raise the bar for impeachment we lower the standard for presidential misconduct”
    In my opinion Pelosi is right, this could be a fiasco, even the blowback from an inquiry could cost dems the next election. My only suggestion is the next time she tries to justify sitting on her hands, she imagine that our founding fathers and other American heroes are listening in.

    • LeeNLP says:

      Obviously NAL here, but I read these enlightening posts and comments with great relish. I am frustrated beyond measure that Speaker Pelosi seems to be placing her political calculations above her plain, simple constitutional duty, and thereby risking the long term survival of the country I love.

      I often indulge in fruitless fantasies, sometimes involving a magic ring or other such paraphernalia. Of late, however, my fantasies are becoming more dark. For instance, I imagine immolating myself on the steps of the Capital next to a sign “Nancy Do Your Job”.

      I’ve called my reps. I’ve written countless letters to the editor. I speak up when I can. Not sure what else I can do. I’m grateful for those who, if nothing else, bear faithful witness. Thank you folks here at EW.

      • harpie says:

        …and the Orlando Sentinel just announced who they’re NOT endorsing: TRUMP! lol!
        6:20 AM – 18 Jun 2019

        Trump will kickoff of his re-election campaign in Orlando tonight.
        The Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board just dropped this:
        “We’re here to announce our endorsement for president in 2020, or, at least, who we’re not endorsing: Donald Trump.”

        Links to:
        Our endorsement for president in 2020: Not Donald Trump

        • klynn says:

          THIS is a beautiful op ed! Thank you. Now to turn it into hats and t-shirts…
          ABT (Anything But Trump)
          NUT (Not Ulterior Trump)
          (Not Trump)
          Anything But Obviously Ulterior Trump

      • harpie says:

        12:39 PM – 18 Jun 2019

        Proud Boys and white power signs in Orlando. [VIDEO]
        More of the same white power signs in Orlando. [VIDEO] They’re heading toward the anti-Trump rally. [VIDEO]
        12:47 PM – 18 Jun 2019
        Members of the white supremacist Proud Boys group have been stopped from reaching anti-Trump protesters. [VIDEO]
        The Proud Boys white supremacist group has been stopped by bicycle police in Orlando. [photos]

  9. PSWebster says:

    Just open the inquiry, open the inquiry…I want to see Trombone go nuts with the everlasting smear on his great focking presidency (“Now I’m focked”). Maybe it is a timing issue to get a little closer to the election but the damage being done is extraordinary to observe and the legal footing an open inquiry provides is clearer. Again: very complex reporting at EW. Great work. Thanks.

  10. earlofhuntingdon says:

    I appreciate that Donald Trump claims he need never explain his conduct. He would consider doing so a sign of weakness. It would also expose his limited grasp of events and the reasoning behind his actions. He’s happier with, “Because I said so.” It’s the last redoubt of the sleep-deprived parent – something he has little experience in being.

    But if Trump intends to lie the US into another war – something the US has done repeatedly over the last fifty years – the least the Democrats could do is demand he produce credible evidence that Iran did something worth the cost and risk. They might also demand evidence that alternatives to war have been attempted and that armed conflict is the only remaining course of action.

    The public evidence to date of Iran’s involvement seems to be a grainy video purportedly from a US Navy source. It seems to lack source information, and time and date stamps, and has a resolution that seems lower than that of the average cell phone. What it does show is ambiguous. Hardly an adequate justification for armed conflict. What else does this administration have?

    • fpo says:

      Wondering if Trump might get cold feet on this one – if it’s even his decision to make.

      Visions of Bush and WMD dancing in his head – not the legacy he wants. He should be kicking himself for decimating the diplomatic corps…backing out of the Iran deal…trusting it to Pompeo and Bolton…imposing punitive sanctions on Iran for what – sticking to the terms of the deal?

      He just really doesn’t have a freaking clue about any of this – couldn’t explain it if he wanted to. Convenient for him, dangerous for everyone else, our troops most of all.

  11. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Donald Trump loves snark. He just said goodbye to Acting SecDef, Patrick Shanahan:

    Acting Secretary of Defense, Patrick Shanahan, who has done a wonderful job, has decided not to go forward with his confirmation process so that he can devote more time to his family….


    Shanahan’s nomination to become permanent SecDef was apparently delayed owing to problems with his background check. Certainly possible for a guy who spent thirty years at Boeing. But I wonder whether he was less than enthusiastic about Trump, Pompeo, and Bolton’s determination to go to war with Iran.

    Trump is replacing him with Army Secretary Mark Esper. Degrees from West Point, Harvard and GW, more than ten years in the Army, stints as staffer for Heritage and on the Hill, as a lobbyist, and nearly ten years with Raytheon.

    • P J Evans says:

      Apparently there are domestic-violence problems in his family involving, at various times, him-plus-wife and kid-plus-wife.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Indeed. The snark seems to be more of a shiv.

      Shanahan’s marital and family conflicts were severe. In addition to allegations of marital violence, his 17-year old son allegedly beat his mother with a baseball bat, leaving her with a skull fracture and internal injuries. That was in 2011. Shanahan was so estranged, he did not visit his wife in hospital. He spent the time developing a legal defense for his son. I wonder why that did not come to light in 2017, when Trump nominated him to be Deputy SecDef.



  12. Jake Tanber says:

    Leave it to Marcy to bury the real story for the sake of the narrative. That story being that not only did no U.S. Intel professionals ever get to do direct forensics on the servers (which they specifically requested but were denied) but they never even got to see the full CrowdStrike report. That’s beyond laughable. The fact is, the government totally depended on the word of a private contractor hired by Democrats to determine that Russia hacked the DNC.

    • Rayne says:

      I’m approving your comment so that our community sees what kind of stupidity sky-rats into the bin.

      Thanks for trying to push the new variant of “single server” propaganda. Thanks for trying to interfere with the workings of a legitimate opposition party’s operations with this bullshit.

      Get the fuck out.

    • Willis Warren says:

      This is pretty awesome, since the State Dept is using the same level of forensic analysis to accuse Clinton of breaches during her sec days

  13. earlofhuntingdon says:

    The rightwing’s most feared opponent is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It attacks her at every opportunity. A recent attack is its claim that AOC is defaming Trump by using the phrase “concentration camp” to describe Trump’s “housing” of immigrants and asylum seekers. One Republican making that argument is the number three GOP congressperson, Elizabeth Cheney. Known as Baby Dick, she is heir to Dick Cheney’s throne. [https://twitter.com/Liz_Cheney/status/1140988893627478018]

    Baby Dick is wrong and AOC is correct. Nazis had “concentration camps,” but did not invent them. What made theirs special is their scale and that many were turned into death camps. First bullets, then gas, and then ovens to dispose of the bodies. Even in holding camps, conditions were so extreme death was routine.

    Regardless, and a separate issue, IBM machines kept track of each prisoner, especially the rate of “throughput”. Like much else about Trump’s “management skills,” he doesn’t bother to keep track of his results. What happens to his prisoners is not his concern, only that they be forgotten.

    More generally, concentration camps are an invention of empire. They’ve been around a long time. Both North and South had them during the Civil War. The Brits had them in South Africa during the Second Boer War (1899-1902). They housed families of the Boers, whom they used as hostages. Many starved to death or died of disease. The Americans used them in their new colony of the Philippines to pacify Filipino insurgents, who thought that freedom from Spain meant freedom.

    The Brits used them again in Kenya during the insurrection against British rule that Brits called the Mau Mau Uprising. They used them again in the anti-colonial war known as the Malayan Emergency. The Russians had their Gulags, the Americans had their Japanese-American internment camps (Manzanar). At least one of those Trump is repurposing – without irony – to use with would be immigrants and asylum seekers from what he calls shit hole countries.

    AOC is correct. Trump is setting up concentration camps. They are in out of the way places and difficult to get into, even for Congresscritters. He hopes that out of sight means out of mind, and that means accountability free.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Republicans – like Tories shaming Labour – leap to the conclusion that AOC is “anti-semitic,” because she doesn’t reserve certain phrases solely to describe the Holocaust. An arguable position and a false claim. But it makes them typical of Trump’s Republican Party. Sadly, “concentration camp” has a long diverse history.


    • RWood says:

      How many of Trumps camps are “for profit”?

      I had to wonder when I saw the headline today about the big ICE round-up if it was just a way to get more paying customers into his backers prisons. I think the number I read was around $320/day per bed they make off the taxpayer.


      Next thing he’ll want are rail lines that go directly to the camps from the border. How many can they cram in a boxcar? I bet Miller has already done the math.

      • P J Evans says:

        ICE isn’t really checking to see if the people they’re rounding up are actually citizens. There was the guy in Michigan who had is passport on him, and they wouldn’t accept it. He’s not the only one – citizens have been deported before because they were brown.

      • fpo says:

        Maybe we’ll get some answers from the new Customs and Border Protection press secretary, Katharine Gorka.

        Sound familiar? Say ‘Hola’ to the wife of Sebastian Gorka, the bona fide Islamophobe and former deputy assistant to Trump, jettisoned at about the same time as Steve Bannon. What could possibly go wrong here…

        “Katharine Gorka, a political appointee at the Department of Homeland Security who has stirred controversy for her views on terrorism and her role in the department’s efforts to combat violent extremism in the US, is expected to be the new press secretary at Customs and Border Protection.”

        [ https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/18/politics/katharine-gorka-customs-and-border-protection/index.html ]

  14. Tom T says:

    The simple issue here is if you cannot comply with discovery you don’t bring charges.

    Rogers Stone has a Constitutional right to see these documents. If that state believes that it cannot supply these documents then they must drop the charges.

    • bmaz says:

      This is beyond silly. Don’t bring that bunk here. And, next time you do, at least consider, and address, Rule 402. Because people who do this understand that.

  15. Tom T says:

    Still trying to get my head around this argument. Roger Stone can denied his right to discovery because of Hillary’s right against self-incrimination.

Comments are closed.