Roger Stone Describes 67% of the Content of Sealed Warrant Affidavits for His Co-Conspirators

One of the reasons I believe Roger Stone knows he’s getting a pardon is because, in spite of the fact that he’s got six named attorneys on his team, his filings are unbelievably sloppy, as if the lawyers are letting their children submit them.

I’m just now reading a second one he submitted last Friday (it’s bolloxed in PACER but that may not be Stone’s fault), a reply on his request to have all his search warrants suppressed based on Bill Binney’s bogus claim that a document that is entirely unrelated to the charges against Stone was copied onto a thumb drive, and even if it were would be irrelevant to the question of whether Russia hacked the DNC.

The filing couldn’t have been reviewed before submission, because it gets key dates wrong:

This is especially so since Stone did not possess any of the stolen information, all of which these communications occurred well after June 22nd, 2016 – the first dissemination of the DNC emails on Wikileaks. [this should be July]

And includes sentence fragments:

Congress did not subpoena any documents regardless of form from Stone. But left it to Stone to determine which documents he should turn over that were not “widely available” or that “reasonably could lead to the discovery of any facts within the investigations publicly-announced parameters.”


Comments about “friends at the embassy” by Corsi were made up. Speculation about an anticipated upcoming data dump was wrong.

And includes grammatical mishmash:

Even with knowledge of its early dissemination, is not a crime.


The FBI has stated that they has conducted no direct research, nor collected any evidence of the DNC breach directly, which was confirmed by thenFBI director James Comey.

And a reference to paragraphs in exhibits that don’t list the paragraphs:

(Doc. 100 Ex. 17),

(Doc. 100 Ex. 18).

In short, the filing — like a number submitted beforehand in this case — shows utter contempt for the process.

But along the way, Stone describes at least 67% of the paragraphs of one of the affidavits (Exhibit 1) laying out probable cause for a CFAA change.

  • ¶¶1-7: Gap
  • ¶8: Jerome Corsi, Ted Malloch, Julian Assange, and Roger Stone “speak to each other about politics WikiLeaks, and ‘about phishing with John Podesta,'”
  • ¶¶9-19: Description of WikiLeaks receiving DNC data from Russian state.
  • ¶¶20-25: Gap
  • ¶26: Stone and he are friends, Manafort resigned as Chairman of the Trump Campaign, Manafort worked in for Washington, D.C. lobbying firms to influence U.S. policy toward Ukraine.
  • ¶¶27-37: Gap
  • ¶38: Stone and Assange were not really communicating about anything of relevance or consequence.
  • ¶¶39-40: Gap
  • ¶¶41-57: Corsi, Malloch, and Stone discussion what WikiLeaks is going to publish.
    • ¶47: Claim to Sam Nunberg that Stone had dinner with Assange.
    • ¶¶54-56: Description of Corsi’s “friends at the embassy” comment.
  • ¶¶58-65: References the infamous outtake footage from “Access Hollywood.” … Corsi and Stone spoke.
    • ¶65: Charles Ortel sent an email written to Stone and Stone sent it to Corsi after WikiLeaks disseminated Podesta’s emails. The email was titled “WikiLeaks – The Podesta Emails.”
  • ¶¶66-79: Stone is accused of having advanced knowledge of Podesta’s emails.
  • ¶¶80-81: Post-Podesta’s July 2016 [sic] release by WikiLeaks, Malloch said he would connect Corsi with Assange.
  • ¶¶82-83: Gap
  • ¶¶84-85: Corsi took credit for predicting the release of Podesta’s emails.
  • Unknown: Stone had Facebook accounts that he used to perpetuate his political writings including the writings about Podesta.

Included in that virtual recitation of what a document that remains under seal and covered by a protective order says, Stone makes it clear that the government obtained evidence of Stone talking with someone (it’s not clear who!) about John Podesta being phished, which Stone excuses this way:

They speak to each other about politics WikiLeaks, and “about phishing with John Podesta,” which may imply Podesta was phishing, or that Assange or Malloch were phishing Podesta, but clearly neither seem to be the point of the allegation. Doc. 100-1, ¶8.

In short, this is not a filing intended to win the argument in court (which is lucky for Stone, because legally the filing is crap). Rather, it is a disguised attempt to communicate with some potentially unidentified co-conspirator what the government actually knows about Stone’s knowledge of the phishing of John Podesta.

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. 

100 replies
  1. Sans-Serf says:

    Do you think the potential pardon is the reason the government hasn’t yet dropped a CFAA/conspiracy charge against Stone? If Stone gets pardoned on the false statements charges and loses his 5A protection for those crimes will it make proving the CFAA/conspiracy charges easier?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Someone in the White House might wake up and argue to limit Stone to a commutation of sentence, rather than a pardon. That would preserve jeopardy and a Fifth Amendment claim. Bush Jr finessed it that way with Scooter Libby. Trump, however, always needs to outdo any precedent, so he might go full pardon anyway.

      • viget says:

        Yes, but a pardon would head off a trial. A commutation requires the trial to be completed first.

        Even if Stone were ultimately have his sentence commuted, how much damaging testimony to Trump would be out there from Stone’s trial?

        I don’t think Trump wants this trial to occur.

        • Christopher Thomas says:

          How is it Trump would even have the capacity or attention span to understand or follow this stuff, I wonder.

  2. Ruthie says:

    While Stone, with a probable pardon in his back pocket, trolls the judge and public alike, Nancy Pelosi turns a blind eye. Nothing to see here, apparently. I just don’t get it. The obstruction is ongoing, in plain sight, on multiple fronts – like the intervention by Deputy AG Jeffrey Rosen to save Manafort from being held at Rikers.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      A lot of backstory there. Decision apparently made before Rosen’s arrival. Appears to have been Barr’s call to keep Manafort in federal custody when he is in NYC facing state charges rather than at a NY facility such as Rikers.

      Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance’s staff trying hard to claim they “had no position” on where to hold Manafort. A lot of juice being squeezed and people are scattering to avoid the spray.


      • bmaz says:

        I don’t see why anybody gives a shit where Manafort is housed as long as he is appropriately getting credit on his Federal sentence.

        • Ruthie says:

          If the maneuver was as unusual as reports indicate, it suggests more evidence of obstruction. I’m in favor of improving prison conditions as long as it’s applied uniformly

        • What Constitution? says:

          Probably the people intrigued by this all saw snippets of “Scared Straight” when they were kids and now believe Rikers is a uniquely unpleasant place for incarceration.

      • klynn says:

        I wonder if PaulM is afraid he would be a target in prison? Wonder if some chatter containing threats was picked up?

        • Tom says:

          In which case, Manafort might decide, “Okay, okay, I’ll talk! Just get me outta here!” Which possibility now has been forestalled?

        • klynn says:

          So the media has reported separately that the reasons are: closer to family, health and personal safety.

          A bit all over the place.

      • Mongoose says:

        Cyrus Vance cannot be trusted on any issue concerning the Trumps. Barr is trapped and more deeply compromised than one might imagine. Pelosi is under enormous pressure to resolve this crisis in their favor or resign.

        • J R in WV says:

          Pelosi is under enormous pressure to resolve this crisis in their favor or resign.

          This is nonsense — no one has any leverage to pressure Madame Speaker to do anything of the kind. I believe she has a schedule in mind that doesn’t include being pressured to begin a formal impeachment inquiry before she thinks is the right timing for that.

          We know that, baring indictments of Majority Leader McConnell, possible since he is as corrupt as it is possible for a democratically elected politician to be, but unlikely since most US and KY prosecutors appear to be quite conservative, the Senate won’t strip Trump of his office, and if they did. Pence would immediately pardon everyone who can get their names on the conspirator’s list to pardon.

          Therefore I believe Pelosi’s schedule is focused upon providing the most radical evidence of Trump’s guilt in as many illegal affairs as close to the election as possible, without ever referring articles of impeachment to the Senate prior to the election. Perhaps just days prior to voting begins, so that McConnell will be forced to rush the Senate into hasty and clearly improper actions going into the election.

          Whatever Pelosi intends, she obviously doesn’t intend for a single clue to erupt before she makes each move in her planned pattern of activity against Trump and his handlers and minions. Wag the Dog in in play, the House just did vote to terminate the AUMF in an appropriation bill, depending upon the funding in that bill, the timing, etc, Trump’s legal ability to actually begin military operations may end at the approval of the appropriation itself. Tho McConnell will do what he can to stop that from happening, there’s money to be made from war!!

        • bmaz says:

          If Pelosi cannot honor her oath of office she damn well ought to resign. She, at this point, is an embarrassment to the Constitution and her office. At this point, “Madam Speaker” is a derelict piece of tired and old legislative garbage.

        • Rayne says:

          This is one of those times when it’s a good thing we live as far apart as we do. LOL

          EDIT: I think this piece offers a decent taste of the headbutting behind the scenes — the public could probably put it all together if they had the wherewithal to track all reps’ opinions but alas, they don’t. Why aren’t Dems like Engel and Lowey throwing behind an inquiry already? What are their personal triggers? Especially Engel who supported it during the last congress.

        • Areader2019 says:

          Well, I’m just not so sure. I have been completely against Pelosi…

          I did not think she could or should get a second speakership. I thought she could never get all the otherwise unleadable Democrats to fall in line. I was wrong.

          I was convinced the government shutdown would be a Democratic disaster. She managed her way through it. I was wrong.

          Now the question is to me….is Pelosi making a mistake on holding back on starting an impeachment inquiry?

          Or is this more a situation of “don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes”?

        • bmaz says:

          Yeah, Pelosi is brilliant. Here is some more evidence:

          “One nugget of reporting in this story is that Pelosi has told the caucus that a Social Security expansion bill, which has over 200 co-sponsors, won’t get a vote, because Blue Dogs won’t support it”

          Pelosi, oh so concerned about show legislation instead of protecting the Constitution, won’t even do that if a few Blue Dogs object. She really has turned into shit.

        • Tracy Lynn says:

          She won’t lose in the primary. Shahid Battar ran against her before. But to call her “garbage”? After bitching about commenters who called Trump unflattering names? WTF?

        • bmaz says:

          I didn’t say she would lose, I said she deserves to. Shahid is an incredible guy, who has spent his career defending the Constitution, and would be great, but it seems unlikely he can overcome Pelosi. And, yes, Pelosi’s refusal to defend the Constitution is complete dereliction of duty, and that makes her garbage.

      • Democritus says:

        Any input from people who likely have a better framework within whethermy lack of faith in Vance deserved?

        To me he really just looks like a pawn of the powerful. But this is based on surface observations of the patterns of his results with the powerful, I the almost all skate, and not say a deep understanding of the law.

  3. Valley girl says:

    Sorry to ask what are more than likely stupid questions, but I have been sorta-kinda out of it of late.

    1) So the inference (right word?) is that Stone is expecting a pardon (or “knows” he will get a pardon), this based on the sloppy filings by Team Stone of late?

    2) (from EW)… “Included in that virtual recitation of what a document that remains under seal and covered by a protective order says, Stone makes it clear.”.. 2a) “virtual recitation” = what? Is this referring to the long (incorrect) list above provided by Team Stone? 2b) I’m having a problem understanding what “virtual” means in this context. I would go with “virtual” meaning “made up”, but that’s not a usage that I’m familiar with. I say “made up” given that the document remains under seal and is covered by a protective order.

    Okay, I have two or three other questions, but I’d best stop now.

    • Eureka says:

      If I understand what you’re asking:

      1- Yes, all signs indicate he expects a pardon because his legal team has been merely dialing it in as to quality of arguments/filings.

      2- In this filing, Stone is revealing (what is otherwise under seal) what the gov has as evidence against him, to the apparent benefit of any co-conspirators who otherwise would not have access to the info. Sort of like what happened with the Manafort “redaction fail,” or like a barely-sneaky twist on the Mueller/SCO “speaking indictments” (sensu sharing detailed info in legal filings). Stone is using this filing to “virtually (nearly, practically) recite” what is otherwise hidden under seal.

      ETA: or like what otherwise happened with the “Joint Defense Agreement”– ways to share the gov’s case with others under investigation or at risk.

        • Valley girl says:

          Eureka, Your comment was very helpful. You corrected my wrong thinking that the detailed info in the recent filing was “made up”.

      • Valley girl says:

        TY So re 2) Stone and Team Stone (obviously I mean his current lawyers) do have access to what is under seal and reveal this info [67% of the paragraphs of one of the affidavits (Exhibit 1) laying out probable cause for a CFAA change] in the latest (sloppy) filing? And the recent filing is publicly available, = tip-off to co-conspirators. Team Stone have access to the filings re: the probable CFAA charge b/c that is their right?

        • Eureka says:

          Yes as I understand it, in a nutshell.

          So unlike maybe some other random case where a defendant (or attys) would be using that sealed info for purposes of mounting a defense, it appears to be used here (by virtue of what seems like gratuitous public sharing) in furtherance of ratfucking.

          IANAL and have no idea how common such a practice would be in other cases involving potential co-conspirator(s) (or non-criminally implicating others publicly), but it seems to me to be not prioritizing the defense of Stone _in court_ (which recurs back to your point 1 re Marcy’s post…).

        • Democritus says:

          So sick of all the ratfuckers out there ratfucking away our very democracy.

          They are more offended by the accurate use of the word concentration camps than the reality of their existence on American soil.

          They are all very, very good germans.

  4. Valley girl says:

    Thanks to Eureka for sorting me out on my first two questions. Now I’ll add the rest of what I was wondering about. Maybe I was trying too hard to connect the dots— trying to make sense of Stone expecting a pardon, and then wondering which one of Stone’s co-conspirators (having been signaled by the latest filing) was in a position to give this info to Trump, and thus effectuate Stone’s pardon.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Now that it’s “out there,” virtually anyone in his circle – co-conspirator or not – could get this information to Trump’s legal team without ever visiting the White House.

  5. earlofhuntingdon says:

    The Democrats have their candidate! S/He knows that Democrats don’t like it when s/he quotes NYT’s columnist David Brooks, but he is “a brilliant editorial writer.”

    Is it a) Elizabeth Warren, b) Bernie Sanders, or c) Joe Biden?


    • Valley girl says:

      Could you please unpack that a bit? Which Democrats are you referring to? The beltway Democrats or the ordinary voters? I sense some humor here. but my brain is not dealing well with humor at present.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Modest snark. The twtr thread is better. It was Biden who thinks Brooks is a great editorial writer.

        Biden seems to be replicating what he remembers of Obama’s middle of the road position: be nice to the right, campaign for the imaginary undecided voter, and flip off anyone to the left – in the belief that they have nowhere else to go.

        Once in office, that might work for a spectacularly popular president. As an election strategy, it’s likely to work for Joe as well as his sexism and support for banksters.

        • Eureka says:

          Related– file this under pwning, I guess, rather than snark (tho IIRC there’s ample snark present in the replies):

          Will Bunch: “You scared, bro?… ”


          Joe Biden: “This country wasn’t built by Wall Street bankers, CEOs, or hedge fund managers. It was built by the American middle class. It’s time we recognize that. We’ve got to build an economy and a tax code that rewards work, not just wealth.”

        • P J Evans says:

          I understand Joe asked one of the Tr*mp supporters there for a donation and got turned down. Apparently the guy had previously donated to Clinton – which makes me want to ask some very pointed questions of *both* of them, starting with “WTF were you thinking?”

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Joe’s slogans elide a little history. It’s less relevant who built America, Notre Dame, or Windsor Castle, than who it was built for.

          He’s correct that the USG needs to be reformed. It needs to work for those who work, not just those who attend board meetings, or live on their stock options, bonuses and trust funds.

          More than the tax code needs to be reformed to do that. But Joe Biden’s half-century public career suggests he’s not the guy to lead that reform.

        • Democritus says:

          Biden is a mirage of safety for people who thing we can go back to how things were, or that how things were was perfect to begin with.

          He would be better than trump, but so would a Fifth grader.

        • Mooser says:

          “It was built by the American middle class.”
          Can’t say, “working class” or “workers” can he. Also pretends he can evade race in the equation.

          “It’s time we recognize that. We’ve got to build an economy and a tax code that rewards work, not just wealth.”

          He’ll be saying ‘rewards work, and not laziness’ before you know it.

  6. Savage Librarian says:

    Roger Stone, Susie Wiles and Tony Fabrizio are Florida residents. Betsy DeVos has a big connection and, of course, DT. But look who else has moved in. It’s true that the roaches are a big presence in this infested state!

    “Parscale has also pitched in on the ground. A new Florida resident, he’s paid visits to the Seminole County Republicans in Central Florida, Broward County’s GOP in South Florida and the Miami Young Republicans, who have begun a voter-outreach program focusing on Hispanics.”

    “Inside Donald Trump’s Florida obsession” – POLITICO

  7. greengiant says:

    “¶26: Stone and he are friends, Manafort …” If “he” is Manafort appears that the prosecutors layed it on thin. In fact they are ex business partners of the most prolific political operative combined electioneering and lobbying firm the US has seen.

  8. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Joe Biden confuses “southern hospitality” towards a white male sexist Senator from a banking state with civility. That he was on such good terms with southern racists so late in the game is a measure of his narcissism and obtuseness. The current president gives us plenty of that, thanks. Joe is not for us today.


    • harpie says:

      ‘We got things done’: Biden recalls ‘civility’ with segregationist senators
      June 19 at 5:59 AM

      […] Biden’s campaign didn’t immediately return a request for comment about why it would be notable that the Dixiecrat — who thought black Americans belonged to an “inferior race” and warned that integration would cause “mongrelization” — didn’t call Biden “boy,” a racial epithet deployed against black men. […]

      • harpie says:

        Earlier today Marcy retweeted:
        4:31 AM – 19 Jun 2019

        There is no punchline here, no emoji or funny meme to soften the harm of your words. That segregationist never called you “boy” because you are white. If you want to boast about your relationship with a racist, you are not who we need to succeed the racist in the White House.

        Connie Schultz later added the following to that tweet:
        6:37 AM – 19 Jun 2019

        I add this: My first thoughts, after learning of Biden’s comments, were of my black friends, neighbors and colleagues: How would they hear this? What do they deserve to hear from us?
        Soon enough, they were letting me know.
        We’re either allies, or we’re not.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          When Joe says, “We got things done,” he means he worked with his nominal opponents to agree on legislation. A few of his greatest hits come to mind:

          1) Opposed to desegregation, banking reform, and gun control legislation.

          2) Promoted racially motivated, “tough on crime” legislation that helped create the carceral state and give new life to Jim Crow.

          3) Opposed to women’s rights, especially their right to autonomy over their reproductive lives.

          4) Approved the modestly qualified Clarence Thomas for a seat on the Supremes.

          5) Worked with Turtle McConnell to make permanent George W. Bush’s wealth-favoring tax cuts.

          6) Pro-bank for decades, Biden’s greatest work was his 2005 bankruptcy “reform” law that protected banks, but stripped the middle and working classes of its protections and the right to start over, while jealously guarding a corporation’s right to the same.

        • Democritus says:

          That is it in a nutshell, how mighty white of him.

          Great tweets by both ladies.

          I just saw a tweet of him complaining about raves and Biden praising his old “crackhouse legislation”

          He is exactly who we do not need running and killing all energy.


          Joe Biden Promises Rich Donors He Won’t ‘Demonize’ The Wealthy If Elected President
          “No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change,” the former vice president said at a New York fundraiser on Tuesday:

  9. Willis Warren says:

    Right now, the biggest impediment to justice being served in NY via Manafort is Cyrus Vance, who keeps imposing himself into everything. This isn’t a time for political grandstanding.

  10. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Hope Hicks looked like she was walking the plank today. Her non-testimony was a startling example of the White House’s scorched earth defense and how poorly the House is managing its investigations.

    Will the House issue a contempt citation or ask Mr. Trump, please, sir, may I have another? When will Ms. Pelosi decide that she has had enough and allow Nadler to start an impeachment inquiry?

    • Geoff says:

      It’s remarkable they think they are going to get anywhere without starting impeachment. I mean, they can’t be this ignorant, yet, they persist with expecting magical things to happen. The absolute denial of reality is hard to watch. Each and every important witness is giving them a big f-you middle finger, and the Democrats are just sitting there looking more feckless and clueless than ever. You’d think that with each one of these obstructive witnesses, you’d be racking up a bigger tally of D-impeachment votes, but it’s barely moving. I guess I will check public support trends and see if they have budged, but it’s hard to imagine, since they can’t get witnesses to cooperate. This is really getting hard to stomach.

      • P J Evans says:

        One of the problems is a lot of them think that there’s no point since the Senate isn’t going to vote to convict. That isn’t the point: the point is to get out to the public how corrupt and criminal this maladminstration is, and for that you need hearings, preferably high-profile with lots of news coverage and Dems going out and telling people what they’re finding, every day. If it requires the various chairs and a majority of the caucus – they don’t have that yet, it appears – telling Pelosi that they have to do this, it won’t work with a “sit and wait for a miracle” process, then let’s get it going.
        (see also: )

      • Rayne says:

        I know you sent a message to your representative but what’s their current take? You want the House Dems to take immediate action but you’re not willing to obtain an immediate response from your representative? Have you recruited any friends and family in the district to contact your shared rep?

        A big part of the problem right now is that there isn’t enough displeasure the reps can see and hear outside of the echo chamber of media, corporate or social. Jesus Christ, look at Hong Kong’s marches over the Extradition Bill — 83 million people took to the streets. That’s 25% of Hong Kong’s population. Carrie Lam had no choice but to retract the bill. Your representative needs to hear from a substantive number of constituents for the same reason.

        • Geoff says:

          I continue to attempt to influence others, and will do more. I have only so far gotten the expected email template response from BWC, but it stated she would get back to me. If that does not happen soon, I’ll call to follow up.

        • Rayne says:

          Thanks. Imagine if every single constituent in your district who was unhappy with Trump called your rep’s office this week. How would that rep’s attitude change? That’s what we need to work on, getting everyone mobilized.

        • Geoff says:

          Unfortunately there are some people I sort of know who are hopeless — either on the wrong team (and those are not my close friends, but merely people who associate with friends.) Some I can implore, and they will ignore me, but hopefully for at least one that I make it easier for by sending website contact form and phone # info, it will spur them into action, and help them get over their own inertia. But no one is even talking about this now, and each day it seems less of interest to anyone, which is super frustrating. You gotta hand it to the criminals on team R. They know spin and PR, and know how to get in front of a story and make the impression that sticks. We’ve been on our back foot since the day the Mueller report was released and turned into a joke by Barr. I feel like Mueller realized this, thus the presser he gave, but he must have been really miffed when afterwards, it was as if nothing happened.

        • Mooser says:

          If there was an impeachment inquiry all that ‘evidence’ out there would have someplace to go!

      • Rayne says:

        Look, she’s a Democratically elected representative and she’s also House Speaker based on the House’s own rules. They’ll sort it out. The biggest single bottleneck to holding Trump accountable AND addressing the needs of the people is the Senate Majority Leader — the guy who obstructed the public’s understanding of Russian interference with the 2016 election and the guy who stole a SCOTUS seat.

        Really fucking tired of white dudes constantly banging on one of a very few women in leadership while doing dick-all about a man in leadership.

        • P J Evans says:

          It’s mostly white dudes pushing the “replace Pelosi” line. They never say who she should be replaced by, but the assumption is another white dude.

        • Willis Warren says:

          I don’t care who replaces her. I’m frustrated that she doesn’t seem to remember that impeachment hearings didn’t hurt the Republicans in 2000

        • Rayne says:

          What PJ said. I don’t see persons of color complaining about Pelosi. Perhaps that should clue you there’s more going on than meets the eye — if your privileged blindness lets you see.

        • J R in WV says:

          There are only a couple ways to affect Pelosi’s position of power, the House can vote to replace her, she can be indicted by Trump’s feds on trumped up charges and removed from office after conviction, she can die.

          Warren here seems to have a live wire implanted some where, without any thought about timing of this whole issue. Pelois hates Trump at least as much as any of us, this much is obvious from her remarks and body language. I have to believe she has planned the current House hearings and investigations to run until the Courts — up to the Supremes, probably — force the administration toadys to testify and deliver documents, which will show how vile the Trump administration is.

          I believe she intends to begin a formal impeachment Inquiry next spring and schedules that series of hearings to run right through the election season. I don’t know if she intends to bring a floor vote on one of more Articles of Impeachment before voting starts in October or not.

          Perhaps Madame Speaker intends to have a vote on another Article of impeachment every week of September and October — god knows there are enough laws and treaties broken already to support 10 or 12 Articles, and allowing a full and complete hearing of everyone with anything to say could take as long as Pelosi wants on every individual Article.

          I can imagine the bombast and squirming as Trump is impeached on yet another Article every week going into mid-October. I would hope he would resign from the campaign before Halloween lest he pop on TV.

          Think Warren, there has to be some strategy going on here, and you’re not even looking for it !!!

        • bmaz says:

          If that is her “plan”, Pelosi is a sick and twisted addled old idiot that no longer belongs in power of anything. And “Articles” don’t get issued piecemeal like that, that is one of the silliest things ever uttered. Waiting until “spring” to open an inquiry would be one of the most feckless and asinine “plans” in the history of humanity.

          Was this comment a joke? If not, holy shit. Also, if you want to win in courts, use the best weapon. Don’t fantasize about some idiotic “plan”.

        • Eureka says:

          Speaking to Rayne’s original comment, it’s the reflex to complain/bitch/yell as a homeostasis- maintaining mechanism, secure in the knowledge that that anger– ‘tempered’ or not– has historically been sufficient to keep or return oneself to comfort or safety (cf. ‘white women’s tears’). It’s perseveratively going off-topic for the purpose of conversation-making via unproductive piling-on and rehashing of grievances, which a lot of people (who are trying to maintain the energy to do something productive about it, amidst the rest of their to-do-lists) find demoralizing.

          Further speaking to Rayne’s original comment, I don’t see anything about the links you dropped that either represents anyone doing “dick-all” (her point) or that parries with her broader points (which she has made here many times before, and which must be fucking exhausting).

          Different readers may take it differently, but I took what she said as referencing general commentary (including here, in this neck of the woods, in these here comments sections). And it is exhausting to read.

        • Willis Warren says:

          So, no one, as far as I can tell, actually agrees with her that impeachment shouldn’t move forward.

          Pelosi is never gonna let that happen, though. The question is what’s more important: her position or the impeachment that we all agree should happen.

          It’s not my fault that it’s demoralizing; the inevitable is often exhausting. And yes, those links are important because they hint at her using her position of power and threatening the position of others through intimidation, if not explicitly. People are leaking to NPR that they’re afraid of coming out in favor of impeachment because she can ruin their careers and cripple the funding of the party. I suspect that latter issue is the real reason she’s stalling.

        • RWood says:

          How do you have any form of leverage on McConnell with Pelosi in place?

          I think the pressure needs to start with her first. When is her next town hall meeting, and how many of those 1000+ former prosecutors can we get there to ask questions/appear on camera?

        • P J Evans says:

          You don’t. They’re in equivalent positions in different houses of Congress. The leverage in the House is the power of the purse, and in the Senate it’s confirmation of appointed officials.

        • RWood says:

          Agree. My point being that Pelosi has leverage that she’s refusing to use. We have to solve our Pelosi problem before we can address our McConnell problem.

        • P J Evans says:

          I’ve emailed her as speaker a couple of times in the last month, urging her to get the investigative hearings moving, and to kick the chairs who are slow-walking stuff that should have been done two months ago.

        • RWood says:

          As have I. But emails don’t have the in-your-face type of pressure that a crowd of pissed-off voters can bring.

          Following Rayne and her Hong Kong comment, perhaps Pelosi needs the sight of a few hundred thousand people in the streets surrounding her next town hall to get the point?

          I did take a small bit of hope from her refusal to consider a censure. That tells me she may indeed understand that impeachment is inevitable and simply be waiting for a smoking gun before acting. I don’t agree with that, I believe there is ample cause to start an inquiry, and that her smoking gun will be found within it. But she has to stop with the dithering and act. Her current plan of “not losing” is frustrating those that want to support her. She’s going to lose them if she’s not careful.

        • Mooser says:

          ” I believe there is ample cause to start an inquiry, and that her smoking gun will be found within it.”
          Eggs-ackly. That’s well put.

        • Rayne says:

          Come on. You just saw Jon Stewart create an opening, created an opportunity that should be used as leverage. McConnell is literally welching on 9/11 first responders. If he’ll welch on them he’ll do the same to Kentuckyians. That’s the simple message and it could be repeated throughout social media.

  11. Terrapin says:

    Certainly, it is possible that the sloppy filings reflect Stone’s contempt for the legal process. But could it be he simply doesn’t have the money anymore to hire decent defense lawyers? That being under a gag order has curtailed his normal sources of income from spinning right-wing propaganda forcing him to move out of his fancy rental home and hire third-rate legal help? That maybe his six lawyers are not putting in their best effort in because Stone is a difficult client who has trouble paying his bills? Under this scenario drafting Stone’s legal paperwork gets assigned to young associates whose work isn’t being sufficiently vetted by partners who have lost interest in Stone’s case and probably spend a lot of time looking for ways to dump him as a client. Quite frankly, it wouldn’t surprise me if Stone ends up in the hands of a public defender before this whole process is over. No wonder he is desperate for a pardon.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      In a famous hearing that EW critiqued at length, Stone admitted to the judge that the relevant gag order would have No impact on his ability to earn a living.

      Stone has several lawyers. Either they’re being paid – by whom is another matter – or there has been a resurrection of pro bono spirit to help the courtiers of the high and mighty navigate their inevitable and very expensive legal troubles.

      Regardless of how junior the associate doing the work, the work is vetted as it gets passed up the chain of command. In such a high profile case as this, if it comes out of that a piece of crap, it is by design.

  12. Willis Warren says:

    Dreeben just retired

    Long-time Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben — who in particular is responsible for the criminal docket and also had a leadership role in the Office of Special Counsel — has announced that he will be leaving the Office of the Solicitor General.

  13. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Has anyone seen evidence, a graphic say, about where the US drone was when Iran shot it down? Would the US have shot down a similarly capable drone flying in similar proximity to the United States? Would Russia or China?

    If Iran’s strike was a provocation, what do we call that the drone was flying in that airspace in the first place? I ask because the MSM is renowned for picking up the story only after a foreign entity reacts to US-provocation. It usually leaves out the earlier US provocation or assumes that it could only have been benign.

  14. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Why does the US Congress allow “sponsored” trips anywhere. The AIPAC-sponsored trip to Israel (excluding the West Bank), for which Steny Hoyer has long been responsible for selling tickets, is only a recent example.

    If it is important for a US Congressperson to travel – as a Congressperson – it should be on the public dime. If not, their travels should be in their private, not work-related, capacity and paid for personally. The current system is an invitation to corruption.


  15. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Is Justin Trudeau visiting the White House because the US ambassador to Canada has been absent for 300 days of her short tenure? The Senate is determining whether to consent to her becoming UN ambassador instead. Her non-attendance record even breaks Trump’s golfing record.

    Her chances of approval seem good, given that she and her coal magnate husband hail from Kentucky, which makes it likely that they are on good terms with Turtle McConnell. Besides, no one in the White House thinks much happens at the UN worth paying attention to, so her non-attendance might be deemed a good thing.


Comments are closed.