The 18th Warrant Application against Roger Stone Investigated Hacking

Update: A later ABJ ruling makes it clear that, true to form, Stone’s lawyers are completely disorganized and Exhibit 18 was not in fact the last warrant temporally.

Doug Collins asked some curious questions — amid a series of questions designed to rule out Robert Mueller passing non-public information to Democrats — at Wednesday’s hearing. He asked whether Mueller had obtained any additional information since closing up shop in May 2019.

COLLINS: Since closing the special counsel’s office in May of 2019, have you conducted any additional interviews or obtained any new information in your role as special counsel?

MUELLER: In the — in the — in the wake of the report?

COLLINS: Since the — since the closing of the office in May of 2019.

MUELLER: And the question was, have we conducted…

COLLINS: Have you conducted any new interviews, any new witnesses, anything?


The conversation served as background to Collins’ questions about whether Trump or “those close to him” were involved in Russian conspiracies.

COLLINS: Isn’t it true the evidence did not establish that the president or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer hacking or active measure conspiracies or that the president otherwise had unlawful relationships with any Russian official, Volume 2, page 76? Correct?

MUELLER: I will leave the answer to our report.

COLLINS: So that is a yes.

The question is interesting for two reasons.

First, as I noted, Mueller’s resignation on May 29 preceded Roger Stone aide Andrew Miller’s agreement to testify to the grand jury by minutes. Mueller stayed in place long enough to ensure the subpoena served on Miller a year earlier would be enforced. But he did not, as Special Counsel, obtain that testimony; the DC US Attorney’s office did, using a different grand jury.

One thing Collins (who reportedly had lunch with Trump’s defense attorney Bill Barr before this hearing) would have done with his question is probe whether Mueller knew what has happened with Miller’s testimony to a different grand jury. But it would also mean that Mueller’s answer — that no one close to Trump was involved in any Russian computer hacking — would not cover Miller’s testimony and aftermath.

And that’s interesting because of the history of warrants obtained through February 2019 against Roger Stone.

Between August 2017 and February 2019, the government obtained eighteen search warrants for electronic facilities and properties related to Roger Stone. Doc. 109, Exs. 1-18. Many of these search warrants were issued in the District of Columbia by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell. Doc. 109, Exs. 1-10, 16, 18. Three warrants were issued in the District by other district judges. See Ex. 11 (Judge Contreras); Ex. 12-13 (Judge Boasberg). Others were issued by magistrate judges in other districts. Exs. 14 (S.D.N.Y); Exs. 15, 17 (S.D. Fl.).

Fourteen of the affidavits (“the 1030 warrant affidavits”) allege probable cause that the search will yield evidence of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030, which makes it a crime to “intentionally access[] a computer without authorization or exceed[] authorized access and thereby obtain[]…information from any protected computer.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C). See Exs. 1- 13, 18. 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. Many of these affidavits contain additional evidence alleging probable cause to believe evidence will be found of violations of additional crimes, including 18 U.S.C. § 3 (accessory after the fact); 18 U.S.C. § 4 (misprision of a felony); 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy); 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505 and 1512 (obstruction of justice); 18 U.S.C. § 1513 (witness tampering); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (attempt and conspiracy to commit wire fraud), and 52 U.S.C. § 30121 (foreign contribution ban). See, e.g., Exs. 7-13 (all crimes). Stone raises no arguments regarding these other crimes.

In addition, four of the affidavits (the “false statement warrant affidavits”), issued close in time to Stone’s indictment, allege probable cause that the search will yield evidence of false statements, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering. See Exs. 14-17. Those affidavits set forth evidence supporting the allegations in the indictment that Stone made false statements in his September 2017 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (“HPSCI”), obstructed ongoing investigations, and tampered with a witness.

Starting in July 2017, the government obtained warrants targeting Stone investigating — among other things — hacking. In the time leading up to Stone’s indictment in January, the government obtained four warrants investigating just the false statements and witness tampering charges he was indicted for.

And then in February 2019, the government obtained one more warrant. It’s possible that’s the warrant, issued on February 13, reflected in the liberated docket of warrants, which would appear to cover searches of devices obtained from the searches on Stone’s homes. That one targeted hacking again.

Stone’s challenge to the search warrants against him started on May 10, and the government filing laying out the warrants issued between July 2017 and February 2019 was submitted on May 31, the same day Miller testified (and before he complied with an additional request for communications with Stone). So any claim to be discussing the totality of the warrants against Stone (even assuming they’d tell him about ones investigating crimes beyond his current indictment) would not reflect any investigative steps that followed on Miller’s testimony.

To be clear: if Collins knows of further investigation for Stone for hacking, then it’d be pretty likely that he learned of it because Barr was tampering with that investigation. So this is not to say that any ongoing investigation of the President’s rat-fucker will go anywhere.

But Collins’ questions of Mueller would have the effect of cabining off (whether or not that was the intent) any investigation of Stone that continued even in the minutes after Mueller resigned and Stone’s aide finally started testifying. And the last warrant obtained before that point shows that the government continued to investigate Stone for hacking crimes.

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. 

55 replies
  1. Democritus says:

    OT, but WTF Trump authorized Barr to share classified info with Nunes.

    This will endanger US natsec, I mean seriously wtf. I hope Nunes realizes he could be their fall guy.
    “Trump says he has granted Attorney General William Barr the ability to share classified intelligence documents pertaining to the Russia investigation with Devin Nunes”

      • bmaz says:

        It really is a national security issue though. The Administration refuses to brief the Gang of Eight as required, but will selectively brief Nunes. It is outrageous.

        • Rugger9 says:

          And, there is no doubt what Nunes will get is the Palace “spin” personally approved by Kaiser Quisling. Not that Nunes cares, but one would think that repeatedly getting pwned by “his” cow and alt-mom (how’s the lawsuit going, Devin?) would wake Nunes up to the fact he’s going to get turfed out in 2020 because he’s such a bootlicking lackey.

        • Americana says:

          Do you think Trump is selectively briefing Nunes, i.e., showing him only what Trump and his lawyers want Nunes to be aware of? Or do you think Trump and his lawyers are giving Nunes free rein to read anything and everything?

          • Molly Pitcher says:

            Apologies for being slow on the uptake here. I have had to step away for a bit, as my daughter was married last weekend on the other side of the country and we have been very busy.

            I chafe at the fact that the Gang of Eight is not being briefed. What do they think that Udder Idiot Nunes is going to do with the intel they are feeding him ? I can’t imagine that he has much/any credibility on the Hill.

        • Americana says:

          Are you sure Inspector General Horowitz is untainted by the allegiance to Trump that afflicts Barr? I was greatly encouraged at the recent story about the three IG investigators who interviewed Christopher Steele in June and found him credible. Steele also provided these IG investigators w/some additional information that then caused IG Horowitz to delay the completion of the IG investigation of the genesis of the original FBI Trump-Russia investigation. How independent is the IG’s office and will we be able to read a lightly redacted IG report at its conclusion or is this something Barr will attempt to prevent if the IG’s conclusion goes against Trump?

          • bmaz says:

            Horowitz is a very cautious guy that never gets ahead of himself, but is a pretty straight arrow.

            • Americana says:

              So you’re sure Horowitz will be able to fend off any interference from Trump or Barr? I see IG Horowitz as the last man standing who has any hope of stopping Trump’s steamrolling BS. Given what I’m reading as comments on what I consider the MSM for the average American, Trump’s distortions and disinformation are gaining steam. That’s even w/my dismissal of outright Russian trolls.

              I’m also curious if IG Horowitz would be as aware and as scandalized by Trump’s actions as we are given he’s supposed to remain impartial throughout the investigatory process for his report. The fact Trump’s admitted giving Rep. Nunes access to classified material, does that kind of information show up on Horowitz’s radar? I’m terrified for what this signifies if Horowitz doesn’t (balance deleted)… There are things I just can’t speculate about on line in definitive form. Too depressing.

                • Democritus says:

                  I’m glad he stayed in place so they couldn’t put someone worse in. There is always someone worse. I was reading an article on a civil rights lawyer for one of the agencies who has a record of harassing gays and women. I mean….

                  So I hope Horowitz both stays on and stays ethical.

          • Vicks says:

            From our previous experience with Trump loyalists, If Horwitz’s allegiance was skewed It’s not hard to imagine Horowitz would have already “found” something useful, and whatever “it” was would have leaked or the report would have been timed to disrupt Mueller’s testimony.
            It may also make sense that Barr started an additional investigation because he either caught wind the Horowitz’s was going to be disappointing, or Barr, knowing the facts realized a “straight arrow” wasn’t the right man for the job.
            All speculation of course, but we are dealing with a dirty AG working for a dirty boss who happens to be the most powerful man in the world

            • Americana says:

              Gotcha. I was immediately cheered by the story about the IG’s team finding Steele credible and, on the basis of his testimony, the IG’s report was going to be extended, but it was an oddly fortuitous leak for timing. This will really be a showdown if IG Horowitz goes up against Barr right alongside Mueller. What on earth happens at that point? So far, I haven’t read any story that has speculated on that impasse.

              Given Trump is trying to replace Director of Intelligence Dan Coats, I’m sure Trump’s trying to eliminate the last members of his cabinet who might opt for the 25th Amendment as well as be antithetical to Trump’s foreign policy.


        • BobCon says:

          Is there a Speech or Debate angle to allow selective leaking by Nunes without risking legal problems if the White House or Barr did it directly?

        • JD says:

          Incorrect. The DNC is a private organization. This has already been established when the DNC was sued for the rigged primary. This was their defense, and the judge agreed. The hacking of a private organization, ran by private citizens, is NOT a national security issue.

          • bmaz says:

            That is absolute bullshit. First off, the issue being discussed was general election security, not simply the DNC hack. But, yes, the security of the two major political parties in this country is certainly a concern for national security.

            Secondly, there was not a “rigged primary”, that is also bullshit. As to the big case you attempt to cite, it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and no formal holding whatsoever was made as you argue. This is the wrong place to wander in to and try to troll with that shit.

    • harpie says:

      This is how Kyle D. Cheney responded to that news:
      7:19 PM – 25 Jul 2019

      DOJ has had a long history of making documents available to both Rs and Ds, so if Schiff doesn’t get the same level of access that would be notable.

      …to which Carrie Cordero responds:
      7:29 PM – 25 Jul 2019

      More than notable! Schiff’s the chairman!
      Perhaps ask how POTUS statement squares with this OLC opinion, from [5/1/] 2017 [link]

      This 5/1/17 opinion was written when Schiff was ranking member of the Intelligence Committee…and Nunes was Chair:

      […] Individual members of Congress, including ranking minority members, do not have the authority to conduct oversight in the absence of a specific delegation by a full house, committee, or subcommittee. They may request information from the Executive Branch, which may respond at its discretion, but such requests do not trigger any obligation to accommodate congressional needs and are not legally enforceable through a subpoena or contempt proceedings.
      Accordingly, the Executive Branch’s longstanding policy has been to engage in the established process for accommodating congressional requests for information only when those requests come from a committee, subcommittee, or chairman authorized to conduct oversight. […]

      • Democritus says:

        Thanks harpie. It’s just fucked, so fucking fucked.

        I am just afraid. I cant believe I’m legit hoping for a simpsons parody to come true.(Lisa Simpson, aka Warren, being elected after Trump)

        Ok I went to look for somethings upbeat to post after that bleak meh of mine. I ran across this the other day and it made me laugh.

        Swedish Fika:

        I also enjoyed this piece in the Atlantic about the Democrats generational clash.

        • Democritus says:

          Oh and Adam Serwer, who is not only smart and perceptive as hell but the father of a clan of Garfield’s, nailed it calling out the media for falling for Trumps reality show standards.

          Full title

          The Press Has Adopted Trump’s Reality-Show Standards
          The reaction to the special counsel’s testimony shows how deeply the president has conditioned the media to treat political events like reality television.

          Gah if this is to OT just delete. Roger Stone ratfucker in Chief deserves every comeuppance he has comeuping at him.p ;-)

            • Democritus says:

              Hey that great 😊

              He really seems like good people, and uses his intellect for the forces of good. Sigh, you know that thing where you just start finding things, but your waaaay late to the party and everyone is just. Uh huh, yup? My family has always discussed politics and geopolitics, but when I became disabled and this national security shit show started is when I really started diving in a bit more.

              But anyway with Adam, I mean who can hate on a man both that ethically and morally wise and able to make us better people, but perhaps most importantly, with that many orange kitties who is willing to share the hijinks. Though it’s been sad watching him and his guys miss Burns. (Note I will misspell peoples names, blogs names but the cats? I double checked spelling was correct)


              Not I, not I.


          • orionATL says:

            adam serwer gets right down to the rotten core of our mainstream print and electronic media.

            and no article was more rotten than this one, ostensibly by marc fisher but, if one looked at the credits at the end, by wapoop white house correspondents robert Costa and seung min kim also. this is the post at its media-corporation worst, paying obesiance to a president whom each of its major editors knows with certainty is corrupt, in order to ensure white house access – kissing an expedient corporate goodbye to katherine graham’s courage.


            for 24 long hours this fisher-costa-kim behavior-trivia piece ran in the washington post in the upper left corner of the front page. pandering thy name is marc fisher, robert costa, seung min kim!

            an addition to sewer’s excellent critique of media corporation deep genuflection to power is this:


            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              Kay Graham said goodbye to that courage herself, in agreeing that the Watergate era displayed an “excess of democracy” that had to be discouraged as a threat to established order. Her paper has not waivered from that course.

              The MSM’s sports/entertainment framing of both Mueller and Dem presidential aspirants is infantile. It continues to serve the current bent but established order, despite some of it being under new management.

              • bmaz says:

                I’d like to say that Ben Bradlee would diverge in a hard manner. Then, again, he was married to the quintessential DC doyenne (“It’s our town”), Sally Quinn, for the last quarter century of his life.

              • Democritus says:

                I didn’t know she had that view, that’s sad. I had a great deal of respect for her. I mean I still do, I think most of us humans are flawed though we can grow. From the books I’ve read she went through a great deal with the men in her lives and taking the reins, though to be fair she also had great resources to pull on, I just thought she was perhaps a bit less flawed than she actually was.

              • earlofhuntingdon says:

                Bradlee’s view might be affected by his long history at the WaPo and friendship with Ms. Graham.

                There’s also the Harvardian and Boston Brahmin’s WWII service with Naval intelligence and his alleged connections with the CIA.

                Among them, he was married to the sister of Mary Pinchot Meyer. She was famous for her long affair with JFK; her top CIA-operative and former husband, Cord Meyer; and for being mysteriously murdered on the Towpath in G’town amid a controversy over the Warren Report. The trial of the alleged murderer was deeply flawed.

                Mary Meyer’s sister and Ben’s then wife was also best friends with the wife of James Jesus Angleton, who was close to both Mary and Cord Meyer and Bradlee. Angleton and Bradlee searched Meyer’s apartment before the police released her identity after the murder. A top establishment man with complex views, to say the least.

              • earlofhuntingdon says:

                The “excess of democracy” phrase was coined by arch-conservative Harvard professor Samuel P. Huntington and his co-authors in their 1975 study for the then newly-formed Trilateral Commission, “The Crisis of Democracy.”

                The study was a post-Watergate guide to tamping down the expectations of minorities, students, women, and politicians, who had survived the civil rights movement, the Sixties revolutions, and attempts to impose oversight of government and the intelligence community (e.g., Watergate, the Church Commission).

                Its subject and subtitle were the “governability of democracies.” It argued for a “moderation in democracy” to overcome the excesses expressed over the previous decade.

                Maintaining elite control in the US, and imposing or reimposing it abroad (e.g., Chile, Greece, Brazil) required lowering the “newly acquired aspirations and levels of political activity,” by those groups.

                Like the Powell Memo that preceded it in 1971, it remains one of the authorized books of the establishment bible. Huntington remains in the pantheon of neoliberal gods, especially for those in its rabid anti-immigrant wing.

                • orionATL says:

                  earl of h. –

                  very interesting stories and history as always.

                  i’ve always thought of james jesus angleton as mad, as in mentally off, but apparently that did not keep him from traveling in elite circles – or maybe he had recruited all those elites :)

                  • earlofhuntingdon says:

                    Alcoholic in his later years, obsessive in his passions and secrecy, unable to change course or admit failure.

                    He did recruit many of the intelligence stars, who shared his Ivy League background. He was a ghost until the era of the Church committee, and was forced to retire shortly afterwards.

                    • Democritus says:

                      You have some amazing comments, and I never know what I’ll learn when I start reading them. It’s kinda like a kinder egg.

                      Anyway my dude, I am feeling a 80s surfer vibe today, you must have lead one hell of an interesting life, read a lot of interesting material, or both!

                      Just a note of appreciation.

  2. Americana says:

    If AG Barr gave Collins this line of inquiry (attack) to follow during the hearing over their lunch together, would that be illegal? If Barr did suggest this line of inquiry to Collins, would Barr have been trying to set up a defensive position that would come into play in case of impeachment? It’s terrifying to think Barr is possibly trying to influence the Stone investigation given the role I believe Stone had in these events which is yet to be fully fleshed out. When that’s been done though, it’s going to electrify this entire shebang.

    Can you explain further your point about “cabining off” information about crimes by Stone looked at after the closure of the Mueller investigation? I would have thought information regarding criminality by Stone would still have legal relevance to the Mueller investigation and perhaps impeachment because of the Mueller investigation umbilical cord regardless of the Mueller investigation shutting down because the feds had not yet obtained sufficient information in discovery on Stone’s crimes.

  3. earlofhuntingdon says:

    How fitting that Boris Johnson should choose as his new Chancellor of the Exchequer (Treasury Secretary) ex-banker Sajid Javid. Before entering politics, the multi-millionaire Javid spent a career at two banks: the notorious money launderer, Deutsche Bank, and the equally notorious JPMorgan Chase, run by Jamie Dimon. Looks like it’s all uphill from here.

    • Democritus says:

      FFS. Just 🤔🧐🤨🤬😑🤬

      *insert various nope memes here*

      Also second the Moscow Mitch moniker below, let’s see him sell T-shirt’s with that on it. The chutzpah of that cad, with the Cocaine Mitch fundraising shirts. Not many turtles can roll with the punches like that. That shell usually makes the too defensive, ya know?

  4. earlofhuntingdon says:

    The media is discovering that “Moscow Mitch” McConnell is covering for Trump’s dance with Putin’s Russia. He has recently blocked four bills designed to enhance election security and risk reporting. He falsely claims that the bills were “partisan” attempts to restrict states’ rights, a formula that allows the senator from Kentucky to wrap his veto in a little racist dog whistling.

    The media should remind its readers that McConnell has been at this game a long time. In 2016, before Trump’s election, McConnell prevented the Obama administration from disclosing some of Russia’s election interference.

    When asked to support a bipartisan statement condemning it, McConnell refused. He promised to scream “partisan attack” were Obama to reveal it before the election.

    McConnell and his GOP seem willing to go anywhere and do anything to retain power, as their share of the electorate dwindles in the face of growing diversity – and in the growing awareness of how badly GOP priorities hurt the average American family.

    • OldTulsaDude says:

      This is all being done out in the open, blatantly, and the media only wants to report he said/she said. The real question comes from Sean Connery’s character in The Untouchables: What are you prepared to do?

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico seem to have a good suggestion about how to instigate necessary change.

        • vicks says:

          Yeah it took then 12 freaking days from finding out Ricky was a corrupt pig to getting him thrown out of office.
          Here we admire corrupt pigs, we vote for them and bring our teenage children to hear him speak.
          We will say and do anything to make sure it gets re-elected so it won’t go to jail.

        • Democritus says:

          Chris Hayes has it right, we must do it legally and peacefully. There will be bad faith instigators of violence on both sides, if nothing else via fake Russian trolls since that is a huge part of their goal for destabilization, and we must continually call them out and shut them down. Violence is the fucking last thing we need.

          We must use our democratic right of peaceful protest and voter registration drives and pushes for voting security with hand marked paper ballots and more secure voter rolls and votes.

          Then we need the vote the GOP out of power and hopefully have loyal conservatives set up a new non treasonous conservatives party since any one party in power for too long will have more chances to become corrupted also….

    • harpie says:

      Earl, do you know when exactly that was? I’m wondering if it was around the time of the meeting between DHS [Johnson] and the state election officials about foreign interference—August 15, 2016.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Appears to be late August, early September. The reports, based on a statement by Joe Biden, seem coy on a specific date. But that would have been two months before the election, with plenty of time to place the alleged interference in a bipartisan context.

        McConnell’s refusal to cooperate appears to be wholly self-serving. It and his most recent rejection of legislation to protect election security should be albatrosses around his neck for the remainder of his career.

          • Americana says:

            From your just security link:

            On Sept 9, in a move perceived to break with Trump, Speaker Ryan called Putin an “aggressor,” and said, “It certainly appears that he is conducting state-sponsored cyberattacks on what appears to be our political system.”

            I have to wonder if this anti-Putin statement was yet another reason, perhaps the reason, why Trump started viciously attacking Paul Ryan. Trump didn’t want Ryan’s attitude to become infectious and be spread among more Republicans.

            That was a fascinating article. I didn’t know Sen. Burr had made some of those moves. Do you think Sen. Burr acted to call Don Jr. back for another go at his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee as a means of covering up some of his actions mentioned in that article?

            • Democritus says:

              I’ve always thought that call back was to cover his tracks. I recall, I think it was Mitch, even saying trump was only upset because he didn’t know what Burr was doing.

              I think the GOP wanted to look aboveboard there, but Trumps freakout meant they had to explain to the base that no it really was an attempt to help trump but shhhhhh.

              • Americana says:

                This kind of action by Sen. Burr is what makes deciphering these events so tricky and so hard to follow for the average American citizen. You almost have to have several Russian timelines at hand to read up on new developments and new tie-ins from one event to the next to understand everything. Of course, it should be clear what the overall Russian plan is regardless of the specific Americans involved. But w/Trump having been green-lighted by Putin, it’s even more glaring what the realities involve.

                My last remaining hope is that we find the essential facts that give us the power to break these folks. I think we’ve very close. In the meantime, keep fighting the disinformation coming from the Russian trolls. Pass out links to legitimate, fully-fleshed timelines that give specificity to the charges against Trump.

          • orionATL says:

            the burr article harpie cites is important. it means that candidate trump knew early in his campaign that american intelligence knew that Russia was aiding that campaign. prior to reading this i had thought trump’s first knowledge was at a briefing given him prior to his inauguration.

            from this info i infer that from early in his campaign trump was deliberately concealing from the media and the public his collusion with the russians.

            this explains the anomaly of trump’s rapid firing of manafort (just 2 weeks after the aug 2 meeting with kilimnik to give the latter trump polling data on michigan, wisconsin, and pennsylvania) based on media reports of manafort’s political work in the ukraine. i say “anomaly” because it is well-established that trump often ignores criticism of people he has chosen no matter how serious and legitimate the criticism.

            depending on how soon burr got the info to trump, it might even explain the lie trump crafted on the plane re his son’s meeting with russians on june 9.

            i would guess you could go back and look at a calendar and “see” the steps trump and his enablers were taking to keep his collusion hidden from the public by shedding every hint of russian involvement as soon as it appeared. it is a remarkable black eye to the mainstream media that they failed to detect the implications of burr’s being the trump campaign’s senior foreign policy advisor given the intelligence information burr was privy to.

            this also means that mcconnell’s refusal to support a bipartisan statement on russian interference was a cold calculation to hide the russian involvement for trump, rather than just a matter of general partisanship. this should be used against mcconnell in the campaign next fall.

            it may also explain keeping roger stone outside the campaign.

            that the Manafort firing was not only hasty by trump standards but designed to draw attention away from the campaign’s dalliance with putin is signaled by the quotes in this politico article on manafort’s firing which heaps lots of russia-connections on Manafort, implying that with manafort gone any russian connection too would be gone, when nothing could have been further from the truth:


        • Tom says:

          Not that I’ve done an exhaustive search, but the most detailed account I’ve seen is in Greg Miller’s book “The Apprentice” (pp. 156-163). On p. 158 Miller describes a meeting between John Brennan and Mitch McConnell that seems to have taken place “after Labor Day”. Then on p. 162 Miller describes another meeting between McConnell and Obama officials that seems to have taken place on Sept. 8, 2016.

      • orionATL says:

        re my comment of 7/27 @11:51

        i don’t see why 1) misleading the public about the trump campaign’s collusion with russia and 2) deliberately hiding from the public several of trump’s sexual escapades involving payoffs should not be included in articles of impeachment.

        it is NOT necessary that an article of impeachment involve a criminal act. in fact, i’m willing to bet that those articles of impeachment that discuss inappropriate behavior (say, 100+ meetings between trump campaign and russians) will be more readily accepted and discussed than all the legalistic discussion that has taken place do far about, e.g., conspiracy. forget “conspiracy”, just talk about 100+ meetings :)

        • bmaz says:

          Agree. But it is not just that he did that, it is that it was a definitive election finance crime. And not a speculative one either, but one certified by the SDNY and accepted as such by the Court as such in Cohen’s allocution and sentencing. All the while with the President of the United States as unindicted co-conspirator “Individual 1”.

    • harpie says:

      7:00 AM – 27 Jul 2019

      Mitch McConnell reportedly received donations from voting machine lobbyists before blocking the election security bills this week. [Newsweek link]

      2] Cheryl Rofer retweeted Amb Alexander Vershbow who was NATO Deputy SecGen 2012-2016, previously US Amb to NATO, Russia and S.Korea and Asst Secretary of Defense, now at Atlantic Council
      7:23 AM – 27 Jul 2019

      This is no joke

      Links to WaPo: Mitch McConnell is a Russian asset
      Dana Milbank July 26 at 4:49 PM

      I don’t usually read Millbank, but he goes through a blow by blow account of the bipartisan bills in the Senate and how they were thwarted by Moscow Mitch.

Comments are closed.