Roger Stone Was Parroting That Russian Intelligence Report a Month before FBI Got It

Yesterday, I noted several key problems with the way the frothy right is trying to politicize some reports that John Ratcliffe just declassified: Russian intelligence analysis picked up before July 28 ascribes to Hillary foreknowledge of what Roger Stone would start doing on August 5, first denying that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian mouthpiece and then engaging in public and non-public Twitter conversations with the persona.

Ratcliffe left out an unbelievably important part of the report: the role of Guccifer 2.0 in the Russian report. Intelligence collected in late July 2016 claimed that Hillary was going to work her alleged smear around neither the GRU (which had already been identified as the perpetrator of the DNC hack) nor WikiLeaks (which had released the DNC files, to overt celebration by the Trump campaign), but Guccifer 2.0, who looked to be a minor cut-out in late July 2016 (when this intelligence was collected), but who looked a lot more important once Roger Stone’s overt and covert communications with Guccifer 2.0 became public weeks later.

The report suggests Hillary magically predicted that days after this plot, President Trump’s rat-fucker would start a year’s long campaign running interference for Guccifer 2.0. Not only did Hillary successfully go back and trick George Papadopoulos into drunkenly bragging about Russian dangles in May 2016, then, Hillary also instantaneously tricked Stone into writing propaganda for Guccifer 2.0 days later.

No wonder they consider Hillary so devious.

Mind you, rather than producing evidence that Hillary seeded this story with the FBI (when her public attacks on Trump went right after the Russian intelligence services involved), they appear to be claiming that Hillary used the Steele dossier — which included no reporting on Guccifer 2.0, which was a very early sign of its problems — to plant a story that centered on Guccifer 2.0.

Next up, they’re going to accuse Hillary of going back in time and planting the extensive forensics that prove that the Guccifer 2.0 persona was a GRU operation.

While Hillary was already assailing Trump’s debt to Russia because of the hack, she was in no way focusing on Guccifer 2.0; nor did the Steele dossier that the frothy right seems to believe she used to seed this line of thinking at the FBI address Guccifer 2.0, at all.

There’s something still crazier about the insinuation, one I didn’t realize before I wrote this post.

Roger Stone’s public dalliances with Guccifer 2.0 — an Olympic difficulty flip-flop from attributing the Hillary hack to Russia to, instead, arguing that it was obvious Guccifer 2.0 was not Russian over a nine day span — came when he wrote a post at Brietbart claiming that Guccifer 2.0 was a lone hacker.

I have some news for Hillary and Democrats—I think I’ve got the real culprit. It doesn’t seem to be the Russians that hacked the DNC, but instead a hacker who goes by the name of Guccifer 2.0. The original Guccifer famously hacked Hillary’s home email server, you might remember.

Here’s Guccifer 2.0’s website. Have a look and you’ll see he explains who he is and why he did the hack of the DNC.

Now, ask yourself: Why is Roger Stone the guy showing you this? This website isn’t hidden but of course our pathetic press patsies haven’t reported it; they just keep repeating Hillary’s spin.

Before I tell why Hillary’s dishonest blame-casting is so dangerous, let me explain a little more about why it seems like Guccifer 2.0 is the real deal. He seems to have set up a Twitter account back in June and then a WordPress blog to let the world know that he’d hacked the DNC.

That post had the headline, Dear Hillary: DNC Hack Solved, So Now Stop Blaming Russia.

But two days later Stone reposted it at his own site, magnifying the sub-hed, “Hillary Clinton has tried to save herself from her latest email scandal with rhetoric that poses a dangerous threat to our democracy and even world peace.”

This line — in a post launching Stone’s public lobbying for Guccifer 2.0 — that Hillary was blaming Russia to cover up from her own email scandals, comes right out of that Russian intelligence report. It’s as if Stone was reading right off it.

And yet he was parroting a Russian script — which the CIA only discovered in late July and which would not get formally shared with the FBI until September 7 — on August 7, 31 days before the FBI even got that report.

75 replies
  1. Rugger9 says:

    OT but very important: the CA GOP has been busted putting up fake ballot drop boxes in (so far) Fresno, Los Angeles and Orange counties. Fresno County is Devin Nunes’ base. Apparently the idea is to trick voters into dropping their ballots into these and then dumping the ones they don’t want counted, highly illegal but memorialized on some (IIRC) Instagram posts. The fact they’re trying this in CA means the GOP will do this everywhere so vote in person at the registrar or only use the drop box locations listed in your sample ballot (in CA).

    Their usual cover for when they do stuff like this is that voters should know their rights and official dates (like when the GOP tells voters to vote on Wednesday due to demand).

    • MB says:

      “dumping the ones they don’t want counted” – how would they know which ones those are?? Do they open them and check the votes on them on a 1-to-1 basis? Then re-seal the ones they do want to be counted and deliver them somewhere? Doesn’t make sense. I would have to think if they’re going to the trouble of installing fake dropboxes that they would just dump them all…

      • P J Evans says:

        That would be a neat trick – on my envelope, the seal is on the front side, and it would be very clear that it had been opened and re-sealed.

        • Village idiot says:

          Like from a hack of the DNC, for example? Simple name checking (assuming the candidate name is visible) would be a great method. Situating the boxes to be convenient for democrat voters and then discarding everything would also seem to work.
          Being able to “prove” fraud is possible is a bonus too.

        • P J Evans says:

          Ballots go in envelopes that are signed and dated. You can’t see how someone has voted through the envelope. (I took care to refold the sheets so the last side, which was blank in my precinct, was outside.) Also, my ballot had the local stuff first – school boards and courts.

        • MB says:

          OAE is correct. The voter’s name appears printed on the outside of the of sealed envelope. So, if the collectors from the phony drop box have a computerized roster of Dem voters in their possession, they could discard a sealed and unopened ballot envelope based on that alone.

        • MB says:

          PJ – beg to differ. My return envelope has the sig line and immediately below that it shows my printed name. Below the printed name is the date line. We both live in L.A. County, so they should be exactly alike! If you still have your return envelope, take a look…

        • P J Evans says:

          Dropped in the local official box this morning. No, it didn’t have my address *printed on the outside*. They had me write it in, below my sig and the date, as I’d have to sign the register and write in my address if I were voting in person. (I’d actually prefer that on an inner envelope, but it’s not my choice.)

        • ducktree says:

          My California mail-in ballot (which I’ve cast from the same address for 21 years or so) only shows my signature, not printed.

          My penmanship has become a bit squirrely over the years, but it is still legible-ish.

        • Vicks says:

          Changing signatures are a big problem with mail-in ballots.
          In CO, ballots are run through a scanner that compares the signature on the ballot to signatures the state has on file for the voter.
          If you used your best cursive when you signed your drivers license and a stylish scribble on your ballot, the signatures aren’t going to match and your ballot will be flagged unless there are records on file that show this evolution.
          Flagged ballots are then reviewed by humans, and if rejected, a letter is sent out giving the voter a week to fix it.

        • Geoguy says:

          In New Jersey, the voter prints his or her name and address on the back of the outer envelope. No need to open it if one is comparing the voter name to a Dem voter roster.

        • Geoguy says:

          I think everyone in this thread has a part of their goal in mind. VillageIdiot noted that “Being able to “prove” fraud is possible is a bonus too.” Fraud to me seems to be the biggest part of it. They could disappear the Biden votes and find the Trump votes “in a river” and declare the election in California illegitimate. California has more electoral votes than any two or three “swing states” (excluding Florida and Texas.)

        • Chris.EL says:

          here’s a nightmare scenario: California votes to re-elect Trump.

          Everyone will know votes have been redirected, right?

          This statement just took my breath away: “OT but very important: the CA GOP has been busted putting up fake ballot drop boxes”…

          Nunes’s cow needs to be LOCKED UP!!!

        • subtropolis says:

          Dumping them in a river isn’t the goal. After all, they were collected illegally in the first place.

          A more likely scenario is that the boxes are removed as they are located, but the ballots inside remain in legal limbo. Who each ballot as cast for is beside the point. They’ll lose California, anyway. The fascist plan is to tie up in the courts in as many states as they can. What they’ve done here, potentially, is to create justification for legal wrangling in California. I doubt that they’ll have much trouble coming up with bullshit reasons in a bunch more.

        • Geoguy says:

          Hi subtropolis. I didn’t mean literally dump them in a river. Your 2nd paragraph is exactly the goal in my opinion.

        • Rugger9 says:

          And right on cue we have DJT tweeting about fraud in CA today, where the state hired SKDKnickerbocker to counteract the BS spewing from DJT and the rest of the GOP on vote by mail.

          Of course, DJT conveniently left out the fact that it is the GOP putting up phony “official” ballot boxes for ballot harvesting. Calling it an “official” box crosses the legal line and we’ll see what California AG Becerra does about it.

    • graham firchlis says:

      Truly bizarre. Here in CA the fake drop boxes are a crime.

      Voter lists are supposedly confidential, but somehow political parties seem to have access. Not hard to match up names and party preference, then just chuck the D and No Preference ballots.

      Even successful, this scheme is unlikely to shift our Electoral College outcome. Close House districts, like Nunez’, could be tipped as well as tight state and local races.

      • P J Evans says:

        The GOP-T keeps claiming that official drop boxes are “ballot harvesting”. I have to think that they’re projecting, or simply lying. It makes me wonder even more about the boxes they were using.

      • MB says:

        From the linked article:

        “Barajas said the party has no intention of removing the drop boxes, but said the party would discuss removing the word “official” from their drop boxes. Attorney General Becerra said Monday those who don’t comply could face prosecution.”

        So Becerra is basically wagging his finger at this deceptive practice, and the GOP is basically shrugging its shoulders in response. Which they will continue to do unless he initiates an actual prosecutorial action against them. Until then, they will continue to do this kind of stuff in plain sight.

  2. tinao says:

    Jeebus, still watching confirmation hearing on c-span. These MFers are arguing stuff that is settled law. OMG their candidate is of a slice of catholicism, I as raised as a catholic and now will not to conform to because of their protection of pedophiles. I work with pedophiles and let me tell you a lot of em are abused people. So tell me again, what is Frances’s stance on the criminaility of abusers?

    • P J Evans says:

      She’s a RW Catholic – “more Catholic than the Pope” is the phrase, I think. (I’d like to know her position on the validity of the popes since Vatican II. That would tell us a lot.)

      • tinao says:

        Yeah, so I know the pope said they are chargable!
        Do this for us ALL, Now. I would reject her confirmation on those facts alone.

      • ducktree says:

        This all reminds me of the BBC series Blackadder. The executioner has himself been decapitated because, in his exhaustion, he signed his name on the wrong line. So he was abducted and beheaded. It’s so hard to replace executioners because their lifespans are most often cut short. A puzzlement.

        Elizabeth R laments:

        “Q: The bad news is that actually there are simply hundreds of
        catholics who desperately want their heads sneaked off and
        there’s no-one to organise it.”

  3. tinao says:

    Yeah, if we can make insurance companies cover birth control we would not need the abortion measures. Ahhh men.

  4. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Just to put one more date into the timeline — looks like it would have been early Sept 2016 that the FBI briefed McConnell about Russian interference. IOW, from EW’s timeline, it appears that the FBI/CIA lost no time in at least attempting to alert McConnell/GOP.

    One wonders whether Stone, et al, via his employees/associates had already been in cahoots with McConnell and other GOP leaders, including the pathetically feckless Paul Ryan…?

    Former Obama administration officials have previously faulted Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other GOP lawmakers for blocking their September 2016 request that Congress issue a bipartisan warning about Russian interference in 2016. McConnell reportedly threatened to allege that the White House was misusing intelligence to hurt Donald Trump’s presidential campaign…

    It would sure be interesting to know what the network looks like between Russian disinformation operative Stone, and the GOP — both House and Senate. And Devin Nunes was Chair of House Intel.
    Holy wowsers…

  5. BobCon says:

    It’s not clear to me — do we know that Stone was parroting the Russians? Or were the Russians following talking points Stone wrote?

    Or, was there a third party who was the source for both Stone and the Russians? I’m skeptical the Russians alone have the grasp of US language and culture to develop all of their messaging.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      From reading the Mueller report, I understood that cultivating a deep and idiomatic grasp of US English usage (especially as deployed via social media) was the primary initial focus of the group working this operation for GRU. Note that they did make mistakes (particularly when trying to sound most “American”), but I doubt that raised the kind of red flags that signal “communist” here–just the other kind, based on their success.

      • BobCon says:

        I remember examples of some of the recruiting attempts that sounded about ten degrees off — overly formal, for example.

        The reason i’m wondering about the Stone in Breitbart piece is that I know the American far right has its own lingo, issues and triggers that I don’t even get consistently. It’s a weird, idiosyncratic audience.

        I’m sure Stone would know how to craft talking points, or someone in the US might be able to edit them, but it’s not clear to me the Russians could craft them unaided. Maybe they have someone with that expertise if they’ve been immersed for a very long time (although if i were the Russians, I might worry that kind of specialist might go over to the kooky side due to overexposure).

  6. tinao says:

    Yo that blackburn is a piece of work. We have a system of government that considers people like you. Its telling that worm tongue deflects the real questions of our time.

  7. Mulder says:

    The more evidence of corrupt, crazy criminality Marcy squeezes out of the Russia tube, especially with regards to Stone, the more astounded I am at what he was involved in. Sullivan’s words to Flynn apply here, “Arguably, you sold out your country.”

    Why? Just for the action? For the win? He appears to live a good life but hardly one that reflects huge sums of money you might reasonably ask to do what he has done. It’s fucking depressing.

  8. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Ms. Barrett’s girlish twang and high smarminess wear thin after the least exposure. Mummy-ness theater aside, Ms. Barrett might be the most ambitious applicant yet to the Supreme Court, surpasssing Beer Boy Brett. But high ambition is as much a given as a superlative mind. They are prerequisites, the minimum necessary characteristics to sit on the Court. Of more importance is her animating persona.

    What counts – and is manifestly an appropriate topic for questioning by Senators – is her ability to set aside her religious-cum-political and cultural beliefs when determining the legality of the conduct before her. Her simplistic denials that they would influence her judgment are as meaningless as a racist’s denial that he is racist or a woman-hater’s denial that he is a misogynist. .

    The answer is, of course they will. It’s why she wants the job and it’s why she was put up for it. I think it would be better all round if both sides admitted it, and then acknowledged that a working court, one accepted and trusted by the people it serves, demands a diversity of views, because they inescapably affect legal priorities and judgments. It’s what the whole fucking debate is about.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Barrett is the 21st century-updated product (and protector) of the old boys’ network. Kavanaugh was the mid-20th century model; Gorsuch seems determined not to be pinned down. Barrett has packaged herself superbly. Her veneer cracks only under duress from stronger women, Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris, whose legal chops threaten her inherently fragile position. Her anger shows only when someone comes close to revealing the fundamental hypocrisy of a woman benefiting so richly from selling out other women–and everyone else less privileged than she is.

  9. Savage Librarian says:

    As you say, EoH:

    “Ms. Barrett’s girlish twang and high smarminess wear thin after the least exposure.”

    I’m glad to hear that I’m not the only one who thought so. It was interesting that Sen. Kennedy (R – LA) pointed out that Coney Barrett grew up in Metairie, LA, Southern Belle territory and a mostly white suburb of New Orleans. After Hurricane Katrina it became more diverse.

    But, I have to say, I wondered if the mention of Metairie was actually a dog whistle. For a number of years, Metairie was the headquarters for the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP), founded by David Duke after he left the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

    Duke worked for Pat Buchanan’s 2000 presidential campaign. But things went sour when Susan Lamb, Buchanan’s Duval County campaign manager in Florida, quit when she was exposed as Jacksonville’s NAAWP leader.

    The NAAWP was also having internal struggles, especially after a 1997 report by ABC’s “Prime Time Live” exposing members with a militia at a ranch in Polk County, FL which was owned by a former sheriff. The group got renamed National NAAWP and relocated headquarters from Metairie, LA to a small town near Jacksonville, FL. Eventually, that group also struggled and subsided or was absorbed into other groups.

    Interestingly, during this time frame, Susie Wiles worked in executive positions in the Jacksonville mayor’s office (1995 – 1999 and 2004 – 2008) and Rick Mullaney was the General Counsel (1997 – 2010.) Mospeck and bmaz commented on Rayne’s post of 10/9/20 about a CNN piece. And I noted also in that CNN Begala embedded clip, the last person shown with Amy Coney Barrett is Rick Mullaney of Jacksonville, FL at the Public Policy Institute at Jacksonville University. And we know from previous posts and news that Susie Wiles is a friend of Roger Stone’s and saved a seat for Natalia Veselnitskaya at a congressional Magnitsky Act hearing on June 14, 2016.

    Other interesting facts:

    David Duke and Chloe Hardin divorced and she moved to West Palm Beach, FL where she later married Don Black, Duke’s friend from the Klan. Black and Hardin created Stormfront, a neo-Nazi website.

    David Duke rented out a Moscow apartment in 1999. He lived in Russia for about 5 years. He was a speaker at the international “White World’s Future” conference in Moscow in June 2006.

    In February 2016, Duke urged people to vote for Trump.

    Amy Coney Barrett worked at Baker Botts where she did research and provided briefing assistance for the firm’s representation of George W. Bush in the lawsuit, Bush v. Gore, from the 2000 presidential election.

    The fathers of David Duke and Amy Coney Barrett both worked for Shell Oil Company, his as an engineer and hers as a lawyer.

    • bmaz says:

      The tone of Barrett’s voice and perceived smarmishment do not interest me much. None of us can really affect how we sound to others, absent some sort of Hollywood speech coaching. That is her, that is okay.

      As to the smarmy part, make no mistake, Barrett is extremely smart, and she knows her appointment is a done deal. And she is right. Her breadth of real life legal experience is beyond thin for a person who deigns to spend a lifetime telling day to day lawyers and trial judges what to do. She has never really done that, and has no clue whatsoever. But so too was Elena Kagan’s background. To me, both were/are unqualified, but not intellectually.

      I have no problem that, as an associate at Baker Botts, she worked on Bush v. Gore or any other case. If I had been there, I would have too, irrespective of the fact that I hated what was working on. That is what you do, and as a junior lawyer, you want to work on the biggest cases. That is of no moment whatsoever, it was her job and she was smart enough to be so tasked. That is okay.

      The extremist record she has made on her own, however, is a far different and damning thing. That is what matters, and said record is crystal clear.

      • Chris.EL says:

        IANAL – curious about the process Supreme Court Justices follow as they learn about cases, decide which to consider, confer, etc. from bmaz’s perspective.

        Barrett’s potential part on the SCOTUS is only one out of nine, correct?

        We mere citizens can only “watch” from the sidelines.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          No exactly. Barrett would also be part of a voting bloc that would hold a substantial majority, perhaps the most extreme member of it.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Her tone and public persona are part of a schtick, one that implies she would be no threat either to men or to established precedent. It’s theater, and it’s not true, any more than John Roberts only calls balls and strikes.

        As for her time at Baker Botts, I agree that junior associates are cannon fodder. They take the next assigment that comes over the transom, or they participate in all hands on deck projects. But partners and senior associates quickly assess certain charactersistics, including zeal and a willingness to do whatever it takes to win.

        A high court judge should have more restraint. But ACB is a zealot. She’s there to shake things up and remake American law in her image, not RBG’s, regardless of who it upsets. It’s part of her higher calling.

        If ACB were subject to mandatory rules that required her, say, to recuse herself from any case about which she would have an appearance of bias, she wouldn’t want the job. As it is, there are no such rules. She can decide for herself – like Scalia duck hunting with Cheney – whether she has a bias requiring her to recuse. I’ve never heard of it being exercised.

        • notjonathon says:

          Has any Senator asked her if she has voted in a federal election? If she has, then she admits that the Constitution is amendable and is thus not an Originalist.

        • BeingThere says:

          Has any Senator asked if she has talked with trump, and it be “implied, hinted, suggested, …” how she should opine if confirmed, or if she were asked for “loyalty” of any way?

  10. John Paul Jones says:

    If it’s the case that Stone is parroting intel collected from the Russians, the source could go equally in either of two directions (if I’m reading this aright). Either his source is Russian (Gucifer 2.0? Someone else?) or his source is a leaker from the US gov. It would be nice to have more info. so one could decide which way this should tip, but my WAG would be Russian.

  11. PhoneInducedPinkEye says:

    One possible source is having been given some advance knowledge that fusion gps/steele had been hired to investigate RU/Trump ties, no? Which RU at a minimum would have known when they compromised DNC’s email server.

    It’s so telling that out of Gates, Flynn, Cohen, Manafort, Stone, Stone was the one Trump used his commutation power on.

    • Savage Librarian says:

      Donald is counting on Roger to seal the deal to steal the vote. Roger has past experience Donald counts on. I really wonder about that malware installed in St. Lucie County in 2016. St. Lucie is above Palm Beach county, separated only by Martin county. So, Roger and Donald were not far away.

      Roger Stone played a critical role in stealing the 2000 election. Also, Bob Woodward told us that, prior to the 2016 election, Russians placed malware in the election system of St. Lucie County, FL (which had voted Democratic in 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012.) In 2016, like a miracle, they voted for Trump.

      “Investigative journalist Greg Palast: How Trump will steal the 2020 election” | Salon, 2/28/20
      “In 2000, George W. Bush officially won the presidency by 537 votes in Florida. Just 537 votes. When they had the recount, most people really did not understand the details of what was happening.”

      “First of all, 178,000 ballots were considered disqualified and unreadable. These were concentrated in Democratic and black areas such as Jacksonville, Gadsden County, Miami-Dade and Broward. Stone was the instigator of what the news media described as the “white-collar riot.” 

      “People misunderstand what happened. This was not a “recount.” What really happened was counting ballots that were never actually counted in the first place. Those were overwhelmingly Gore ballots. Bush would have lost. The count was stopped. One way to stop the vote count in Miami was by having Roger Stone literally lead a riot where they were trying to break windows and smashing doors. It was white guys in suits, led by Roger Stone. One can only imagine how the Miami police would have reacted if black people were doing the same things.”

      “Violence elected a president. The Republican operatives loved it. They said, “This guy will do anything we need.” And Roger Stone still does. It’s not cute. These are not “little dirty tricks.” It is deeply evil voter manipulation. It’s violent and it’s racist.”

  12. Franktoo says:

    Suppose Hillary Clinton did try to divert attention from her email problems and onto possible links between Trump and the Russian hackers of the DNC. So what? Is that a crime to make false allegations about a political opponent in order to distract attention from your problems? Or is this just politics as usual?

    If no possible crime was involved, why would the CIA forward the information to the FBI and brief Obama about the intelligence?

    • PhoneInducedPinkEye says:

      Maybe there is a classified equivalent of ‘Clinton Cash’ floating around. Maybe the rank and file of the CIA had a bias problem like some in the SDNY. Maybe Obama was regularly pestered with Clinton is actually a lizard person conspiracies.

      Idk if the secretary of state is putting out claims about an adversary, especially if they are grounded in truth during an ongoing RU cyber/disinfo campaign, it seems reasonable for the CIA to notice. The CIA also would have known FBI was investigating foreign interference.

    • P J Evans says:

      Because it was a potential national security problem – not because she was doing it (AFAICT she wasn’t), but because people believe that kind of thing and then want to act on it (see the GOP-T and the frothy right). That’s the job of the intel agencies.

      • Franktoo says:

        PJ: Thanks for the reply. Based on what EW has been saying, the FBI conducts criminal investigations and national security investigations. I couldn’t see how her actions could be criminal, so you have probably correctly pointed me towards national security. The memo asserts that HRC “approved a plan concerning [DJT] and Russian hackers hampering US elections”. The next sentence is redacted, but it likely mentions Guccifer 2.0, since the last sentences discuss what is publicly known about Guccifer 2.0. If the plan involved Fusion GPS or Steele, they would have been described in the last sentences.

        So what could the HRC campaign do with Guccifer 2.0 that would endanger national security? They could accuse or plant false stories that the Trump campaign was collaborating with Guccifer 2.0, which is ironic since Stone immediately tried to contact Guccifer 2.0. Or would the national security issue be the fact that sensitive information is leaking from the HRC campaign? Or perhaps the Intelligence Community has leaked non-public information to the HRC campaign. The right, of course, believes this memo says the FBI was warned about the false stories Steele would plant on the FBI. However, the Steele Dossier never linked “Russian hackers hampering US elections” to the Trump campaign.

  13. harpie says:

    hmmmmm. “Super precedent”
    I did not know that was a thing…IS it a thing?:
    9:17 AM · Oct 13, 2020

    Graham asks about Brown v. Board (a common Qs Dems have asked Trump nominees) and whether it’s “super precedent.” Barrett says in her writings as a law prof she’s used that framework, which refers to a small # of cases where it’s “unthinkable” they’d be overturned b/c so settled

      • Chris.EL says:

        IANAL, remember reading somewhere that Justice Ginsburg was not happy with the way Roe was structured. Maybe a little tuning up to a stronger structure could be good. My belief is that the government and nosy citizens don’t belong in a woman’s conference with her doctor. fwiw

        • bmaz says:

          The thumbnail is that RBG agreed with the goal, but thought it ought occur more slowly. Picture the Obergefell case decades earlier. She was wrong then, the Constitution either protects rights or it does not. Roe was right.

        • harpie says:

          This is what RBG said in December 1992:

          […] A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy. […]

          That lecture is quoted and linked in this Aug. 2018 article:
          Ruth Bader Ginsburg Wishes This Case Had Legalized Abortion Instead of Roe v. Wade

          It seems current Judicial RADICALS use this very argument against Roe.

        • harpie says:

          From the above linked TIME article:

          Ginsburg said that she believed it would have been easier for the public to understand why the Constitution protected abortion rights if it the matter had been framed as one of equal protection rather than privacy. And in fact, there was a specific case she had in mind as one that should have driven the national conversation, instead of letting Roe carry that weight.

          She told the Senators that she “first thought long and hard” about abortion rights when, as a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), she took on Struck v. Secretary of Defense a case that was on the Supreme Court’s calendar during the same term that Roe was decided. […]

        • FL Resister says:

          It’s painfully obvious that the same people who won’t wear a mask because they say it’s their Constitutional right to potentially inflict a serious infectious disease on other people, also think it’s okay to deny women the right to decide for themselves whether to carry a fetus to term. Barrett is a SC candidate only because her thinking conforms to patriarchal jurisprudence.
          That she is taking women’s flagship Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s seat is an abomination which should justify adding three Supreme Court Justices during Biden’s first term. One for Garland’s denied seat, one for Ginsberg’s seat, and one because “elections have consequences.”

        • Chris.EL says:

          Wholeheartedly agree!

          It is so sad when individuals work for a purpose, so determinedly, as Justice Ginsburg did, their entire lives, only to have their life’s work, essentially, plowed under!

          Another woman that contributed a lot to the United States of America, John McCain’s mother recently passed at age 108!!! Wow! I hope donnie doesn’t let some of his rude remarks come any way near her well-lived life.

        • FL Resister says:

          No fear. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has been “sowed” under. And though she has left us there are now 10,000 RBG stamped versions in various stages of development, from the just born to the first blooms. RBG has left us but her influence is fertile ground.

  14. Eureka says:

    Epiphany [Corsi Corsi Corsi]: THIS [advance knowledge of the (outlines of the) Russian intelligence report] is what Corsi was talking about in that email to Stone on August 2, 2016:

    Time to let more than the Podesta to be exposed as in bed w[ith] enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC. That appears to be the game hackers are about now

    [close approximate if not exact]

    In context with other known facts, Ratcliffe’s release implicates Corsi and whoever he was talking to. Thank you for dumping yet more inculpatory evidence and relieving an itch: this has been driving me nuts for two-ish years now, what exactly Corsi meant. It’s this.

    Besides the timing of Stone’s follow-up as outlined in the post, also note how as an aside Corsi tacks on how it “would not hurt to start suggesting HRC old, memory bad, has stroke”. And the accessory folks at InfoWars like Watson did just that — took on the ‘HRC old sick’ job like the accessory it was. TO THIS.

Comments are closed.