Kaboom! Stone indictment makes clear there was no Trump-Russia conspiracy

This Op-Ed was Written by Andrew C. McCarthy who is a United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

From Liberal Leaning the Hill:
Special counsel Robert Mueller's indictment of Roger Stone elucidates what has been apparent to the public for a year, and therefore must have been known to prosecutors and the FBI for much longer: There was no criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian government. That is, the Kremlin's cyber-espionage efforts to undermine the 2016 election by hacking Democratic email accounts were not coordinated with the Trump campaign.

In the Stone indictment, Mueller offers up 20 pages of heavy-breathing narrative about the Russian theft of tens of thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, the transmission of the purloined materials to WikiLeaks (portrayed as a witting arm of the Putin regime), and their subsequent media publication in the final weeks of the campaign. But the big wind produces no rain. At the end, we get a couple of pages of process crimes.

Stone is charged with such comparative trifles as concealing from Congress that his communications with an associate were in writing. The seven counts are offenses generated not by an espionage conspiracy but by the investigation of an espionage conspiracy that did not exist.

Not one that "may not have existed." The Trump-Russia conspiracy did not exist.

This should not be controversial. It should not matter whether you like Donald Trump. It should not matter whether you believe, as I do, that Trump's ingratiating campaign posture toward Vladimir Putin's murderous anti-American regime was detestable, and that the Trump orbit's cajoling of WikiLeaks - a cat's paw of the GRU, Russia's largest foreign intelligence agency, that has done immense damage to U.S. intelligence and national security - was reprehensible. It is simply a matter of reading the special counsel's indictments, of seeing through their ambitious storytelling and grappling with what they actually charge.

It is very simple. If the Trump campaign had been in an espionage conspiracy with Russia to hack Democratic email accounts, why would the campaign have needed Stone to try to figure out what stolen information WikiLeaks had and when it would release that information?

Mind you, it appears that Stone did not know, either. The indictment suggests he was expecting a lollapalooza of a Clinton Foundation exposé that never materialized. Mueller does not make the claim, suggested widely in the media, that Stone had foreknowledge that Podesta's emails would be disclosed. And, to repeat, Stone is not charged with being in a conspiracy with WikiLeaks.

As Election Day approached, then, the Trump campaign did not know what Russia had hacked and, indeed, had no more reason than the rest of us news consumers to suspect that Russia was behind the hacking of Democrats. It knew WikiLeaks might have emails that were somehow related to Mrs. Clinton because Julian Assange had said so quite publicly in June 2016. But the campaign did not know whose emails these were, or that WikiLeaks - which has many sources of stolen communications - necessarily got them from Russia. People in and around the Trump campaign had a dialogue with Stone about what WikiLeaks might be planning, but Stone was just speculating; though he had sources with better access to WikiLeaks than he had, they, too, were unsure.

Indications of the Trump campaign's lack of knowledge about, much less involvement in, Russia's operations are not new. They are completely consistent with the two indictments Mueller has filed against Russian enterprises: the "troll farm" case, charged in February 2018, and the hacking case, charged five months later. While the Russians never have been particularly effective at meddling in U.S. elections, their intelligence apparatus has been at it for the better part of a century. Peddling propaganda and, in modern times, hacking are not activities they need help with - not from Trump's campaign or anyone else's.

Democrats speculate that Putin wanted Trump to win. Most of us on the other side counter that he wanted to sow discord into American society regardless of who won. In either event, Putin's desires do not make Trump complicit in Putin's violations of American law - even if most of us can agree that Trump's courting of Putin's favor was nauseating (as were the Obama/Clinton "Russian Reset," the Uranium One deal, Bill Clinton's collection of a tidy $500,000 for a quickie Moscow speech, Barack Obama's hot-mic promise of "flexibility" on Russian demands once the 2012 election was over, and so on).

There is abundant evidence of bipartisan American naiveté and policy foolishness regarding Putin's regime. There is no proof of a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Putin regime. To the contrary, Mueller continues to pile up proof in the opposite direction.

This being the case, there are three questions I'd suggest to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who now chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee and has done yeoman's work investigating Obama-era politicization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process.

In all four of the warrants the Justice Department and FBI sought to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, the purportedly "verified" applications outlined Russia's hacking operations and then, following a passage that has been deleted from the publicly released application, informed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that "the FBI believes the Russian government's efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with [Donald Trump's] campaign." This representation echoed then-FBI Director James Comey's March 2017 House Intelligence Committee testimony that the FBI believed there was a basis to investigate "whether there was any coordination between the [Trump] campaign and Russia's efforts."

So here are the questions that Chairman Graham might consider putting to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (who approved the last FISA warrant application on Page):

Do the Justice Department and the FBI still stand behind their representation to the FISC and their highly irregular, publicly announced suspicion that the Trump campaign coordinated in Russia's cyber operations against the 2016 election?

If they do not continue to stand behind their representation to the court and public announcement to the committee, have they corrected the record with the FISC or the House Intelligence Committee (there not having been any public retraction)?

If they do stand behind their representation, how do they square that position with the indictments filed by Mueller, which have charged no Trump-Russia conspiracy, and which indicate there was no Trump-Russia conspiracy?

Many would say such questions can await Mueller's final report. But even if the special counsel's investigation is winding down, the indictment of Stone eventually could lead to a trial, and there is an active grand jury, so additional indictments are possible. The Mueller probe could go on for months. Americans are entitled to know now if the president and his campaign are suspected of being clandestine agents of Russia.
*Note* Andrew C. McCarthy works for the Southern District Of New York, the same one who handled the Cohen Case.

@visafree @FactsMatters @SaremChuuk @errr @redsnapper @SakaSaka, any thoughts on this girls?


  • Blah blah blah bone spurs news network. Where the pesos nigga?
  • Another group of lies, huh Nazi? Andrew C. McCarthy does NOT work for the SDNY, he quit the SDNY in 2003. He is not a liberal, and the Hill is not a "liberal leaning" publication. McCarthy actually works for the National Review, a right wing publication, and has been a conspiracy theorist for the past 15 years.

    The following is from the Wikipedia article on McCarthy:

    "Andrew C. McCarthy III (born 1959) is an American columnist for National Review. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks. He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003. During the Obama administration, McCarthy promoted conspiracy theories that the Obama administration was aiding Islamist plots to sabotage the West from within."

    If you can't win fairly, cheat. If the truth hurts, just lie. How stupid can you be, Nazi, to put false representations in your bullshit post without checking your facts. Or did you check your facts, and then just lie on purpose to deceive.

    Here is something true: Reaper is an idiot, an ignorant fool.
  • Media Bias has rate The Hill slightly Left-Center biased based on story selection that very slightly favors the left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing. (5/18/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 6/15/2018)

    Andrew C. McCarthy III (born 1959) is an American columnist for National Review. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

    @SaremChuuk, you didn't prove nothing wrong with my statement but showed them to be factual yet again. The Hill is a liberal leaning news outlet, and Andrew wroked for the Southern district of New York. lol

    And you didn't duspute that the Stones indictments showed again No collusion and proved no coordination between Trump and Russia. What you dispute is the Hill being a liberal outlet which the Hill is and you dispute that McCarthy worked for the Southern district which is also did.

    Thanks for proving me right yet again. This is what happens when you let your emotion could your judgements.

    MAGA and keep it going.
  • Rest already! The hand job you keep giving orange face white dick must be killing you. Or not. Hahahaha hahahaha
  • Where is the collusion? or obstruction? Roger Stone case shows none.

    Did liberal media misspoke?
  • You said McCarthy works at SDNY. A flat out lie. You also IMPLY that McCarthy is a liberal because The Hill is a “liberal” publication. But he is as right wing as David Duke. Another lie by implication.

    You are really getting boring, and your lies are getting more obvious.

    I’ll wait for the conspiracy endictment against Assange, Stone, Trump, Jr. before I gloat.

    What a stupid ignorant fool you are.
  • You can't have David Duke and the Black Lives Matter racists on one side of the aisle now. That won't fly for even the dumbest libtard. And just because the KKK is an unpopular bunch of disowned democrats don't mean they share the same ideals as the party of Abraham Lincoln. Fact is BLM and KKK are both racist hate groups created by the democrats. They share the same ideals and racist hate. Calling anyone who's not a democrat or doesn't share your opinions a "Nazi" and "facsist" just goes to show the same hate that has motivated those democrat mobs to act. Burning crosses or burning Little Ceasars with that same democrat fire. lol
  • Anyone who disagree is with the Church if Socialism aka liberalism is a Nazi and a racist. We are deplorables and irredeemable punch of Nazis according to Hillary Clinton that is. hehehehehe

    @SaremChuuk, so your beef is that this McCarthy guy used to work for southern district of new york and that the hill is left leaning and not the bombshell that the Stone indictments shows no collusion?
  • See i knew it. People forget that Mueller is a freaking republican. His case from the first indictments to the latest showed no evidence of collusion. That's what he is doing. He is building up a case to show the people that there was no Collusion. The media and our leaders in the democrat party think Mueller is on their side how stupid can they be. Mueller is a republican his trying to prove that there was no Collusion.

    I'm not buying that he is trying to corner trump or get trump. Its all a ruse and a smokescreen. He is building a case and the stupid media keeps showing it to the public that the indictments from beginning to now show no collusion. That's what he is doing and all these fools keep saying Mueller time. Mueller is not our ally he is a republican and a freaking Marine, These are the hard core conservatives.
  • @SaremChuuk,

    If you have the facts on your side, pound out the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither, which you my liberal friend Sarem don't clearly have, pound the keyboard.

    I didn't say McCarty was a liberal. I said he worked for the SDNY, i didn't imply he was a liberal i said this article is from the liberal leaning The Hill.

    You don't refute the articke but you refute that McCarthy worked for the SDNY, fact check-He worked for the SDNY. The Hill is a liberal learning news media.

    And did you forget that David Duke first stint in US politics he was first a Democrat. lol

  • CNN on Sep-18-2019: A lot of people in Trump's orbit engaging in conversations and relationships with Russian officials, but no evidence of collusion and certainly nothing that linked Donald Trump to any wrongdoing.

    @SaremChuuk @FactsMatters @redsnapper @errr @visafree @SakaSaka, any thoughts on this girls? Is CNN lying? Is CNN a Nazi news outlet spreading alternative facts? Come on girls don't be shy let tell us whats up.

  • Go back to school fool.
  • ..and get indoctrinated by the socialist progressives.
  • Where is the collusion my niggas? CNN answered-None! hehehehe Where is the obstruction my niggas? CNN asnwered-NONE! aheheheh

  • Rats ass man. Nigga central!
  • Where is the collusion and obstruction and when the economy being destroyed my niggas?

    did Obama and cnn lied?
  • They all underestimated Trump. They underestimated him during the months leading to the election and underestimated Trump druing the election and still underestimated him after the election and they still do 3 years later.

    People should stop taking Trump for a fool. He plays it to get us off guard. I thought Hillary was going to cream him in 2016 because all those polls and prediction said she would.

    It will take another Billionaire to beat Trump in 2020. My money is on that CEO of Starbucks who is a democrat who is planning to run in 2020. If Schultz run i will throw in my lot with him and vote for him. Bernie is too far left and so is Harris and that fake indian lady.
  • Reaper is a clone of Trump, his life style principles base on twisting the truth to mislead the public about everything. a Pathological liar..
  • I'm presenting the facts here @visafree. Is it not a fact that Trump just pulled the US out of the INF treaty 2 days ago? Is it also not a fact that Russia wants the US to honor this treaty while it doesnt? Yes and yes both are facts. Its your liberal media that misleads. Lol
  • yeah right, and when Trump announced that about Iran, ISIS, and NK. are all done deal, are these are facts too?
  • Yes, facts....Now Russia threatening to retaliate because if Trump pulling out of The INF.

    And @visafree, when redsnapper coming back? lol
Sign In or Register to comment.