Thursday, January 31, 2019

Virginia Gov Ralph Northam Defends Infanticide: “Infant Would be Resuscitated If That’s What the Mother Desired”

By Life News


Virginia Governor Ralph Northam not only has defended a new bill in the state legislature that would legalize abortions up to birth – even if the mother is dilated — he defended infanticide during a radio show today.

Northam apparently thinks it’s okay to kill a baby once the infant is fully delivered.

“If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother,” he said.

This shocking video follows another one shows a Democrat legislator in Virginia introducing her bill to allow abortions up to birth. During an exchange with another legislator, Virginia House of Delegates member Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) admits the bill does indeed allow abortions up until the last second before a baby is born.

During his campaign for governor, Northam raised nearly $11 million for his campaign, including huge contributions from the abortion industry. The abortion business Planned Parenthood said it planned to spend $3 million to back Northam and it now is apparently getting it’s kickback.

Northam’s position on abortion is extreme and out of touch with most voters, according to the National Right to Life Committee – which explains why Planned Parenthood, NARAL and other pro-abortion groups wanted him in the position.

“Northam’s position is so extreme he supports abortion on demand – that’s abortion for any reason anytime during the pregnancy – and he favors using your tax dollars to pay for abortion,” said Karen Cross, political director for NRLC, previously.

Virginia Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Jennifer Allen previously called Northam a “champion” for supporting abortion on demand.



Northam on Abortion Bill: Infant Could Be Delivered and Then ‘Physicians and the Mother’ Could Decide If It Lives

BY Andrew Kugle | Free Beacon

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D.) commented Wednesday about a controversial 40-week abortion bill and in so doing said the law allows an abortion to take place after the infant's birth.

"If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother," Northam said, alluding to the physician and mother discussing whether the born infant should live or die.

A Democratic lawmaker in the Virginia House of Delegates proposed a bill Tuesday that would allow abortions through the end of the third trimester of pregnancy. The video of Delegate Kathy Tran presenting her bill led to an exchange where she admitted that her bill would allow for a mother to abort her child minutes before giving birth.

"How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated that it would impair the mental health of the woman?" Majority Leader Todd Gilbert (R.) asked.

"Or physical health," Tran said.

"Okay," Gilbert replied. "I'm talking about the mental health."

"I mean, through the third trimester," Tran said. "The third trimester goes up to 40 weeks."

"Okay, but to the end of the third trimester?" Gilbert asked.

"Yup, I don't think we have a limit in the bill," Tran said.

"Where it's obvious that a woman is about to give birth, she has physical signs that she's about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified?" Gilbert asked. "She's dilating."

Tran responded that is a decision between the woman and her doctor would have to make. Gilbert asked if her bill would allow an abortion right before the infant was born.

"My bill would allow that, yes," Tran said.

NBC4 reporter Julie Carey asked Northam about the measure.

"Do you support her measure and explain her answer?" Carey asked.

"I wasn't there, Julie. And I certainly can't speak for delegate Tran. But I would tell you one, the first think I would say, this is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved," Northam said. "When we talk about third trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it is done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that is non-viable."

Northam continued by saying government shouldn't be involved in these types of decisions and that legislators, especially male legislators, shouldn't be telling women what to do.

"I think this was really blown out of proportion. But again we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions. We want the decision to be made by the mothers and their providers. And this is why Julie, that legislators, most of whom are men by the way, shouldn't be telling a woman what she should or shouldn't be doing with her body," Northam said.

Carey asked if the law should still require women to have multiple physicians approve an abortion.

"Well, I think it is always good to get a second opinion and for at least two providers to be involved in that decision," Northam said. "These decisions shouldn't be taken lightly.

Wednesday, January 30, 2019


By Luke Rosiak | Investigative Reporter | Daily Caller

Photo: (L-R) NY Democrat Lawmakers Gary Pretlow, Latrice Walker, Leroy Comrie

The caucus of black New York state lawmakers runs a charity whose stated mission is to empower “African American and Latino youth through education and leadership initiatives” by “providing opportunity to higher education” — but it hasn’t given a single scholarship to needy youth in two years, according to a New York Post investigation.

The group collects money from companies like AT&T, the Real Estate Board of New York, Time Warner Cable and CableVision, telling them in promotional materials that they are “changing lives, one scholarship at a time.”

The group — called the Association of Black and Puerto Rican Legislators, Inc. — instead spent $500,000 in the 2015 – 2016 fiscal year on items like food, limousines and rap music, the Post found.

The politicians refused to divulge the charity’s 2017 tax filing to the Post despite federal requirements that charities do so upon request.

Its main activity is holding and selling tickets to an elaborate party each year intended to raise money for its stated mission of providing scholarships for youth. 

But year after year, essentially all the money simply seems to go to festivities.

Its chairman, Assemblywoman Latrice Walker of Brooklyn, claimed to have no knowledge of the charity’s failure to fulfill its mission. She told the Post through a spokesman that she “does not have any knowledge of the matter.” Walker is running to be the public advocatefor New York City, its second-highest elected position and one tasked with investigating complaints.

Photo: Latrice Walker (Left)

Walker did not return The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment, which included a request that she share the charity’s latest tax filing.

The charity’s treasurer, Assemblyman Gary Pretlow of Westchester, expressed no knowledge of the charity’s activities.

“I just sign the checks they give me,” he said.

State. Sen. Leroy Comrie of Queens, the group’s number two, refused to come out when Post reporter Isabel Vincent stopped by his office. All of the politicians mentioned are Democrats.

“The real purpose (of the charity) is to bring people to get over their apathy and out to Albany and get motivated,” the charity’s former chairman, Assemblyman Nick Perry of Brooklyn, previously said.

There has been no money used for scholarships in the past two years, the Post reported, citing sources. That’s even after the Albany Times-Union called out the charity in January 2017 for meager spending in prior years.

The charity gave $35,745 of its $564,677 in revenue to scholarships in the 2014 to 2015 fiscal year, according to the Post. That year, it spent $85,000 on a concert with Eric Benet and Regina Belle, and $157,000 on food, according to the Times-Union’s analysis of its tax filings.

The group said that year it planned to double the number of scholarships it gave, but it didn’t happen.

Its 2017 annual event featured the rap artist Big Daddy Kane.

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

Lessons From the Past

By Thomas Sowell |

Seventy-one years ago this month -- in January 1948 -- a black, 17-year-old high school dropout left home. The last grade he had completed was the 9th grade. He had no skills, little experience, and not a lot of maturity. Yet he was able to find jobs to support himself, to a far greater extent than someone similar can find jobs today.

I know because I was that black 17-year-old. And, decades later, I did research on economic conditions back then.

Back in 1948, the unemployment rate for 17-year-old black males was just under 10 percent, and no higher than the unemployment rate among white male 17-year-olds.

How could that be, when we have for decades gotten used to seeing unemployment rates for teenage males that have been some multiple of what it was then -- and with black teenage unemployment often twice as high, or higher, than white teenage unemployment?

Many people automatically assume that racism explains the large difference in unemployment rates between black and white teenagers today. Was there no racism in 1948? No sane person who was alive in 1948 could believe that. Racism was worse -- and of course there was no Civil Rights Act of 1964 then.

How then could there be this low unemployment rate, with virtually no racial difference? Racism is despicable. But that tells us nothing about what weight it has -- compared to other factors -- as a cause of particular social problems such as unemployment.

Perhaps the most widely condemned racism in the second half of the 20th century was that in South Africa under apartheid, when an openly racist government proclaimed white supremacy, and denied blacks basic human rights. Yet, even under such a regime, there were particular occupations in which black workers outnumbered white workers -- even though it was illegal to hire any blacks at all in those particular occupations. Economics carried weight, even in South Africa under apartheid.

In the United States, what was unusual about 1948 was that, for all practical purposes, there was no minimum wage law in effect. There was a minimum wage law on the books. But it was passed in 1938, and a decade of high inflation had raised money wages, for even low-level jobs, above that minimum wage.

Among the effects of a minimum wage law, when it is effective, is that many unskilled and inexperienced workers are priced out of a job, when employers do not find them worth what the law specifies. Another effect of a minimum wage law is that it can lead to a chronic surplus of job applicants.

When an employer has 40 qualified applicants for 20 jobs, it costs the employer nothing to refuse to hire 10 qualified black applicants. But if he has no more than 20 qualified applicants, that is a different ball game.

The point here is that economic factors carry weight, and sometimes, under some conditions, those economic factors carry more weight than racism. Even in South Africa under apartheid.

In the United States, as the minimum wage rate specified in the law began to be raised, beginning in the 1950s, so as to catch up with inflation and then keep up with inflation, the minimum wage law became effective in practice once again -- and a racial gap in unemployment rates opened up and expanded.

As a black teenager, I was lucky enough to be looking for jobs when the minimum wage law was rendered ineffective by inflation. I was also lucky enough to have gone through New York schools at a time when they still had high educational standards.

Decades later, when examining the math textbook used by some young relatives of mine, who were living where I grew up in Harlem, I discovered that the math they were being taught in the 11th grade was less than what I had been taught in the 9th grade.

The opportunities open to my young relatives in Harlem -- and to other young blacks elsewhere -- were not nearly as good as the opportunities open to me back in 1948.

Many of the seemingly compassionate policies promoted by the progressives in later years -- whether in economics or in education -- have had outcomes the opposite of what was expected. One of the tragedies of our times is that so many people judge by rhetoric, rather than by results.

Monday, January 28, 2019

HISTORIC: Black Republican Columnist and Trump Supporter Raynard Jackson Nominated for Pulitzer Prize


By Frances Rice


Truly amazing is the fact that Raynard Jackson, a well-known Black Republican Trump supporter, was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for his column with the title: Hypocrisy in the Democrat Democracy that focused on Democrat Party racism towards Blacks.

This historic Pulitzer Prize nomination is a major step in the quest to hold the Democratic Party accountable for that party’s racism, past and present. As author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

For more details, see the article posted on this Blogsite with the title: Republicans and Democrats Did Not Switch Sides On Racism.”

Below is the press release from the company Jackson founded, "Raynard Jackson & Associates, LLC," which announces his Pulitzer Prize nomination.

Further below is the text of the article for which Jackson was nominated.



Team Raynard Jackson & Associates, LLC is happy to announce that its founder, Raynard Jackson, was nominated last week for the prestigious Pulitzer Prize Award under the category for “Commentary.”

The Pulitzer Prize is considered one of the highest honors for anyone involved in the news industry. According to Jackson, “I am not a journalist. I am a columnist but I am thrilled that the New Pittsburgh Courier newspaper deems my writings worthy of consideration for the Pulitzer Prize.”

The column that was submitted for consideration was titled: Hypocrisy in the Democrat Democracy.”  The column focused on the racism emanating from the Democrat Party towards Blacks.

Many consider Jackson to be one of the top Republican operatives in the country and think he provides a very unique voice that deserves to be heard. He uniquely speaks directly to the Black community and America in general, in a way that actually causes many Blacks to rethink their political alliances.

Some consider Jackson’s writing to be very provocative and controversial; but most consider his writing to be challenging to the status quo and very thought provoking.

Former long-time Washington Post reporter, Mike Fletcher, said about Jackson’s writings, “I don’t always agree with Raynard, but in a world of recycled talking points, his columns are consistently original, well-reasoned, and provocative.”

His columns are syndicated nationally to more than 200 newspapers through the National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA).

As a long-time Republican and ardent Trump supporter, Jackson’s writings bring context to a lot of the political issues impacting the Black community in such a manner that even if you disagree with his position; at least he shows you a thoughtful alternative view.

Jackson stated, “My goal is not to get you to agree with my writings; but rather to get you to consider another perspective.  If I achieve that, my job is done.”

Jackson is a native of St. Louis, MO and cut his political teeth on the presidential campaign of then Vice President George H.W. Bush; who is responsible for Jackson moving to Washington, DC in the 1980s.

He has a B.S. degree in Accounting from Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, OK and a M.A. from George Mason University in Fairfax, VA.

We, at team RJA, are proud of our founder and hope you will join us in congratulating Raynard for this well-deserved recognition.

 Founder and Chairman of Black Americans for a Better Future (BAFBF), a federally registered 527 Super PAC established to get more Blacks involved in the Republican Party.  We focus on the Black entrepreneur.

Hypocrisy in the Democrat Democracy

The Democrat Party is supposed to be the “hip” party when it comes to the Black community.  They have all the A-list Black celebrities from sports and entertainment in their back pocket and many of the supposed liberal Black “journalists” who claim to be objective in their reporting.

As opposed to referring to the Democrat Party as the “hip” party, I think a better term for them is the “hypocrisy” party when it comes to the Black community.

Eight years ago, I wrote a column about how the Democrat Party and its leaders constantly screw over Blacks when it’s time to reward Blacks for their loyalty.

The target of this Democrat racism always seems to be aimed at Civil Rights icon and South Carolina Congressman, Jim Clyburn.

I have known Congressman Clyburn and his longtime, extremely capable chief of staff, Yebbie Watkins for many, many years.  They know that I am a Republican, but they have never let that get in the way of our friendship.  They know if I can ever be helpful to them that I will always deliver for them; and they have always been willing to be helpful to me.

Clyburn is not a man of many words and rarely does a lot of media; so, when he does speak out publicly on any issue, it usually carries a lot of weight.

Last two weeks ago, Clyburn accused his fellow Democrats of using “racial dog whistles” in their attempt to defeat him in his bid to become Majority Whip of the House, a position he once held from 2007-2011.

In a McClatchy newspaper interview Clyburn stated: “I don’t know where it’s all coming from [the racial dog whistles]; but someone came to me over the weekend and told me that (they heard), when I was whip before, I was a figurehead.

What do you mean, I was a figurehead? Nothing could be further from the truth.  The little dog whistles that have been floating around this side for a long time [regarding him being a figurehead, thus implying that he was merely a token and not qualified for the job].”

Wait!  I thought Republicans were the ones that was supposed to be racist and used dog whistles that have now morphed into bullhorns.

Radical liberal media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, the New York times, Black America Web, and the Huff Post have been portraying Republicans in this manner for decades.  Liberal Black journalists and pundits have made a career of branding my party as racist.

Left-wing extremist groups like the NAACP, the National Urban League, National Action Network, and the Congressional Black Caucus see racism in everything Republicans do; but suddenly turn into Stevie Wonder when it comes to racism within the Democrat Party.

Conspiracy journalists like Roland Martin, Joe Madison, Joy Reid, Laura Coates, Karen Hunter, Jason Johnson and sista girl pundit Angela Rye seem to have an opinion about everything other than the racism that Clyburn is constantly subjected to by their own party.

Clyburn is a living legend and though we disagree on almost every political issue, I have nothing but supreme respect for him and his legacy.

The NAACP rightly criticized Republican senator from Mississippi, Cindy Hyde-Smith for her ignorant comment about hangings, but came down with a severe case of laryngitis when it came to Clyburn.

Derrick Johnson, Marc Morial, Al Sharpton, Cedrick Richmond, I know a doctor who specializes in treating those with political laryngitis.  The typical cure for such a disease is taking a glass of courage.

Roland, Joe, Joy, Laura, Karen, Jason, and Angela, I know a doctor who specializes in treating people with Pelosi-itis.  The typical cure for such a disease is called growing a spine!

Are these Blacks really that afraid of Pelosi and the Democrat Party?  Why is Clyburn the ONLY candidate for House leadership that had a challenger?  How is it that no white candidate for leadership had a challenger?  Hmmm!

Why is it that Pelosi nor Hoyer has made one public word of support for Clyburn?  And our old friend Maxine Waters claims to be so big, bad, and tough; but she is too afraid to challenge her own party over racism that is quite obvious.

Where is Kamala Harris?  She is supposed to be the champion of all things Black when it comes to racism by whites.  She has not uttered one single word of support for Clyburn.

Oh, and where is our old pal Cory “Spartacus” Booker?  He usually has verbal diarrhea; but now all of a sudden he seems to have a severe case of verbal constipation.

The Black Caucus has the largest voting block (48 members) in the Congress and has the power to determine who the next speaker is if they had any balls.

These media appointed Black leaders only see racism when it comes from Republicans; but can’t bring themselves to stand up on principle when the same racism emanates from within the Democrat Party.

When all is said and done, there is more said than done!

Raynard Jackson is founder and chairman of Black Americans for a Better Future (BAFBF).

Sunday, January 27, 2019

The Shaming of Karen Pence

By William McGurn | The Wall Street Journal

PHOTO: Vice President Mike Pence and Karen Pence -ASSOCIATED PRESS

A mob of secular Puritans targets her for teaching at a Christian school.

Will no one speak up for Karen Pence other than her husband?

In scarcely a week, the vice president’s wife has become a public face of hate. CNN’s John King suggests that what Mrs. Pence has done is so grievous maybe taxpayers shouldn’t fund her Secret Service security protection. 

The American Civil Liberties Union says she’s sending “a terrible message to students.”

The Guardian sees in Mrs. Pence a reminder of “the vice-president’s dangerous bigotry.” 

During a Saturday night performance in Las Vegas, Lady Gaga told her fans that what Mrs. Pence has done confirms she and her husband are “the worst representation of what it means to be Christian.”

 A former Washington Post editor and senior writer for Politico tweets: “How can this happen in America?”

So what is this terrible thing Mrs. Pence has done? 

She plans to teach art part-time at Immanuel Christian School in Northern Virginia. This is a small private K-8 academy where Mrs. Pence has taught before. 

It adheres to a biblically rooted view of human sexuality.

Thanks to the crack reporters at the Washington Post, what this means is no mystery. 

The Post reports the following provision in the school’s employment contract:

“I understand that the term ‘marriage’ has only one meaning; the uniting of one man and one woman in a single, exclusive covenant union as delineated in Scripture.”

Hmmm. Though presented as dangerous stuff, we’ve heard this before. 

For example, this is how Senate candidate Barack Obama put it in a 2004 radio interview:

“I’m a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

So why are so many eager to cast the first stone against Mrs. Pence and not Mr. Obama? 

Because everyone knew when Mr. Obama spoke he didn’t really mean it; his position was taken out of political calculation. 

Mrs. Pence’s sin is that she really believes what she says.

In the narrow sense, the vilification of Mrs. Pence makes prophetic Justice Samuel Alito’s prediction in his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decision throwing out all state laws against same-sex marriage. 

Justice Alito saw a perilous future for those who still embraced the view Mr. Obama once claimed to hold.

“I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes,” he wrote, “but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”

In the larger sense the faith-shaming of Mrs. Pence exposes an inversion of tropes. 

In history and literature, typically it has been the religious side that can’t tolerate the slightest disagreement from its dogma and behaves like outraged 17th-century Salemites when they think they have uncovered a witch.

Now look at the Immanuel Christian School. Those who run it know they and those who think like them are the big losers in America’s culture war. All they ask is to be allowed, within the confines of their community, to uphold 2,000 years of Christian teaching on marriage, sexuality and the human person.

When Obergefell was decided, it was sold as live-and-let-live. 

But as Justice Alito foresaw, today some sweet mysteries of the universe are more equal than others

In other words, it isn’t enough for the victors to win; the new sense of justice requires that those who still don’t agree must be compelled to violate their deepest beliefs, whether this means forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide contraception or dragging a baker in Colorado through the courts until he agrees to make a cake celebrating “gender transition.”

Today’s militant secularists ironically resemble the worst caricatures of religious intolerance of early America. 

Where the Puritans humiliated sinners with the stocks, the modern intolerant have Twitter . 

Where the Amish shunned those who lived contrary to their beliefs, today’s violators find themselves driven off the public square. 

And whereas in Hawthorne’s novel Hester Prynne was forced to wear a scarlet “A”—for adulterer—today we have folks such as Jimmy Kimmel using their popular platforms to paint the scarlet “H”—for hater—on people such as Mrs. Pence.

Vice President Mike Pence defended both his wife and Christian education during an appearance last Thursday on EWTN, a Catholic television network.

But it says something that so few on the commanding heights of our culture have been wiling to join him there.

It would be a shame if Mrs. Pence were to allow the mob to keep her from teaching art to those children at Immanuel Christian School. 

But however it turns out, her experience surely tells us which orthodoxies today are truly sacred and beyond question.

Saturday, January 26, 2019

Sarah Sanders: So Hillary Will Be Arrested Now Right?

By Cortney O'Brien | Townhall

Photo: White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders
Source: AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

Longtime Trump associate Roger Stone was arrested Thursday night for one count of obstruction, five counts of false statements and one count of witness tampering as part of the larger special counsel Russia investigation. The FBI raided his home and "terrorized" his family, Stone said outside a Florida courthouse Friday. He told a crowd of hecklers he plans to plead not guilty to the alleged crimes.

Of course, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders expected the press pool to ask her for her reaction to Stone's arrest. But she wasn't a fan of how some reporters framed their inquires, particularly the individual who suggested that President Trump encouraged Stone to lie to Congress.


Sanders on the charges against Roger Stone: "This doesn't have anything to do with the president"

Reporter: "Was the president encouraging false statements, obstruction, things that are charged in the indictment?"

Sanders: "That is probably one of the more ridiculous and insulting questions... frankly, it's just insulting, it's just not true" 

Sanders had some questions of her own during her guest appearance on CNN Friday morning.

Sarah Sanders asks the correct question after Stone's indictment:

When will the FBI surround the homes of & arrest, "Hillary Clinton, James Comey, James Clapper? People we know have also made false statements [to the FBI] - will the same standard apply?"

100% correct.

“We’ll let the courts make the decision," she said. "A bigger question is: If this is the standard, will the same standard apply to people like Hillary Clinton, James Comey and [James] Clapper?”

Both Clinton and Comey have themselves been accused of making false statements to authorities.



In new Mueller indictment, what is Roger Stone charged with doing?

By Byron York | Washington Examiner

Count Four alleges that Stone lied when he said he did not ask Credico to communicate anything to Assange.

In fact Stone asked both Credico and Corsi to get in touch with Assange "to pass on requests ... for documents Stone believed would be damaging to the Clinton campaign."

Count Five alleges that Stone lied when he told the House that he and Credico did not communicate via text message or email about WikiLeaks.

Records show Stone told the committee the two talked over the phone, when in fact, according to the indictment, "Stone and [Credico] ... engaged in frequent written communications by email and text message."

Count Six alleges that Stone lied when he testified that he had never discussed his conversations with Credico with anyone at the Trump campaign.

In fact, "Stone spoke to multiple individuals involved in the Trump campaign about what he claimed to have learned from his intermediary to [WikiLeaks]."

Count Seven is a witness tampering charge, alleging that Stone tried to convince Credico to take the Fifth or to lie to the House committee.

The indictment does not allege that Stone had any direct communications with Assange, nor does it allege that Stone or anyone else at the Trump campaign had any direct communications with Assange or any foreknowledge of actions that WikiLeaks took. 

At various times, Stone claimed to have foreknowledge — a hint that something big was up — but the indictment suggests that he did not, in fact, know what WikiLeaks was going to do.

The indictment does say there were communications between Stone and people in the Trump campaign related to WikiLeaks. 

Of course, everyone in the world was talking about the WikiLeaks disclosures in the days following their publication. 

The indictment says:

"After the July 22, 2016 release of stolen DNC emails by [WikiLeaks], a senior Trump campaign official was directed to contact Stone about any additional releases and what other damaging information [WikiLeaks] had regarding the Clinton campaign. Stone thereafter told the Trump campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by [WikiLeaks]."

There has already been much speculation about that passage. 

The first thing to note is that it concerned the period after WikiLeaks' disclosure of DNC emails — no allegation of foreknowledge. 

But what does "was directed" mean? 

Does it mean that Donald Trump himself directed someone on his campaign to get in touch with Stone to find out what was going on? It could. 

There's no doubt that everyone in the political world was trying to figure out what was going on in the days after release of the DNC emails. Were there more? About what? Were they going to be released?

Whoever the "was directed" person was, the Stone indictment, like all Mueller has issued until now, does not allege that there was a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 election.

The indictment also suggests that by October 2016, with the election fast approaching, the Trump campaign was no longer paying any attention to Stone. In one email, Stone said he would tell a top Trump campaign official about WikiLeaks, "but he doesn't call me back."

In the end, it appears Stone's big problem was his big mouth. He liked to brag about being behind all sorts of nefarious deeds when in fact he was not, or he had a tangential connection to them. 

That led to this chain of events: 1) Stone bragged in public; 2) the House committee asked him about his bragging under oath; and 3) Mueller investigated the veracity of Stone's sworn testimony. 

If Stone had not popped off about himself all the time, he probably would not have gotten himself in trouble.

Stone presented a pretty accurate picture of himself in an interview last November with CNN's Michael Smerconish.

"What I have done here is perfectly legal," Stone said. "I took a solid tip and entirely public information, it could be gleaned from the WikiLeaks Twitter feed and by setting a Google News Alert on Julian Assange and reading every interview, to hype and punk and promote and posture and bluff the Democrats."

The problem came when Stone was asked under oath about his statements. 

It is one thing to hype and punk and promote and posture and bluff when talking to the press, but another to hype and punk and promote and posture and bluff when testifying under oath to a congressional committee. 

Roger Stone knows that now.