Did Comey Violate Laws In Leaking The Trump Memo?

440px-Comey-FBI-PortraitOne of the most interesting new disclosures today in the Comey hearing was the admission by former FBI Director James Comey that he intentionally used a “friend” on the Columbia law faculty to leak his memos to the media.  Comey says that he did so to force the appointment of a Special Counsel. However, those memos could be viewed as a government record and potential evidence in a criminal investigation.

richmanNotably, Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman on a faculty webpage reads that he is “currently an adviser to FBI Director James B. Comey.” Richman specializes in criminal law and criminal procedure.

The problem is that Comey’s description of his use of an FBI computer to create memoranda to file suggests that these are arguably government documents.  Comey admitted that he thought he raised the issue with his staff and recognized that they might be needed by the Department or Congress.  They read like a type of field 302 form, which are core investigatory documents.

The admission of leaking the memos is problematic given the overall controversy involving leakers undermining the Administration. Indeed, it creates a curious scene of a former director leaking material against the President after the President repeatedly asked him to crack down on leakers.

Besides being subject to Nondisclosure Agreements, Comey falls under federal laws governing the disclosure of classified and nonclassified information.  Assuming that the memos were not classified (though it seems odd that it would not be classified even on the confidential level), there is 18 U.S.C. § 641 which makes it a crime to steal, sell, or convey “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.”

There are also ethical and departmental rules against the use of material to damage a former represented person or individual or firm related to prior representation. The FBI website states:

Dissemination of FBI information is made strictly in accordance with provisions of the Privacy Act; Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a; FBI policy and procedures regarding discretionary release of information in accordance with the Privacy Act; and other applicable federal orders and directives.”

Lawyers generally ask for clients or employers to release information, particularly when it may be detrimental to the firm or the client or someone associated with your prior representation.

By the way, waking up in the middle of the night (as described by Comey) is not generally the best time to decide to leak damaging memos against a sitting president. There are times when coffee and a full night’s sleep (and even conferral with counsel) is recommended.  Leaking damaging memos is one of those times.  Moreover, if Comey was sure of his right to release the memo, why use a law professor to avoid fingerprints?

I find Comey’s admission to be deeply troubling from a professional and ethical standpoint.  Would Director Comey have approved such a rule for FBI agents?  Thus, an agent can prepare a memo during office hours on an FBI computer about a meeting related to his service . . . but leak that memo to the media.  The Justice Department has long defined what constitutes government documents broadly.  It is not clear if Comey had the documents reviewed for classification at the confidential level or confirmed that they would be treated as entirely private property.  What is clear is that he did not clear the release of the memos with anyone in the government.

Comey’s statement of a good motivation does not negate the concerns over his chosen means of a leak.  Moreover, the timing of the leak most clearly benefited Comey not the cause of a Special Counsel.  It was clear at that time that a Special Counsel was likely.  More importantly, Comey clearly understood that these memos would be sought.  That leads inevitably to the question of both motivation as well as means.


What do you think?


807 thoughts on “Did Comey Violate Laws In Leaking The Trump Memo?”

  1. I am sure you are conscious how the market of BPO market swiftly expands that’s why I’m very interested on this topic,
    the good news is I was able to reach your blog as well as
    I was astonished on your design of creating. While looking for service associated write-ups, I have actually
    come throughout your website and also I need to
    state you really know what’s your blog site all around, the way
    you have composed the short article, the data. Hope you could develop
    more content that bargains concerning this kind of subject as I rarely see blog
    sites that places initiative in writing their content.

  2. Give all of those bozos (i.e., Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, Bill & Hillary, Obama, Lynch, Rice, Holder, et al.) a polygraph test. If anyone refuses, that is prima facie evidence that they are liars and are guilty as being part of the Deep State. They should all be in prison. Do it now!

  3. You left out the full context of the website:

    “Through what is known as the National Name Check Program, limited information from the FBI’s central records system is provided in response to requests by other entities lawfully authorized to receive it. These entities include . The FBI’s central records system contains information regarding applicant, personnel, administrative actions, and criminal and security/intelligence matters. Dissemination of FBI information is made…”

    It sounds to me that this applies to information from FBI’s central records systems, not the personal memos of the FBI director.

    1. Anyone on the employ of the federal government cannot write “personal memos.” He may call it a personal memo. However, everything he writes using a government laptop, in a government vehicle, and on government time IS the property of the government whether or not he calls it a personal memo. Such government property can include classified information. Any conversation with the POTUS written down in any kind of a memo is classified information, and the hearer and writer of the memo may not release that conversation to the press/media. Comey is guilty of releasing classified information to the “enemy of the people,” which is a corrupt press/media i.e., the New York Crimes. BTW, why will not the Trump administration require polygraph tests of all employees working in the White House, FBI, and DOJ? He should automatically fire everyone refusing to take the test! Drain the Deep State swamp!

      1. Well said and spot on!

        The Sedition law in this country needs to be beefed up.

        The “press” cannot be free to publish anonymous information that is known to be obtained unlawfully and which is either classified or confidential government material, whether by formal declaration or its nature.

        If there were any question of its confidentiality, it is incumbent upon the “press” to verify it is NOT illegal to publish. There can be no press “right” to jeopardize the rule of law and the security of our nation.

        Comey, the Columbia U. professor, and the receiving/publishing entity are all guilty of breaking federal laws and they should be prosecuted forthwith.

        That is the only thing that will stop this seditious leakage of information. Swift justice for lawbreakers!

        The creation of a Special Counsel should require more than a politically-convenient allegation by sore losers to spawn a “Special Counsel”.

        Now that the “Special Counsel” has drifted into territory for which AG Sessions has not recused himself, Sessions should shut down this witch hunt operation forthwith. Frankly, I’d fire the Deputy AG who appointed the Special Counsel in the first place.

        And just when is HRC going to be brought to justice?

        Justice delayed is justice denied!

      2. Evidently, it requires more evidence to obtain a search warrant than to create a “Special Counsel” to initiate a witch hunt.

      3. Where do you get your information? Government information isn’t automatically classified (and any conservative worried about the size and power of government would see the problem with the lack of transparency such a system would pose). It has to be designated as classified by a proper authority.


        “Classified national security information is information created or received by an agency of the federal government or a government contractor that would damage national security if improperly released…. Information can only be classified if an official determination is made that its unauthorized release would damage the national security.”

        1. National security is being damaged. The Russians are laughing at us. Other nations think that we have a divided nation and chaos prevails. The Lib-Dems are more dangerous to our national security than ISIS. When are people going to start caring?

          1. Complete non-response changing the subject. I assume you must now agree that Comey’s memos were never designated as classified, correct?

            1. Wrong! The conversation was proprietary, sensitive, for official use only, and received in confidence. Just because it does not have a classified stamp on it (e.g., Top Secret, Secret, or Confidential) and is unclassified, does not mean that it should readily be released to an irresponsible press/media. It is still government property and government information.

              Much information accumulated from the open sources literature may be put together in reports in such a manner that would qualify it for a Secret classification. Just because information comes from unclassified sources does not mean that certain combination of unclassified information cannot then be qualified as classified. When I had served on active duty in the USAF and had Top Secret and beyond security clearance, I made decisions as to what information that I had prepared would be classified as Top Secret, Secret, Confidential, or Unclassified.

              1. Okay, so you agree that his memos were unclassified. Good to know, thank you. Yes, if he had combined his notes with classified material in a report, I would agree that such a report would then be classified. Do you have any evidence that this was the case here?

                As I understand it, Donald Trump has yet to claim the conversation should be kept private due to executive privilege, and a number of legal scholars argue that he may have already waived executive privilege by publicly Tweeting about the conversation.

                A true conservative knows the danger of unchecked government power and acknowledge the important role that whistleblowers play as a check on government abuses.

                1. You can combine unclassified information from the Open Literature and the combination of all of those unclassified information collectively becomes a classified document. Have you worked in the military and/or in the aerospace industries? Have you created classified documents and decided yourself what level of classification these documents should have? I have and have classified documents generated from unclassified information from the Open Literature.

              2. That’s complete and utter nonsense. There’s nothing “proprietary” about a private citizen revealing that the president asked him to stop an investigation — then fired him as director of the FBI.

                You’re essentially arguing for investing the president with dictatorial powers. I suspect that’s not an accident.

                1. DiTurno: If you want complete utter nonsense, reread your own comment.

                  The reality:

                  “According to the FBI’s employment agreement, Comey could be in both civil and criminal jeopardy if he did not get written authorization to release his personal notes from conversations with the president.

                  “According to the two-page agreement, last revised in 2015 under Comey, the former FBI head could have violated numerous provisions.

                  “‘All information acquired by me in connection with my official duties with the FBI and all official material to which I have access remain the property of the United States of America. I will surrender upon demand by the FBI, or upon my separation from the FBI, all materials containing FBI information in my possession,’ reads paragraph two.

                  “This means if Comey had followed FBI protocol, he would have had to surrender the information he leaked when he left the agency.

                  “Paragraph 3 states FBI employees are prohibited from releasing “any information acquired by virtue of my official employment” to any ‘unauthorized recipient without prior official written authorization by the FBI.'”

                  — from http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/is-james-comey-in-trouble-for-leaking-his-own-notes/article/2625589

                  There are always departmental restrictions on what can or cannot be made public and it was NOT up to Comey to make that decision. Comey should have gone to his boss, AG Sessions for guidance, instead, he leaked privileged information to a friend who exposed it to the press, compounding Comey’s impropriety.

                  Comey was fired for just cause, as advised by both the AG and Deputy AG. His actions with respect to the Clinton investigation were not in the best interests of anybody and were a clear violation of DoJ and FBI procedures (on multiple occasions). That alone justified his firing.

                  The question that should be asked, “Why didn’t Comey tell the press that Trump was NOT under investigation, as many of “the usual suspects” were alleging?

                  If, as Comey told Trump on numerous occasions, Trump was NOT under investigation, then how could he possibly “obstruct justice” by firing Comey for just cause?

                  This is a witch hunt in search of evidence, and so far it has come up with nothing but the vivid imaginations of rabid Leftists who are desperately seeking a reason to explain Trump’s victory. The Left’s hubris will never allow the real reason to be accepted. So they will continue to make fools of themselves while trying desperately to convince others to believe their conspiracy theories regarding Trump and the Russians.

                  Finally, when comparing the monumental espionage violations by HRC over a four-year span, coupled with her RICO operation as Secy. of State using her office to fund the Clinton Foundation (giving less than 3% to charity while spending more than ten times as much on employee “salaries”) to the allegations against Gen. Flynn, HRC is the elephant in the room while the “usual suspects” go after the little mouse (Flynn).

                  HRC MUST be brought to justice or people will continue to lose respect for government’s ability to fairly mete out justice. HRC’s willful multiple severe violations of the espionage laws are the most egregious of any high-ranking officer of government in our nation’s history. That is not even debatable. The perceived wrongdoing by Trump pales into insignificance, and there is not a shred of evidence to support the anti-Trump allegations. There is a mountain of evidence (that wasn’t shredded) upon which HRC would be convicted if brought to justice. Thank about that.

                  1. You made an outstanding, compelling argument, Bob Webster. Your response is much better than Snyder’s response, which showed at the end that he is an anti-Trump liberal democrat. That is enough to show his political motivations.

                2. DiTurno, your comment is complete and utter nonsense. President Trump neither possesses nor exercises dictatorial powers. However, Comey, on the other hand, is breaking laws right and left and is definitely exercising dictatorial, corrupt, and illegal powers. And that, my friend, is definitely not an accident as he is a wounded animal on a vendetta and warpath to take revenge on the POTUS who legally fired him for incompetence and illegal practices. After all, it is a proven fact that Comey leaked information to the press/media before he was fired, thereby, breaking the law. Comey is THE LEAKER of the FBI and is a major player in the Deep State. He and his cohorts are dictators who are attempting to bring down the POTUS and take over the country. Speak of dictators. You support the dictators. We won’t allow that to happen.

                  1. Wow, Dr. Bob — a whole lot of words from you and, strangely, every single thing you said was vacuous or wrong.. Corey’s “breaking laws left and right?” if so, it would seem logical to name them. Comey is “a wounded animal on a vendetta and warpath?” Hey, throw in a few more metaphors next time. Trump fired Comey “for incompetence and illegal practices?” Actually Trump told Lester Holt he fired Comey for “the Russia thing.”

                    It’s extraordinary that you’re unaware of the most basic facts of the case, and yet you see no problem with parading your ignorance. That’s predictable: Trumpettes place dedication to the Leader about facts, laws, or the country. You guys wear your stupidity like a badge of honor.

                    I have a rule: people with Ph.Ds who identify themselves as “Dr.” are almost always insecure clowns. Looks like you’re no exception.

                    1. You condescending twit–and a racist and xenophobe to boot. People like you have been ruining our country over the past 60 years. I’m glad to know that you are such a genius that your highbrow attitude allows you to sit in judgement of others. LOL!

                    2. Hey, “Dr.” Bob? Here’s a tip. When someone points out that you made a series of idiotic comments, it’s not a good idea to try to pull the race card out of thin air, especially when you support the most nakedly racist and xenophobic president since Wilson.

                      You’re a clown, dude. You call yourself a doctor, but you’re too lazy to do a quick Google search before you post, and then you pull the snowflake move when you get called out on your idiocy.

                      Impenetrable ignorance and whiny victimhood: you’re a perfect encapsulation of the Trump voter.

                      Grow up.

                    3. I learned that tactic from typical Lib-Dems like you. How does it feel receiving the typical Lib-Dem approach to dialogue? Not very good, huh? I know people like you can dish it out, but you can’t take it. When you start employing the strategy of “politics of personal destruction” and “blood sport,” you and your fellow travelers go beyond the pale as all your kind do every day in the news. Just take the anti-Second-Amendment strategy you people have taken throughout political history, to wit,

                      In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Lincoln, President of the United States.

                      In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States—who later died from the wound.

                      In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.

                      In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.

                      In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.

                      In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.

                      In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

                      In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office in Jacksonville, FL.

                      In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen, TX

                      In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

                      In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

                      In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the United States…

                      In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

                      In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung-Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people at Virginia Tech.

                      In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

                      In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes went into a movie theater and shot/killed 12 people.

                      In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.

                      In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown, CT.

                      As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy shipyard.

                      Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

                      2016 All of the Democrats in Chicago are killing each other… over 500 killed so far this year.

                      Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservative was involved in any of these shootings and murders.

                      SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns. We don’t need gun control, we need Democrat control. Guns don’t kill people, but Democrats do!

                    4. Hey, look – “Dr.” Bob can’t make a coherent response, but he can cut and paste. What a big boy! Good for you — have a juice box!

                      The problem is that this is not only off-topic, but wrong and stupid.

                      John Wilkes Booth was a member of the Know Nothings. Garfield’s assassin was a Republican who supported Grant. Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist. Squeaky Fromme was a member of the Manson family, and she did not fire shots at Ford: the gun had bullets, but none was in the chamber. Jared Lee Loughner was not registered in either party, but his anti-government views were much closer to the GOP than the Dems. Adam Lanza was an NRA member who wasn’t registered to vote.

                      I knew almost all of that without googling, but I decided to do a quick search. Guess what? Almost EVERY THING YOU SAID was wrong:


                      Any non-moron would have recognized that list was BS. Unfortunately, you’re not a non-moron.

                      Give it up, dude. You’re a clown, you’ve always been a clown, and you’ll always be a clown.

                      What’s it like having students who are smarter than you are?

                    5. Are we beginning to get under your thin skin, genius? See, I build up your intellect, not tear it down. I hope someday to achieve the level of knowledge and ability that you possess. Then, perhaps, I can be proud of myself the way you are of yourself. I’m sure you graduated from an astute university like Harvard, Princeton, or Yale or some other liberal institution of higher learning that gives you such a unique advantage over others. Perhaps, I could be tutored by your highness that will give me a future edge over such paragons of intellect as you. No? I have met people like you before who think they know it all. However, people like you are particularly annoying to the few of us that do. Your wife must find it a real challenge to live with such a world-renown genius as you. Keep up the dialogue and reveal your true self. You are very amusing to us little people.

                    6. Here’s the thing, “Dr.” Bob. I’m not particularly proud of myself; I’m embarrassed for you. I’m embarrassed that you could post so many things that are transparently wrong and stupid. I’m embarrassed that when you were called out on your wrongness and stupidity, you tried to call me a racist and a xenophobe. I’m embarrassed that you cut and pasted a laughably wrong right wing meme. I’m embarrassed that you’re too lazy to check your facts. And I’m embarrassed that you’re now retreating into snowflake mode: “waaahh — the liberal was SO MEAN to me!”

                      If you had a shred of intellectual integrity, you’d ask yourself how a guy with a doctorate — yeah, it’s a fake doctorate, but still — could be wrong about so many obvious things.

                      Unfortunately, I think it’s pretty clear that you’re more interested in being politically correct than empirically correct.

                    7. Pray tell, DiTurno, how does one become “empirically” correct? You use such highbrow words and terminology that it baffles us little people. You may be embarrassed of me but I am proud of you for your in-depth ability at pseudo-logical arguments. BTW, are you that young guy who married that woman three times your age? Is that why you are such a paragon of knowledge? Keep your genius words coming. It amuses me.

                    8. Do you really not know what “empirically” means, or are you pretending to be stupid?

                    9. Okay, smart boy, teach us ignorant little people the prowess of your over 150 IQ. Tell us exactly what you mean by that term, and don’t Google it and regurgitate the dictionary definition to us. Just tell us in your own words what you mean by it. I am waiting here with bated breath to see the genius reveal himself in his writings.

                    10. Empirical means something that can be conclusively proved to be true or false through evidence. It is empirically true that Trump said he fired Comey because of “the Russia thing.” That idiotic list of “Democrats” who were murderers or assassins was almost completely empirically false.

                      But you don’t care. Politics comes before truth for you.

                    11. Your definition of “empirical” truly defines you as a genius of all geniuses. LOL! I truly wish I was a wise, intelligent, and smart as you. Life would be so much easier. Oh, my goodness! From where do you have your PhD degree? You can tell the truth to us here.

                    12. I have to say “Dr.” Bob, your ability to humiliate yourself is virtually boundless.

                    13. DiTurno, your intelligence is only exceeded by your ignorance. You’re so smart, you continually outsmart yourself. Indeed, you represent a self-licking ice cream cone.

                      Robert T. (Bob) Uda, Ph.D. 11359 Phoebe Lace San Antonio, TX 78253-6261 (Home) 210-437-3736 (Cell) 760-305-2808 RobertTUda1@gmail.com

                      On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 4:15 PM, JONATHAN TURLEY wrote:

                      > DiTurno commented: “I have to say “Dr.” Bob, your ability to humiliate > yourself is virtually boundless.” >

                    14. And Bobby shows why I’m not a conservative. I conclusively and repeatedly demonstrated that he has no idea what he’s talking about, and he responds with incoherent smack talk.

                      If I ever publicly revealed my ignorance the way he revealed his, I’d hide my head.

                      Bobby doesn’t care about being wrong, which is pretty typical for conservatives.

              3. “Wrong! The conversation was proprietary, sensitive, for official use only, and received in confidence. Just because it does not have a classified stamp on it (e.g., Top Secret, Secret, or Confidential) and is unclassified, does not mean that it should readily be released to an irresponsible press/media. It is still government property and government information.”

                (1) The conversation was “proprietary”? How does that word even *work* in this context? (2) It was about a sensitive problem . . . for Trump, but this situation has nothing to do with the kind of sensitivity proper to *classification*. No vital national secret is being divulged here except perhaps Trump’s ignorance of propriety and/or corruption. The first thing Comey did was start documenting it because of how troubling the conversations went, and how potentially compromising they could end up being for him if he capitulated or at least didn’t protect himself immediately. And (3) the idea that the information was received “in confidence” in a way relevant to classification isn’t even close to true, let alone legally relevant here. If the president tells you “in confidence”, after having isolated you from others, that he is going to kill a political enemy, what do you do? This is less dramatic, but still at minimum compromising, and maybe obstruction of justice just based on the Holt interview and a few other facts we know. (4) “For official use only”? Again, that in itself has nothing to do with classification and doesn’t cover requests for potential obstruction or at least compromising the integrity of an investigation. The point of restricting or classifying material isn’t to protect officials from doing potentially illegal, certainly when the information shows compromising or highly improper things the disclosure of which doesn’t bring out facts relevant precisely to the question of whether you can trust the official, our president, to remain honest and above-board *on national security issues*.

                And the media isn’t always irresponsible, and is usually quite good, at least essential in its better venues. Were it not for Lester Holt’s being shrewder than Trump (a true incompetent), we wouldn’t have had Trump on record accusing himself of clear wrongdoings, perhaps even obstruction of justice! Any conservative, at least, should, as someone who suspects government, look to the press as a bulwark against tyranny.

                1. The press/media have proven itself to be full of tyranny. Today, we need freedom “from” the press more than we need freedom “of” the press. The press/media should be protecting “We the People” not serving as a lapdog of the DNC, Lib-Dems, Deep State, Statists, and the corrupt Obama administration they supported for eight miserable, long years. They are no different than Pravda and Izvestia of the defunct Soviet Union. If the press/media does not control themselves, laws will be passed to control a corrupt press/media.

                  Have you been keeping up with what Obama and his henchmen are doing in the background to bring down President Donald Trump. They are no less than treasonous, un-American, anti-American subversives. They are the Deep State supported by George Soros, the Bilderberg Group, NWO, Illuminati et al. They are the hidden government that JFK went after and ended up dead.

                  1. My comment was directed toward James Snyder, not Dr. Bob Uda… in case that wasn’t clear.

                    1. Bob Webster is one of the level-headed posters on this blog. The Lib-Dems are proving Dr. Michael Savage statement to be true, i.e., “Liberalism is a mental disorder.”

                    2. I totally agree wih Dr. Bob Uda… and Dr. Michael Savage…

                      Modern liberalism (i.e., Progressivism/Marxism/etc.) is a mental disease born of weak character, lack of confidence in one’s abilities, and a desperate desire to be seen as caring.

                      Today’s conservatives are classic liberals, recognizing that it is up to each of us, regardless of our abilities, to contribute as best we can.

                      The real heros are Dr. Ben Carson’s mother who was determined to do whatever she had to in order to raise her boys to have a better life and the faith that guided them to a better life. That is being a REAL parent and doing her part with extremely limited means.

                      Her successful approach was quite unlike that of today’s liberals who spoil their children by giving them far too much and demanding far too little of them. They end up as today’s “snowflakes” who want to believe that it is government’s duty to take care of them just because they exist.

                      The ranks the far-Left Democratic Party are littered with these spoiled children who never grew up.

                      People like HRC have used these spoiled adults and will continue to use them unless and until they wake up and realize that THEY are the only one responsible for their future. In short, grow up Leftists.

                    3. Outstanding post, Bob Webster! You make very astute observations of the far leftists. Keep up the good work. I have gone long enough listening and watching these left-wing loons dominate our society. I’ve had enough of their foolishness. Hence, I am fighting back using the same logic and tactics/strategies that they use, and they absolutely don’t like it. Of course, the first retort I receive is they attempt to denigrate my education, knowledge, and intellect. I find them very amusing as they usually fit the mold of idiot, moron, dolt, and jerk.

                    4. Amen. Name-calling is always their first approach. They haven’t either the intellect (despite being told they are so smart by parents and teachers) or the knowledge to engage in a coherent, intelligent discussion, so they do what they’re best at… snark, name-calling, and attacking the messenger who is exposing their weakness. All part of being a good Leftist. It’s the written form of throwing rocks. And when they use pseudonyms, that’s their black ski mask. Spoiled children in adult bodies with no capacity to deal with the harsh realities of the real world because they’ve been sheltered from it all their lives (participation trophies, safe-spaces, etc., ad nauseam).

                      Our nation faces a real challenge because, unlike most of the rest of the planet, we’re raising young children to be older children, trying to shelter them from what is real because it might be harmful to their tender egos.

                      The real burden will come on the young people who are being raised to be mature adults. Not only will they have to deal with making the best of their opportunities (which will far surpass those of the immature), but they’ll have to contend with the growing class of those with no real capabilities to contribute beyond their over-inflated notion of their own importance.

                    5. I love that you condemn name-calling, then immediately start calling liberals names.

                      Self-awareness pretty obviously isn’t your strong point.

                    6. Liberals deserve everything they receive for screwing up our nation. Every major city that has gone down the tubes is because they have been run for many years by Lib-Dems who know how to do nothing but “tax and spend.” That’s what the Obungler did to get our debt up to nearly $20 Trillion! He added $10 Trillion to that total all by his lonesome. What a legacy of which he can be very proud! Dolt.

                    7. All by his lonesome? Who has the power of the purse, “Dr.” Bob?

                      Is there any subject you know anything about?

                      Also, thanks for proving my point about name-calling!

                    8. One thing we know about liberals like you is that you truly believe that you can hold a piece of turd from the clean end.

                    9. Outstanding piece, Bob Webster! You make me feel we have hope for our society, which has been tanking ever since the Obungler Divider-in-Chief stole the White House for eight miserable years (2009-2017). In my mind, he has been the worst POTUS in U.S. history.

                      I am so thrilled that President Donald J. Trump is working very hard every day in attempting to return our nation to normalcy as I knew it growing up as a barefoot kid in Hawaii in the 1940s and 1950s. I have seen major, destructive changes in our society over the past 75 years of my life. We have been going down a very slippery slope with the onslaught of political correctness (PC) and the liberal-Democrat rule and reign in our country.

                      I’m going to spend the rest of my days on this earth fighting to overcome the Marxist-socialist “fundamentally changing the United States of America” that the Obungler brought to our nation. His style of social justice and “spread the wealth” mentality has been very detrimental to the well-being of the United States of America.

                      When President Trump succeeds at fixing our broken nation, he will become the greatest POTUS in U.S. history. He shall have my complete support in helping fix our screwed up society by the Lib-Dems. With God’s help, I know we will be successful.

        2. You mean like all the classified documents that Hilary Clinton carelessly/improperly released? I think we can all agree that those documents were clearly classified and improperly released.

        3. Do you mean by “transparency” the kind of transparency we received during eight miserable years of the Obama administration?

  4. What do I think? I think it’s hard to take you seriously in the internet age when you use a serif font.

    1. Comey was recently caught on video entering and leaving the New York Crimes building, obviously, weaving more of the web that he and his fellow Deep State criminals in which they are entangled. The crook is going to prison.

    1. Noted liberal Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, who supported and voted for HRC, said that there is nothing there there. DJT has broken no law and is innocent of any crime. Hence, those of you anto-Trump folks should stop pushing on a rope and stop being “Ding Dong Lib-Dems sitting on a fence trying to make a dollar out of 15 cents.” There is nothing there, folks. On the other hand, Comey is in deep trouble.

  5. If you think putting the Clinton Crime Family from Arkansas back into the White House was a better outcome than having four years of Trump, you need your head examined.

Comments are closed.