Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the growing need for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to recuse himself from the Special Counsel investigation. Rosenstein has alluded to the possible need for his recusal but continues to participate in an investigation that could have direct bearing on his own role and decision-making. If he has material evidence on obstruction, he should not delay his recusal until he receives a formal request to appear before a grand jury. His relevance to the obstruction investigation is obvious and he should not be determined questions of scope when his own conduct could fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Counsel.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is back in the news this week, with a Sunday show appearance discussing the evolving scope of the special counsel’s investigation. While the subject was hardly a surprise, the person discussing the investigation was. Rosenstein is not only the ultimate authority on the scope of the investigation, he is also clearly a witness.
There are times when multitasking is a talent, but playing the roles of investigator and witness is not one of them. Rosenstein continues to resist calls for his own recusal, despite reports that a grand jury in Washington is now pursuing the obstruction allegations against President Trump.
Reports also indicate that various FBI officials now believe that they will inevitably be called as witnesses before the grand jury investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller. Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe is among those officials.
But on the top of this list must be the man whom the White House originally tagged with the decision to fire former FBI Director James Comey and the man who reportedly clashed with the White House over its public account: Rod Rosenstein.
Rosenstein’s involvement and importance in the underlying facts are well established. The deputy attorney general’s failure to recuse himself is a glaring ethical omission in an investigation into a president’s alleged conflicts of interest in dealing with then-FBI Director James Comey. Rosenstein is now three months overdue.
I was skeptical about the appointment of a special counsel before the firing because such an appointment should be accompanied by an articulable criminal act — something missing in the vague references to “collusion” with the Russians.
My view changed after Trump fired Comey on May 9. At that point, I believed that Rosenstein was right about the need for a special counsel to assure the public that a full and independent investigation would be conducted. However, his choice of Robert Mueller was a mistake. Mueller interviewed for Comey’s job, and Trump presumably spoke to Mueller about his reasons for firing Comey.
Moreover, Mueller and Comey have a close prior professional history. Both men were involved in a historic moment during the George W. Bush administration where they stood side by side to oppose an unlawful surveillance program. It was a moment that would define the legacies of both men — and enjoin them in history.
Rosenstein magnified that error with a mandate for Mueller that is strikingly broad. Yet this week, Rosenstein assured the public that “Bob Mueller understands and I understand the specific scope of the investigation, and so no, it’s not a fishing expedition.” If so, that understanding has remained strangely unstated.
The special counsel provision found in 28 CFR 600 states that the attorney general (or in this case, the deputy attorney general) shall establish by jurisdiction of the special counsel “a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.”
The statement given to Robert Mueller was anything but specific. It simply stated that Mueller was to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” and “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”
With such a sweeping mandate, the role of the deputy attorney general in the investigation is even higher than usual. Rosenstein is performing the role of the attorney general after Jeff Sessions correctly recused himself. Under the rules, Mueller is specifically allowed to investigate “any federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the special counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.”
If Mueller were to seek a broader jurisdiction to investigate new matters or “to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned,” he “shall consult with” Rosenstein, who this week referenced this power by saying that Mueller “needs to come to the acting attorney general, at this time me, for permission to expand his investigation.”
It is not clear whether Mueller had such a discussion before bringing on a team of prosecutors focused on financial fraud and foreign bribery or pursuing previous Trump transactions and business deals. If Mueller is pursuing obstruction allegations, that course will take him right over the desk of his superior: Rosenstein.
Rosenstein was consulted about firing Comey and supported the decision with a memorandum shredding the former FBI director. Moreover, when the White House initially made it sound like Rosenstein was the reason that Comey was fired (despite the fact that Trump had already decided to do so before receiving Rosenstein’s memo in support of termination), Rosenstein reportedly demanded a correction.
Rosenstein will likely be a key witness on the obstruction issue. As someone who supported the firing, he may be as important to the defense as to the prosecution in showing the independent grounds for terminating Comey. He has much at stake professionally, as shown by his adamant response to the White House spin. The grand jury might want to know why Rosenstein did not act to protect Comey or why he did not confront Trump in any suggested desire to curtail the investigation.
It is a basic rule that prosecutor should immediately recuse himself from a matter where he may be a witness. In addition to the various grounds listed in the conflicts rule, recusal is appropriate in “circumstances other than those set forth in the regulation that would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts to question an employee’s impartiality.” Rosenstein, who has recognized his problem as a potential witness, should have recused himself long ago.
Rosenstein clearly agreed with the recusal of Sessions (as did most of us) to avoid even an appearance of a conflict. The deputy attorney general has more than an appearance of a conflict. Not only did Rosenstein appoint someone with close ties to the main accuser of President Trump, but he himself reportedly clashed with the White House on its post-firing account on Comey. Yet, Rosenstein is reaffirming that he will continue to make decisions on the scope and resources for the investigation.
This is a major investigation with passions running high on both sides. Citizens deserve an investigation without lingering questions of bias or personal interest. While it is too late to rethink or reverse the appointment of the special counsel, Rosenstein can remove one continuing and distracting conflict by removing himself. We are now more than 90 days and waiting.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
So what mr turley is intimating is that rosenstien is a witness to russian collaboration or part of it himself? When the scope of mueller is russia…..turley deems comey’s canning is part theteof. Maybe comey just sucked…not just the tarmac meeting but his ole firm representing cgi! And all his wealth impossible on a govt pay check. I am sure rosenstien can come up with a dozen more reasons for firing comey….but that would look bad “institutionally” given all the ethical chinese screens one would have to ask where were the “ethicists” ever calling for comey’s resignation?
Absurd! If anyone should be recusing himself, it’s Mueller, the vile, disgusting, corrupt, lying, weasel and scumbag extraordinaire.
And won’t it be a hoot when he “finds” a bunch of crimes that occured under his watch? Its like he’s getting a do over! And really what did he do in his tenure? Look at our country the dealers got away….the banks got away …the jihads got away….really I can’t think of one spectacular thing he did in his 10-12 years…now he gets a redo …because hsbc et al did’t pan out for the globalists?
Why are there still “old administration” employees still there? Where is President Trumps administration?
LC, Waiting to be approved. They are being held up by the Democrats. Not smart considering all the problems in the world that need to be carefully managed.
They’re held up by the Democrats because AM McConnell, et al, will not consent to a revision of the Senate’s rules which would disallow holds on nominees extending over more than a few business days and will not consent to scrapping the filibuster. Senators are disgusting prima donnas who would prefer to play footsie with each other rather than accomplish anything.
Absolutely correct. He is on the top of my “hit” list. I don’t love either party. I think the stay at home non voter in the next election cycle might determine the winner.
Another good article. Love you
Sent from my iPad
>
Since so many of the leftists on this blog have suddenly become so aware of potential misdeeds to the point that they are promoting investigations without stating the crime I thought this might be of interest since so many of the same ilk have denied the fact that some people and non citizens are voting illegally.
Licenses, ID Cards Sold to Illegal Aliens by Corrupt State Workers Used for Voter Fraud
AUGUST 08, 2017
A year after Judicial Watch reported a rise in illegal aliens using fake Puerto Rican birth certificates to obtain authentic U.S. passports and drivers’ licenses, the feds have busted a Massachusetts operation run by corrupt state workers. The state employees sold drivers’ licenses and state identification cards to illegal immigrants who bought Puerto Rican documents on the black market, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The operation perpetuated voter fraud because some of the false identities and addresses were used to vote in Boston, the state’s capital and largest city.
The case is the latest of many illustrating that there’s an epidemic of voter fraud in the U.S. that’s seldom reported in the mainstream media. It’s not clear how many false identities and addresses were used to fraudulently register to vote in Boston, but the feds indicate that it occurred in multiple cases and Judicial Watch is investigating the matter as part of a five-year-old Election Integrity Project. The scheme was operated by four taxpayer-funded employees at the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) along with two outside accomplices who sold Puerto Rican documents to illegal aliens. All six were recently arrested and charged with aggravated identity theft. They probably never would have been caught if not for an anonymous tip received by the Massachusetts State Police nearly two years ago and there’s no telling how long the illicit scheme operated.
The anonymous letter said that a corrupt RMV employee was providing stolen identifications and drivers’ licenses to individuals seeking false IDs, the DOJ announcement states. An investigation ensued and authorities discovered that the four clerks were working with a document vendor and document dealer to provide the licenses and official state ID cards to illegal immigrants in exchange for cash. “The scheme involved several steps,” the DOJ says. First, the document dealer sold a Puerto Rican birth certificate and U.S. Social Security card to the document vendor for approximately $900. The vendor would then sell the stolen identities for more than $2,000 to illegal aliens—some with criminal records—seeking legitimate identities in Massachusetts. After the first layer of illicit transactions occurred, the counterfeit documents and false identities and addresses were used to fraudulently register clients to vote in Boston.
(cont)
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2017/08/licenses-id-cards-sold-illegal-aliens-corrupt-state-workers-used-voter-fraud/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=corruption+chronicles&utm_term=members&utm_content=20170809174139
Allan, thank you for the information!
By the way, all government agency’s take an Oath of Office. Why haven’t these greedy employees been fired and benefits removed? As an American tax payer, I am making a complaint and I expect it to be investigated for abuse of power and theft from Americans.
LC, you are entirely correct. I hope many of them end up in jail for a good number of years. I wouldn’t give them any leniency because their intent is to destroy our Constitutional Republic.
Rod Rosenstein must be prosecuted for abuse of power and violation of public integrity under the color of authority.
Rod Rosenstein, as the “tip of the spear” of the subversive, globalist “deep state” coup d’etat, took the singularly political step of appointing a Special Prosecutor against a political opponent as a continuance of the 2016 election, which democrats lost, with no perceptible crime and no probable cause, simply opening an investigation of an individual on a theory posited by raging ideologues conjecturing that intelligence and counter-intelligence operations may have occurred, which are addressed through other methods and regulations.
Rod Rosenstein must order the Special Investigation concluded, submit his resignation and surrender his person to the FBI for prosecution.
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”
– Lavrentiy Beria – Head of Joseph Stalin’s Secret Police
_______________________________________________
“Compel the gullible Sessions to recuse himself and I’ll find you the crime.”
– Rod J. Rosenstein – Head of the “Deep State” Secret Police
Does this mean any citizen could be investigated at anytime for any “matter” that arises?. If so I guess most of us would have the wrong perception of what this country was supposed to be about.
There are so many laws on the books that good citizens break them all the time even those good citizens on the list that are looking for anything to pin on Trump.
How’d you like to be Rosenstein right now? He may eventually be considered the one who is/was responsible for starting the civil war that may ultimately destroy our once great Republic.
Concentrated wealth is, statistically, at the point where it brings down advanced societies (500 years of history). Bill Gates’ wealth, equivalent to that of 750,000,000 people, 6 Walton heirs with wealth equivalent to 40% of Americans, no wage growth in 35+ years – those are the reasons the U.S. oligarchy will not survive.
Trump’s cabinet of billionaires including Tillerson who has directed the state department to omit references to democracy and justice, in interactions with other governments, is one indicator of the problem faced by the 99%.
Bill Gates’ assets are contextually smaller than were John D. Rockefeller’s in 1937. We’ve not been brought down and the Rockefeller heirs control little of institutional importance.
As a result of redirection after 1937, FDR’s New Deal, the exploitive rich were saved from themselves.
Gates and Koch’s addition to history- weaponized philanthropy.
There is an alteration of philosophy in this response by Linda. The philosophy starts with “bring down advanced societies” and seems to be moving in the direction of philanthropy that is “weaponized”, whatever that is supposed to mean.
I suppose Carnagie’s contribution to society is improved literacy (libraries). Why would one choose to accuse Carnagie of weaponizing philanthropy?
It sounds as if one is accusing others of a “crime”, but can’t define what that crime is.
Linda, When Bill Gates uses his money to fund small tech companies working to develop new technologies, how does that “bring down advanced societies”?
I assume you won’t answer the question. Carnegie built libraries all over the country. How did that bring down our advanced society? DSS points to probably the richest American of all, Rockefeller. How did his ability to bring fuel oil at a low price to all American citizens decimate the middle class?
Linda, with all due respect, you might want to familiarize yourself with the American concepts of freedom and free enterprise without interference by the severely limited government. The Communist mandates of redistribution of wealth, social engineering and central planning are unconstitutional in America.
To put it another way, Other People’s Money (OPM) is precisely NONE of your business.
James Madison defined “private property” as “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world,in exclusion of every other individual.”
“…IN THE EXCLUSION OF EVERY OTHER INDIVIDUAL.”
You have absolutely ZERO claim on the private property held by fellow and, frankly, more talented and more successful citizens.
Article 1, Section 8
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,…to…provide for the …general Welfare…”
General means, as you may know, ALL and it does not mean individual or individual Welfare. General Welfare includes things ALL people use, such as water, sewer, electricity, roads, currency, post office, etc.
See if you can function as an adult without “Affirmative Action Privilege,” welfare, food stamps, social services, forced busing, Obamacare or the many multiple other “entitlements” available to parasites and with maximum self-reliance to finance and sustain your own life based on your own merit and without coveting and leeching. You and your comrades constitute the reason the God of Abraham chiseled “Thou Shalt Not Covet” in stone.
The U.S. does not practice free enterprise e.g. preferential tax treatment for carried interest.
Can we assume that as long as Rosenstein continues his role in the investigation without recusing himself that there is no obstruction case being pursued?
The statement given to Robert Mueller was anything but specific. It simply stated that Mueller was to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” and “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”
So they are the Federal Bureau of Matters after all. Given the broad scope in this statement, they would have to be completely incompetent to not find something. With the vast resources available from those that would like to take this President down, would anyone be surprised to find people willing to testify (with supporting manufactured evidence) for the right price?
Imagine a special investigation into Hillary Clinton, the DNC and DWS with this broad scope. If that does not happen then this fishing expedition for matters on President Trump will never be accepted as just. That will seal the Democrats fate for years to come.
Lynch announced the DOJ would not investigate the Clinton Foundation’s relationship with the State Department during Hillary’s tenure, despite the FBI’s recommendation to do so.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/07/obamas-attorney-general-used-fake-identity-hide-clinton-investigation-e-mails/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=779a173481-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-779a173481-79248369
Is North Korea going to wag this dog?
JT: What about 28 USC 528 and Mueller? Not to mention the people who he has picked for his team who were significant contributors to the campaign of the person that Trump beat. Please explain what I’m missing about this. Surely, this is more important than a piece about a thief who forgot to flush.
Everyone in the federal government needs to resign and quit their jobs. They are all suspects. No law professor should be hired to be a federal legal employee of any nature. They are not qualified.
Ya, because ignorant, uninformed, incurious, close-minded, rubes did such a good choosing a president.
This to fergy
Ya,they should have elected a woman above the law or a socialist, “this too marky”.
j pismo
Voters DID choose a socialist. Trump believes in socialism for the rich, free enterprise for the poor. Socialise costs, privatize profits. e.g. Betsy deVoss wants for-profit schools. The public pays for them and the schools’ owners reap the financial benefits. IOW – she’s doing her part to privatize public institutions.
Sounds good to me, far better education. Good job Betsy!
Right on Pismo. I don’t know why some people believe in choice of schools only for the rich. I wonder what they have against poor people and inner city kids?
Wow Mark. Bigot, much?
In my lifetime two special counsels have gone off the deep end. First Ken Starr, now Mueller. Mueller needs to recuse himself because of his attachment to Comey. Especially, if he gave Comey blanket immunity.
Starr? Starr’s prosecution of Julie Hiatt Steele was a vindictive waste of time. He did, however, win convictions of a string of Arkansas politicians. See Lewis Amselem (‘Diplomad 2.0’) on Whitewater: “My Foreign Service colleagues understood Whitewater immediately. In the places we had been posted, the function of the First Lady is to launder the bribes”. James McDougal died before he could testify and Susan McDougal cooled her heels in jail rather than testify.
If you want an off the rails prosecutor, Patrick FitzGerald, the quondam U.S. Attorney in Chicago is your man. See Thomas Sowell’s and Mark Steyn’s critiques of FitzGerald. Another off the rails prosecutor was late-stage Lawrence Walsh. See Robert Bork on his last set of indictments.
Glenn Reynolds has said repeatedly that Robert Mueller is hopelessly tainted and needs to resign. Prof. Reynolds, unlike Prof. Turley, is willing to acknowledge what Mueller’s previous associations and hiring patterns indicate: that this is a crooked establishment fishing expedition. Instead, Turley frets over Rosenstein, whose position in this is much less troublesome.
Again, DSS, Mueller didn’t hire himself and neither did Rosenstein hire himself. More critical thinking skills required, DSS.
You know Diane, your self-assessment just isn’t worth jack.
Mueller is Comey’s siamese twin. He is not the person to assess Comey and if he had authentic integrity, he’d have refused the appointment. Having taken it, he hired four attorneys (out of 14) who were four-digit donors to the Democratic Party. It’s not hard to find attorneys who do not donate to political candidates. Only a single-digit share of the public are political donors, and very few cut checks that size. It was just brazen on his part.
Trump hired Sessions; Sessions hired Rosenstein; Rosenstein hired Mueller. Your self-assessment will never change those facts, DSS.
The one person who can’t make that case is Trump who thinks Sessions (a more likely witness that could be indicted as well) that Trump says should not have recused himself. Rosenstein may well be saving Trump from himself as he could well use the opportunity to appoint a replacement that would fire Mueller. I agree he should ultimately recuse himself but the patriotic thing may be to stay as long as possible and avert a Constitutional crisis.
It would be helpful if Trump sought to avoid a Constitutional crisis. Unfortunately, the end game for Trump doesn’t look as bad as it looks for our country. A Republican House has to bring articles of impeachment against Trump. A Republican Senate has to cast fewer that thirty-three votes to acquit. Pence has to refrain from pardoning Trump. The Special Counsel has to secure an indictment against Trump on Obstruction of Justice charges, proceed to trial, get a conviction and even then Trump could still be eligible for re-election to The Presidency unless The Senate casts more than sixty-seven votes to disqualify Trump from office.
Again, Diane, Leon Jaworski never attempted to do that, because he thought an indictment of a sitting president unconstitutional. If Mueller tries that gambit, he will be the one provoking a constitutional crisis.
DSS, If Trump were removed from office first. And if Pence didn’t pardon Trump. Then Mueller could secure an indictment against Trump without Jaworski’s constitutional qualms–which are hardly conclusive on the question, anyway. More critical reading skills required, DSS.
There is no crime, Diane.
Methinks a federal grand jury may have other ideas….Just get the popcorn ready.
They is to “they indicted all of them?” Susie
What does a reasonable person deduce from (a) Trump threatening those who are investigating him (b) his associates lying (Flynn and Trump Jr.) (3) his lack of transparency about the source of his business loans, including the release of his tax returns (4) his former campaign manager, Mannafort, belatedly, registering as a foreign agent and, (5) Kushner’s request for a backdoor channel of communication in the Russian embassy?
a) Trump didn’t threaten and had the right to fire the head of the FBI and place someone else in that position.
Debbie Wasserman Shultz actually threatened the DC police cheif who was doing his job. Obama’s IRS went after Obama’s political opponents.
b) lying. What did Trump Jr lie about? Did he refuse to turn over emails to Congress? Did he lie about their existence? Did he wipe the hard drive clean? Did Lynch meet Bill Clinton on the tarmac? Did Lynch subvert a legitimate investigation?
Get a grip on yourself Linda. What you are talking about is insignifcant. Trump didn’t have to release his taxes and his business dealings. He has been investigated over and over again by the IRS, NYC, NJ, two gaming comissions. That releases more information than a tax return. …And by the way one of his tax returns was released illegally. That didn’t show much of anything.
Methinks a federal grand jury may have other ideas…
You mean the prosecutor. Juries rarely no-bill anyone. Dollars-to-doughnuts it will be an indictment for a process offense arising from the investigation. See Lewis Libby.
Diane, Dangerous thinking when one doesn’t recognize the need for a crime to be defined. Forget about Trump and politics and think of why our nation was created in the first place. Think of search and seizure. Think of personal rights that extend to all.
Turley writes: “Rosenstein, who has recognized his problem as a potential witness, should have recused himself long ago. Rosenstein clearly agreed with the recusal of Sessions (as did most of us) to avoid even an appearance of a conflict.”
Sessions was honorable though I don’t think he had to recuse himself so early. Rosenstein lacks that appearance of honor.
Does the Democratic ideology believe in individual freedoms only when they are not in power? Take note of all that happened during the Obama administration for which we are finally seeing investigations. Look at the IRS that targeted individuals whose sole crime was supporting Obama’s opposition.
Note, I would criticize either party if and when they intentionally interefered with one’s individual freedoms. The Democrats, that in the past appeared more attuned to individual freedom, seems to have forgotten the defining reason behind our nations existence.
Allan, I do think the obstruction charge should be connected to an underlying crime or dismissed. There’s currently no evidence of an underlying crime of which the public has been made aware. And, even if there were, the presumption of innocence ought never to be chucked overboard for anyone facing legal jeopardy.
I am glad you feel that way, Diane. This is what the President calls a witch hunt and I believe him to be correct. All of this is very dangerous to the nation. Mueller should finish the investigation of campaign collusion with the Russians in the narrow sense which was the claim and then end it. I would not be against the investigation of the involvement of other campaigns using the same standards.
To date there has been no obstruction of justice that anyone can point to.
Allan, if an investigation–any investigation–had to prove the alleged crime under investigation before undertaking that investigation, then there would be neither any investigations nor any indictments, nor any prosecutions of any crimes ever. Were that ontological problem the case–which it isn’t, of course–then your proposed investigation of “other campaigns” by “the same [narrow] standard” seems curious to say the least.
As for dangers facing our nation, I see at least two slightly different problems at odds with one another here: one is the politicization of the law; the other, the criminalization of politics. Trump’s complaint about a “witch hunt” goes to the latter problem. Trump’s firing of Comey goes to the former. I’m sure there are other examples of both problems that you could give. I’ll give just one more: Trump’s request to Sessions to investigate “Crooked H” and “Lock her up” because “She never should’ve been allowed to run.”
Evidently Trump has an express desire to determine who shall or shall not be allowed to oppose him in the political arena. And that is a danger to the nation.
“ Allan, if an investigation–any investigation–had to prove the alleged crime under investigation before undertaking that investigation, then there would be neither any investigations nor any indictments…”
Diane, when Sally Smith is murdered and they find a suspect, Jon Doe, they investigate John Doe for the murder of Sally Smith, not for the murder of Jack Jones or tax violations by still another investigator. In other words there is a reason behind the investigation and it is specific, absent the attitude of he must be guilty of something. Take especial note that even in the search the investigators are limited to what they can look at and what they can’t.
“one is the politicization of the law; … Trump’s firing of Comey goes to the former.”
Trump has a Constitutional right to fire Comey and that was the desire of the opposition as well. Additionally Comey politicized the FBI.
“the other, the criminalization of politics. Trump’s complaint about a “witch hunt” goes to the latter problem.”
Leaking is against the law and Comey broke FBI rules and regulations. When we look at all the emails from the computers of Clinton, Abedin, Weiner, Lynch (plus illegal alias’s) etc. we note a lot of intentional and inexcusable criminal activity on the Democratic side. Much of what has been said about the President and those that surround him if the claims exist likely , for the most part, were excusable and unintentional.
Diane, “Evidently Trump has an express desire to determine who shall or shall not be allowed to oppose him in the political arena. And that is a danger to the nation.”
Very weak statement. He obviously is partisan to his own politics and will appoint people that agree with him and may fire people that don’t. That is the nature of our political system. He had excellent reasons for firing Comey. On the other hand we see the IRS becoming partisan and causing problems for Obama’s enemies. We even saw one leaked IRS report on Trump (I am not going as far as blaming the IRS). We see in Clinton’s email’s along with others how the Democratic process was intentionally subverted by those in power to the disadvantage of Sanders or anyone else that chose to run.
I think we have to observe Trump as an island in-between two armed camps where most of the participants wish the island not to exist. Due process is not being carried out in the way intended to the disadvantage of the sitting President.
I guess it all depends on what one considers to be “glaring”.
The only people crying for his recusal are repugthuglicans. Guarantee if it were Clinton they wouldn’t be.
Turley is neither a republican nor a Trump apologist. He does, however, have highly developed position on the ethical obligations of prosecutors and law-enforcement officers. Given a Hobson’s choice between politicizing the law versus criminalizing politics, I suspect that Professor Turley would oppose the former for the sake of enabling the latter. It’s a false dichotomy, of course. There’s no particular reason yet that one couldn’t equally oppose both the politicization of the law and the criminalization of politics.
Has an objective analysis of Turley’s blog posts been conducted that would support your first sentence? Your opinion is at odds with the viewpoints of other blog readers. An analysis might enlighten Turley about his possible demographic preferences and dispel false conclusions by readers, rather they be from the right or left.
Turley’s a lawyer and academic who extends to other lawyers and academics courtesies they do not merit.
Ain’t that the truth, DSS. I must say, no matter what City or State, venue or jurisdiction, my practice takes me, male lawyers are the biggest ego-stroking suck-ups to each other. JT is absolutely no exception.
DSS, can you make sense of what Linda is saying? I don’t think she understands how one scientifically evaluates different things. She seems to work backwards from her conclusions filling in fictitious or irrelevant details as she works towards the beginning.
I think she’s started her early afternoon drinking. Best to just let her be.
Allan, Linda is suggesting that Prof. Turley should be regarded as though he were a Republican and a Trump apologist because Linda regards a fair number of the people posting messages on Prof. Turley’s blog as Republicans and Trump apologists. FTR, I don’t think Linda is wrong about very many of this blog’s posters. But I don’t see how that touches upon this blog’s host.
Diane, the blog apparently has persons of various ideologies not limited to Democrat and Republican. The Professor is a Constitutional lawyer and appears to be doing his best to interpret the Constitution in somewhat of a centrist manner. That means to me that he isn’t generally attempting to take small pieces of an idea in the Constitution and magnifying them to a greater extent than the Constitution itself. IMO I don’t think he makes outcome based decisions at least not for the most part like we see in a Sotomayor.
I came to this blog after observing Turley on other issues. To me his ideology appears left of center with a libertarian mindset seemingly leading him to lean on the side of civil liberties. For the most part whether I agree with him or not his legal opinions appear based upon the Constitution. On this blog we see a good number of reprints from the MSM so it makes him appear unbalanced at least in his choice of topics and how he discusses them. That is dictated by the tastes of the publishers and perhaps the readers.
As far as people like Linda are concerned, I have no problem with their philosophy. There are bits and pieces of all philosophies that have agreement with one another. Linda’s points stem from Piketty’s book some of which are worth discussing and thinking about (though I disagree with how he uses data and how he uses that data in his conclusions), but I don’t hear any depth or data from Linda so it sounds as if she is parotting what she read in a left wing hit piece to promote a leftist ideology. If, take Linda for example, she was willing to engage in a thoughtful discussion of Piketty then the conversation would become one of value because income disparity and income mobility are important to all ideologies. Unfortunately the sound bite is all we get.
Excellent comment allan! Most impressive is the tone you set that challenges without having to be hostile in doing so.
Thanks Olly. Diane has prven herself an honest broker whether one agrees with her opinions or not. She adds to the discussion as long as one wishes to keep an open mind and I think and hope her comments will help raise the bar in this blog.
I do not always agree with Turley’s views, and he is a very conservative voice. I read his diary because he is not a foaming-at-the-mouth apologist for either side in an increasingly divided country. Yes, I don’t always like what he says but it is usually well-reasoned and forces me to examine my own positions.
This country is suffocating for lack of the fresh air of dialog. Other academics as well-credentialed as Turley disagree with him and also add reasoned positions to the debate.
We need to get away from demonizing those with opposite opinions and try to understand how and why they came to have them.
Agreed, Bluearkie. Except possibly for the “conservative voice” you seem to have heard. Read either of Prof. Turley’s posts about expanding The Supreme Court and see if that sounds conservative to your ear.
Diane, I was speaking in a broad sense about Mr. Turley’s views. One can pick and choose his writings prove any point one cares to make. Overall, I believe he is demonstrably a conservative in his opinions.
bluearkie – I have been on this blog for a couple of years and I would say that JT is a libertarian who is left of center on most issues. That is why all sides get a voice.
Linda, my assertion about our host probably should have been explicitly stated as my subjective opinion. I am not aware of any objective measures for the truth of any given opinion–only measurements for who holds or doesn’t hold this or that opinion and how many of then there might be. Meanwhile, a fair number of the people posting messages on this blog could be read as either confirming or denying my stated opinion about our host. Perhaps the election of Trump has falsified the assumption that the blogosphere is an unrepresentative sample of public opinion. Or not. What do you think, Linda?
Diane,
My advocacy for analysis of this blog’s posts (not comments) is not a call for “measuring truth of opinion”.
Studies of media have focused on topics like inclusion of personal data e.g. photos to influence reader perceptions, language e.g. are the people, terrorists or bombers, etc. For this blog, I would add a compare/contrast study of the treatment of transgressions by Democratic politicians and Republican politicians, which could be conducted objectively. And secondly, quantification, based on statistical representativeness of demographic groups.
The distinctions, left, right, progressive, conservative, liberal, are muddied beyond recognition. For example, the Center for American Progress is funded by the Walton’s, Gates, and corporations. Its agenda may be similar to the Gates-funded New America think tank’s “Starting from Scratch or a New Vision for Higher Ed”. Few among what were once designated as liberals or the left, would, agree with the Gates’ vision. Who would have thought that Presidents from the “left” would promote Gates-privatization of America’s most important common good? The Urban Institute, once labeled “liberal” was criticized this year for negative, allegedly inaccurate ACA reporting and, the think tank has a pension project funded by the anti-pension, John Arnold, of Enron infamy and of hedge funds. Eric Schmidt of Google, funds New America. He is an equal donor to Republicans and Democrats. Identity politics supplanted an economic basis for political distinctions upturning prior understandings about the political left and right.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, focuses on how money in corporate-dominated media, affects reporting. A while ago, it was reported that TIME magazine has a ranking system for its writers that assesses benefit to advertisers. FAIR is described as progressive. Rhetorically, is it valid to use “progressive” as a synonym for anti-oligarchy?
In conclusion, the topic of the objectivity of reporting and blogs, which you introduced, is complex but, merits transparency.