Whistleblower or Wrongdoer? Comey Defenders Ignore The Former Director’s Own Misconduct

440px-Comey-FBI-PortraitBelow is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the allegations raised by the White House over the alleged misconduct of former FBI Director James Comey.  It is clear that Comey violated FBI rules and regulations — offenses that would have likely cost any of his subordinates their jobs at the Bureau when he was director.  However, there remains a virtual news blackout on the obvious violations and their implications.

Here is the column.

This week’s press conference has caused a media frenzy after White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders suggested that former FBI director James Comey committed federal violations in his leaking of memos related to the Russia investigation. The press and various politicians were aghast at the very suggestion that Comey could have violated the law. As I have previously observed, it is a serious mistake for the president and his staff continue these ad hoc comments about the investigation and its key figures. However, Comey has taken on an inviolate image in the media that ignores glaring questions over his own misconduct, an important story that has been largely ignored in most of the coverage.

At the heart of the alleged violations are a series of “memos to file” about Comey’s meetings with President Trump. Comey now admits that he gave at least one of the memos to a friend to leak the information to the media. He insists that he was merely trying to disclose material information to the public. However, when he was fired, it was clear that Comey would be asked to speak to congressional investigators in addition to FBI investigators. Moreover, many of us were already calling for the appointment of a special counsel, which seemed all but certain. In other words, Comey knew that both congressional and federal investigators would be obtaining the memos in short order.

There was, however, an obvious personal benefit to releasing the information. Before he was fired, both Democratic and Republican leaders, as well as former FBI officials, denounced Comey’s prior conduct as director. In addition, Rod Rosenstein, the respected and nonpartisan deputy attorney general, had already concluded that Comey should be fired due to his record at the FBI. That is not the narrative that Comey relished after being fired by President Trump. So he changed the narrative.

In so doing, Comey disclosed key evidence that undermined, rather than assisted, investigators. The value of these memos to investigators was to have the evidence without the White House knowing about their existence. In later interviews, any conflicting statements could be charged as false statements under 18 U.S.C. 1001, the most successful grounds for prosecutors in past Washington scandals. Moreover, Comey damaged his own value as a witness. Comey was tasked with finding leakers in the administration but then immediately became a leaker himself when it served his purposes.

Comey’s defenders have scoffed that the notion that Comey even acted unprofessionally, let alone illegally. Two fellows at the Brookings Institution, Susan Hennessey and Comey friend Benjamin Wittes wrote, “It’s hard to even understand the argument for how Jim Comey’s memory about his conversation with the president qualifies as a record, even if he jotted it down while in his office.” It is actually hard to understand how it is not. Comey prepared seven memos to the file about nine meetings with the president of the United States as the FBI director about an investigation that could target the president himself. That is something more than “jotting down” thoughts on your day at work.

Comey prepared these memos in the course of that investigation on a secure FBI computer. He then shared the information with his staff and discussed whether the information should be given wider distribution at the bureau. If FBI agents could simply release their views of potential targets from their “personal recollections,” there would be little left of the extensive FBI rules and regulations on the confidentiality of such information. The FBI has since confirmed that these documents are FBI material and that four of the seven memos were classified.

Likewise, Rosenstein indicated that the release of the material was improper and insisted “when we have memoranda about our ongoing matters, we have an obligation to keep that confidential.”

New York Times reporter Peter Baker also took exception to Sanders’s remarks and tweeted during the briefing that Comey never physically handed over any memos to the New York Times. However, Comey has confirmed that he did hand over at least one memo, and possibly more, to a Columbia law professor tasked with leaking the information. It is also still a violation to release FBI information whether by reading it aloud or handing over the document. (In fairness to Baker who is a widely respected journalist, he was objecting to the fact that Sanders indicated that the memo itself was leaked and was objecting on accuracy grounds).

This is precisely why all FBI agents sign an agreement against “unauthorized disclosure” of information and promise not to “reveal, by any means, any information or material from or related to FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment to any unauthorized recipient without prior official written authorization by the FBI.” It adds that “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.” FBI employees are repeatedly warned that they can be charged under a variety of laws including those governing the removal or release of classified information as well as laws like the Privacy Act.

Some have questioned whether Sanders is correct that a criminal charge can be brought under the Privacy Act or whether it is common to do so. Indeed, violations of the Privacy Act can result in a criminal charge under Section III of the law. While it is true that such charges are rare (and in this case unlikely), this does not mean that the underlying conduct cannot be treated as criminal. Indeed, there has been little concern over the investigation of Trump figures like Paul Manafort or Michael Flynn for violations of laws like the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which is rarely actually prosecuted. Indeed, there have been only seven prosecutions under Foreign Agents Registration Act since 1966, when the law was revised.  Since we do not know what is in the Comey memos, it is still unclear whether any of the information falls within the Privacy Act.  For that reason, this is a possible but still unestablished violation.

Comey insisted that he wrote the memos as a type of shield, but he then used them as a sword once he was fired. None of this means that Comey’s actions warrant a criminal charge or that those actions exonerate others in the investigation, including President Trump. But at the end of the day, the White House is correct that Comey’s conduct can constitute violations of federal law and regulations.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

112 thoughts on “Whistleblower or Wrongdoer? Comey Defenders Ignore The Former Director’s Own Misconduct”

  1. I may have missed it. If so my apologies. But yesterday I was reminded how people like Comey, Pelosi, Schumer, Warren, Sanders B, Clilnton, and a great many others which with me includes McCollum and the Rino’s not just the Progressive Socialist Party…how many lightly take their Oath of Office and then spit on the first words usually found in such a promise to the nation.

    “Support and Defend The Constitution of The United States of America.” Many, too many, crossing their fingers having taken allegicance to an odious hateful foreign ideology and rejected their social contract with the USA.Why yesterday?

    It was Constitution Day and not one article appeared not one comment even in Fox…Some weird rite of the left called Emmy was more important.

    But the 40% largest voting block that decided the election last November, the seemingly unrepresented in our Representative Constitutional Republic, the self -governing citizens did not forget our Oath of Citizenship and our Oaths of Office to our system of government. No Collective, No The Party, No Democracy just the fruit of democratic principles fully grown into our nation. .

    Very bad day for the Congress, the media and the education system who ranted about everything and anything…..and nothing. But it cemented our resolve to defend our Constitution against all enemies foriegn or DOMESTIC.

    The one thing that brightened the day was the amount of email coming in from all over the nation.

    One bright spot in the media. One pool listed Independents in the middle with Repubicans, Rinos and Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives out to the sides. Nice they finally recognized the true center although Constitution was left out.

  2. Is the president going to demand an investigation into the two most recent leakers from his administration, his lawyers? The Times article, and the picture of the two lawyers chatting up their Russia strategy at an outside table of a Washington restaurant, are priceless!! Perhaps they were just setting up the New York Times reporter, but they don’t seem smart enough to do that. Ty Cobb seems particularly dull.

    The president hires the best people. LOL LOL

  3. The REAL STORY is that the fat mental patient who is stinking up the White House demanded personal loyalty from the country’s top cop, and when he didn’t get it, he fired him. This would lead any reasonable person to ask themselves: why does he want personal loyalty? We know the answer: so that he can stop the investigation into his crimes, including the invalidity of the election itself due to foreign influence. You are attempting to undermine this truth, just like Fox News does, by constantly pivoting in an effort to shift focus on the witnesses who will eventually bring down Chump. Comey isn’t the story here.

    Now, we learn that Chump went after Sessions when he recused himself, as the DOJ rules required. Anyone who crosses fatso is going to be attacked. What a sad excuse for a President!

    1. ” the invalidity of the election itself due to foreign influence”.
      I don’t think that The Vatican’s interference in the 2016 election issues affected the final results.

      1. I thought she meant the ‘foreign influence’ of illegals voting in California and elsewhere that cost Trump the popular vote?

        1. HAHAHAHAHA. Every time Kobach comes out with something, it’s even stupider than the one before. He’s an ignorant Trump sycophant, nothing more.

    2. We know the answer: so that he can stop the investigation into his crimes, including the invalidity of the election itself due to foreign influence.

      If fantasy is what’s helping you get through the day, so be it. Just don’t pester the normies with it.

    3. They are pretty desperate to get focus off Trump. But everything keeps blowing up in their faces. This post just another example by Turley of shooting the messenger.

  4. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭.
    ~𝘓𝘰𝘶𝘪𝘴 𝘟𝘐𝘝

    Good advice then, better advice now from the Sun King, who knew a thing or two about statecraft.

    1. Mespo,
      I would love to read your quote, but it just looks like a bunch of rectangles to me for some reason. 🙁

      1. I’ll fix that: “The ministers of the king should learn to moderate their ambition. The higher they elevate themselves above their proper sphere, the greater the danger that they will fall.”
        ~Louis XIV

  5. If his facial expression does not tell people what a pajama boy he is then I guess his deeds would not convince people either .

  6. As you see guys like Comey, Schumer, McConnell, Schiff, Ryan, Cruz, I could go on; don’t you wonder if there is even ONE man’s man in DC. The city is run by girly men and b!tchy women. Well, mostly girly men.

        1. I’ve not seen any indication Cruz takes and interest in fashion, art, or Glee!.

          1. Desperate, I’m not talking gay. Cruz is just not a man’s man. Nothing wrong w/ that, but to have balance you need some. There’s a distinct difference between gay and girly. A girly man is hetero. Taking politics out of it. John Wayne was a man’s man although the hilarious scene in The Birdcage could be offered as rebuttal. Spencer Tracy fit the bill. Ernest Hemingway..man’s man. Ted Williams was the consummate man’s man. But, athletes are not necessarily always worthy. Aaron Rodgers and Steph Curry are not qualifiers. Well, Aaron might be gay, NTTAWWT. Desperate, you keep your sex close to the vest. Most men know who’s a man’s man and who isn’t. In today’s culture, a man bun is an automatic disqualification.

            1. The man’s man = an alpha male who is a TFA. For example, Spencer Tracy was an abusive alcoholic who didn’t have the guts to leave his wife so he had decades long adulterous relationship. Is that what you think young men should aspire to??

              This kind of idiotic alpha male is dying out, thank God. and slowly being replaced with men who are willing to learn how to be in relationships with women that are equal and reciprocal, not dominant and hierarchical. The Trump phenomenon, with his cadre of nasty alphas, is one of the last hurrah’s of this kind of twisted, dysfunctional man. The sooner they are relegated to a lower slot on the food chain, the better off the world will be.

              1. John Wayne had a number of regrets on that score. (He’d not enlisted in the military during the 2d World War – most men of the 1907 cohort did not serve, especially if they had dependent children, but it dogged Wayne for decades). Ted Williams was one stone-cold piece of work; I don’t think I’d use him to illustrate and argument.

                Ted Cruz managed to land Heidi Nelson and then land a law partnership that netted him seven-figures-a-year. Seems adequate.

                1. Ted Williams was a complete a-hole. But, a man’s man. Being a man’s man isn’t about your wife, it’s about how you relate to MEN.You don’t get it. No shame. There is a Je ne sais quoi to being a man’s man. But it sure the hell isn’t about being a law partner w/ a 7 figure salary!

                  1. My younger son had a teacher in HS who went to college with Ted Cruz. She said he was a skeevy lurker in the halls of the dorm, always waiting outside girls’ rooms so he could talk with them when they exited to go to class. His former college roommate slammed him repeatedly OTR for his anti-social behavior, and it was widely reported he would not associate with anyone he didn’t believe was his intellectual equal while at law school. His naked desire for power and sense of entitlement is written all over his face.

              2. LOL! hardball LOVES man buns and Phil Donahue. But, if you can wipe the spittle off your computer screen, I don’t consider Trump a man’s man. You mentioned him, not I. In my lifetime, Truman, Ike, JFK and Reagan were all a man’s man. Being a man’s man is about HOW YOU RELATE W/ MEN.

              3. “equal and reciprocal, not dominant and hierarchical”

                Being an alpha male is not the opposite of being equal and reciprocal. I am married to an alpha male who considers and treats me as his equal. My brother is also an alpha male who does the same with his wife.

                1. Prairie Rose, Strong women, like yourself, prefer strong men. It’s Darwinism, science many on the left reject.

            2. Q “Why are you slamming Ted Cruz?”

              A. “Because he’s girly.”

              R -1. “I’ve not seen any indication Cruz takes and interest in fashion, art, or Glee!.””

              R-2: “Desperate, I’m not talking gay. Cruz is just not a man’s man. Nothing wrong w/ that,”

              You’re slamming him because he’s girly, but ‘nothing wrong with that’. Whatever.

  7. Turley is a scold, in nearly every column reminding his readers of his previous warnings, stating “I have long said” or, as in this one, “As I have previously observed . . .”

    It gets tiresome and when I and others encounter it we stop reading.

  8. He’s a bureaucratic operator.

    I used to work in a trade where we handled confidential information on a daily basis. I was told the day I was hired that any unauthorized disclosure would mean summary termination, no matter how innocent.

    1. I think a lot of us have been involved in things that are confidential. In other countries release of state secrets are handled by a bullet to the head, but in this country such release of information is frequently rewarded by elite institutions. It doesn’t stop there for even our data and medical records aren’t considered private.

  9. Information does come from the FBI. Who decides it can be released? If the Director, then Comey, as Director, decided to release one of his own memos. You know, the way the President can reveal highly classified information to whomever because he can declassify whatever he wants.

    Sanders said Comey lied under oath when he testified. What was his lie?

      1. I don’t see the explanation of Comey’s lies. What I see is another government employee telling tales. So glad they do this. There is way too much wrong-doing and we need those who speak out.

    1. “Who decides it can be released? If the Director, then Comey, as Director, decided to release one of his own memos. You know, the way the President can reveal highly classified information to whomever because he can declassify whatever he wants.”

      The former is prohibited by law. The latter is permitted by law.

      Those are two new words for your vocabulary, ‘prohibited’ and ‘permitted’.

      1. I am quite familiar with these words. So you are saying that no information from the FBI can be legally be released? That’s bullhocky. Need an explanation?

        1. bettykath, The FBI is an investigative organization. It’s job is to gather information and not to display it. It releases information, but not in this fashion and the way Comey did it is against bureau policy. The Attorney General is the legal office that prosecutes cases. Both the AG and Director of the FBI are under the control of the Executive Branch which is headed by the President.

          You like to make rules and regulations that suit your ideology and don’t feel that rules and regulations should apply to you or the people you like. That doesn’t work out well for the people.

          1. Though it would be obvious to most people I should add that the FBI does release limited information in order to help them do their job. They are not supposed to leak information especially for personal gain.

  10. Talk about eating one’s own! When Comey was clearly putting the republican party (Comey’s stated party) ahead of country back in June/July 2016 and then again just prior to election day, conservatives were licking his brown as hell backside. Any mention of his clear lack of qualification to continue in his job were silenced by “lock her up”. Of course, led by the biggest criminals/traitors, Trump and Flynn.

    Now that we are talking about dumb donald negatives, its string him up? The reality is Comey had multiple reasons for being fired then, now and……………. But to expect that someone now out of a job (sorry Vince Jankowski – Comey is no longer Director – but nice try) would merit the front page attention our whiny law professor feels it merits is sad. Maybe he’s just trying to turn the conversation away from the traitor trump campaign which seemingly clearly colluded with a foreign adversary to subvert the American political process.

    1. Bill W.,,..
      You must have missed the reaction to Comey’s “no reasonable prosecutor” news conference in July 2016, and the subsequent lambasting of Comey by the GOP in subsequent Congressional hearings.
      Videos are available online….Comey was hardly in good standing with conservatives or the GOP in July 2016.

      1. ROFL! Conservatives “lambasted” Comey because he didn’t formally charge Clinton. Not for what should have been an out of bounds diatribe. But please keep on trying to rewrite history.

        1. Bill W…
          Your statement was that “conservatives were licking his as hell backward” because Comey “put the republican party ahead of the country”.
          If you watched Comey’s performance in July 2016, you’ll find that the GOP was pissed at Comey.
          You concede that in your 8:48AM comment.
          When you decide which side of your mouth you want to speak out of, let me know.

    2. Comey is not a Republican, he is a Deep State operative. They have no party affiliation, they only worship DC power.

  11. Here in a nutshell is why the left (including much of the press) is no longer relevant to much of the country.

  12. Is the law still an adversarial process? Do the rules now state: heads, we win; tails, anybody else loses? Which order of operations is preferred: leak first; get fired second; or get fired first; and leak second? Can a potential witness “coach” his or her own testimony prior to cross-examination? If not; then why not?

    Was there a gag order in force that was supposed to have prevented the witness from trying the other fellow’s case in the public press? Does The President of the United States have the power to issue gag orders in his or her own case? What case? The case that hasn’t been made yet? Whatever happened to the sentence “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law?”

    Whose bright idea was it to let the lawyers make up their own rules in the first place?

  13. Since Watergate and the Gulf of Tonkin, most Americans have lost faith in government. Today we imprison subordinates that refused to torture (John Kiriakou) while some DOJ torture lawyers, that committee legal malpractice, have been promoted to a federal judge. Many Americans view the entire Justice system as a joke.

    1. All Americans of sense have no faith in the red haze left, who fancy themselves the world’s Jeremiah’s but are, in fact, poseurs and liars.

    2. Actually, most informed people lost faith in the FBI when they learned about their role in framing Lee HARVEY Oswald for the Deep State sponsored coup d’etat in Dallas on 11-22-63.

      1. The Dallas PD originally arrested Oswald for the murder of officer Tippet.
        8-10 witnesses saw Oswald either shoot Tippet, or leaving the scene immediately afterward.
        Oswald didn’t help his case when he punched and tried to shoot another officer when they when to arrest him.
        Ownership of the weapons that killed both JFK and Tippet was another bit of evidence working against Oswald.
        But for those who believe the Dallas PD, the witnesses, the FBI, the Secret Service, the autopsy doctors, the media, General X and Mr. Y etc. all “framed Oswald”, it wouldn’t matter if a movie camera had recorded him as he pulled the trigger in both murders.

      2. Actually, most informed people

        What’s amusing about you is that your self-concept is dependent on a fanciful conception that you’re in-the-know, which is in turn maintained by adhering to conceptions few people would ever adhere to, something you do because others can readily recognize the bizarre and fantastical and you can’t.

      3. The FBI certainly could have prevented JFK’s assasination. Oswald openly threatened Kennedy before he arrived in Dallas, and FBI agent James Hostie was assigned to interview and perhaps detain Oswald. He didn’t get around to it and the rest is history. Another massive screw-up of the FBI was their failure to investigate the Saudi nationals who were taking flying lessons in Minn. The owner of the flying school reported them to the FBI. He was suspicious because they wanted to learn to fly, but had no interest in learning to land the plane. The FBI didn’t follow-up, and these Saudis were later involved in the 9/11 highjackings. But was the FBI involved in the JFK assassination? No. Oswald wanted to be famous and he got lucky. Simple as that.

        1. Tin,…
          I think Oswald had gone to Hostie’s office and left a note telling Hostie to quit questioning his wife.
          Oswald defects to Russia, comes back with a Russian bride, and the FBI naturally did some interviews to check both of them out.
          I think the FBI generally paid little attention to the Oswalds, beyond some routine questioning their history would prompt.
          I’ll have to check this to be sure, but I think Hostie destroyed the note after the assassination to conceal the fact that Oswald had left left a somewhat threatenting note.
          I don’t know if Hostie was instructed to monitor or detain Oswald in relation to JFK’s visit to Dallas, or if his contact with the Oswalds was unrelated to the
          JFK trip.

          1. Tin,…
            I did some quick checking to refresh my memory.
            Hosty was assigned to interview/ monitor Oswald upon Oswald’s return to the U.S. in June of 1962.
            He apparently had minor and sporadic contact with the Oswalds in the c. 18 months before the assassination.
            There is an interview online with Robert Oswald( Lee’s brother) which you might find interesting.
            In the interview Robert Oswald says that Lee was disappointed in the lack of fanfare/ media interest when he came back from the Soviet Union.
            I think Oswald was largely ignored by the FBI as well, beyond some routine debriefing and subsequent interviews.
            Hosty’s destruction of the note Oswald left was a CYA action taken by the FBI after Oswald shot JFK.
            Oswald left the note two weeks before the assassination….I think the note allegedly threatened Hosty, not JFK.
            Destroying that note ultimately made the FBI look worse, and I think we only had Hosty’s word (or his secretary’s word) for what note actually said.

      1. Ken’s still cheesed that one of Comey’s disclosures was inconvenient for Lady MacBeth.

      2. Ken,
        I agree. If Trump had dismissed Comey in the early days of his administration, and for the reasons outlined in the Rod Rowenstein memo, I don’t think he’d have seen much of a backlash.
        Comey was disliked and distrusted by both Democrats and Republicans, and Trump should bounced him early on.
        (Sessions did not seem to be involved in Comey’s firing because of his “Russian recusal”, and Asst. AG Rowenstein wasn’t confirmed until April, I think).
        But others in the Justice Dept. could have formed the same basis for firing Comey that Rowenstein laid out.
        Trump may have avoided the appointment of a special prosecutor IF he had not said to Lester Holt that he was “going to fire him anyway”, that the “Trump, Russia, Trump thing” was a factor in the firing, then he told the Russian ambassador and Russian foreign minister that he “took the pressure off” the Russia investigation by firing Comey.
        Rowenstein lays out solid reasons, Trump undercuts Rowenstein by making those statements, and then Rowenstein appoints the special counsel.
        Maybe he would have appointed the special counsel in any case…we’ll never know for sure….but IMO Trump’s statements (after firing Comey) GUARANTEED that there’d be a special counsel.

    1. Wouldn’t surprise me. Mueller is another establishment troll. The cultural and social decay in this country is manifest in a collectively inability to generate elite actors who have integrity.

  14. Don’t you just love it. We may have colluded with the Russians but look over there! Sorry Sarah. We can look both ways.

    1. No one complaining about ‘collusion’ can even describe what is supposed to have taken place.

      1. That’s because McConnell, Graham and Cruz et al. put Trump on notice: Don’t even think about lifting the sanctions on Russia.

        1. No, Diane, that’s not why partisan Democrats are unable to formulate just what it is that Trump is supposed to have done during the campaign.

          You’re really incoherent this morning.

          1. The United States Senate prevented Trump from holding up his end of the deal with Putin. That the quid from Putin occurred before the election while the pro quo from Trump was stymied after the election is why no one complaining about “collusion” can even describe what is supposed to have taken place. Trump owes his Presidency to McConnell, Graham and Cruz et al.

            1. “The United States Senate prevented Trump from holding up his end of the deal with Putin.”

              Diane, can you quote the essential parts of that “deal”? The date the deal was made? Who the parties were? What papers were signed? If not then maybe you are dreaming.

              1. Allan, speculation and conjecture are, admittedly, a bit like day-dreaming. FTR, there exist such things as spoken contracts. No handshakes required–let alone any signatures. Meanwhile, I am still forbidden by law from even reading, least of all quoting, any classified information that has not yet been leaked to the press.

                As for the whole conspiracy-to-violate-federal-election-law theory of Trump’s “collusion” with Putin goes, the more significant problem is that Trump proffered his end of the deal out loud in public on the campaign trail; and a sufficient number of voters either approved of the proposal or were indifferent to it.

                BTW, Allan, there’s not one snowball’s chance in hell that Trump will win either The New Hampshire Primary or The Iowa Caucuses in 2020. And here’s why: Trump’s primary opponents in 2020 will pose one simple question to the voters: “Is America greater today than it was four years?” Trump’s answer will be “I’m the victim of the greatest witch hunt in human history; vote for me.”

                Trump will become Hillary. Trump will lose.

                1. I asked a simple question not for a lot of rhetoric to disguise your argument and your abysmal failures.

                  This, “The United States Senate prevented Trump from holding up his end of the deal with Putin. “ is a clear statement written by you. It demonstrates how your mind thinks and draws conclusions without the facts. Typical from those of the left wing that have little concern for facts.

                  Your responses are non-answers. I repeat my request.

                  “Diane, can you quote the essential parts of that “deal”? The date the deal was made? Who the parties were? What papers were signed? If not then maybe you are dreaming.”

                  A simple admission that your statement drew conclusions without facts and it was solely your position (based upon your ideology) would have been a better answer. Honesty is not part of the left’s agenda.

                  1. Allan, the answers to each of your questions are fully contained in the “rhetoric” that you call “non-answers.” The trouble you’re having, Allan, is that your mind is still too lazy to figure out very much of anything at all.

                    Be advised, Allan, practicing law without a license is against the law. Impersonating a prosecutor who has a a lazy mind is just-plain dumb.

                    Now picture in your imagination a political advertisement on TV in 2020 that shows Hillary nattering on about the vast right-wing conspiracy followed by footage of Trump claiming to be the victim of the greatest witch hunt in human history. Next, a question looms large on the TV screen:

                    Is America greater today than it was four years ago?

                    Trump will not have a believable answer to that question. Because Trump doesn’t have a believable answer to any question. Trump will lose both The Iowa Caucuses and The New Hampshire Primary. And that is the answer to your question, Allan, if only you’d stretch your lazy mind for it.

                    1. Stick a cork in it, woman. You’ve spent the entire thread trafficking in red herrings.

                    2. Diane, the question that remains totally unanswered was”

                      “Diane, can you quote the essential parts of that “deal”? The date the deal was made? Who the parties were? What papers were signed? If not then maybe you are dreaming.”

                      Additionally you should wake up and stop dreaming about what I am doing. Obviously you think this is a forum of prosecution. WRONG. This is a forum that has turned from a discussion forum into a forum that frequently demonstrates the stupidity of some people. I’m not calling you stupid, Diane, just your above response that may or may not hide a truly stupid individual. I don’t think you are stupid, but such non-responses go a long way to making one believe it true.

      1. Ken thinks his ex cathedra pronouncements are worth something more than warm spit.

        1. Yeah, but he can mangle the names of people he hates, and that’s kinda cute, I guess.

      2. Ken, ..
        What are “the goods” you say Comey had….I haven’t seen Comey or the FBI release “the goods” (evidence).
        I don’t agree with Bannon’s view that firing Comey was a mistake…..I think Trump screwed up in making the comments he made right after firing Comey.

        1. Did you miss the part where Comey gave Clinton a free pass using lack of proof of intent. Probably due to unfamiliarity with the law. Intent which any FBI agent, any NSA representative and any FBI Director and any decent reporter doing their job is NOT an element in National Security Violations and therefore Clilnton had and has no protection for her actions in the felony violations of National Security.

          Amazing how blind people can be when they want to play stupid.

          Then there is the case of Mueller not announcing immediaely after he was selected to be the Special Counselor. “The answer is “Collusion” is not a crime.

          Amazxing how stupid people can be when they want to pretend to be blind.

          As for the Tarmac Meeting the Democrats invented a term called ‘appearance of impropriety.’ One of the cardinal rules is never meet with the people being investigated or their representatives. Lynch supposedly the nations numbe one law enforcement officer let all three examples go right wooosh whoosh woosh over her head which means what? To incompetent to care about intentions or intentionally incompetent. For sure that applies to the media and the President’s Advisors.

          But it does not get Clinton off the hook. Does not get Lynch off the hook, and does not excuse the left from looking idiotic playhing stupid in the street during rush hour traffic.

          No one caught on even though both major legal mistakes were widely publicized. Get real it’s common police academy training.

          No one caught on to the obvious and dereliction of duty by those in the State Department repsonsible for the National Security Program? BS. All the investigators had to do was ask them for their paperwork showing Hillary refused to take the training. Standard CYA Cover Your Ass documentation.

          So which is it. You were blind, stupid, or your party programmer let that approved for The Collective comment version of Today’s Truth slip by them.

          Remember it isn’t ad hominem unless a human is involved. Machine Parts don’t count. Might be an ad humanoid attack though. The party programmer using a human name doesn’t count either.

          Good enough for you. It would be good enough for a jury unless it was tried in Washington DC. Then it would be problematical…Maybe California, Massachusetts and New York City too. The rest of the nation is not that stupid.

Comments are closed.