Last night, the media was thrown into a frenzy with news that special counsel Robert Mueller has secured the first charges in his investigation into Russian election interference. Despite the fact that the name or names of those indicted have not been released and the specific charges were not disclosed, the report was heralded as a breakthrough moment in the Russian investigation. CNN contributor David Gergen stated “Well, it certainly looks like the dam is starting to break now.” It could be and then again it might not be. Again, the breathless desire among some commentators is out-stripping the available information. For months, many of us have been saying that it was extremely unlikely that Mueller would assemble this huge prosecutorial team and spend millions without charging someone on something. The core question is whether he is going to move on the two primary allegations in the Russian investigation — collusion and obstruction — that might implicate Trump or his family. In other words, we may have to wait for the arrest or surrender to know if Mueller has unveiled a mountain or a molehill.
If Mueller were to start with a core and major charge against a high-ranking official, it would be a seismic event. My expectations are low. Even if Mueller expects to charge Trump or his inner circle, he would not likely start with those charges. For my purposes, the most important thing is to take a look at the indictment and the underlying facts asserted by the prosecutors. The charge might be minor but the underlying factual context could show a far more serious foundation laid by prosecutors on other crimes or individuals.
As I have previously discussed, Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort are the most obvious targets of charges. However, the violations raised against them are more collateral to the main allegations. They include violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). Only a handful of such cases have been prosecuted since the revision of the Act and these violations are uniformly address administratively. However, that does not bar a prosecution.
If the first charges are under FARA, it would be a relatively weak first showing by the team and would clearly be designed to add pressure for the target to flip as a cooperative witness. To me, it would be a rather anemic start in prosecuting for the regulatory version of jaywalking. The reason that FARA is rarely prosecuted is that most prosecutors do not view it as a good use of their time or public money.
Nevertheless, prosecutors will often target low-lying fruit in building a case toward high targets. The problem for Mueller is that the challenges in his investigation are not simply factual but legal. The theories that has been tossed around often involve some novel (and in my view unsustainable) interpretations. It would be far better for Mueller to build a case toward a more recognized and conventional set of charges rather than adopting massive expansions of election law terms.
We have also discussed the always present threat of an 18 U.S.C. 1001 charge for lying to investigators. Once again, it is a collateral charge and proves not the merits of the core allegations but the evasion of a target. It is an easy charge to bring and it is a favorite of prosecutors, particularly when they cannot establish charges on the core allegations. It is also a charge often used to pressure witnesses.
Manafort has long been my view of the “designated defendant.” Manafort has a rather free-wheeling reputation (to put it in the best light) in Washington as someone engaged in a wide range of financial dealings. He is clearly being investigated for banking and money laundering allegations that are removed from the collusion and obstruction matters. It is another example of the old adage “one day on the cover of Time, next day doing time.” Of all the people who would have least appreciated a spotlight on all of his financial dealing, Manafort would be near the top.
Even collateral charges like FARA and 1001 would mean that prosecutions would likely go into 2018 if not 2019.
The specifics on the charges will be telling in a couple of respects. One will be how close the targets are to Trump. Another will be the how far Mueller if willing to go in bending and twisting the existing law. Many have advocated extreme interpretations of obstruction and election laws that would present problematic cases for appeal. However, Mueller selected a couple senior prosecutors with high controversial records of being reversed in major cases where they twisted federal law or cases beyond recognition.
So, while not to be a buzz kill, we might just want to wait for actual charges before hyperventilating over the latest development in this controversy. Moreover, Mueller could start with minor or modest charges that fact singling a lack of evidence of more serious crimes. While we could gain an insight from the indictment on what he has, we might not.
If he lives up to the standards set by friend Comey he will have to go after Clinton etc to justify his reason to exist and breathe air. After all Comey was the one that set up Clinton to publicly confess to crimes under the National Security Act thinking she had immunity due to no ‘intent.’ Intent is not an element in national security crimes. The Act is all that counts and Hillary has hung herself on that on numerous occasions. Not to mention her various staff personnel. Think they’ll go down easily OR put another way who will be the first to turn Evidence. We must be talking about hundreds given State, DNC, campagin committee, Cllnton Foundation. Now we see they had a much more intimate Russian connection than just mere and not illegal ‘collusion.’
WOW J! Are you always so optimistic? We’ll probably find out Monday there is no announcement because they need more time. I think the taxpayers have a right to know how much this has cost already. Think of all the children that could have been crossed and fed. Think of how much this would help all hurricane victims. Our money is spent so foolishly. President Trump is doing what needs to be done while these yoyo’s are trying to get him out of office. Somebody tell me how many millions would take to the streets!
Thus begins the end of Mueller’s work? I find the timing interesting. A day ago what were we all talking about:
– Uranium One
– The dossier
Today and until Monday we’ll be subjected to hypercoverage of who will be indicted and for what.
Meuller to Judge: “We found this evidence on the charge of collusion.”
Judge to Mewler: “Night School Lawyer? Collusion is not a crime. Dismissed.”
Money laudrin is.
Excellent point, Ken. BTW, don’t forget about Michael Cohen, Trump’s longtime lawyer and Manafort’s longtime business partner–not to mention Cohen’s proffer of Yanukovich’s Ukrainian Peace Plan.
Correction: make that Artemenko’s peace plan between Russia and The Ukraine. Artemenko is a Ukranian lawmaker. Cohen delivered the plan to Michael Flynn one week before Trump fired Flynn.
The main purpose of raising the Uranium One story is to cast doubt upon Mueller who was FBI Director at the time that the CFIUS approved the sale. The tactic usually goes by the name of poisoning the well.
On the other hand, how would Team Trump know ahead of time that the Grand Jury had returned an indictment? Lucky guess? Or did a witness before the Grand Jury make an educated guess? Were there any witnesses before the Grand Jury? Are we allowed to know that?
Maybe the resurfacing of the Uranium One story before the announcement of the indictment is just a curious coincidence.
” main purpose of raising the Uranium One story is to cast doubt upon Mueller ”
That is one of the most ignorant statements made up to this point.
Hillary and the DNC are involved so suddenly all the Russian implications should be laid to rest because the source and the dealings were a Hillary and DNC affair.
One can only laugh at such ridiculousness.
I’m sorry to hear about your misfortunes, Allan.
P. S. She who laughs last, laughs best. But it won’t be me. It’ll be Natacha. And the rest of her crew.
BTW, how’s that 2020 re-election bid going for Trump?
“I’m sorry to hear about your misfortunes, Allan.”
Don’t know what you are talking about. Then again if I did it would likely be ridiculous anyhow.
“P. S. She who laughs last, laughs best.”
One of the last laughs before Hillary’s defeat was Hillary. Remember that laugh when you think of who is going to laugh last. Her stupidity and stupid laugh reflected on the stupidity of her supporters. So go ahead and laugh while Trump succeeds in improving an economy, increasing the salaries of normal working people, decreases unemployment and makes the US more secure. We can put you guys in a zoo and label it DNC laughing hyenas.
L4D said, “I’m sorry to hear about your misfortunes, Allan.”
Allan said, “Don’t know what you are talking about.”
Mueller. That’s what I’m talking about. Mueller.
P. S. Running against Hillary will not get Trump re-elected in 2020 anymore than locking Hillary up would stay Mueller from his appointed rounds. So don’t worry about Hillary’s laugh. Worry about Natacha’s last laugh. I get goose-bumps just daydreaming about it.
Diane – latest gossip is that Hillary still wants to run in 2020. Trump is a better candidate this time than last time and has a list of actual accomplishments behind him. Hillary still has nothing. You cannot count Bengahzi or missing emails as a success story.
Paul, that would be the one and only way that Trump could get re-elected. But he’d still have to get past Kasich in Iowa and New Hampshire. Fat chance.
We should bury all predictions made here in a “JT.org” time capusule.
Then dig them up every election cycle.
Tom Nash, since I didn’t post here before July 12th, 2017, you’re probably unfamiliar with my “dire” prediction that Trump would win in 2016. On the odd chance that sounds too convenient for you, I will concede that there’s a long way to go yet till 2020. So think of it as more of a jibe than a prediction.
Serious challenges to incumbent presidents have in the past derived from an implosion in generic approval consequent to misbegotton major projects (Truman in 1952, Johnson in 1968) or from running afoul of the party’s Id (or at least that of a notable faction therein – see Wm. Howard Taft in 1912, Johnson in 1968, Ford in 1976, and Carter in 1980). You’re not going to rally the faithful with a tedious careerist like John Kasich. You might with Ted Cruz, but he may have other things to do with his life at that time. So, you’re banking on failure manifest in 8,000 soldiers’ deaths a year or double-digit inflation, gas lines, and humiliation by mullah.
TSFS said, “Serious challenges to incumbent presidents have in the past derived . . . from running afoul of the party’s Id (or at least that of a notable faction therein – see Wm. Howard Taft in 1912 . . .)”
TSFS appears to be on to something with the Taft reference. Personally I would’ve cited the divisive effect that William Jennings Bryan had on the Democratic party. But if Trump goes Bull-Moose on the Republicans, and if Kasich substitutes for Taft in an odd sort of way, then TSFS could be prescient after all.
Hope springs eternal with you, Diane.
TSFS said, “Hope springs eternal with you, Diane.”
Thanks for the compliment, TFSF.
P. S. Just wait till you get to be my age.
Diane – do you see what is happening to Republicans who are running against the President? They are dropping like flies. I am not so sure he will not run unopposed like Hillary thought she was going to.
Paul, do you see what might happen to a President who actively campaigns against “disloyal” candidates from his own party? I am not sure the Republicans will have any choice left by 2020 but to oppose Trump with everything they’ve got. Otherwise there won’t be a Republican party at the national level anymore.
Diane the hamster is running on that wheel fast as she can.
TSFS said, “Diane the hamster is running on that wheel fast as she can.”
You’re being unusually generous with the compliments, today. I do love rustling through cedar chips. As for the turnstyle, it’s all in the poseys.
I can see Jeff Flake winning the 2020 GOP nomination.
Tom Nash – I can see Jeff Flake losing the nomination in Arizona. 😉
I can see Jeff Flake winning the 2020 GOP nomination.
Through beer goggles.
Tom Nash said, “I can see Jeff Flake winning the 2020 GOP nomination.”
Tom, I’m so glad I’m not the only one who foresees Jeff Flake as John Kasich’s V.P. pick.
Paul, Diane’s record of predictions or even repeating fact is abysmal. She is so positive about things even before Trump has finished his first year of a four-year term. This is what people sound like that live in a fantasy world.
Allan said, “Don’t know what you are talking about.”
Diane responded: “Mueller. That’s what I’m talking about. Mueller.”
Great intellect. One word Mueller and I am supposed to guess what part or action of Mueller you are talking about. That is the problem. You live in a factless and fantasy world having extended that world here to a one name dialogue that means everything to you and nothing for an intelligent person to comment on.
Reblogged this on Site Title.
TSpamfilterS,….
I just wrote that about Jeff Flake to get a rise out of Schulte😁…..he’s either slow on the keyboard the morning, or he knew I was trying to irk him and he didn’t bite.
Late4D,…
I’ll predict a Pence-Ryan 2020 GOP ticket as my time capsule forecast.
Tom, I had no idea those two got along together. Has anyone ever seen Pence and Ryan in the same room together at the same time? And how did Pence bump Trump off the ticket? No. Wait. That’s more likely a jibe at my augury; isn’t it? Okay. Fine. It’s still too early.
If successful what makes you think Trump will want to run again?
Allan,..
I was typing my last reply when you posted your comment.
Trump is 71 now, and as you suggest, he may not even want a second term.
Given his age, there’s also a possibilty that his health would prevent him from serving another term.
This is a reality. The other garbage being posted, not by you, is pure fantasy and dreamland.
Late4D,…
My guesstimate is that Trump has about a 50/50 chance of finishing his current term.
And if he does, he may not want to seek the nomination for 2020.
Those two factors/ possiblities make me speculate that it’s less than even odds that Trump will run in 2020.
As far as I know, Pence and Ryan are on OK if not good terms
I think Pence endorsed Ryan in the 2016 election, but Trump did not.
I don’t think that Jeff Flake will be a factor the 2020 campaign/ticket.
Just a while ago I posted the position that Trump might not want to run again even if successful. Assuming he didn’t want to run I don’t think the VP choice will be as dependent upon the Presidential nominee liking or disliking who is picked for VP. History is replete with examples of Presidential and Vice Presidential matches that weren’t terribly fond of one another.
Was there an urgent need to change the news narrative for the weekend news cycle? Isn’t there an FBI whistleblower who has been un-gagged and is about to testify about the Uranium One deal?
And if it is an indictment against Manafort, wouldn’t that be for work that he did long before he was working with Trump’s campaign?
Not Pauly M this round. Think Mickey the Flynn.
Pauly is da one. Da T rumpers were fingering da Clintons.
Ken, how did the MAGA Bots know ahead of time that the Grand Jury had returned an indictment?
TBob,…
Your comment about the need to change the news narrative reminds me of FEB.28-MARCH 1, 2017 news.
The high point of Trump’s presidency was his better-than- expected address to Congress on Feb. 28.
Within less than 24 hours, the story about the Sept. 2016 Sessions/Russian ambassador meeting broke.
Sessions flubbed an answer posed by Al Franken in the c. Jan.10th confirmation hearings.
I think it’s likely that the Senate and the media quickly found out that Sessions had met with the Russian months before.
But from the time of that Jan.10 Senate confirmation hearing, until March 1, I never saw any news about it.
After March 1, it topped the news for several days, and basically crowded out news coverage of the Feb. 28 speech.
Marcy Wheeler:
“GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS’S PLEA DEAL IS VERY, VERY BAD NEWS FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS”
October 30 2017, 4:12 p.m.
https://theintercept.com/2017/10/30/jeff-sessions-indictment-bad-news-for-attorney-general/
Prof. Turley, you are always that wonderful sound of reason and logic, sir. Thank you.
Senator Chuck Grassley wrote another letter to Comey’s deep state handler, Daniel C. Richman, on October 18, 2017:
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017-10-18%20CEG%20to%20Richman%20(Document%20and%20Interview%20Request).pdf
The request for information and documents, included the following:
2. Copies of Mr. Comey’s memoranda;
4. All communications with Mr. Comey about the Clinton email investigation, including
those related to his public statement on July 5, 2016, and letters to Congress on October
28, 2016, and November 6, 2016;
Enumerated as number four on the letter is a request for certain Comey statements, all of which are violations of the Hatch Act, “An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities”. Comey’s July 5, 2016, public statement “cleared” candidate Clinton from potential prosecution. The two following referenced statements, made on the heels of the election, clearly intended to cast a shadow over Clinton, and were cited by her as a reason for her sudden tanking poll numbers and loss. Congress, or some members, are aware that career bureaucrats in the deep state, like Comey and Richman, are manipulating the political climate in this country. They are effectively acting as King Makers and Dethroners, by illegal leaks and mass perception management of the public. Congress has awoken to the seminal question, to wit, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The great danger for Mueller is if the charge brought is viewed as an arbitrary and politically-motivated. The test of this is whether the DoJ is allowing other similar violations of federal law to go uninvestigated and unindicted. Examples would be money-laundering (widely unenforced), FARA (seldom enforced), and lying to the FBI (seldom prosecuted).
I’m also of the opinion that indicting on an arbitrary charge, hoping to bully the defendant into sharing information about other crimes, is a violation of the 4th Amendment requirement for obtaining probable cause evidence on the way to establishing a charge. The 4th Amendment is there to protect citizens from law enforcement “fishing expeditions”. The Special Prosecutor is bound by 4th Amendment restrictions on police intimidation of citizens the same as cop walking the beat.
That’s not a danger for Mueller. Prosecutors in politically-motivated cases behave this way commonly. Try to figure out just what crimes Conrad Black committed. Compare and contrast the treatment of Gen. Petraeus (who showed his diary to a woman who had security clearances) with the treatment of HRC. See Patrick FitzGerald v. Lewis Libby.
Someone should tell the President he should fully pardon Scooter Libby. Cheney asked Bush but he just commute his sentence to time served. Want to piss off the Bushes, Fitzgerald, Democrats. Then get a $$$ apology.
If a RICO investigation seeks patterns, the Clinton Foundation’s “contributions” appear to have followed favorable decisions by Obama’s Sec. of State and to have fallen precipitously after Hillary lost the election.
Oops. Looks like no one made any plans for losing.
Were the Clintons quietly “pulling the strings” behind the scenes. Oh, I don’t know, let’s ask Loretta Lynch whose plane was abruptly pulled over by Bill for an impromptu “discussion” about “the grand-kids.” You don’t suppose the AG was given marching orders at a critical point in the campaign, do you?
Patterns indeed.
Maybe he’s real honest and announce he’s charging himself and his entire team.
In a perfect world…that happened already. Their confidence while conducting a corrupt, criminal fraud against an entire country is incredible. What would Eisenhower say today about the magnitude and power of the “Military/Industrial Complex?” The “Swamp” is big and bad.
Maybe he’s charging the original complainant with filing a false charge. After all Collusion is not a crime.
Tax evasion is.
What tax evasion Ken?
andrewworkshop asked, “What tax evasion Ken?”
Presumably Ken is thinking Flynn might have evaded taxes. Otherwise Ken would not have ruled Manafort out as the defendant in Mueller’s indictment. Of course, Manafort might also have evaded taxes. Did Mueller subpoena Trump’s tax returns? I can’t remember.
I give Mueller zero possibility of getting Trump’s tax returns. And I don’t blame him. Why do we need to see his tax returns? I see the IRS doing everything it can to find something bad. I think Trump files as a corporation and would include information about his children, which is absolutely none of our business.
The Clintons hidden income?
I second that!
I am so enjoying the GOP bob and weave.
Me too ! Enjoying even more the absolute phenomenal and impeccable instinct of Donald Trump. With every single revelation from the deep and wide Pandora’s Box of corruption he is methodically emptying, American’s realize his election was nothing short of brilliant.
LOL. You are a very obedient member of the Trump cult. And it’s Americans – no apostrophe.
Rick Wilson: “Everything Trump touches dies.”
Haha – the ‘never-Trump’ meltdowns are now just pure entertainment for ‘the cult’.
Ah, I see you are using DT’s favorite defense mechanism, projection. Enjoy!
Sorry, everything the Clintons do, somebody dies. So many of people they have been involved with are pushing up daisies
Really? When there are so many channels with all the dirt? ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC are doing all they can to manipulate information. They have been against our President since 11/8/16. I do find Rachael Maddox entertaining. She should write books, her imagination would serve her well there. Morning Joe and Mika (his fiancé) are busy projecting (are they ever getting married?). This has been the ugliest election and it keeps on going, like the Energizer bunny. Mueller is spending money, like a bottomless pit from taxpayers. I wish everyone in government would ask themselves whether the money spent is fair to taxpayers. I think this coming week is the testimony of the “informant”. Busy, busy
The informant may have a lot to say about Russian money-laundering networks in Cyprus, Latvia, Switzerland and Seychelles. The Democrats will get to pose questions on those subjects to the informant now that the non-disclosure agreement has been rescinded. The answers to those questions could break either or both ways. It’ll be eeksie peeksie for all concerned.
When you think about all the really serious sh*t going on, the stuff on which our country teeters, this sort of impotent pablum by Turkey does more harm than good. I was under the impression that Turkey was out to better his society, but alas no. Turkey pulls a Trump.
Isaac,…
– It’s considered newsworthy that Mueller is bringing charges.
Numerous media outlets and commentators have covered this story.
I think that you should shout from the highest rooftop to all publications that are reporting or commenting on this story that it is “impotent pablum”, and that they need to focus ” on all the serious sh*t going on”.
Maybe they’ll let you prioritize the news items that you think should be covered.
Mueller is a mole. He pokes his head out of the ground and makes noises.
Federal Grand Jury, you say? Perhaps Mueller has brought charges against the infamous ham sandwich.
Hear, hear!
Prof. Turley, at the end of the first paragraph on this URL (https://jonathanturley.org/), you wrote “mountain (right) or molehill (left).” In the pictures at the top of the column, the placements are the opposite.
Warren Miller – I noticed that, too. Especially after he was on Fox News and said that there were possible real criminal charges for the DNC and Hillary.
Do the Clintons have enough power left to escape any charges? A picture of her the other day at Costco signing books. Costco!
Yes. They have 4 decades of escaping being prosecuted for their crimes. If anyone believes HillBilly is going to jail, dream on.
I’ve been “dreaming” since it was conclusively demonstrated how Hillary’s futures broker, “Red Bone,” magically transformed Hillary’s account losses into gains and Tyson’s account gains into losses, simultaneously increasing the value of Hillary’s initial $1k into $100K essentially overnight – as the wife of the governor of Arkansas – which is just coincidentally the state in which Tyson Chicken is headquartered.
Sandra Henming – and Hillary was back by the milk and produce signing books. Truly a place of honor!!!
The key words in any indictment will be “unindicted co-conspirators”.
“So, while not to be a buzz kill, we might just want to wait for actual charges before hyperventilating over the latest development in this controversy.”
Turley, by discussing a possible “anemic start” by Mueller, doth protest too much. It is not difficult to surmise who is buttering Turley’s bread.
Clouseau, excuse me, Clozoff – Mr. Turley writes as an independent. He typically supports Democratic party platforms (not all). But he always calls it as he sees it. Perhaps you are new to the scene. In other words, you don’t know what you are talking about.
My Dear Sir or Madam
I strongly suspect that everyone, even you, “calls it as (s)he sees it.” The question is, of course, how does Turley see it? With a bias in favor of his clients, House Republicans? Why would Turley say it is too early to pass judgment on the charges and then start speculating that Mueller may be getting off to an “anemic start”? Sounds like a bias to me. You don’t address that point.
You sound like Chief Justice Roberts proudly proclaiming that he is “an umpire,” forgetting that every single umpire has their own interpretation of the strike zone.
As for the question of whether I know what I’m talking about, I’m afraid that point was settled long ago by my dear spouse, who is quite sure that I never have any idea what I’m talking about.
You’re a partisan Democrat in a state of emotional upset at someone who is not validating your worldview. So’s Natacha. It’s your problem, not the moderator’s
“my dear spouse, who is quite sure that I never have any idea what I’m talking about.”
Oliver, you should listen to your wife. 🙂
You silly boy, assuming facts not in evidence. I ALWAYS listen to my spouse. I never said otherwise. And I never argue with my spouse, either. Because I might win the argument and then I would REALLY be in trouble.
I hear people as speak from time to time of Turkey’s Democrat leanings. I have never seen them for myself.
Regarding the Mueller investigation, I’m more than content to wait for actual charges than to wildly speculate.
I hear people speak from time to time of the news media’s objectivity in reporting the news. I have never seen this myself.
Perhaps you watch/listen to the wrong news? I don’t mind in particular if a newscaster has a point of view, I do mind when they intentionally mislead and lie. There are some Fox newscasters I enjoy watching despite their bias, I can’t watch Ed Shultz for example on the left.
Ed Schutz? Who was fired for being the ONLY newscaster to try to educate the public about the TPP? He’s since been snapped up by RT and given free reign.
Ed could be a bit loose with the facts. I do not like that here or there. I do not like it anywhere.
Yeah Ed Schultz is telling it like it is over at RT. He calls Fusion GPS a ‘smear firm’ hired by the Clinton campaign to politically destroy their opponent. He says it’s not possible that Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta did NOT know that campaign lawyer Marc Elias laundered the multi-million dollar payments through his firm to pay Fusion GPS and Steele to put together the dossier. All this time Clinton and her campaign lawyer and the DNC had been vehemently denying that they had anything to do with the dossier and tried to make it look like it came from intelligence community sources…who may have in fact used this material to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Trump associates. I wouldn’t call that being ‘loose with the facts’ – I’d call it telling the truth – in this story, anyway.
Another interesting piece to the puzzle that probably won’t see much air time on certain networks:
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/924671552704143361
I agree. And I listen to and read many sources of ‘news’ and information and it is pretty clear to me that there is a left leaning bias that can be misleading to viewers. The bias is based on what stories get air time, what stories never make the air, how those stories and narratives are framed for the viewers/readers, how much time is given to a story. It’s obvious when some media outlets give a quick ‘venting’ of a major story just to enable them to say they covered it, but that is quite different from pounding the story into the minds and ears of the public for weeks and weeks on end of nonstop coverage that is unfavorable for Republicans as opposed to a ‘quick venting’ of a major story that hurts the Democrats or their preferred candidate.
I could get behind those that criticize various networks that they feel lean left if they could acknowledge FOX was something other than fair and balanced. Isn’t Fox the most viewed cable network that doesn’t consider themselves mainstream media?
I was speaking about the more mainstream media outlets because it is widely understood that FOX is a right leaning outlet – about the only one out there – and it is the one media outlet that President Obama verbally disparaged and condemned almost weekly during his eight year term. So now I actually have people around me who say, “but you don’t watch FOX News do you?!” And the interesting point is that when I press them, it seems they have never watched it themselves, but they have “heard” the cries from the left and President Obama as to just how horrible a news network it is. So for Obama, this is ‘mission accomplished.’
I do watch Fox, a little every day if I can. I enjoy Bret Baier, Shepherd Smith, Chris Wallace, Dana Perino, Harris Faulkner and a couple others. I find Hannity and Lou Dobbs unwatchable. I could take O’Reilly mostly although I felt he abused any with an opposing view.
See, now you are showing how ‘fair and balanced’ you are as a news consumer. Kudos to you. 🙂
Hannity and Lou Dobbs are not newscasters. Their shows are pure opinion as to what the facts of the day really mean. You can’t object to their facts because, for the most part, they are accurate. What you are objecting to is the opinion they glean from the facts. Obama was at Wright’s church for about 20 years. That is a fact. Wright’s statements are facts. From those facts, Hannity paints a picture of Obama. That is opinion.
As you say, the news portion of Fox News is pretty reliable. Shepherd Smith is actually on the left and sometimes presents the *news* with a slight leftist tilt mostly with his body language while reasonably maintaining the facts. I don’t know that Bret Baier slants the news in any direction. The news division is pretty even-handed. We have not seen the same on the other news channels.
And if you want a perfect example of what I’m referring to….a huge story broke today that verifiably links President Obama and his organization ‘OFA’ to payments made to the same law firm that paid Fusion GPS and Steele to develop opposition research on Trump and the infamous dossier…and then to shop it around to the media. In any credible news organization, this would be story NUMERO UNO and it would be all over the headlines and airwaves. But, alas, it is not. Why not?
It seems to me that Turley’s major focus is on the rule of law. That places him in a difficult spot for those that care more about their own feelings of victimhood than of the rule of law.
Historically I think Turley is known to have leaned left politically though perhaps he has gotten quite an education recently as to what the left stands for. None the less Turley seems to balance the law mostly on a neutral basis.
Despite the fact that at times I disagree with him I think he tries to be an honest broker. If he disagrees with anyone’s opinion I think it behooves the individual to look a little closer as to why.
My personal troll, hi Allan!
Hi, Enigma. It’s always good hearing from you.
Enigma,
“Turkey’s Democrat leanings. I have never seen them for myself.”
I submit as an example of Prof. Turley’s left-leaning politics his position as counsel in the sister wives case. Theirs is not an example of traditional marriage values that conservatives would likely support. He also has expressed concern regarding global warming, which is also, typically, not a conservative concern.
Supporting religious freedom to the extremes and resisting government intervention isn’t a stretch for those on the right. Especially where a man had several wives. Let him support a woman’s right to have several husbands and I’ll be more impressed. I tried to research his views on global warming and all I came up with were some guest posts on his blog generally stating the statistics favored scientists. There may have been much more he’s done and said of which I’m unaware. Many on the right don’t mind coming out against global warming, they just don’t want to spend a dime fighting it or impose restrictions on that which causes it.
I’ve more closely followed Turley in the last three years in which for all his claims of “I wouldn’t have done it that way” he basically supports the entire Trump agenda.
Enigma,
All I did was type global warming into the Search bos on the page and the top posts were all written by Professor Turley with lines like “The news continues to grow worse over global warming.”
Run-of-mill Republicans are not going to support polygamy. You are describing libertarians.
Professor Turley also supports gay marriage, which is not something Republicans typically support.
https://jonathanturley.org/2015/04/23/poll-over-sixty-percent-of-americans-support-gay-marriage/
‘box’ not ‘bos’–blasted phone and those itty bitty buttons!
….a woman’s right to have several husbands and I’ll be more impressed.” Never gonna happen; no woman would willingly put up with more than one husband’s BS at a time.
LOL!
🙂
CCS – there have been cultures where the wife has more than one husband. National Geographic did a special on one about 10 years ago. Most are matriarchal societies.
I think anthropologists have located about 4 such societies, IIRC.
Laymen often mistakenly believe that because an attorney represents a certain party it also means he agrees with or supports that party. Such is not the case. For example, based on your woefully-unknowledgeable post, I have formed the opinion that you are incurious, unknowing, intolerant, spiteful, hateful, frightened and small-minded; all of which are human traits which I despise. However, I would defend to the ends of the law your right to make a fool of yourself in public by spouting such nonsense.
this is to “oh, I didn’t think of that” rosie
Mark is trying again to portray himself as something other than a layman of the law. He may be a man that lays around a lot instead of doing his filing for his bosses but doesn’t seem to read very well. Some of the things mentioned by Prarie Rose I don’t believe involved Turley’s representation of a client such as global warming.
The diagnosis of Mark M.:
“Narcissistic Personality Disorder”
Individuals with this disorder exhibit a lack of ability to empathize with others and an inflated sense of self-importance.
Definition
The hallmarks of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) are grandiosity, a lack of empathy for other people, and a need for admiration. People with this condition are frequently described as arrogant, self-centered, manipulative, and demanding. They may also concentrate on grandiose fantasies (e.g. their own success, beauty, brilliance) and may be convinced that they deserve special treatment. These characteristics typically begin in early adulthood and must be consistently evident in multiple contexts, such as at work and in relationships.
People with narcissistic personality disorder believe they are superior or special, and often try to associate with other people they believe are unique or gifted in some way. This association enhances their self-esteem, which is typically quite fragile underneath the surface. Individuals with NPD seek excessive admiration and attention in order to know that others think highly of them. Individuals with narcissistic personality disorder have difficulty tolerating criticism or defeat, and may be left feeling humiliated or empty when they experience an “injury” in the form of criticism or rejection.
George – do you think Hillary has narcissistic personality disorder and that is the reason she was/is near suicidal since her election defeat?
Marky Mark Mark – based on your comment I would surmise that you are a piss-poor attorney who does the least amount possible for his clients but does put in the billable hours. That you are a lousy advocate for them is obvious from your writing on this blog.
However, I will defend your right to be a clog in the lowest rung of justice, regardless of how rusty.
“you are a piss-poor attorney ”
Paul, maybe a piss-pool filing employee. At one point he seemed to want others to believe he was an attorney.
Mark M said, “. . . based on your woefully-unknowledgeable post, I have formed the opinion that you are incurious, unknowing, intolerant, spiteful, hateful, frightened and small-minded . . .”
Mark M, in the four months I’ve been following this blawg, I have never read anything in Prairie Rose’s posts that would warrant the coals you just heaped high atop her head. In fact, the antonyms of each of your chosen words would paint a fairer picture of Prairie Rose.
I still owe you a favor, Mark M. And if you stick to lambasting Allan, George and TSFS et al, then I’ll repay the favor I owe you, someday. Till then, please lay off Prairie Rose.
Diane, I am glad to see that you finally recognize you need help. If Mark is you army you will be only digging deeper holes.
Allan, it’s not my army. It’s Natacha’s army. It’s an honor and a privilege to serve under such fearless command.
BTW, Mark M did make a valid point about attorneys representing clients with whom those attorneys disagree. Had he resisted the impulse to cast aspersions at Prairie Rose, I might have repaid the favor I owe him.
I understand better now. You are under Natacha’s army despite Natacha’s many rhetorical errors and foolishness. Mark who is near contentless is just another mindless wonder that is one of your compatriots. You consider them valorous, but I often wonder how valorous it is to repeat half-truths and libel.
I guess you are not happy with your present ranking which is less than acceptable and prefer to drop several ranks.
I’m still in basic training, Allan. I haven’t even made buck private yet.
P. S. You’re still refighting the last war against Hillary. Try to catch on. The battlefields are the 2018 mid-term elections and the 2020 Republican Primary elections. Re-winning the 2016 election will do Trump no good in 2018 nor 2020. And here’s why: Trump can’t get Republicans elected to Congress and Trump can’t beat Kasich in Iowa nor New Hampshire. One term and vamoose; no mas, El Trumpo.
“I’m still in basic training, Allan. I haven’t even made buck private yet.”
You sound buck naked, that is from the neck up. I’m not fighting the next Presidential election war. I leave that for those living in a fantasy future because they can’t live in the present.
Fox News
Mueller’s hiring patterns made it plain the investigation was a fraud from the get-go. He’s made a skeevy character like Paul Manafort look sympathetic.
I think DSS is quite correct but should have added that the investigation was tainted from the start because Mueller is not at an arm’s length from a lot of the corruption that likely exists.
Mueller was the FBI Director when Obama had Hillary engage in global pay-for-play. Corruption on a massive scale. Was Mueller out to lunch or did he, like his personal friend Comey, exonerate Obama and Hillary before he convicted them?
https://twitter.com/TheRickWilson/status/924073314175164418
https://twitter.com/SharylAttkisson/status/924294211905695745
TBob, Good find. Attlisson is one of the few straight reporters left.
Ass backwards, SWM. This was leaked on Friday to have that be the topic all weekend and on Sunday shows, not Uranium One.
What an ignorant statement.
We will just have to wait and see, but since Mueller is stonewalling Congress, he doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on.
So how is Mueller stonewalling Congress?
Marco – somehow he cannot remember anything about the Uranium One investigation, of which he was in overall charge. He is neck-deep in the conspiracy and he has nowhere to go. Personally, I am not really sure the grand jury has done anything. He just needs a shiny object to take the focus off himself.
Re: shiny objects to distract, sounds like the entire Trump agenda.
enigma, All politicians use distraction. Read the aforementioned Attkisson’s book, Smear. She nails both parties.
All politicians use distractions, only one I can think of with no true values or comprehensive strategy whose every action (and tweet) screams distraction.
You agree with me then that Mueller’s indictment is deliberately timed to pull attention off Uranium One and the dossier that just hit the fan?
I agree with no such thing. The things you indicate “hit the fan” only seem that way if you only watch Hannity. We only have until Monday to find out who has been indicted, then you can be more specific in your cries of fake news.
enigma – speaking of distractions, when do you want to discuss The Sellout?
I’m always up for a good distraction, I’m available anytime although I’ll be participating in NaNoWriMo throughout November and won’t have a ton of time.
enigma – well, then to cut to the chase. What did you think overall? Characters? Main plot?
I thought it was entertaining and a bit whimsical. All of the characters had some realistic basis for their existence and I can say that many of the views expressed I’ve heard before.
The late father was perhaps the most amusing with all the instruction/abuse of his son. I thought his death was one of the weakest parts of the book in that it could have been more meaningful.
I was reminded more of M.A.S.H. than anything else. The plot was ridiculous but I suppose that was the point. If the purpose was to make one think it could accomplish that but I feel different people could have gotten different things from it based on their cultural experience.
What might seem like the gratuitous use of the N-word would likely affect people in different ways. I am accustomed to having heard it in almost any context imaginable so it didn’t bother me and was rather amusing. To another, without a contextual understanding, it might seem to grant permission, “because they use it.”
I asked myself, “what did I learn from the book?” and the answer was almost nothing, but maybe that wasn’t the point. Maybe it was just supposed to be amusing or perhaps generate discussion.
I read about the interviews the author did in Australia (which didn’t go well) and the 18 rejections he got before having his work accepted. The references to real-life politicians and Supreme Court Justices were perhaps the funniest parts. I confess to looking up the cast members of the Little Rascals for a particular name to see if he was real. Glad I read it, a pleasant distraction from the real news of the day.
enigma – I am old enough to remember seeing the Little Rascals on the screen rather than on TV, so that was a help. But the abuse the father put that boy through as a child was just criminal. However, I found myself drawn to all the characters, even Foy, who by the end of the book you feel sorry for because you know his dirty little secret.
Still, everything he did was because he was an accidental slave owner. The bus, the school, the films, all because of him. Finding Dixie again and the all-white school.
The n-word was not a big deal because they used it so much. Although, as I told you earlier when I read the prologue and Justice Thomas used it, I just about unloaded a mouthful of coffee into my keyboard. However, I also knew I was in for a wild ride.
And I think it was perfect that they left you hanging at the end. Was he going to jail/prison or not? And I loved him getting high in the SC, that set such a tone for what was going on. 🙂
A notion occurred to me that I haven’t disabused myself of. Would you consider being a Beta reader for my novel? It’s fiction and you’ll likely hate some of the politics but I’m looking for someone who will actually criticize it instead of the fawning I’m getting from those who know me.
enigma – sure, be happy to read your novel. I have edited several novels in my time. Find my Linkin account and hook up with me there, then we can set up a place in the cloud to read/edit your novel. If I read it, I am going to give notes so I need it on Word. There are ways to give access to partial parts of your cloud account so the rest is protected and I think that would be the best way to go. Sound good to you? BTW, you didn’t rewrite Moby Dick did you? 🙂
83,243 words as I recall. I can send it to you in Word. Although it definitely needs line by line editing due to a certain someone’s penchant for run on and fragment sentences, I’m not asking for that. I’ll find you on Linkedin tomorrow and we can make arrangements. Thank you!
enigma – among other things, I used to be an English teacher. I can edit a paper. 🙂 If you want close editing, I can do it and then you can go back and clean it up. Besides, you have all of Nov tied up writing a new novel. 😉
That would be greatly appreciated. I never questioned your ability, but the reasonableness of such a request.
enigma – whats the word count minimum for the Nov novel?
50,000 to be considered a “winner” for which you win nothing. It’s a motivational tool for those who need the push. If you have a project in mind it might be helpful. You can google NaNoWriMo for more info. There are local and regional groups and they have in-person write-ins where you could meet others of your ilk.
enigma – I have a couple of friends who have tried it and one who is going to try it this time (former student) but it is always in November which is an odd month to do it because Thanksgiving and the start of Xmas shopping get in the way. Why not January? Nobody I know has finished it. Personally, I think anyone who actually finishes has to start in October. 😉 Still, I wish you the best of luck.
Not sure I’ve found your profile in Linkedin, aren’t you in the Phoenix area?
I did “win” two years ago but I was competing with a friend and we kept each other motivated. If I ever get behind, there are plenty of incentives to give up. My daughter is coming to town for Thanksgiving so that will kill three days.
enigma – I live in the Phoenix area, but it might say Peoria or Gilbert.
I found more than I ever wanted to know including I think your home address but no Linked in account. Please send your E-mail address to spiveywilliamf@gmail.com
PCS, remember those pesky Americans used the “Buckwheat” word? Have they made that a crime yet? How about that Michael Che on SNL, who called President Trump a “cracker” and the Houston baseball player, Yuli Gurriel, making a racist gesture in Chinese. It’s time to repeal “Affirmative Action Privilege,” “Hate Crimes,” “Fair Housing” and “Non-Discrimination” laws. The only people who are precluded from being racist are white. Discrimination is the first step of freedom. Let freedom ring.
good one & so true
Question for Paul – I thought I read Mueller was also looking into Uranium One and/or the DNC/Hillary campaign funding the Trump dossier. Is this so? Am concerned he will just bring charges against President Trump to take focus off the above because of the timing. Mueller says he is ready to bring charges just after this informant has been released to testify and just after the information on who funded the Trump dossier.
Roydenoral – Look! A squirrel.
Thanks. Answers my question.
More discussion of this mysterious “Uranium One” nefarious and conspiratorial misdeed undoubtedly hatched by diabolical ne’er – do – wells hellbent on tarnishing the good name of these blessed United States.
This is to “in the loop” paulie
What no one has yet to articulate is exactly what strategic concepts was the Uranium One deal designed to satisfy? In other was, what was in it for the U.S.?
I would assume it was done to satisfy the globalist agenda of Obama-Clinton:
1. Move Russia into the “friends” column (naively idealistic)
2. To combat global warming, assist Russia in its big export market plans for nuclear reactors
3. Receive huge donations to Clinton Foundation’s overseas work ($150M)
There’s nothing specifically there to benefit the US….that’s the globalist’s mentality….use US power, $ , resources and influence to improve other nations and global interests. I’m not saying that the US has no global interests, we do. It’s just that a globalist tends to ignore local US interests when they come into conflict with global imperatives.
I agree 110% with you on this point (and maybe others).
andrewworkshop asked, “What no one has yet to articulate is exactly what strategic concepts was the Uranium One deal designed to satisfy? In other was, what was in it for the U.S.?”
The United States does not produce enough uranium to meet the current, let alone the future, needs of our nuclear-powered electricity plants. When Putin pressured Kazakhstan to renege on Uranium One’s rights to mine Kazakhstan’s uranium, the plummeting stock price of Uranium One threatened a production slow-down and resultant price increase in uranium for US nuclear power-plants.
On the other hand, it also led to the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom. Thus, in theory, Rosatom could someday slow production and raise prices for uranium, anyway.
Markie Mark Mark – I was nice to you last time because actually moved the conversation forward without an ad hominum attack. I was going to back off of you, but no longer.
You need to read the real news, not the crap on TV, read Drudge or Breitbart, etc. get caught up on what is really happening. The MSM is not covering it, so you need alternative sources. This story has been going on for a long time, 2009 I think. And the FBI under Mueller was investigating but refuses to give any info to Congress. Comey was also involved.
Paul, Mark is a product of our lousy educational system combined with inborn low intellect.
Today’s New York Times has the complete story based on actual “facts.” You’re welcome.
This is to “oh, a real news source?” paulie
We see many movies and TV shows “based on actual “facts.” ” but that doesn’t make them nonfiction.
Mark is a mental midget.
Marky Mark Mark – the NYT has admitted on camera it is not a ‘real news source.’ Please grow up, it is about time. Your parents will appreciate it.
T-H-X eleven-thirty-eight will be taken into custody at a minimal monetary expenditure. Total operation cost: six thousand credits under budget. Congratulations. Be efficient, be happy.