THE GATES FACTOR: PRESSURE BUILDS ON TARGETS TO COOPERATE IN MUELLER INVESTIGATION

images-1Below is my column in USA Today on the Rick Gates indictment and his potential as a witness for the prosecution in the Mueller investigation.  The other obvious concern for the defense should be General Michael Flynn. It is curious that there was no indictment of Flynn given his similar alleged violations involving work as a foreign agent. Flynn would also be a natural target for prosecutors in seeking cooperative witnesses.  With George Papadopoulos’ plea and cooperation, other witnesses will start to consider whether they will get a chair when the music stops.  The President’s attack on Papadopoulos certainly sends a chilling message for those who might follow his lead, but these are heavy potential charges for potential targets.

Here is the column:

It is the Washington version of the Academy Awards. In the midst of the latest high-profile investigation in the Beltway, press and pundits spent the weekend speculating on whose names would be in the indictment envelope delivered by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Now we know. The winners are former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his former deputy Rick Gates. Manafort was no surprise, but Gates’ selection in the supporting actor category was the most notable aspect of the indictment.

The indictments against the men contain 12 counts that include conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading Foreign Agents Registration Act statements, false statements and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts.

The charges move the Russian investigation into a new and dangerous phase for the White House. The risk is not that the charges present a clear and present danger to President Trump or his inner circle. The charges are focused on transactions unrelated to the campaign. However, that is not the point. Such charges are meant to concentrate the minds of people such as Manafort and Gates. These charges can easily result in a decade in jail for the men, ages 68 and 45 respectively. For men who have never been charged with a crime, this is the big gulp moment that prosecutors hope will get them to consider flipping as cooperative witnesses.

One of Mueller’s top aides, Andrew Weissmann, has a reputation for flipping witnessesand stretching the criminal code to pressure targets. With two middle-age businessmen in the dock, Weissmann no doubt likes his odds. However, all attention is likely to focus on Gates.

Gates could well seal a case against his former associate if he were to go all in on the prosecution’s narrative. If he could implicate Manafort and potentially others, Gates could well walk with little or no jail time. This is why charging him with Manafort maximized the pressure. For Gates, going to trial with Manafort is a chilling prospect alone. Manafort has long had a controversial reputation in Washington as someone who actively cashed in with shady international figures and clients.

I had a friend who warned me that Manafort was not someone I wanted to have dealings with. That is why his choice as the campaign manager (and an effective spokesman) was so surprising. Indeed, a White House source dismissed the indictment on the ground that these were “bad guys” before and they were “bad guys” when they left. Of course, in the middle was a decision to hire both “bad guys.” That is hardly a winning narrative.

The problem for these men is that these charges are already difficult to defend against. They largely deal with the failure to file needed papers or failing to reveal required information. For jurors, such charges are the easiest to convict on. When you add a narrative of living the high life off money from shady characters such as Ukrainian leader Viktor Yanukovych, the combination of the technical and the salacious can be fatal.

Even if he were going to cooperate, Manafort might not have much to offer on Trump. He could end up the highest-ranking defendant, and prosecutors are not likely to trade away charges lightly against such a figure. Manafort has the unfortunate status of being the matinee defendant for Mueller at this point. Unless Manafort could bag Trump, he is too much of a prize for Mueller to toss away in exchange for avoiding a trial.

That brings us back to Gates.

The prosecutors will resist any effort to sever the trials of these two men. Gates will have to answer these charges sitting next to a guy who will be radioactive as a codefendant. The only lingering inducement for Gates would be the hope of a pardon at the end of this process.

If there are no charges brought on Russian collusion and Trump is effectively cleared, the president may be tempted to use his pardon authority as he did with the controversial former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio. Any such pardon would be equally unwise, but Trump has shown the intestinal fortitude to grant such relief despite the political backlash. That could be enough for Gates to hold firm in a united front with the least optimal codefendant.

Manafort and Gates have long enjoyed the status of power brokers in Washington. They are part of the “made men” of the Beltway — people who could get things done with a single call to the right people. These are men who made millions on their relationships. They are genetically averse to standing alone. As Henry Hill said in the final scene in Goodfellas, you are left “an average nobody” and “get to live the rest of (your) life like a schnook.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley

193 thoughts on “THE GATES FACTOR: PRESSURE BUILDS ON TARGETS TO COOPERATE IN MUELLER INVESTIGATION

  1. Before the primary: “Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics and mailings.”

    “Over the previous six years, Democrats had lost 60-plus House seats, nine Senate seats, 14 governorships and 1,000 state and local offices. Russians didn’t do that. Democrats did ”

    Did Hillary’s rigging at the DNC push Biden out of the race?

    By John Podhoretz

    The stunning revelation by longtime operative Donna Brazile that the Hillary Clinton campaign secretly took control — literal control — of the Democratic National Committee a year before Hillary became the party’s nominee is the talk of American politics.

    As it should be.

    Brazile’s piece in Politico describes her shock at the discovery of formal legal paperwork between the two entities when she took the reins at the DNC in August 2016. Brazile had been tapped for the job when DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign. Leaked emails had shown how Schultz had been putting her finger on the scale to help Clinton while the insurgent Bernie Sanders campaign was making a serious bid to seize the party nomination away from New York’s favorite carpetbagger.

    Her account features ridiculous and unbelievable melodramatics — she says she “gasped” when she found out the truth and that she “lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music” to calm her before she called Sanders to deliver the awful news.

    But silly though Brazile’s prose is, her account is vitally important not only for all those who want to understand how American politics works but also for the future of Brazile’s beloved party.

    First, it raises key questions about what was happening as Clinton faced a time of trial in the middle of 2015. Her reputation was taking hits as her evasions and denials and untruths about what had happened to the private email server she had set up illegitimately in 2009 seemed to mushroom on a daily basis.

    As this was happening, she found herself with only two semi-serious challengers for the nomination — Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.

    There was another person out there — then-Vice President Joe Biden. Though grieving over the tragic loss of his son Beau, Biden was still seriously considering a late entry into the race. Indeed, it would not be until October that Biden would declare himself out of contention.

    Consider, then, that a formal agreement signed by the DNC and the Clinton campaign was executed in August 2015, two months before Biden made his decision.
    The agreement, according to Brazile, “specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics and mailings.”

    Forget for a moment the unfairness to Sanders that would characterize the next year as he surged against Clinton. What role might this agreement have played in Biden’s decision-making? Did he know? Did Hillary tell him? Did President Barack Obama tell him? Did Biden realize he would be fighting not only Clinton but the entire apparatus of his own party and decide to bag it?

    Brazile has done her party a service because this honest account of the maneuverings of the Clinton campaign is a necessary step for Democrats in determining how to gauge their own organizational and ideological health.

    This is long overdue. Rather than try to figure out how they contributed themselves to their calamitous 2016 fate, they have spent a year indulging the fantasy that they really won the election and had it stolen from them.

    Stolen by Russian ads on Facebook. Stolen by “collusion,” whatever that might be. Stolen by racism. In other words, they were robbed and the only thing that matters now is catching and jailing the robber.

    Sorry, fellas. The 2016 election was the culmination, not the beginning, of a Democratic implosion.

    Over the previous six years, Democrats had lost 60-plus House seats, nine Senate seats, 14 governorships and 1,000 state and local offices. Russians didn’t do that. Democrats did — with the help of a surging Republican Party that found itself after election night in its strongest electoral position across the country since 1928.
    Democrats need to understand their own role in their own rotting position — including how they sold themselves to the Clintons for a mess of pottage they never even got to eat — if they are to have any hope of reversing the Republican tide.

    Even if their fantasies were made flesh today and Donald Trump were somehow banished from Washington, the Democratic Party would be in no stronger institutional shape than it was yesterday.

    Donna Brazile has given her unwilling fellow party members a good, long, unwelcome look in the mirror. Let’s see what they do with it.

    • Allan – personally, I think someone gave Biden a heads-up on the money angle and he decided to bow out. Hillary had the DNC money and the superdelegates, she would be hard to beat, as Bernie learned. And any of Bernie’s followers who were Democrats should become Independents.

      • It appears that everything Hillary touches becomes dirty. I think both Bernie and Biden learned the same lesson and probably some others did as well. I take note of the mindless ones on this blog and how they can’t see through Hillary. She has been dirt since the beginning.

        • Allan – by all accounts, Obama, using a series of dirty tricks, out-primaried Hillary. Hillary, by taking over the DNC, out-primaried everyone.

              • Ken, Babytalk mixed with names. Putin is the Russian leader who we have to deal with. Apparently, most of the dealings were done by HRC though through third parties. She made a fool of herself when she met with him and has demonstrated very little skill in dealing the most serious problems of the day. Maybe you should serve as one of her advisors.

              • Ken – do you write standard English because I find you incomprehensible. I keep reading your comments on the off chance you might write something worth reading. So far it has been a wasteland.

                    • Diane – the wily character is a part of most mythologies, Eastern and Western. The coyote is a favorite wily character for Indians in the Southwest. You need to broaden your horizons.

                  • Ken – so, the answer is no you don’t write standard English. Thanks for clearing that up. Still, I am not going to talk down to you, so you are just going to have to get a translator to keep up. BTW, slow is not how I operate. You much overestimate your own abilities.

              • Ken, it’s possible, not yet proven, but possible that Putin has had one of Steele’s Russian informants killed and another three charged with treason.

    • Allan, are you suggesting that the Federal Election Commission should investigate Hillary’s purchase of the DNC’s debt in exchange for control over the DNC’s fund-raising on the theory that that constitutes “money-laundering” and “collusion”? If so, then does that mean that you, Allan, now consider “collusion” to be a crime? Do you also, thereby, now consider debt relief accompanied by financial control by the debt buyer to be the crime of “money-laundering”? Would you, Allan, be just as eager for FEC investigation of the RNC’s financing and operations?

      Why not just reinstate the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform? Oh! That’s right. I forgot. Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch would likely tow Scalia’s line in the Citizen’s United decision. Is that your line, too, Allan?

      • No, Diane, I don’t change the law and the facts to suit my position. I leave that up to you. I haven’t even brought up the federal election commission. You did. You are looking in a mirror and watching yourself distort facts and the law assuming everyone else is doing it. No, Diane, you are doing it, not me.

        My comment can be summed up as Hillary appeared to rig the Democratic Party nomination based upon what was written by Donna Brazil and may have been confirmed by Elizebeth Warren in a talk show interview. I will add that some feel that both of them are suicidal and may end up dead within a few days, but that is just talk based upon what has been seen in the past. I don’t believe that. If they are dead they can’t backtrack what they say so the logic doesn’t fit.

        I suggest you reread what you wrote. It is disjointed consisting of things that seem to be thrown around in frustration. The claims of those you argue against have consistently stated that Hillary is dishonest and a cheater. I think Donna Brazil has proven that point correct even though your mindset is one that can’t possibly believe any of this to be true.

        I suggest you follow your fearless leader Natacha in the Seven Year Gibberish War. You won’t make any more sense than you do right now, but at least you will know your gibberish is approved by your fearless leader.

        • Allan said, ” I haven’t even brought up the federal election commission. You did.”

          Then you have a complaint without any remedy in the law, unless you can convince donors to the Democratic party to sue the Democratic party to have their campaign contributions returned to them in just such a way as to restore to the Democratic party the debt that Clinton bought from them.

          I doubt that your complaint would persuade very many Democrats to sue their own party for debt restoration. But I do admire the pluck of your assay.

          • Diane, you have a funny way of thinking. You set the conversation dreaming of what others have said despite the fact that what you say is all fiction.

            I haven’t stated any remedies for Clinton’s actions in the Democratic party other than to state what happened. Right now the ramifications are swirling in your head, but to you, it appears Hillary comes first before other women, before national security, before the law etc.

            It’s very sad how you put such faith into such a lousy human being.

  2. Clearly, Mueller was unable to find anything to charge Trump with, after a concerted and highly partisan effort. So he’s now trying to flip people with a connection for him, hoping for dirt.

    That’s not justice. It was my understanding that they were supposed to suspect someone of a crime, and investigate them. Apparently, it’s a case of not liking someone politically, and then trying to find out if he committed a crime, any crime, by exhaustively interviewing contacts. That is how Banana Republics operate; that is not supposed to be how the United States operates.

    What we have learned is that everything that the Democratic Party has accused Trump of, was actually committed by the Democratic Party and its candidates. We have discovered collusion against Sanders, bribery in Clinton taking on the debt of the DNC in exchange for control, a bribery investigation into the Uranium 1 deal that was stalled until after the deal was done, and then buried, Bill got double his speaking fees from Russia and the Foundation got a $145 million dollar …”donation” I think they are calling it…from Russia when they got approval for the deal. Clinton, Obama, and the DNC paid for a fraudulent Russian intelligence dossier against Trump that was clearly not vetted.

    So, if this would have been wrong if Trump did it, then why is it not wrong since it was the DNC that actually did it? They had some serious gall to bring these charges when it was they who were guilty.

    As for the dossier, oppositional research is certainly allowed. Hypothetically, say someone was running, and a foreign government complained to ambassadors that this person defrauded them of disaster relief and gave plum jobs to political cronies. Passing on that information would certainly come from a foreign government, and would certainly be relevant to an election. Or, hypothetically, if a politician was known for doing drugs or abusing people in a foreign country, voters would certainly want to hear about it. There would be nothing scandalous or criminal in hearing that information. And one is to recall that Russia was golden for years. Obama mocked Romney’s comment that Russia was our biggest foe, and of course who can forget that infamously cringeworthy “Russian reset button.” Russia was invited everywhere and had its hands everywhere. And many people have ties to the Russian government. If DC was supposed to brand anyone with a Scarlet “R” for having a meeting, or speaking with, or getting information from anyone with any connection to Russia, then the whole town would start to look like they were on some sort of Varsity team. That is not the issue. The issue is that the information was fraudulent and not investigated prior to release. I take issue with making demonstrably spurious claims before an election when it is too late to prove your innocence. I also take issue with a double standard. If it was “political malpractice” for the DNC not to pay $6 million for that Russian dossier under the guise of due diligence, then the same standard would apply to the GOP and its candidates. They could take all the meetings they wanted under the guise of opposition research, as long as such information is properly vetted.

    And as for the “political malpractice” phrase making the way of Liberals, they should stop pretending that politics is some vaulted calling with any sort of Hippocratic Oath. Politics seems to be rarely practiced honestly, or with the best interests of the American people, from the poorest to the richest, represented over special interests.

    • Since there has been so much questionable activity taking place among the DNC and its candidates, from collusion to bribery, one has to wonder why the only people getting served are the Republicans, and that for actions that took place in the past.

      How politicized has our government become, and is it too late to return to a non biased Justice department, with equal justice for all?

        • Marky Mark Mark – you haven’t reached the level of beginning amateur yet. Don’t get above yourself with giving pro tips. You clearly are not a pro. Baby steps.

      • The political class of this country serves only itself. Voters are merely a form of currency of which to spend on luxuries.

    • Karen S asked, “How politicized has our government become, and is it too late to return to a non biased Justice department, with equal justice for all?”

      From The New York Times
      By Bret Stephens
      Nov. 3, 2017

      In the matter of Robert Mueller’s investigation of the Trump-Russia connection, administration apologists make three significant claims in an effort to discredit the former F.B.I. director’s work. Let’s have a look at them:

      First, they insist that the intelligence dossier compiled by British ex-spook Christopher Steele that’s one basis for the F.B.I.’s own investigation has been discredited or is at best uncorroborated. In the same vein, they claim that Fusion GPS, the research firm that helped pay Steele for the dossier, is little more than a “sleazy operator.”

      The truth about Fusion is that it is paid to dig up dirt by whoever is willing to pay for the dirt. Its business model relies on the Beatles’ timeless insight that “everybody’s got something to hide except me and my monkey.”

      But questions about Fusion’s credibility, client list or aggressive tactics are irrelevant. Fusion brokered the dossier but Steele produced it. What’s relevant is his credibility, the reliability of his sources and the truthfulness of their claims.

      These check out. Bill Browder, the anti-Putin campaigner who is an outspoken critic of Fusion, calls Steele “a top-class person whose reputation is beyond reproach.” At least one of Steele’s possible Russian sources was found dead and three others were charged with treason, suggesting, as one Wall Street Journal news account noted, that the Kremlin was cleaning out the moles who had betrayed its hand in last year’s election meddling.

      As for the allegations themselves, former C.I.A. station chief John Sipher laid out the decisive case for their broad truthfulness in a lengthy article in September in Just Security.

      “Well before any public knowledge of these events,” Sipher notes, Steele’s report “identified multiple elements of the Russian operation including a cyber campaign, leaked documents related to Hillary Clinton, and meetings with Paul Manafort and other Trump affiliates to discuss the receipt of stolen documents. Mr. Steele could not have known that the Russians stole information on Hillary Clinton, or that they were considering means to weaponize them in the U.S. election, all of which turned out to be stunningly accurate.”

      (After this column went to print, The Times reported that Trump foreign-policy adviser Carter Page met with Russian government officials in a July 2016 trip to Moscow, something he has long denied. This further confirms another claim made in the Steele dossier.)

      There’s more of this, but you get the point: The suggestion that the Steele dossier has been discredited is discreditable to the point of being dishonest.

      This brings us to the second anti-Mueller contention, which is that his indictment of former campaign chairman Paul Manafort for tax fraud connected to his political work in Ukraine, along with news of the guilty plea entered by Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos for lying to the F.B.I., is merely evidence of the slimness of the special counsel’s case.

      The nonchalance about Manafort’s illicit ties to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine is almost funny, coming from the same people who went berserk over China’s alleged meddling on behalf of Democrats in the 1996 presidential campaign.

      But if nothing else, the Manafort indictment underscores the Trump campaign’s astonishing vulnerability to Russian blackmail.

      Did that vulnerability explain the campaign’s bizarre intervention (denied by Manafort) to soften the Republican Party platform’s language on providing help to Ukraine?

      Why did the campaign pursue a course of semi-secret outreach to Russia through George Papadopoulos, giving him just enough visibility to let the Russians know he was a player but not so much visibility as to attract much media attention?

      What else about Trump’s obsequious overtures to the Kremlin might similarly be explained by the contents of the Steele dossier?

      These questions require answers, which is what makes calls to remove Mueller from his job or have Trump pardon Manafort, Papadopoulos and even himself both strange and repugnant. Since when did conservatives suddenly become conveniently bored with getting to the bottom of Russian conspiracies?

      As it turns out, they’re not bored. They just want the conspiracies to involve liberals.

      Thus the third Trumpian claim: That the real scandal is that the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee paid for the Steele dossier. Somehow that’s supposed to add up to “collusion” between Clinton and the Russians, on the remarkable theory that Steele was merely retailing Kremlin-invented fables about Trump.

      Yet how else was Steele supposed to investigate allegations of Russia’s ties to the Trump campaign except by talking to Russian sources with insight into the Kremlin? If Clinton was the beneficiary of the Kremlin’s designs, why did it leak her emails? And why would Putin favor the candidate most hostile to him in last year’s election but undermine the one who kept offering improved relations?

      You already know the answers. The deeper mystery is why certain conservatives who were once Trump’s fiercest critics have become his most sophistical apologists. The answer to that one requires a mode of analysis more psychological than political.

      • Diane – you know that it is the clearly stated purpose of the NYT to bring down Trump? This is not a clear explanation of the Steele dossier. Partial truths are not truths. And everybody involved in the making of the dossier is either taking the 5th or avoiding their appearance before Congress,

        • Paul, Diane envisions herself as a tough-minded gambler. I look at gamblers as fools that have deluded themselves. Partial truths are what she lives by. Black came up twice so red has to come up. Partially true, but statistically inaccurate as every spin has a 50:50 chance if a 0 or a 00 doesn’t pop up.

          • Allan said to Paul, “Diane envisions herself as . . . ”

            As WWAS might say, “Who is Allan to imagine as what L4D envisions herself?”

            Well, perhaps Allan is unaware of the distinction between the word gambit versus the word gamble. Or, it could be another case of Allan’s sped redding habit. One wonders whether Allan has ever correctly sped red the word gambol? He might learn a thing or two about himself, if Allan e’er gamboled o’er such a gambit.

            • “As WWAS might say, “Who is Allan to imagine as what L4D envisions herself?””

              Again Diane is dreaming and trying to use fiction as reality.

              “perhaps Allan is unaware of the distinction between the word gambit versus the word gamble.”

              I am very aware of the difference, but I called you a gambler (of facts) and just because you wanted to deflect by playing word games doesn’t make you any less of a gambler and a loser. I guess your gambit is that if enough mistruths are written some will eventually stick. That is a gamble all by itself. Unfortunately for you, you don’t have the facts or the ability and have to live in the gambler’s seat with your losses piling up.

          • Allan – went to Vegas about a month ago and didn’t drop a dime gambling. The odds are against you. No sense playing against a stacked deck.

            • I don’t gamble in Vegas either. It’s much better to gamble on the stock market where a little common sense can bring rewards that are larger than the gains predicted on the stock market. Not only that, but one can do it on their own computer while listening to the foolishness Diane wishes to provide.

        • Paul said, “This is not a clear explanation of the Steele dossier. Partial truths are not truths.”

          Paul, the partial truths that you’re now denying as being not truths at all, because they’re not the whole truth, just so happen to corroborate several allegations made in the Steele dossier.

          P. S. Did you notice the part about one Russian having turned up dead and another three having been charged with treason? Are you going to put that Russian death on the Arkancide account, Paul? Does Hillary have the power to charge Russians with treason for informing Steele about Russia’s efforts against HIllary?
          When are you all going to decompress and come to the surface to breathe fresh air at or above sea-level?

          • Diane – you are having a bad morning, aren’t you? I am always decompressed. And a half-truth is never a truth. We both know that you just won’t admit it.

            • Separate allegations, Paul. Think like a lawyer for a change. You don’t have to corroborate every last single allegation in the Steele dossier. There’s something like 19 of them, you know. All you have to do corroborate the ones that can be corroborated. And that’s what happened to Papadopoulos, Manafort and Gates. And it will soon enough happen to Carter Page. And that leads to Sessions as well as Papadopoulos leading to Sessions. Trump has lost the witch-hunt defense. Trump’s new defense is that Mueller’s doing good work exposing lying liars and bad guys in the Trump campaign.

              More time in the hyperbaric chamber, Paul. You’re not ready for the surface atmosphere, yet.

              • Obviously, Diane, you know little about the law and how when a document is tainted its value becomes very limited. You also seem to know very little about the meaning behind the word ‘corroborate’.

                I think you are better off as a gambler. It will get you to the streets faster.

          • “P. S. Did you notice the part about one Russian having turned up dead and another three having been charged with treason?”

            Sounds like Hillary type of involvement in the dead one. Did they say that dead person committed suicide or was robbed?

            • Allan, sound like you’re creating history from fiction. Do you have any facts to wager on the notion of Hillary ordering a hit on one of Steele’s possible Russian informants? How much did you win on the Seth Rich bet? How much did you win on the Joseph Rago bet? How much did you win on the Vince Foster bet? You keep betting on red numbers that aren’t even on the roulette wheel. Will you never learn? Did you even read the questions I posed to Paul upstream on this thread? Paul wisely ignored them. You foolishly answered them.

              • Diane, I am not creating fiction. I am repeating questions about the death of Seth Rich a case that has not been solved and is quite suspicious. It appears Donna Brazil also has similar feelings about his death and states she draws her curtains and is scared.

                You ask about my wins in a various number of bets. I don’t gamble so once again your dreams seem to become your reality. Stop the sleeping pills if you use them and if not see someone for mixing dreams with reality on a daily basis is not normal.

  3. Professor Turley’s analysis implies that Robert Mueller’s case is a very serious matter. And I am heartened to read that. Just last week Attorney General Sessions admitted to Congress that Russian interference in last year’s election was totally real. Then incredibly Sessions conceded that no measures are being taken to prevent a repeat. Every American should be concerned by this!

    But here, in Professor Turley’s ‘Comments’ section, his loyal readers seem oblivious to the professor’s briefing. Like it’s just some fluke that Turley would arrive at such conclusions. Which goes to show that right-wing media has made this country stupid! Donald Trump will be depending on this stupidity for his political survival.

  4. “I had a friend…”

    What did you do that he unfriended you?

    I thought lawyers learned to write better than that, with a Batchelor of Letters as well as Law. Guess I am wrong…

  5. I’ve seen this movie before and I know how it ends. I’ve also read the play on which it’s based and it essentially ends the same way. The original work was aptly called “Much Ado About Nothing.”

    I’ve also seen the TV series before in its original form, Seinfeld, a show about nothing.

    Of course, the Mueller show is neither funny, nor entertaining, nor valid in any shape, way, or form and serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever except as a consolation prize to give some much-needed thrills to some disappointed Clinton voters who otherwise have nothing in the lives to give them hope.

    Also, it’s amusing to note that Mueller and his merry band of attorneys have been spending more money on this case about nothing than has been spent on the government’s pseudo-investigations of the JFK assassination, the MLK assassination, the RFK assassination, and the 911 crimes combined, when those cases were actually worthy of investigations. If there’s one thing that the U.S. Government has unparalleled expertise in, it’s wasting taxpayers money.

      • DBB, before you die, be sure to specify to specify in your Will that you want to donate your brain either to science fiction or to the American Psychiatric and Neurological Foundation for the study of diseased brains of deceased leftists. Might as well provide some future benefit to society in your otherwise pointless and useless existence during your lifetime.

    • Ralph, if you were paying attention, Jeff Sessions admitted to Congress, just last week, that Russians interfered with our election and that nothing is being done to prevent a repeat. And ‘where’ did you get this nonsense that more money has been spent on this investigation JFK, MLK, RFK and 9/11 combined..?? That sounds like absolute B.S. The kind of lie that trolls put out hoping no one challenges.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s