The Myth Of Conflict-Free Counsel and The Nesting Dolls Of The Russian Investigation

First_matryoshka_museum_doll_openBelow is my column in the Hill Newspaper on a little known case involving Trump attorney John Dowd and the broader issue of conflicts among key players in the Russian investigation.

Here is the column:

In both politics and law, ethics demand the performance of duties with a clarity of purpose: for the sole benefit of either the public or the client. It is a standard that is often honored in the breach in Washington where people and their alliances are rarely fully disclosed. In some ways, John Dowd, the embattled Trump counsel, is the ultimate example of these conflicts. In a little known case, a court even found that, as a matter of law, Dowd was not required to give a criminal client conflict-free representation.

Unfortunately, that standard appears to govern other lawyers on both sides of the special counsel’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. The Russia investigation is a case study of the layers of conflicts that often characterize lawyers in Washington like matryoshka, which are those Russian “nesting dolls” that contain smaller and smaller figures inside.

US-CourtOfAppeals-4thCircuit-SealIn a recent controversy, Dowd succeeded in compromising his client in a single tweet with a message under Trump’s name that appeared to admit that the president knew Flynn lied to the FBI before being fired and before Trump allegedly asked FBI Director James Comey to let Flynn go. Dowd has not recused himself from further representation and is continuing with the incompatible roles of both counsel and a potential witness.For Dowd, such conflict controversies are not new. In 1990, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit handed down a decision in Reckmeyer v. United States in which Dowd’s representational practices were prominently featured. Dowd represented Robert Reckmeyer, a man who pleaded guilty to multiple counts of a drug conspiracy involving the distribution of marijuana and hashish. Reckmeyer later alleged that Dowd demanded over $500,000, money that Reckmeyer said Dowd knew was coming from illegal sources and actively worked to conceal the sources. He alleged that, after acquiring the money through various surreptitious means, Dowd then pushed him to plead guilty.

Reckmeyer wanted an evidentiary hearing to prove these allegations. For the purposes of stating a claim to such a hearing, the trial court ruled that Reckmeyer had properly alleged that Dowd had entangled himself in the conduct charged against Reckmeyer and that Dowd “would choose a course of action to suit his own interests in avoiding criminal liability over a course of action most favorable to his client.” However, the court dismissed the appeal because, if true, Reckmeyer “waived conflict-free representation” by agreeing to allegedly funnel tainted funds to Dowd. The appellate court agreed that, even if Reckmeyer proved all of these facts, he retained Dowd and no one would have confused Dowd with a lawyer solely acting in his client’s interest under these circumstances.

The court wrote, “These facts plainly show that Reckmeyer must have known that Dowd was self-interested and that his self-interest could run counter to Reckmeyer’s. They also show that knowing all this, Reckmeyer nevertheless decided to retain Dowd as counsel. Though Dowd obviously never explained that his interests were in conflict with Reckmeyer’s in a way that might affect his representation, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn in logic from the facts alleged is that Reckmeyer must have realized that Dowd’s private interests would best be served by a quick and summary disposition that minimized any risk of inquiry into his own criminal culpability (if the facts be as alleged). We need infer to Reckmeyer no sophisticated understanding of the law or legal tactics nor any special prescience about human nature to hold that he had to know that Dowd’s private interest would be best served by a plea bargain, whether or not that best served Reckmeyer’s.”

Since the court held that Reckmeyer had “knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to conflict-free representation,” an evidentiary hearing was denied. A grand jury did not indict Dowd, and the D.C. ethics bar did not take any disciplinary action. Many in Washington seem to follow the Reckmeyer standard that there is no guarantee to conflict-free lawyers in some cases involving Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, Ty Cobb, Don McGahn and Andrew Weissmann.

440px-Comey-FBI-PortraitWhen Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein decided to appoint a special counsel, I agreed with his logic after the firing of James Comey. However, his choice of Robert Mueller was baffling. Mueller has had a longstanding and close relationship with Comey. Indeed, Mueller and Comey became heroes at the FBI and the Justice Department in a historical confrontation that would come to define both men.

440px-Director_Robert_S._Mueller-_III-1In March 2004, Comey, who was deputy attorney general, went to the hospital bed of Attorney General John Ashcroft to keep him from relenting to demands from White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and others on the reauthorization of an unconstitutional domestic-surveillance program. Mueller was the man who ordered the security detail protecting Ashcroft to not allow White House staff to eject Comey from Ashcroft’s hospital room.

Worse yet, their cross-pollinated history continued. The White House has said that Mueller interviewed with Trump for the FBI position to replace Comey the day before he was made special counsel. If this conversation occurred, Trump may have explained why he fired Comey and what he was looking for in his replacement. With obstruction a focus of the investigation, that makes Mueller a possible witness in his own investigation.

Rod_Rosenstein_Official_DAG_PortraitRod Rosenstein is not only Mueller’s boss but a possible Mueller witness. If he isn’t, he should be. Rosenstein recommended that Comey be fired. He was involved in discussions before and after the firing. He was also reportedly upset with the White House in characterizing his memo as the reason for the firing and had communications about the accounts being given by White House staff. Yet, Mueller is still going to Rosenstein for funds and any approval on new areas for the expansion of the investigation.

While conflicts with the highest officials at the Justice Department have not been publicly addressed, lower-level figures have been demoted or reassigned. For example, Peter Strzok, the No. 2 official in the FBI’s counterintelligence division who played a key role in the Clinton and Trump investigations, was removed for anti-Trump, pro-Clinton statements. Another high-ranking Justice Department officer, Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, was demoted, reportedly due to contacts with the author of the controversial anti-Trump dossier by former British spy Christopher Steele.

Yet, other conflicted lawyers remain in place. In addition to Dowd, Mueller and Rosenstein, Trump counsel Ty Cobb stands as a possible witness over a bizarre disclosure made in a loud conversation with Dowd at a restaurant, overheard by a reporter. Cobb suggested that White House Counsel Don McGahn, who has already been interviewed in the investigation, was withholding material documents in his safe.

download-1Andrew Weissmann, one of Mueller’s top aides, remains in place despite the disclosure that he sent congratulations to a former acting attorney general who defied Trump over the travel ban and ordered the entire Justice Department to refuse to help the president defend the order, a move widely viewed as improper and which, legitimately, led to her termination.

To paraphrase the Reckmeyer case, none of us “knowingly and voluntarily waived” our right to “conflict-free” investigations. With millions of dollars already spent by Mueller and the legitimacy of the government at issue, we have a right to expect a conflict-free process from all parties. That is why, before we reach any conclusions, we should first publicly resolve any conflicts.

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

67 thoughts on “The Myth Of Conflict-Free Counsel and The Nesting Dolls Of The Russian Investigation”

  1. There is zero evidence that Russia hacked the DNC’s computers. The only people that claim that Russia meddled with the US election are US establishment intelligence hacks like James Clapper, who has already proven himself to be a certified, professional liar. See, for example:

    Meanwhile, experienced computer security specialists and professional spies, who have actually assessed the purported “evidence” of Russian meddling have concluded that no such evidence exists.

    See, for example:

    Or see this interview with former intelligence expert William Binney explain why there’s no evidence of Russian meddling:

    Or see this brief video interview with computer security expert John McAfee:

    1. Another worthless post devoid of any intelligent content whatsoever. That’s why ultrasubcretins like Benson so much. He makes them looks so smart by comparison.

      1. You know that benson and enigmablack were recently fired from their production line jobs at M&M. They kept throwing out the “Ws.”

          1. Yeah, sad, So sorry you lost your jobs at the M&M factory. But maybe you can can get some advice from a mind reader on getting a new job. For you, they charge half-price

            1. I’ve been wondering about your education level Ralph, just when I think I’ve reached a conclusion you write something else and I have to revise downward.

              1. enigmablack, you are hardly fit to make any judgments about anyone. And you cannot even express so much as a single supportable thought. But I’m sure that ultrasubcretins would feel comfortable hanging with you. You make them feel so much smarter.

                You’re so dumb that if you were take an IQ test, the results would come back negative.

  2. DA Nifong falsely prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse team on behalf of the ostensible victim and perpetrator of the hoax, Crystal Gail Mangum, just as the treasonous, insurrectionist Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller, of the oligarchy and shadow government, is falsely perpetrating a hoax and prosecuting phantom “Russian collusion” allegations against the duly elected President on behalf of Madam Adam Schiff and the rest of the effeminate, caterwauling, liberal democrats who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).

    Wiki –

    “Michael Byron Nifong is a disbarred North Carolina attorney. He was the district attorney for Durham County, North Carolina but was removed, disbarred and jailed following court findings concerning his conduct in the Duke lacrosse case.”

    Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller, Wray, Comey, Rosenstein et al. should be perp-walked to the guillotines.

    1. Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller must be prosecuted for treason by way of abuse of the power of government against the People if he brings charges only of “process crimes” without formally filing and proving charges of “Russian collusion.”

      More than 18 months of investigation is sufficient time for the fraud Mueller who should have rejected this sham appointment as Special Prosecutor for non-existent “Russian collusion” in the first place.

  3. (music- sone by Warren Zevon)
    Well I sent out with a waitress…
    That I hardly knew…
    How was I to know?
    She was with the Russians too!

  4. “In March 2004, Comey, who was deputy attorney general, went to the hospital bed of Attorney General John Ashcroft to keep him from relenting to demands from White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and others on the reauthorization of an unconstitutional domestic-surveillance program. Mueller was the man who ordered the security detail protecting Ashcroft to not allow White House staff to eject Comey from Ashcroft’s hospital room.”

    So the deputy attorney general and Mueller (as head of the FBI?) took action consistent with their jobs and their oath of office to prevent a bullying tactic on a vulnerable AG to get him to sign an unconstitutional program? And this makes them bffs and taints their working relationship?

    As to Rosenstein’s choosing Mueller as the special counsel, I suspect he chose the person who, in his opinion, would do a good and complete job, not a cover-up.

    But then, I don’t have much faith in any lawyers (but one, maybe two, but the second is deceased).

  5. I’d be happy to have some clarification on this, but doesn’t Reckmeyer v. United States have to do with a defendant accepting possible conflicts of interest regarding his defense attorney?

    The issue being discussed, either rightly or wrongly, has to do with the prosecutor’s office.

  6. Jon Turley is incorrect, as usual where he says, “Unfortunately, that standard [of conflicts of interest] appears to govern other lawyers on both sides of the special counsel’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.”

    Turley ignores that there’s ZERO evidence of “Russian meddling.” There is ONLY ALLEGED Russian meddling. The CIA cannot and will not produce ANY proof of Russian meddling whatsoever, so the claim is, at best, only an allegation.

    But I know the tactic well, as the Left closely emulates the Hitlerian model, i.e., if you tell a BIG LIE often enough, especially coming from a purported “authority” figure, that lie may be believed by many.

    But that’s all this “Russian meddling” allegation is: a BIG LIE. Since the CIA and FBI have had a long, long history of lying to the American public, they should be called to the carpet to produce evidence. Anybody remember the “weapons of mass destruction?” How soon the Leftists forget.

    The failure of the CIA or any other U.S. agency to produce any credible evidence that Russia “meddled” in the U.S. election signals to any intelligent person versed in the history of U.S. intelligence that the public has been fed a total fabrication.

    1. If you think there’s “zero evidence” of Russian meddling, you really aren’t paying attention. The case is already closed on that part, the question is, how much cooperation if any did they have from the Trump campaign/administration? And for those preparing to say, “collusion isn’t a crime.” Conspiracy is and has almost the same elements. Flynn is talking, Papadopoulos is talking (although may not know much). How much would you be willing to bet Hope Hicks would rather risk jail than reveal what she knows about things like the “trumped up” response to the news of the Trump Tower meeting?
      Besides all that, does anyone think that Donald J. Trump has such high character that he hasn’t engaged in any financial crimes? Flynn’s deal, for example, requires him to cooperate with all state and local law enforcement as well. Even if Trump fired Mueller or the Congress chooses to do nothing. There’s nothing to keep the State of New York from picking up the ball and running which they’re more than inclined to.

      1. Not true, enigmainblackcom. There is ZERO evidence even suggesting, let along proving that “[t]he case is already closed on that part [i.e., the purported existence of Russian meddling].”

        The ONLY thing that intelligence agencies can point to is that some of the encrypted messages in certain hacked documents are written in the Russian language.

        But, as all experts on computers and hacking have commented, this fact proves nothing about who executed the hacking. Just because the Russian language trail was left behind doesn’t mean that Russians were actually behind any hacking. They did not HAVE to leave a trail of Russian. Whoever left that trail CHOSE to leave a trail in Russian. They could have left a trail in English, Spanish, German, French, or any other language of their choosing.

        Once you understand THAT basic fact, if you have an investigative skills, you would then ask yourself: “Why would the Russians hack US computers and then chose to leave a trail incriminating themselves?”

        If you mull over the possibilities, you’d realize that the most LIKELY scenario is that someone–or some people–wanted to make it LOOK like a Russian hack job. What was done here was the equivalent of leaving a trail of incriminating evidence to frame the Russians.

        Everything that I’ve said here is absolute fact and you will not be able to find ANY experts in computers or hacking that would argue with anything that I’ve said. And THAT is why I say with 100% confidence that the US intelligence agencies have produced ZERO evidence that the Russians meddled in the election, And I defy anyone to produce genuine evidence of ANY Russian meddling.

          1. Like other Leftists, such as Ken, Linda, Benson, etc., you, enigmainblackcom, also cannot cite a single thing that I’ve said that is incorrect. You think that merely asserting something without any evidence makes it true. In your Leftist world, I’m sure this is true. But in the real world, you have to have facts and evidence to support your argument. You offer nothing, because there IS nothing.

            Do you have any knowledge of how hacking is performed? No, you know absolutely nothing about it. You merely want to believe the US intelligence authorities because they’re telling you a story that you want to believe. You’re the kind of person that if placed in a Stanley Milgram-like experiment, you’d shock the person on the other side of the wall to the maximum levels because you’re so obedient to authority.

            Perhaps you might be interested in learning from John McAfee who has decades and decades of experience in computer security. See the clip below. But you seem to put your personal politics above the facts and evidence, so you’re going to be locked in your Leftist box forever.

            1. I’m sure your friends on the right can tell you that Russia meddled in the election. Even if they never believe the Trump campaign did nothing to assist they know that. I would never attempt to prove you wrong. It would be time in my life I’d never get back.

              1. You cannot even submit so much as a single fact to support anything you say. Experts like John McAfee, who explain in simple terms why there’s zero evidence of Russian meddling, mean nothing to you. But you have taken the time to prove that you’re dumb, a dupe, and a dullard Leftist incapable of responding to facts and evidence, which, of course, you despise, as all Leftists do.

                1. “There is none so blind, as he who cannot see.” Enjoy your name calling, it says far more about you than about me. Have a wonderful day Ralph. BTW, Russia hasn’t stopped meddling. The bots are everywhere.

                  1. Talk about blind! You fail to recognize that you’re blinder than Stevie Wonder. And what you call “name calling” is really a realistic assessment of your posts, which are completely devoid of any intelligent content whatsoever. You’re only capable of repeating the BS Leftist agenda that you’ve been programmed with. You never present any facts or evidence to support anything you say. Yet you insist that your drivel is the truth.

                    1. You’ve already proven yourself quite capable of ignoring all facts, it would be like trying to prove to you that 1 + 1 = 2. Since we haven’t met, I have no idea how many of my posts you’ve read but not presenting evidence is not usually associated with me. Some may disagree or draw different conclusions but I can back up what I say. I simply choose not to bother myself trying to prove what is commonly known. Note all the people here chiming in agreeing with your assertion, even those who find no fault with anything this administration does accept that Russia has meddled. Enjoy your fact-free day!

                    2. enigmainblackcom, during evolution your ancestors must have been the control group.

                    3. Ralph Adamo said, “enigmainblackcom, during evolution your ancestors must have been the control group.”

                      Evolution is not a controlled experiment. It’s a natural and historical process roughly defined as differential reproductive success. As such, Enigma’s remote ancestors were sufficiently successful at differential reproduction that most paleontologists from Darwin to Leaky the elder to Leaky the younger have argued that they were most likely my ancestors and your ancestors as well, Ralph Adamo.

                    4. enigmablack, your bathroom mirror ought to come with a warning:

                      “Caution: objects in this mirror are dumber than they may appear.”

                    5. Thank you, lateforreality, for the ultrasubcretin perspective on things. Much appreciated. I’m all for ultrasubcretins having the same free speech rights as intelligent individuals.

  7. “When Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein decided to appoint a special counsel, I agreed with his logic after the firing of James Comey.”

    I don’t think that’s right. Comey is within the executive branch of government. If you want to change that, then do that first. Dershowitz is correct. The President can fire anybody in the executive branch of government for any reason or no reason.

    That’s not a basis for a special council.

  8. Comey, comey bo boni…
    Bannana fanna fo boni…
    Fi fi moe honi…

    Moe, Larry, Cheese!

  9. Wondering out loud about T rump’s case. Thinkin he might have to resign over da molestations of da women and not da Ruskies and da peein hookers. Kelly gal is havin 3 of them on her show today. They will tell their stories and da T rump Moore base will say they are lying.

  10. Turley said, “With millions of dollars already spent by Mueller and the legitimacy of the government at issue, we have a right to expect a conflict-free process from all parties. That is why, before we reach any conclusions, we should first publicly resolve any conflicts.”

    If, in the name of “we the people,” Turley wants publicly to resolve any and all conflicts within and between the Special Counsel and the POTUS before proceeding any further with the investigation of DJ Trump, then Turley expects the impossible in the name of “we the people.” I, for one, refuse to volunteer to be a human shield for DJ Trump. Let POTUS fire Mueller and see what happens next after that. Constitutional crisis???

    According to Trump’s own lawyers, POTUS is the highest law-enforcement officer in the land; and cannot, by definition, obstruct justice by firing the Special Counsel any more so than by firing the Director of the FBI. If so, then the Congress, and only the Congress, can investigate the POTUS. Gee. I wonder how many Congressional conflicts of interest might have to be publicly resolved in the name of “we the people” before Turley would approve of the Congress carrying on the Special Counsel’s investigation after DJ Trump fires Mueller.

    The only way to fight FUBAR is with FUBAR.

    1. Smoke and mirrors. You can see the anti-Trump people turning up the smoke a lá CNN. It’s the outward symptoms of the disease of a snowballing government picking up speed. Took a while to get moving, but hopefully the whole mess will blow up soon. Need to find a good spot to make a new capital. Need to spy on it so we can turn it off if it gets out of hand again.

      1. So your solution is to overthrow the government to save DJ Trump??? Do you know what FUBAR means??? How could any one man be that important to you??? Please explain.

        1. You folks are so, sooooo narrow-minded. I anticipated these convulsions at the start of this Presidency, and thought it would be great if this outside challenger started the maelstrom that engulf the entire government. It appears to be working that way. I have no love for Trump. We’ll just hope his deep state unauthorized actions keep peeling back the layers of deceptive government that have had too much power for way too long.
          Too many of you lefty types just don’t seem to understand it’s time to let go and start planning for a new future. I would have thought the lot of you would have grown tired of being played like drums by your worse-than-useless DNC.

          1. Ah! I see the subtlety, now. You’re counting on Trump to Make America Puny Again. That way it’ll be so much easier to overthrow the government. What a clever plan. I never would’ve guessed at it.

            Out of curiosity, though, does FUBAR mean something other than Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition these days? Because that’s what it used to mean when I was kid–fouled up beyond all recognition.

            1. Sure, you can go with that. Puny. As in more Democratic social engineering. No thanks. Nope. FUBAR works. Got to get to FUBAR now before we can take out the trash.

              By the way, how about a platform, or something from the Democrats. Some else besides, because… Trump! Failure must be in your genes now. That’s why you need to government to cover for you.

      2. It is da capitol not da capital. You need to make some new capital to move to da Ruskie capitol. To da T rump bot schlorr.

          1. My teachers thought me da difference between capitol and capital and their and there. Schools were good in my small city.

          2. Da T rumpers are obsessed with how much capital T rump and his corporate god men can steal from da rest of us.

    2. Fatso’s lawyers are wrong all day long. Nixon was gotten rid of for obstruction, and this will also be Fatso’s fate. Mueller’s team is looking at the finances. That’ll be the end of Fatso getting to play President, and he knows it. Fatso’s money entanglements have nothing directly to do with firing Comey, other than to try to stop him from investigating his connections with Russians and money game playing. But, Fox & Co will keep stirring the pot anyway. That Hysterical Hag Pirro actually was arguing that Mueller should be locked up, and the minions who watch that freak show nod in agreement while they eat their TV dinners. They loved the racist, misogynist, xenophobic talk and the potential for returning to when American was “great”–i.e., when blacks knew their place, when women were officially subservient, and when American coal and factory jobs were at their peak. They love the idea of a wall to keep out all of those brown people,and they believe the fat showman when he says “believe me, Mexico will pay for the wall.” They want all Muslims kept out, too, and everything accomplished by President Obama undone because he’s black and doesn’t deserve a legacy.

      We don’t know how close Mueller is to unraveling Fatso’s ties to the Russians and Fatso’s finances, but he gets closer every day, which is the reason for the rush to try to get tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, to take away health insurance for millions, all of which will eventually result in privatizing Soc. Security and Medicare, which is the real Republican agenda. In the meantime, Fox will do everything possible to undercut the credibility of Mueller and his investigation, even before it’s over because the dumbass minions want to believe in Chump. Nothing will convince Trump minions that he’s a crook, any more than the ignoramus crackers in Alabama who have decided that Moore’s accusers are liars, and that all of the accusations were orchestrated by “liberals” trying to take away their Senate candidate. No evidence needed for such people. That’s the sad reality in all of this.

      1. Natacha,…
        Given your age and repeated rants, there is some irony in you describing someone else as a “Hysterical Hag”.

      2. Natacha said, “Fatso’s lawyers are wrong all day long. Nixon was gotten rid of for obstruction, and this will also be Fatso’s fate. Mueller’s team is looking at the finances. That’ll be the end of Fatso getting to play President, and he knows it.”

        What a relief, Natacha. David Brooks was moping to the contrary the other day in the NYT and I almost started believing him. Somebody needs to cheer Brooks up. How about Mueller’s FinCEN crew? Nobody solves a “Where’s Vlad Puzzle” the way FinCEN does. Go FinCEN, go!

  11. There is no Prosecutor on the planet that the Administration wouldn’t be attacking at this point of the investigation. It’s their last line of defense, pushing for nullification in the House and Senate. We already know there are some that even if a video came out of Trump saying and doing anything he might be accused of, would still not Impeach. The only question remaining is how many?

    1. In other words: “tie up the accused and throw them in the water! If they’re innocent, they’ll survive!” How enlightened.

      1. I don’t suggest that at all. It’s those attempting to shut down the investigation that don’t care what they may be guilty of. I haven’t heard them say that any of the indictments or guilty pleas thus far are wrong, just everything they might do in the future.

    2. “There is no Prosecutor on the planet that the Administration wouldn’t be attacking at this point of the investigation.”

      Well that’s fair enough. But this is big country, and there a lot of people Muller could have put on his staff to make those kinds of remarks sound ridiculous.

      He didn’t do that, and that shows poor judgment.

      I would refer you to Patrick Fitzgerald and the staff he assembled — as well as his conduct. I mean Scooter Libby lied under oath to a grand jury. You can’t tolerate that. Muller has chosen not to engage in such “trivialities.”

  12. I do not have access to Lexis-Nexis, so this concept is rather new to me. Still, it is very scary from a legal standpoint. The question now is how much can you trust your lawyer? Or should you trust them at all? Should we all go pro per for awhile and break the back of the ABA? Everybody goes to trial, nobody takes a plea deal. The courts will overload. The judges will implode. Make those prosecutors prove all those ticky-tacky add-on charges they were going to drop in the plea bargain. They don’t have the time. And if you lose, appeal everything. Start making a federal case out of it if you can, that will get you in the federal system. Work your way up through the federal system. The SC only takes 200 cases a year, it needs to work year-round. This summer off thing has got to go.

    1. Paul, my pockets are too shallow to break the back of the ABA. Besides, where’s the winky face on turning SCOTUS into Parchman Farm with pro per perps in place of armed guards on horseback???

      1. Diane – buy dresses with deeper pockets. This was serious and did not require a winky. If it deserves a winky or a smiley, it gets one. If I am dead serious, no winky, no smiley.

  13. I am reminded of a scene from an old W.C. Fields movie. Fields is on the witness stand, accused of having unloaded his revolver into a person with whom he had been playing poker — (cut to a shot of the victim, sitting in the front row of the courtroom, bandaged from head to toe) — and Fields explains to the judge what happened:

    “Well, it’s like this, your Honor. I’m a broad minded man. I don’t object to 5 aces in a deck — but in one hand?

    And then Fields mumbles under his breath — “Besides, I know what I dealt him.”

    Don’t know why, but for some reason the conduct referenced in this article brings that scene to mind.

  14. IMO these are critical items Re. the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election: The Soweto bin Bama administration “unmasked” the names of Trump associates who spoke with Russians, a Federal felony. This felony crime justified otherwise illegal telephone taps of American citizens running against the sitting President bin Bama’s DNC Party.

    The Russia dossier is a pack of lies purchased by HRC and the DNC. One of Mueller’s investigators twice communicated with one of the persons associated with authoring the dossier. The dossier is/was the apparent basis of establishing Mueller’s team. Mueller, as FBI Chief, told President Soweto bin Bama it’s OK for Soweto to murder without trial nor charges American citizens on American soil (see Obama’s Secret Kill List).

    The proof that the FBI used the Russia dossier on Trump as illegal evidence to secure Mueller’s investigation is that Congress, who by law rules over the FBI with oversight, has asked the FBI this question since summer ’16 and the FBI has given the finger to Congress (has not answered).

    Retired Judge Napolitano says the FBI would commit a crime by answering Congress that question, unless X gives the FBI permission to answer (can’t recall what or who comprises X). The FBI won’t answer the question because the answer (yes) exposes all FBI officials associated with the subpoena request to felony charge of lying to the judge with false or illegally gotten evidence. FBI careerist employees/Deep State enemies of Trump and the RNC may have framed him to insure he lost the election or destroy him after the election, and they are subject to prosecution for their crimes, and that’s what’s going on.

    I totally reject Napolitano’s suggesting it’s wrong for Trump to make the public distrust the FBI. The FBI is the most fearful group within the government, and they have proven (look at the Las Vegas shooting investigation) they deserve absolutely no trust, and only condemnation.

  15. That Reckmeyer decision (by our own Fourth Circuit) is one of the worst I’ve ever seen. Lots of mustas and shouldas. If you didn’t know better, you’d think they were covering for the hotshot lawyer and the drug dealers rights were mere collateral damage, but of course we know the judges never decide on any basis except the law.

    1. LOL! If I put on 3D glasses I can actually see the sarcasm oozing from your last sentence, mespo.

  16. My first thought before the second reading was I wish we had journalists who could research and write an article at this level still working in the country. I’ll leave the rest to Paul and Squeaky

    1. ) There are plenty of good journalists – however none of them work for the legacy media.

      Robert Parry, Glenn Greenwald, Luke Rosiak,

      I get some of my news from commentators – such as Jimmy Dore, Styxenhammer, Lee Camp – just yesterday I learned that Manu Raju – CNN liar was previously fired from LA Times as he is a CIA operative.

      1. Good luck with that. Da small players will be going away when T rump gets rid of da net neutrality.

Comments are closed.