McCabe Testimony Triggers New Round Of Congressional Subpoenas

McCabeThe testimony of Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe appears to have gone long but came up short on details.  According to sources on the Committee, McCabe stated that he could not recall critical details on the famous dossier that was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The dossier contained information given to a former British spy by Russian government and other sources, including salacious details against then candidate Donald Trump.  I have repeatedly stated that I do not agree that the current facts warrant the calls for the firing of McCabe.  However, some of the gaps in his testimony are likely to trigger a new round of subpoenas to dive deeper into these issues.  

 

McCabe’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee was most interesting on the dossier, which McCabe reportedly insisted was largely confirmed by his team.  However, according to reports, McCabe only cited one fact as verified: that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had traveled to Moscow.  The dossier had a great deal of highly disturbing allegations against Trump that have not been confirmed.

What is also interesting is the alleged gaps in recollection on when McCabe became aware that Clinton and the DNC had funded the dossier. This would seem one of the more critical facts in evaluating the reliability of a dossier. If it were funded by the main political opponent of the target, it would certainly taint the document.

peter-strzok-and-lisa-pageObviously, more will be learned by the testimony of demoted DOJ official Bruce G. Ohr and FBI General Counsel James A. Baker.  However, a new subpoena will reportedly issue for FBI counsel Lisa Page who had an affair with Peter Strzok, a senior counterintelligence investigator at the F.B.I., and exchanged the disturbing text messages against Trump.

 The question is whether the next round of evidentiary and testimonial demands will rekindle the conflict between the branches which we discussed earlier.

197 thoughts on “McCabe Testimony Triggers New Round Of Congressional Subpoenas”

  1. Is a subpoena coming for Republican Rep. Kristi Noam who appears unwilling to answer media questions about her tall tale describing the family farm and taxes? The story was used to support the unpopular tax giveaway to the rich.

    1. Thanks for the tip, Linda. Here’s a tidbit from the Wikipedia article on Rep. Kristi Noem:

      “Noem has said that upon her father’s 1994 death she and her family members decided to take out a loan to pay taxes owing on the estate, noting that “for 10 years that loan really impacted our ability to make a profit”. The property, of which Noem’s family owns a non-controlling partnership in, has also received $3,058,152 in USDA farm subsidies from 1995 through 2009. Over the years, Noem added a hunting lodge and restaurant to the property, and all of her siblings have moved back to assist in expanding the businesses.”

      Gee Willikers. More than three million in farm subsidies. Whose taxes paid for that? And what’s up with that “non-controlling partnership” with who else? Did the loan have anything to do with adding the hunting lodge and restaurant to the inherited estate? Or was the loan only for the purpose of paying the “taxes owing on the estate?” Were those taxes federal inheritance taxes? How much was the Noem family estate worth anyhow?

      1. In 1994 the individual exemption on the estate tax was $600,000. And Noem’s mother, who’s still alive, today, could have inherited her deceased husband’s estate in 1994 100% tax free. Noem’s sob story is fishy, indeed.

        1. Then, there is the $1 mil.+ insurance policy payout which would have been a nice cushion (not mentioned in the sob story).
          Republicans destroying the middle class take to lying like ducks take to water.

  2. Did FBI Deputy Director McCabe, Agent Peter Strzok and legal council and paramour LIsa Page get a binder on that “insurance policy” yet?

    On a potential Trump 2016 election victory:

    “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok texted on Aug. 15, 2016. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

    – Peter Strzok to his paramour Lisa Page in the office of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

    1. Apparently the police can only say nice things about the people they investigate nowadays.

      To satisfy the irrational bloodlust of right wingers and inveterate careerists like Turley, Mueller removed those agents from the investigation upon discovery. He did not have to do that.

      We are not talking about a failed land deal like Whitewater. We are talking about a president with a history of crime–money laundering-Trump University etc, and mafia business ties in the US and Russia. This is worse than when Reagan sold arms to our Iranian enemies in the IranContra scandal.

      So scrapping the entire investigation over a couple of comments just won’t feed the bulldog.

      1. Abuse of power, negligence, dereliction, public corruption under color of authority, election tampering, treason, “wire-tapping,” “unmasking,” pay-for-play, Uranium One, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, halting Cassandra against Hezbollah, corrupting the Iran nuclear “deal,” etc., etc.

        All roads lead to Obama.

  3. Obama’s Pass for Hezbollah Charges that he killed a probe of the terror group to get his Iran deal.

    The Iran nuclear deal was the Holy Grail of Barack Obama’s second term, and it’s no secret he subjugated other priorities and relationships to get it. But now come allegations that he also killed a U.S. investigation into drug running by the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.
    Josh Meyer of Politico reported Monday that former U.S. officials say the Obama Administration quashed a Drug Enforcement Administration investigation into Hezbollah’s transnational crime networks. Senior Obama officials deny it, but Politico reports compelling evidence.

    After 9/11 the DEA launched investigations into Venezuelan crime syndicates, links between Colombian drug-traffickers and Lebanese money-launderers, and the “suspicious flow of thousands of used cars” from the U.S. to Benin, Mr. Meyer explains. The U.S. military was also investigating links between Iran and Shiite militias with improvised explosive devices that killed hundreds of U.S. soldiers. “All of these paths eventually converged on Hezbollah,” he writes.

    By 2008 the DEA had “amassed evidence that Hezbollah had transformed itself” into a global crime syndicate “that some investigators believed was collecting $1 billion a year from drug and weapons trafficking and money laundering,” Mr. Meyer reports. DEA’s Project Cassandra was born to take down the Hezbollah operation by busting its “innermost circle.”

    But according to interviews with dozens of Cassandra participants “and a review of court documents and records,” he writes, Obama officials “threw an increasingly insurmountable series of roadblocks in its way.” David Asher, a Pentagon specialist in illicit finance who helped launch and supervise Cassandra, told Mr. Meyer that the Administration “serially ripped apart [the] entire effort . . . from the top down.”

    Mr. Obama’s defenders want you to believe that the DEA agents are sore losers in a Washington turf war. But there are a number of reasons why these charges ring true.

    Cassandra was closing in on Hezbollah as Mr. Obama was trying to complete his Iran nuclear deal. John Brennan, Mr. Obama’s counterterror chief who later led the CIA, had argued in May 2010 that Hezbollah was evolving into a political party. Exposing it as a transnational crime syndicate would upset the Iranians and damage the Administration’s ability to sell his nuclear deal to a skeptical public.

    Obama Treasury official Katherine Bauer told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that under the Obama Administration Hezbollah-related “investigations were tamped down for fear of rocking the boat with Iran and jeopardizing the nuclear deal.”

    An unidentified former CIA officer told Mr. Meyer that “during the negotiations, early on,” the Iranians “said listen, we need you to lay off Hezbollah, to tamp down the pressure on them, and the Obama administration acquiesced to that request. It was a strategic decision to show good faith toward the Iranians” to reach an agreement.

    Three major suspects involved in weapons and drug trafficking got away. Ali Fayad, a Lebanese arms dealer alleged to work for Russia supplying weapons in Syria and Iraq, was arrested in the Czech Republic in 2014. He had been indicted in the U.S. but the Administration “declined to apply serious pressure on the Czech government to extradite him,” says Mr. Meyer. He was sent to Beirut where he continues to ply his trade.

    Alleged Venezuelan drug kingpin Hugo Carvajal was arrested in Aruba in 2014. Venezuela’s close alliance with Iran is no secret and reeling in “the chicken,” as Carvajal was known, would have generated key intelligence about cocaine trafficking to the U.S. and North Africa. The Netherlands mysteriously intervened and returned him to Venezuela.

    When Colombia arrested Walid Makled, a Syrian-born Venezuelan who was alleged to be shipping ten tons of cocaine to the U.S. each month, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos refused U.S. extradition requests and sent him to Venezuela. Mr. Obama repaid Mr. Santos by backing his amnesty for the FARC, the largest drug cartel in the Americas.

    Mr. Meyer reported that former Obama officials assured him that they had not “derailed any actions against Hezbollah or its Iranian allies for political reasons.” But many government officials believe otherwise, which is why this warrants a congressional investigation.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-pass-for-hezbollah-1513813424

  4. You need to be more candid about how the dossier came about: it was initiated by a right-wing conservative REPUBLICAN group who opposed the fat crotch grabber. This was started prior to the Republican convention. Once fatso got the nomination, they no longer wished to fund continued investigation into fatso’s peccadillos, so the Clinton campaign was approached with what info they had already gathered, and they agreed to take over funding the gathering of additional information. This investigation was initiated by REPUBLICANS, not the Clinton campaign.

    Secondly, although all of the facts set forth in the dossier have not been confirmed, many of them have been confirmed and the rest are being investigated. NONE of the facts have been proven false to date.

    1. I think that Natacha and others should keep repeating that same lie until it gets believable.
      Interesting to see just how low some commentators here will stoop, again and again.
      Called out on a lie, they just double down on it.
      Gotta give ’em credit for consistency, and rote memorization and repetition of a talking point based on a lie.

      1. I’ve noticed that, too, Tom. That’s why I don’t even bother to engage them most of the time. It’s like engaging some sort of computer bot that keeps squawking the same sh*t over and over like a parrot.

        1. That’s why I don’t even bother to engage them most of the time.

          That’s the key. Consider what you would do with these folks if you were having these discussions face-to-face. There are fundamental worldview differences at play here and those folks aren’t accepting any facts that contradict their beliefs. If I were to identify the red flag that informs me they care nothing about equality and rights it is this: these progressives accept their rule of law violators. Party over principles. They will defend them to their last breath. Conservatives on the other hand want all violators prosecuted and out of public service. Rule of law above everything.

          1. FoxTSierra and Olly,…
            I was thinking earlier about the pre-internet days, when a common forum for opinions/ debates was the letters-to-the-editor section in newspapers.
            Those who submitted letters or comments were usually required to sign their names, and maybe addresses, to their letters.
            That served as something of a restraint on the amount of inaccuracies and outright lying by the authors.
            There are obviously a lot of advantages seen from the relatively recent era of the internet.
            One clear downside is that prolific liars with a keyboard, no integrity, and anonyminity can slime up internet forums.

      2. What lie is that Tom? You sound like a defender of the indefensible. You call it a ‘lie’ thus is must be. Thank god you’re not the final arbiter on this matter.

        Personally I think Trump will skate but his son will not. The dossier is but a piece of the puzzle. It’s a secret investigation so we don’t know how big a piece it is.

        And I saw your comment below. I’m the only Darrin Rychlak in the world. There are 1000s of Tom Nashs so you really aren’t showing any courage by using your own name. If that is your name.

        That’s important because you are clearly fibbing. But I’m certain you feel pretty good about your own courage.

        1. First of all, congratulations on being the only Darrin Rychlak in the world.
          Also, William Bayer’s 9:51PM comment saves me the trouble of once again calling out the repeated lie that the Trump’s GOP opponents started the Russian dossier.
          My preference is that people stick to truthful statement if they’re going to participate in a discussion.
          It’s not a matter of courage….it’s simply a belief that truthful, accurate statements are important.
          And that repitition of the same lie, or the same set of lies, detracts from the usefulness of this ( or any other) forum.

    2. The opposition research was begun by the Washington Free Beacon (conservative), but Christopher Steele, his “dossier,” and contacting Russians to fabricate dirt about Trump came into play AFTER Clinton took over.
      Try again.

  5. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-21/hillary-crosshairs-doj-prosecutors-begin-asking-fbi-agents-about-uranium-one

    The really weird thing about the whole thing is that clearly we do know the following:

    1. Clinton and minions did collude with Russia
    2. Trump colluded with Israel
    3. The FBI actively and illegally aided Hillary Clinton
    4. Obama had illegal surveillance on the Trump transition team

    What all of this tells me is that we have an out of control IC/govt. which is no longer even closely tied to our actual Constitution

    1. How did Trump collude with Israel?

      We now know that Obama colluded with a lot of people including the terrorist organization Hezbollah letting them off the hook for their 1billion dollars worth of drug deals killing our kids.

      We should have pictures of Obama saying “love me, I am making sure that enough crack is permitted into America to kill you.”

      1. Allan,

        Read Flynn’s actual plea. There’s your answer.

        I’m not a supporter of Obama and this isn’t a partisan issue.

        1. Jill, you are wrong. I can’t find what you are saying that would mean Trump did something wrong. Quote the portion of the plea that contains the answer. A lot of fake news says a lot of things, but that doesn’t make what is said true.

          Trump as candidate and President has done nothing he wasn’t permitted to do under the law and that is why after over a year nothing has been found to implicate him in anything he has done that is illegal.

          Let’s hear the quote.

    2. Haha as if. Pro tip: when your “source” of news is an obscure website put out by the guy wearing a disguise at your last tinfoil hat convention, you may want a corroborating source. You are allowed your own opinion, but not your own facts.

      This is to “a lie told often enough becomes the truth” Jill

      1. Marky Mark Mark – it is a sign of your ignorance that you do not know about Hedgezero. Welcome to the Brave New World!!!

    3. Jill: WE don’t know any such thing at all. You need to stop watching Fox, a/k/a the Trump Network.

      1. Drop the “such” from that first sentence, and we’d have a truthful statement.

        1. All of you guys should start reading before you do name calling! The original texts with the info is there for anyone, including any of you to read. Please feel free, anytime, to start reading the actual documents!!!!

    4. None of that bilge is true. None of it can be proven in a court of law. It’s pure reactive fantasy. You know it and I know it.

      You right wingers occupy a demented comforting illusion of eternal victimhood with a simultaneously raging superiority complex.

      Typical of right wing authoritarians. Take the test. You won’t like the results. https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/RWAS/

      1. Darrin Dychlak – I love being a right-wing authoritarian. It gives me a feeling of superiority and comfort. And, since I am long retired, I no longer take tests. I still take classes, just ones with no tests. I am a life-long learner. I just hate pulling those all-nighters. I am a polymath. I can annoy people in several fields. However, I would rather have a nice lucid, intelligent conversation with you than trade insults. So, insults or conversation?

      2. Oily Crepe. 19.89% for L4D. What’s it mean? What’s it mean? If I take the test again and get the zero percent I think I deserve, would that be cheating? It feelz a bit like cheating. What’s it mean?

        1. Diane – it means you are an immoral person. Does that make you feel better?

          1. No, Paul, it doesn’t make me feelz better. How could I be one-fifth right-wing authoritarian and five-fifths immoral person? Using your implied logic, I should be one-fifth of a moral person. Using the correct logic, I should be four-fifths of a moral person. That’s a solid B, unless Rychlak throws the curve off. I like the correct logic better than yours, Schulteacher.

            1. Diane – being liberal does not make you a moral person, that is where your logic is going screwy. Logic has nothing to do with it. Leading a moral life makes you a moral person. Do you lead a moral life? That is the question you must ask yourself. Didn’t you take philosophy?

              1. Paul, your current argument refutes your previous argument. Pick one and stick with it.

                1. Diane – show me how it refutes my argument. And you still haven’t said if you live a moral life?

                  1. Paul C. Schulte,…
                    I just reviewed your “moral person” exchange with L4D….I found it to be an interesting jupm from the petty temporal matters that are argued and discussed here, into the heavier theological issues.
                    Given that we both attended Catholic schools, we have some backgrous in Canon Law ( CAN law, not CON law), I want to ask you if commiting one or two mortal sins makes a person “immorall”,
                    At the nax, I can only charge L4D with one or two mortal signs.😉
                    Now assuming that I can make those chrges stick, does that make her an immoral person???

                    1. Sorry for the typos….darn reply box is now only the width of a thermometer, so I can’t see more than thw previous few letters before I post.

                    2. Tom Nash – having committed one or two mortal sins would put your soul in mortal danger until you cleansed it with a sincere Act of Contrition. Yes, you would be immoral, but you could lead a moral life in-between times. So, you could be both moral and immoral until the Act of Contrition. What is your opinion?

                    3. Paul C. Schulte,..
                      IMO, it would simplify things if the Catholic Church went back to selling plenary indulgances.😏.
                      I pressed that poing, to no availe, in our religion classes, and I suspect that it lowered my grade.😦

                    4. Tom Nash – why do I have this sneaky feeling you were breaking a few mortal sins on a very regular basis? 😉

                  2. Paul, your playing stupid, again. I asked what it meant that I scored 20% right-wing authoritarian on the test to which Darren Rychlak linked. You said that it meant that I was an immoral person. I then asked you how I could be one-fifth right-wing authoritarian and five-fifths immoral person. You then told me that leading a moral life makes one a moral person. IOW, being one-fifth right-wing authoritarian has nothing to do with it. And that is, in fact, a refutation of your original argument that I am an immoral person because I scored 20% on the right-wing authoritarian test that Rychlak to which posted a link.

                    P. S. Your inability to follow your own argument is a far simpler test for right-wing authoritarianism.

                    1. Diane – you failed to tell us what the other 4/5s were. However, morality has nothing to do with taking or not taking tests, it has to do with how you actually lead your life. So, again, I ask you, do you lead a moral life?

    1. “GOP hangs 2 mil. kids out to dry” – “pro-life” is PR-created illusion. After kids are born, Repubs don’t care what happens, particularly to babies born into poverty. But, Repubs are all in for guaranteeing a free lifetime ride for heirs of the wealthy.
      1,000,000 Irish were allowed to die because the rich oligarchy revered their version of free enterprise.

      1. Obama kills kids. He dealt with Hezbollah and their $1Billion annual drug sales that promote terrorism. He let them off the hook while the kids in Chicago died. Great President dealing with a terrorist organization that harms our youth.

  6. It’s more than twisted @ how liberals now revere the FBI. It was top loaded w/ Obama sycophants. Ask any field agent, and I know a lot. In the Obama years, if you were a liberal, you climbed the ladder. Field agents are moderates to conservatives.

  7. The Press is really missing the big story here – many, if not most, Americans view the entire justice system as a joke. Unequal enforcement, gross conflicts of interest and cherry-picking investigations.

    Mueller should be commended on his military service but as a law enforcement official, he swore an supreme loyalty oath to follow the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights “restraints” on executive authority.

    During the Bush Administration, torture, kidnapping, employment tampering, warrantless domestic spying and Cointelpro tactics were all felony crimes but Mueller chose not enforce the law. In one famous incident, FBI agents abandoned torture victims, walking away leaving torture victims at the hands of interrogators committing felony crimes even though some lower level FBI agents wanted to arrest the American interrogators. Although Ronald Reagan wanted all torture and cruel punishment to be criminally prosecuted, Mueller and the DOJ chose to ignore these felonies.

    Not a Trump fan myself but there is a huge conflict of interest in having a former FBI Director investigating a case involving another FBI Director. The same FBI that ignored war crimes and domestic spying.

    The big story is that many, if not most, Americans view the American Justice System as a joke!

  8. Haven’t seen this kind of amnesia since Goldie Hawn went overboard in,well, “Overboard,” and got stuck raising Kurt Russell’s kids. And that was fiction. Oh, wait …

  9. Interesting about the stuff that gets dropped. Seems the Russian dossier was originally paid for by the Bush folks and was then shopped to the Clinton folks after Bush dropped out. Also getting dropped are the comments the two agents made against Clinton, Sanders, and others. Guess it’s cherry picking time. For those commenting on the political shenanigans, it’s always cherry picking time.

    1. Fusion GPS was hired to do opposition research by Trump’s GOP primary opponent(s).
      It was “traditional” opposition research at that point.
      When the DNC and Hillary campaign hired Fusion GPS, about the time that Trump had the nomination sewed up, Christopher Steele started compiling the Russian Dossier.
      There were two phases in Fusion’s involvement in the 2016 campaign; the earlier GOP funding, and the “Russian Dossier phase” with the Democratic funding.

      1. Tom, bettykath has been told that many times. She has memory gaps that occur when the truth is presented to her. Similar to some at the FBI.

        1. BK can’t help it. Her mind is stuck back in 1923 and the 1940’s. The poor dear doesn’t realize that it is 2018. Maybe on some primitive level, she can physically perceive a calendar, but mentally and emotionally she dwells in the past. For her, there are still Freedom Riders running down the roads of Alabama saving Poor Negroes from the Klan, and the lunch counters are still segregated.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. Thank you Squeeky. I didn’t realize bettykath was that far gone. Perhaps she still remembers the Klanbake at the DNC in 1924 where the KKK was firmly supported.

            1. Oh yes! Sometimes she goes around mumbling “Rosewood, Rosewood” which happened back in the early 1920s. I suspect she will not go on a cruise today, because the Titanic sank in 1912. It may be a form of virus, because Enigmainblack suffers from the same disorder.

              When the savage thug,Trayvon Martin, got shot while banging Poor Old George Zimmerman’s head into the concrete, BK was carrying on like it was another Emmet Till that got done in.

              Maybe one day there will be a vaccine or something,

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. “Maybe one day there will be a vaccine or something,”

                Squeeky, sometimes I think some of these Liberals are self-vaccinating intravenously and in their delusions, they think they have met God and that their words are supreme. What a bunch of crackheads.

        1. Ohio’s monthly unemployment rates since Trump took office refuted Allan’s alternative facts. FatMike called Allan out in a prior post.

          1. Unfortunately, bigfatmike was wrong in his numbers and understanding. You don’t seem to bother with the truth. I made it very clear that the last 3 Januaries in Ohio the unemployment rate was rather flat at 5.0 for those years. The last number is 5.1. Whether or not that is due to more people wanting to work again is unknown based on that number for under Obama many people stopped looking for jobs so the unemployment figure fell.

            Linda, your lack of knowledge is appalling.

            1. Thankfully it doesn’t seem to bother her at all. She’s too busy coveting what others have.

              1. No envy/coveting of men like Bernie Madoff nor Trump. Madoff is in prison, both his kids are dead, his wife of decades won’t speak to him. Trump is tenuously on his third wife, his dentures are ill-fitting, he’s internationally loathed, and he had a majority of Americans choose a very, unlikable candidate over him. His actions and speaking make him appear to be a Narcissist in mental decay and a lonely man in need of constant reassurance.

                I don’t foresee any spitting on my grave but, that’s something the Koch’s, Devoses and Gates should expect. Charles Koch said there are threats against his life. The Z-berg’s had to spend $500,000 for security on their Hawaii mansion. Money doesn’t buy happiness.

                1. Linda – there was a recent university study and money does buy happiness. Sorry, you need to keep up to date on these silly studies.

                  1. At the end of the day, we all have to look at ourselves in the mirror…except sociopaths who are 1-3% of the population and who, more than likely, vote Republican.

    2. “Interesting about the stuff that gets dropped. Seems the Russian dossier was originally paid for by the Bush folks and was then shopped to the Clinton folks after Bush dropped out.”

      Man, that sure is America’s finest at work there. Geeeez….

  10. Turley said, “However, according to reports, McCabe only cited one fact as verified: that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had traveled to Moscow.”

    Turley neglected to mention that the allegation in the Steele dossier against Carter Page was the basis of the question posed to McGabe. Because the extent to which the dossier was used to bolster the FISA warrant application for the surveillance of Page was the basis for calling upon McGabe to testify before Congress in the first place.

    Surely Turley deserves praise for zealously representing his Congressional clients. But to conclude from McGabe’s testimony that Carter Page’s trip to Moscow is the only allegation in the Steele dossier that has yet been verified is, necessarily, to suppose that the Russian hacking, disinformation and election interference allegations in the Steele dossier have not yet been corroborated nor verified.

    And that supposition just so happens to be a close paraphrase of Trump’s oft repeated claim that “the Russia thing–you know, with Trump and the Russians–is a made up story” PolitiFact named Trump’s “it’s a made up story claim” The 2017 Lie of the Year. Well . . . Turley is a lawyer; isn’t he?

      1. Turley said, “The dossier contained information given to a former British spy by Russian government sources . . .”

        This is essentially the same false equivalency between allies versus enemies that Turley has pedaled in the past when he characterized both Steele and Veselnitskaya as “foreign nationals.” Turley is now equivocating between Steele’s Russian informants who risk their lives providing vital national security intelligence to us and our ally, The United Kingdom, versus a Kremlin connected apparatchik who offered Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort a list of charges fabricated by the Kremlin’s Chief Prosecutor to be brought against four US citizens for alleged crimes against both The Russian Federation and The United States.

        Russian government sources are, in fact, the authors of Veselnitskaya’s Kremlin fabricated charges against The Ziff brothers and BiIl Browder. Those same Russian government sources did everything in their power to prevent Steele’s Russian informants from passing along Russian State Secrets to Steele who, being our ally, passed them along to the FBI.

        In his capacity as a lawyer, it is quite perfectly ethical for Turley to assert such false equivalency between friend and foe. In his capacity as a patriotic American, however, it simply must be turning Turley’s stomach to do so.

          1. Your opinion of my analysis reads like a dust-jacket blurb for an unpublished book entitled “Make America Puny Again,” by Vladimir Putin.

                1. Remember 2008- the stock market is smoke and mirrors- there are more mutual funds than there are companies in which to invest.

                  1. What is Linda trying to say? Beats me. In the US there are 9,511 mutual funds, managing assets worth approximately 16.34 trillion U.S. dollars. Any citizen can invest in the stock market at a very low cost and can even skip mutual funds and use ETF’s and other methodologies at a very low price.

                    What does she want? Probably an oligarchy to tell Americans what and how to invest. Either that or she is just looking for a handout while she nonsensically rails against oligarchs any chance she gets.

                    1. The upside to the stock price hikes is it shuts down Arnold, Rauh, SIEPR and Pew’s rhetoric about pension funds not meeting asset projections.
                      After the bear market hits, Koch’s chicken littles (State Budget Solutions) will crawl back out of the woodwork hawking the richest 0.1%’ s self-fulfilling prophesies in order to rob the middle class.
                      State Congressional chambers will roll out the welcome mats for the “sky is falling” testimony after big bucks are delivered to the GOP politicians.

                    2. “pension funds not meeting asset projections.”

                      That is a very good thing about stocks going up. A lot of the little people depend upon their pensions when they retire so once again Trump has helped the little guy. You should be cheering him, but instead, you are out on the street with a sign asking for money.

              1. I think for Vlad it is contempt for Obama and Hillary. He views America as an enemy and Trump as a rival.

                Diane is a member of CCC (Clinton Communist Camp) while Vlad is a member of the CCCP. The difference is the former are fools and the latter is smart. Diane stands by Stalin and Dollar Store plastic reset buttons. Vlad stands by Vlad and nukes.

              2. I think maybe Putin fears us the way we all fear a chimpanzee with a loaded gun. Because you just never know what sort of foolish thing the monkey will do. I suspect Putin has less fear of Trump, because Trump clearly has some good common sense.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

            1. The desperation is strong with those two women. I’m not sure if they are trying to rack up frequent poster miles (fpm) or what. What is apparent is for all the words they’ve accumulated, they’ve still not managed to exceed the usual contributions of David Benson.

              1. Olly,…- Benson doesn’t exactly extend himself in his 1-2 sentence posts.
                I feel more guilty having to do a little more Christmas shopping today, especially after seeing that L4D, Ken, and Linda are already sending each other Valentine Day cards.

                1. Benson doesn’t exactly extend himself in his 1-2 sentence posts.

                  Often one word replies. The quality of which is not significantly different from your identified bff trio’s usual word salad.

                  Merry Christmas!

                  1. Gotta correct one thing, Olly….I was scrolling through the comments and discovered that Benson actually had a post with THREE PARAGRAPHS in it earlier this morning.

                    1. Tom, which is better, the three-word nothings of Benson, the vacuous comments of Linda or the nonending ridiculous comments from Diane?

                    2. Allan – if you do not insult David Benson or enigma you can have lucid, intelligent conversations with them. Try it some time. 🙂 They won’t agree with you, but you can understand where they are coming from. 😉

                    3. Paul, I’ve had some productive discussion with both but you must understand some of their statements, not their political views, are not to be tolerated. You want to be liked. I don’t care. I’m already happily married.

                    4. Allan – like I said, insulting them is counter-productive. I ignore what I don’t like from some people, maybe because I do want to be liked. However, I like to think I take a longer view of the problem, which is to have extended discussions with them, which I cannot have if they do not like me. 😉

                    5. Allan,…
                      Benson wastes far less time and space, so that’s a plus.
                      And he’s our man on the ground in Pullman, Washington😄. I think he should be more careful about “correcting” JT in matters of Constitutional Law….that hasn’t worked out too well for him.

                    6. “Allan – like I said, insulting them is counter-productive. I ignore what I don’t like from some people, maybe because I do want to be liked. However, I like to think I take a longer view of the problem, which is to have extended discussions with them, which I cannot have if they do not like me. 😉”

                      Paul words and intention matter. If you are lonely enough to desire conversation that is counterproductive and full of garbage that is your choice. I have no need for pleasantries from people that shape the truth and use innuendo or smear others without proof. I’ll answer them directly. We can then have a reasonable debate on the subject, but doing so for the sake of being liked is ridiculous.

                    7. Allan – my conversations with these people have been productive although we have not always agreed, we at least agreed to disagree. And in each of them, I got new information that I did not have before which made me re-think my position, not necessarily change it. I have used the same approach with you. I don’t always agree with you, but rather than attacking you I either leave it alone or come at it from the side, very softly. There is only one person who I want to antagonize and he knows who he is. Everyone else is pretty much at least neutral to me.

                    8. ” my conversations with these people have been productive ”

                      Paul, I have listened to a few, admittedly not all, but the ones I listened to did not seem productive at all. They seemed to skirt the issue or garner acceptance of the proven fact.

                      “I don’t always agree with you, but rather than attacking you ”

                      You haven’t engaged in innuendo, smear, etc. so of course there isn’t much of a problem except a difference of opinion which can lead to a tedious, but courteous discussion. What you are talking about is being liked and accepting persons who are willing to engage in mistruths, smears, and innuendo. That is your choice something I don’t out of the blue criticize you for, nor do I ask you to change your ways.

                      “Everyone else is pretty much at least neutral to me.”

                      That is a boring and unreal world.

                    9. Or you can try Pascal’s approach. Do you think this will be any more persuasive?

                      When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true.

                      People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.
                      https://qz.com/778767/to-tell-someone-theyre-wrong-first-tell-them-how-theyre-right/

                    10. “Or you can try Pascal’s approach. Do you think this will be any more persuasive?”

                      Olly, some people don’t know that what they are saying is stupid and blame any differences of opinion on the person’s ideology, race, religion, etc. I merely bypass that type of rhetoric and go directly to the end product. Do you honestly believe anyone on this list can change Diane’s mind or improve the literacy of Linda? Early on I had an in-depth discussion involving Diane’s belief that the police were at low risk of harm in dangerous areas. I don’t remember the exact nature of the discussion. Diane proposed all sorts of statistics that I demonstrated to be fallacious and then she checked with her son and embarrassed replied that she was wrong. I responded that I respected how she apologized and thought fruitful conversations would follow.

                      Another member commented how nicely that discussion was handled since so many discussions earlier (before my entry to the list) were so hostile. I would have loved to continue in that fashion, but Diane is Diane, and Linda is Linda.

                      Pascal’s approach assumes the desire of one to have an open mind. That is not demonstrated by those we are most likely discussing. Therefore, I would be very surprised if I changed one of those minds except for a transient moment of lucidity. My arguments are meant only for those with open minds whether they have engaged themselves in the discussion or not.

                      I would rather have discussions with an ignorant person who has an open mind for an open mind can learn while the closed mind only learns what he has learned before.

        1. Late4Dinner
          Thanks for saying it. History will judge Turley’s comments and find them contrary to American national interest.

          1. Yes, history will be the judge, and it will show that you sure were silly. Cripes.

            I guess you were passing out cookies in Ukraine, too.

          2. Linda, you don’t know your history now so what makes you think you will bother with it in the future?

          3. Linda, you’re welcome. If Turley is still working for the Congressional Republicans, then he is ethically obligated to represent them as zealously as possible. And that means turning ethics, itself, into just another adversarial process like the law. That’s why Turley is joining the attack on Mueller, The FBI and The DOJ.

            They don’t really know very much more about the cards in Mueller’s hand than we do. (And we’re not supposed to know–yet.) So they’re belly-aching over the deal and the shuffle and the supposed stacking of the deck, instead. Ken’s right: The MAGA cult is showing clear signs of desperation now.

      2. This same article about the Russian lawyer was posted a few days, and now posted again by the same person.
        The lawyer, Ms.V, was in the U.S. without a valid visa.
        She also failed to register as an agent for a foreign government.
        It was reported that she met with people at Fusion GPS about the same time that she met with Trump Jr., Jushner, and Manafort.
        The article is now about two months old, and much of what it covers is a rehash of what was known last summer.
        Bill Browder is mentioned in this NY Times article.
        Browder was a key figure in passing the Magnitski Act, a set of sanctions imposed on Russia in response to the beating and death of whistle blower Magnitski while in a Russian jail.
        Browder testified before Congress last summer about the role of Fusion GPS in lobbying against the Magnitski Act. That lobbying effort included the use of Russian sources to discredit those who helped to pass the Act.
        Ms. V also openly lobbied for the repeal of that Act.
        I mentioned that she was seen front row center during Congressional testimony….this was prior to her meeting at Trump Tower.
        She also invited members of Congress to view an anti-Magnitski Act film….I don’t know how many accepted her invitation.
        Bill Browder testified months ago that “she’s not just some lawyer….she’s a tool of the Russian government”.
        All of this has led the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask for explanations about the fact that a “tool of the Russian government” is in the U.S. without a valid visa, and without registering as a foreign agent as required under FARA.
        Bill Browder has pressed these points in his Congressional testimony, and has also complained about Fusion GPS’s failure to register under FARA.
        At a minimum, there seems to have been total apathy about enforcing FARA, or laws about being in the U.S. without a valid visa.
        On the latter point, maybe Washington DC is a sanctuary city.😏
        As far I know, most of the information the Senate committee is seeking has not been turned over to them.
        It took nearly a year to find out that the DNC and the Clinton campaign paid for the Russian Dossier.
        Sen.Grassley and others have probably spent a year trying to find out why agents for the Russian government are not registering as required by FARA.
        ( That issue pressed by Grassley and his committee predated knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting).
        There are multiple unresolved questions/issues about monitoring Russian lobbying American firms lobbying on behalf of the Russians.

        1. Tom Nash said, “It was reported that she [Natalia Veselnitskaya] met with people at Fusion GPS about the same time that she met with Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort.”

          Tom Nash also said, “It took nearly a year to find out that the DNC and the Clinton campaign paid for the Russian Dossier.”

          It might be helpful, Tom, if you could connect the statements cited above to one another by way of an argument that might lead to a prospective conclusion.

          1. Here’s the connection….
            Sen. Grassley and others have been trying to find out since early 2016 why unregistered Russian agents are given free rein to lobby in the U.S.
            Because of their activities, Fusion GPS was also required to register as a foreign agent entity, but failed to do so.
            An attempt has been made by Grassley and others to get information about the activities of, and alliance between Veselnitskaya ( Ms. V), Akhmetski, Fusion, and others.
            That is an ongoing effort, and Grassley’s committee has been stonewalled by Fusion, by the FBI, and by Homeland Security when he requests information from them.
            The same kind of problem existed for about a year when Fusion was stonewalling Congress about who funded the Russian Dossier opposition research…..I think they finally forced disclosure by getting a subpeona for Fusions financial records.
            And those records revealed the funding by the DNC and Hillary election campaign via Perkins Coie and the lawyer for the DNC, Elias.
            None of this information was volunteered, and it can take a long time to overcome stonewalling.
            So in the case of the Russian Dossier, it took about a year to find out who paid for it.
            Grassley and others have been trying for over a year why Veselnitskaya and the others were not registered as required by FARA, or why even visa requirements were not met to let Ms. V. into the U.S.
            The NY Times article that you posted twice primarily deals with information already known by c. July 2017.
            It was dated information and a bit short on details.
            The common thread that slows these investigations is the stonewalling by the principals and by the agencies that could provide information to investigators.
            In the case of the Russian Dossier, that stonewalling took a year to overcome in finding out who paid for it.
            In the case of Grassley’s efforts to get information about why these unregistered foreign agents are allowed free rein, he and others have been jerked around since early 2016, and that stonewalling continues to this day.

            1. “Fusion GPS was also required to register as a foreign agent entity, but failed to do so.”

              So have those that are on the board of the NYTimes and are foreigners.

              “that is an ongoing effort, and Grassley’s committee has been stonewalled by Fusion, by the FBI, and by Homeland Security when he requests information from them.”

              Not unusual in Democratic administrations. Obama blocked the DEA from busting the billion dollars a year business (Heroine etc.) that has cost the lives of countless of young Americans and has caused tremendous crime in our streets. That is right. Obama dealt with the terrorist organization Hezbollah. Obama wanted to transform America and the result was he caused many of our youth to become drug addicts while killing one another while he dealt with the terrorist group Hezbollah.

            2. “None of this information was volunteered, and it can take a long time to overcome stonewalling.”

              … especially when the people being stonewalled are stonewalling themselves.

              Grassley first began PRETENDING that he wanted information from Fusion GPS back in March, 2016.

              Check to see when Grassley actually issued any subpoenas for the information. After months of requesting that Fusion GPS voluntarily provide information — months during which Fusing GPS made it clear to anyone with half a brain that it had NO intention of voluntarily providing information — Grassley finally issued a subpoena. Then he RETRACTED that subpoena and another period of MONTHS ensued wherein Grassley requested that Fusion GPS voluntarily provide information.

              Grassley, Gowdy, and all of the others on the Senate and House committees are involved in the cover-ups concerning all of the matters they are pretending to investigate. They make bold statements to the press. They write angry letters for the press to publish. And meanwhile, when they finally get witnesses under oath they ask the wrong questions and waste time making speeches while the witnesses sit there yawning in their faces.

              Congress is stonewalling itself, in order to stonewall the citizenry.

              And how long ago did people start asking questions about whether the “dossier” was used to obtain a FISA warrant? — almost a YEAR ago. The fact that they don’t have an answer about that yet shows that they are stonewalling themselves.

              These aren’t investigations — they are cover-ups. The investigations are just cheap carnival sideshows.

              1. “Congress is stonewalling itself, in order to stonewall the citizenry.”

                They don’t need legislators asking questions. They need one experienced prosecutor to get the answers under oath.

              2. William Bayer,…
                I think it was the House Judiciary Committee that supeonaed the Fusion GPS financial records.
                On the Senate side, I’d have to check on what subpeonas have been issued, or withdrawn.
                Using the Marc Elias/ Perkins Coie/Fusion GPSChristopher Steele route to use Russians for opposition research made it more difficult to find out who funded tge Ryssian Dossier.
                The DNC and the Clinton campaign had “deniability” as far as their involvement in funding the Dossier.
                Until those Fusion GPS financial records were obtained, no Democrat and no firm ( Fusion GPS and Perkins Coie) associated with the Democratic campaign would come forward admitting that the DNC and Hillary election campaign were involved in funding the Russian Dossier.
                Now that they can no longer deny their involvement, the talking point we see from Hillary and Hillary flunkies is that this was just “standard opposition research”, or that the Dossier was compiled for “national security” reasons.

              3. WB re: “Grassley, Gowdy, and all of the others on the Senate and House committees are involved in the cover-ups concerning all of the matters they are pretending to investigate. They make bold statements to the press. They write angry letters for the press to publish. And meanwhile, when they finally get witnesses under oath they ask the wrong questions and waste time making speeches while the witnesses sit there yawning in their faces.

                Congress is stonewalling itself, in order to stonewall the citizenry.”

                This what I see as well – they are all compromised and thushave 0 desire for the truth. Gowdy is the Repub equivalent to the Liberal Pocahontas – they both bark furiously with indignation but there are never results. All a charade for the gullible partisans.

            3. Tom Nash, your argument about stonewalling still doesn’t lead to a prospective conclusion yet. What, if anything, do you suppose might be on the other side of the stone wall your complaining about? If “they” are stonewalling, then they must be stonewalling something. Mustn’t they?

              Since we’re not supposed to know, it should follow that guessing is allowed. But I’m not going to make your guesses for you, Tom. Please feel free to make your own guesses for yourself; then post them right here on this blawg. Otherwise, it’s just another round of shadow-boxing, as far as I can tell.

              1. “as far as I can tell”
                – You either understand what I wrote in response to your questions, or keep pretending that English is your second language.
                You are clearly not interested in a straightforward exchange, given your preference for word games.

                1. Let me explain it to you as though you were a six year old. Your accusing the government of stonewalling something. You don’t know what the government is stonewalling, because the government is stonewalling. So try guessing at whatever the government might be stonewalling, instead. Guessing is allowed, ya know. If the guess turns out to be wrong, then so what? Who cares? If the guess turns out to be correct, then, well . . . won’t you be the clever one?

                  1. Late4D….,I’ll try to explain this to you in words that you can understand.
                    I should have had more insight into your difficulties with communication skills, given one of your nearby posts in this thread.
                    Dadeedididaaduhdeedadada.
                    Maybe breaking it down in this way for you will help with your comprehension…..nothing else seems to work with you.

                    1. The post I refer to was your Dec.21, 8:06 AM post…..I should have pick up on your language difficulties earlier.

                    2. I hope you’re enjoying yourself, Nash. De doo doo doo. I know what you’re not saying. And I know why you’re not saying it. And I’m not going to say it for you. You’re going to have to say it for yourself, Tommy. De da da da.

                    3. Tom Nash, I figure you deserve a clue to your own unstated thought. Here’s one in your own words:

                      “Grassley and others have been trying for over a year [to find out] why Veselnitskaya and the others were not registered as required by FARA, or why even visa requirements were not met to let Ms. V. into the U.S.”

                      Who would allow such things to take place? And why would “they” allow it? And who would stonewall the answers to the questions who would allow such things to take place and why would they allow it?

                      Commence head-scratching, Tom Nash.

            1. Mesopo-da how right da you da are da he is da dat da,da, da, da, da and did I mensions da.

          1. De do do do, de da da da
            Ken’s da best scout here; it’s true
            De do do do, de da da da
            His reconnaissance reports our cue
            De do do do, de da da da
            Ken’s bread crumb trails will lead us through
            De do do do, de da da da
            His meaning reveals every clue

            1. “De do do do, de da da da
              Ken’s da best scout here; it’s true”

              *********************************************
              Yeah, Ken once worked for Gen. Custer before ske-da-ddling away on Comanche when the arrows flew!

              1. Don Juan di Mar-A-Lago is not Sitting Bull. You shameless historical revisionist, you.

                P. S. If Canada will accept The Lecher-In-Chief as a political exile, then I will object only to the Sitting Bull comparison–not the exile status.

        1. L4D,….
          This is in response your 6:06AM comment….
          You spent 24-48 hours thinking up a reply and this is apparently the best you can come up with.
          99% of the time I’m asked a question, I’ll give a direct response to that question.
          People like you, who like to play ” dodge a question”, then feel free to pose a string of asinine questions, are not enitled to a reply.
          If your major was sophistry, I’m sure that you did very well in it.

        2. L4D,….
          This is in response your 6:06AM comment….
          You spent 24-48 hours thinking up a reply and this is apparently the best you can come up with.
          99% of the time I’m asked a question, I’ll give a direct response to that question.
          People like you, who like to play ” dodge a question”, then feel free to pose a string of asinine questions, are not enitled to a reply.
          If your major was sophistry, I’m sure that you did very well in it.

          1. If you really think that the question, who let Ms.V into the country without a visa nor a FARA registration, is an asinine question, then you simply must think Grassley, Gowdy and yourself asinine. That it is necessarily so, because you, Gowdy and Grassley are the ones posing the question, who let Ms. V into the country without a visa nor a FARA registration? In fact, it gets worse than that, Tom Nash; for you’re now accusing the FBI, the DOJ and the DHS of stonewalling what you, yourself, regard as an asinine question.

            If your college major was head-scratching, you did rather poorly at it.

            1. L4D,…
              You’ve twisted just about everyone’s statements like a pretzel.
              You know damn good and well that your asinine questions and statements can’t be “transferred over” as having been made by Grassley, me or anyone else.
              You wanna play chich**** games, expect to be called out on it from time to time.
              I’ll let you go now….you must have a lot of trolling to catch up on, directed at comments made 24-48 hours ago.

      1. I did some volunteer work with retarded kids and adults when I was in college, Ken.
        Sometimes adjustments/ allowances have to be made to communicate with them.
        With that in mind, I’ll try to break these things down into simpler terms for you

      2. Very good, L4D. You and Ken are both making great progress, in substance as well as style.

    1. If internet delivery of blogs like Turley’s are faster than that of Alternet, Shareblue, Daily Koz, etc., it’ll make it clear who the oligarch’s minions are.

      1. Good God you write stupid stuff. You should seriously consider just sitting out some of these threads.

        1. Just because it hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Linda’s hypothesis is a testable one. Your opinion of Linda’s testable hypothesis doesn’t even amount to an argument–just more boorish misdemeanor as usual.

          1. “boorish misdemeanor”- a descriptor that’s original and apt.

            Sierra relies on the “stuff” of mental giant vocabulary- like that of Trump’s.

            1. If that’s all he’s got, he’s got to flaunt it. Otherwise, he’d be flaunt-less and forlorn.

  11. The only FBI guy I would trust is….Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. This FBI episode is “The Corruptor”. Back then, the FBI weren’t politically aligned with the Clintons.

    1. Ah, that’s punky Mark Hamill before the Force was with him, or maybe when the Force caught him. In any event, it got him a sentence on Tatooine in a desert hut living with a moisture farmer before Obi Wan rescued him. Don’t we all love a backstory. Lol

  12. Reports are that McCabe had problems remembering signing off on learning about the funding by the DNC. It is possible. Hillary has these memory gaps. Maybe he caught it from her?

    1. Memory gaps you say, Paul? Listen to Diane as she copies the same things over and over again without relationship to dates or any facts that are later revealed making her data and opinion useless. A storyline is placed into the bible of her leftist religion and gets stuck there no matter what information is released in the future. Diane isn’t repeating known truths rather a story implanted in her mind that will never change.

  13. Of course, McCabe needs to be fired, as does ALL of the top FBI Deep State weasel moles infesting the US Government. They are totally worthless lowlife anti-American and corrupt vermin. But enough about discussing those FBI employees in such a favorable light. Someday I shall tell you how I really feel about them.

    1. Ralph Adamo said, “Of course, McCabe needs to be fired, as does ALL of the top FBI Deep State weasel moles infesting the US Government.”

      Ralph Adamo studiously declined to say exactly who should point his finger at McGabe et al. and utter the registered trademark catchphrase, “You’re fired.” It’s so unfair that the most powerful man in the world has been rendered powerless to fire anyone else other than some paltry few of his own hand-picked apprentices.

      That’s not the way Putin does business in The Russian Federation, ya know. How are we supposed to compete against our own allies on the world stage, if our current imPOTUS can’t fire McGabe et al the same way Vlad would do it over there? Do we really have to get Putin to fire McGabe et al for us as well as getting Vlad to fire our allies on the world stage to boot? It’s been almost a year already. How much longer will it take to Make America Puny Again???

  14. Closed hearings are a fraud being perpetrated upon the public. It’s as important to know what questions are asked — or NOT asked — as it is to hear rumors about the supposed answers or non-answers.

    Our entire government has gone dark and gone into the shadows. Virtually everything we THINK we know is just rumor based upon leaks to a dishonest media or self-serving statements by politicians. This has become the new normal and it’s the most dangerous thing that can happen to a free society.

    Even Turley is left to assume the accuracy of information he got from who knows where.

    Enough is too much. No more secret hearings. Public hearings or send the Congressional CLOWNS home.

    1. Each time they dig a little deeper and a little faster. Some are sticking their heads in the sand and some in dumpsters. But wouldn’t it be just perfect if the Congressional committee starting at one end got to the end of the story before Meuller had left first base. Sure does appear that way as moe of a probability than a possibility.

      Bad Crime Novel? We already know how bad the crimes and this isn’t fiction.

        1. You are right David, most of this is fiction, created by the Clinton Criminal Camp. The forgotten memories are simply gaps in the story that FBI officials and others cannot explain.

          I wonder CCC Clinton Criminal Camp and CCCP (Soviet Union or Central Committee of the Communist Party) … There seems to be a closer relationship than one might want to believe.

      1. Christy is yackin about da Kushner crimes. They are a crime family as are da Flynn’s and Mannaforts. Many criminals are involved. Did T rump’s hookers do anything illegal when they peed on da bed? Don’t think so.

          1. I can explain that. You see, Linda, when one’s brain is the only part of one’s anatomy that the market will solicit for prostitution, then . . . O! Bother. Let’s just let the think-tankards complete that thought.

            1. Diane and Linda – lets just put it this way. If I prostitute my brain to a think-tank I usually make a lot more money than you two will be standing under a street light trying to pick up johns. So, which is the better option?

  15. On a potential Trump 2016 election victory:

    “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok texted on Aug. 15, 2016. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

    – Peter Strzok to his paramour Lisa Page in the office of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

  16. Fire them all and let the unemployment office sort it out. It seems to work reasonably well when a dysfunctional company is bought-out by another entity. Sack the management and start over with a fresh set of ideas.

    1. Hear, hear!

      “Start over with a fresh set of ideas”…like those which constitute the “manifest tenor” of the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights, 1789 (ex-slavery, of course, and with emphasis on the dominion of the People, severely limited government, privacy rights and impeachment for crimes of high office). No better form of governance exists.

    1. Oh, go pull your head out of your rear end. You sound like some little kid hollering, “But Johnny had a cookie, why can’t I have a cookie, it isn’t fair, and you don’t love me, wah wah wah sniffle sniffle.”

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. A major part of your schtick is to set up strawmen to justify a one off item as a trend perpetrated by da liberals, Skanky. Enigma is just pointing out the hypocrisy of some posters, oh woe is me.

          1. “pull your head out and keep it out!”

            Let him leave it in. The known might be better than the unknown.

            Sessions decided to be nonpartisan and recused himself. He never lied. Blame the questioners for overgeneralized questions. Ask Enigma when he stopped beating his wife.

      2. “Citizens who don’t fight for democracy, lose it.” Words first, then, overturn of the oligarchy, next.

    2. There weren’t. Are you blind? Nunes is the head of the committee… Rogue Are you…. never mind we already know you are the blog version of Juan the yawn whats his name.

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: