A Year Later, An Investigation In Search Of A Crime

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_cropped440px-Director_Robert_S._Mueller-_III-1Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the status of the Russian investigation and a look back at the various crimes alleged over the year.  A brief search of mainstream media found roughly 5000 stories referring to “bombshell” developments. However, the status has changed little over the year.  That could, of course, change.  We do not know what Special Counsel Robert Mueller had in terms of new evidence.  That did not stop many from declaring conclusive evidence supporting charges over the year despite the paucity of evidence.  While we have had four indictments or pleas, but the charges are been notably removed from the core purpose of the Russian collusion investigation.  The point of the column is not that new charges are unlikely but that there is little public evidence supporting such charges at the end of 2017.  CNN reported yet another “bombshell” discovery this week: George Papadopoulos told an Australian diplomat that Russia had “political dirt” on Hillary Clinton in May of last year.  However, there has to be more than knowledge of such hacking (or even a desire to use the results of hacking) to support even a collateral criminal charge. We could certainly reach that point in 2018 but the evidence remains sketchy on specific criminal acts tied to Trump or his closest aides related to Russia.

Here is the column:


In all of the end-of-year reviews, the most surprising (and most disappointing) realization for many is what’s missing from the list: the charging of Donald Trump.

Indeed, much like Mark Twain, President Trump could claim reports of his impending indictment have been much exaggerated. Even before he took the oath of office, commentators predicted indictment or impeachment as the inevitable end for the 45th president. While 2018 (and special counsel Robert Mueller) could still bring new evidence or allegations, a review of the “clear” crimes articulated over the year have produced little in terms of actual charges.


The year began poorly. with a mantra on networks like CNN and MSNBC that Trump and his family were guilty of the crime of “collusion.” While a few of us repeatedly noted that there is no crime of collusion with the Russians, the media continued for months to hype the notion that receiving information from Russian sources was a crime. It was not until September that these commentators and hosts began, begrudgingly, to agree that there was no such crime.

Indeed, some liberal outlets by the end of the year acknowledged that it is unlikely that collusion would be the basis for any criminal charge, as opposed to a political embarrassment. What is clear is that the Trump campaign was perfectly willing to accept dirt on Hillary Clinton when Donald Trump Jr.Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with a Russian lawyer in Trump Tower. Taking that meeting was remarkably naïve and reckless, but it was not criminal.

Election violations

When challenged on the absence of an actual criminal code provision barring “collusion,” many commentators shifted to a novel theory that receiving information would violate the Federal Election Campaign Act as a “thing of value” from a foreign national in connection with a federal election.

Nick Akerman, a former Watergate assistant special prosecutor, declared: “It’s illegal campaign contributions. It would be conspiring to commit campaign violations.” MSNBC legal analyst Paul Butler declared that the meeting in Trump Tower “is the smoking gun of evidence” of the crime of “soliciting a campaign contribution from a foreign national like a Russian government operative.”

The problem is, no court has ever adopted such a broad definition and, if it did, it would raise serious constitutional problems in criminalizing interactions with foreign academics, public interest groups, nongovernment organizations and journalists supplying information to a campaign. 

The election-fraud angle has notably subsided recently with revelations that, after long denying any connection to the Russian dossier containing allegations against Trump, the Clinton campaign was forced to admit that it (and the Democratic National Committee) financed the effort by a former British spy to compile that dossier; its information came from foreign entities, reportedly including Russian government sources.


Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) electrified his base by saying Trump might be charged with treason or impeached for such a crime — even though such a charge is rarely raised without the precursor of a declaration of war. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) cited his background “as a former prosecutor” to declare that “these emails are a textbook example and evidence of criminal intent” and “potentially” constitute “treason.”

Likewise, Richard Painter, chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, has said Trump met “the dictionary definition” of treason. Likewise, former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman declared the emails to be “almost a smoking cannon” and added that “there’s almost no question this is treason.” Treason charges have since receded to the most biased blogs where the line between fact and fantasy is comfortably irrelevant.


With more defined charges falling to the wayside, some reached for the darling of prosecutors: conspiracy. Cornell Law School Vice Dean Jens David Ohlin has declared the Trump Jr. emails to be “a shocking admission of a criminal conspiracy.” MSNBC legal analyst Paul Butler identified the crime as “conspiring with the U.S.’s sworn enemy to take over and subvert our democracy” and “what Donald Trump Jr. is alleged to have done is a federal crime.”

Again, this conspiracy theory is based on the simple disclosure that Trump Jr. wanted to see evidence of alleged crimes committed by Hillary Clinton in the campaign from the Russian lawyer.

Alternatively, some have suggested charging Trump with a conspiracy to hack a computer system if the Trump people knew that the Russians were actively hacking into Clinton or DNC computers. Of course, after spending millions of dollars and more than a year of investigation, charging a conspiracy to hack a computer would be like mounting a guppy in your trophy room. More important, after a year of multiple investigations (and endless leaks), there is no evidence of any coordination or direction to hack a computer system.


The most serious allegation in this investigation was possible obstruction by Trump in firing FBI director James Comey. As I have previously discussed, I supported the appointment of a special counsel in light of the firing and the need for an independent investigation into the troubling claims made by Comey. However, I stated (and remain convinced, as 2017 ends) that the available evidence falls well short of a strong case of criminal obstruction.

Nevertheless, former Watergate prosecutor Akerman declared in June (based solely on the evidence of the firing and Comey’s statements): “Our president is guilty of obstruction of justice for endeavoring to obstruct an FBI investigation.”

While I do not agree with those claiming that a president is immune from an obstruction charge in using his constitutional authority to fire a director, such a charge requires evidence of an intent to obstruct a grand jury or other pending proceeding. FBI investigations are not generally considered a pending proceeding. Again, this claim would allow the government to broaden the element of trying to “corruptly” influence to an extent never reached in any prior case. Trump had ample reason to fire Comey separate from the investigation, and Comey said Trump agreed that the Russian investigation should be allowed to reach an independent conclusion.

Despite this record, many continue to add new criminal acts to this pile. Just last week, Jill Wine-Banks, a former Watergate prosecutor, told MSNBC that Trump’s recent tweets criticizing the FBI and the investigation constitute new evidence of crimes. According to Wine-Banks, a president declaring his innocence, or denouncing charges as politically motivated, constitute “obstruction of justice, witness intimidation — and it’s obstructing justice.” She insisted that Trump was really “saying to agents, ‘You better not dig too deep, you better not find anything, because I will attack you.’ ”

Of course, there were no calls for criminal charges when the Clintons were denouncing a “vast right-wing conspiracy” or supported a campaign to discredit Independent Counsel Ken Starr. More importantly, such a charge would not only leave obstruction as virtually limitless in its definition but would contravene a host of constitutional principles.

Looking objectively at the year, the Trump team has lost little ground in any criminal defense. There have been four indictments or pleas. Paul Manafort and his deputy, Richard Gates, were indicted on 12 counts in what is called a “speaking indictment” — an indictment that discussed a variety of suspicious actions not actually charged. Those allegations could later be the subject of a superseding indictment but, conspicuously, did not include any reference to collusion or obstruction claims tied to Trump or his campaign. The guilty plea of George Papadopoulos, a former foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, did tangentially touch on the campaign in discussing Russian contacts; however, the crime was false statements made to the FBI, not the crimes proclaimed to be clear and established throughout the year.

The plea of Michael Flynn also dealt with his false statements, not any crime committed by Trump. Of course, we are all waiting to see what Flynn offered to secure a relatively good deal from Mueller. However, the narrative filed with the court again omitted any nexus to the long-discussed crimes involving Trump. These are not the crimes that motivated the opening of the various federal and congressional investigations.

In other words, 2018 is starting not far from where 2017 began: an investigation in search of a crime.

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


345 thoughts on “A Year Later, An Investigation In Search Of A Crime”

    1. Are you saying the rethuglican investigation was ineffective just perhaps she is innocent, there is that chance.

  1. Satanists Saudi Arabia, US, UK and Israel are committing war crimes in Yemen.
    Mass Murderer, Warmonger Trump is complicit in Yemen as he is in the other US / Israeli illegal wars.


    This is Buthaina the only member of her family not killed in a Saudi-led airstrike last week.



  2. Mueller wasn’t tasked to conduct a “Russia collusion investigation”. Rosy Rosenstein gave Muller the authority to investigate…
    (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
    associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
    (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
    (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
    So far, the four people indicted or pled guilty fall under Mueller’s purview and, given the surprise of Popodopolous, we don’t know for sure what else is down the pike.

  3. When Congress and the “Deep State” Agent in Charge, Obergruppenführer Robert Mueller, want the truth,

    they will grant immunity to and subpoena Julian Assange.

      1. “Not a chance…” that Obergruppenfuhrer Robert Mueller wants or intends to find the truth.

        You’re a genius!

  4. JT, you can go on and on with your lie, spin, distract, deflect and repeat line for your republiborg collective day after day. But the truth will come out. As for some of your readers, it very well seems that they could care less about the safety of this country. just as long as they get their far-right ideas into play. Some of them are downright racist and just willfully ignorant of fact and history. The alternate universe that Trump supporters are in right now is dangerous and virtually certifiable, Let the chips fall as they may with Trump, but our country can not and will not go on with such incompetent leaders of mass distortion.

      1. Da sheriff lives two blocks from me and he is democrat. Any T rumper stands by my house with a gun da sheriff will be right over and I will have you thrown in da clinker.

        1. Ken – the sheriff is going to end up dead on your front lawn, as are you when the revolution comes. Besides, what makes you think the sheriff will throw in with you when his life is on the line.

          1. There more like me in da blue town I live in. We welcome da immigrants and will put da armed white supremis in da jails.

              1. FishWings – I didn’t know you were trying to make a point. Went right by me.

          2. Paul C. Schulte said, “Ken – the sheriff is going to end up dead on your front lawn, as are you when the revolution comes.”

            Schulteacher, you just crossed L4D’s redline. Put the winky face on next time.

            1. Diane — if you have not thought out the possibilities of a Revolution, you should and you should consider where your place is going to be in that Revolution.

      2. Fat chance. Your types are timid, fearful and cowering. All you know in your little ossified cocoon are old, scared, white people, and are terrified of anything or anyone new or different. You, and your types—don’t and won’t say a word or do anything to anyone in real life. Keyboard ninjas are pathetic, and make me puke.

        This is to “Merica was a better place when those people weren’t so uppity” pauli

  5. You sure you aren’t spending more time at Breitbart, professor? /years and years of Hillary witch hunts by GOP, or should I say ‘investigations’ by GOP that have shown nothing criminal but the trumpsters still expel ‘lock her up!’ for some conspiracy about uranium and Russia. If the GOP can have their conspiratorial, partisan kangaroo courts, or should I say ‘investigations’ of Hillary for 20 years then let trump have his day in court. Is it more important to find out if Russians meddled in election with help of trump surrogates than it is to find out if some ‘dangerous’ liberal contributed to Clinton Foundation? It’s been less than a year for the trump russia thing, but it took more than a year to start showing blossoms on Watergate. You are now free to return to your trump propaganda Fox News, Breitbart, infowars channels.

    1. Uh – I hate be the voice of reason for a troll like our POTUS, but Hillary actually did those things, it wasn’t a ‘witch hunt’. He may be clueless in the extreme, but Trump is actually cleaner than our previous three presidrnts and virtually all of our recent nominees. We have laws, and we don’t get to punish someone in this country merely because we do not like them very much.

      Both left and right have their issues at present, but a year later dems are still coming off as having a grade school temper tantrum bordering on a pshychotic break. Though he is certainly peurile in many ways, the president isn’t the one that needs to grow up, all of *you* are. It’s a new year. Get back to the life you inturrupted last year with the phantasms that you yourselves created. We are all, presumably, grownups here.

  6. What this entire investigation has proven to be is a Rorschach Test of our body politic and if the results prove anything, it is that progressivism and constitutionalism will never be compatible. I believe Dr. Larry Arnn of HIllsdale College understands this divide in a very objective way. Of course he is conservative, but he doesn’t attack people as much as he attacks ideas. I like his style; he is an educator and a statesman. This is from an interview he had with Hugh Hewitt just after the 2012 election:

    The experts who run the modern bureaucratic state think they are architects of a perfectly rational society. They think of themselves as scientists, and of the running of government as something more like science—the science of administration—than politics. They think they can coordinate society comprehensively so that no one is left out. That’s why they think of their work as something good and as something high. The problem is that what they are trying to do defies human nature—the human nature that led James Madison to write famously that men are not angels, and that led the Framers of the Constitution to divide government in order to limit government—and so what these experts are doing will ultimately lead to despotism.

    But to speak directly to your question, Hugh, there are many indications that there’s a deep and even intensifying opposition to bureaucratic government today. People don’t like it, and they don’t trust it. They want less of it. And I don’t believe that yesterday’s election signified any change in that. Now, how to harness that opinion politically is the challenge. No one yet has been able to capitalize upon it.

    President Trump is no statesman and I trust Dr. Arnn would reject his style. That being said, I believe the 2016 election results are a reflection of what Dr. Arnn said in that 2nd paragraph. And I believe what we’ve discovered is we have good people on both sides of this divide with very different ideas on how government should function. This is our 2nd civil war and it is over whether we are to be a country run by a political elite not subject to the rule of law or one that holds everyone accountable to the rule of law.

    1. Damn right da crooked mobster T rump ain’t no statesman. Follow da money. Da Mueller is. DB bank is just da starting point.

      1. Statesmen got us into the war in Iraq and told the Russian Prime Minister that after the election he’d have more flexibility. Thank God Trump ain’t no statesman.

        If the investigation is all about DB, what happened to Russian collusion? Admit it, Mueller is simply working on behalf of the DNC.

        1. Da DNC is better off with putsy grabbin agent orange around. Gives em a better chance at pickin up some seats. Da USA is worse off with this corrup authoritaria in da power house.

          1. How da ya feel bout latest revelation dat da NYT done gave HRC 9 days notice of her emails being leaked so she be knowin about it?

            And how come, if those leaked emails came from Russia the first place they arrived was the New York Times? Sounds like da collusion.

    2. Olly, re “This is our 2nd civil war and it is over whether we are to be a country run by a political elite not subject to the rule of law or one that holds everyone accountable to the rule of law”

      Spot on – I just wish more folks realized this!

        1. Olly, he might call you myopic, but what do you expect from one who is brain dead? 🙂

    3. We clearly do not hold everyone accountable to the rule of law. Where is James Comey right now? Where is Reality Leigh Winner right now? They both did exactly the same thing. I won’t even go into the classified emails on a server that went to Heaven knows who – Anthony Weiner had classified material on his home computer and we know what kinds of activities he was engaged in. Then there’s DWS and Arwan. She had the nerve to threaten the chief of the US Capitol Police all the while she had Arwan and his crew violating who knows how many federal laws.

      In parallel, Mueller continues to run a boundless investigation predicated on faulty data and designed to influence the 2018 election on behalf of the Democrat Party. Will Mueller’s investigation eventually find something? It will and it won’t be remotely connected to Russia. Simple fact is, if anyone was ever subjected to a boundless endless investigation, eventually something would turn up. “Have you ever stolen anything”, they investigator asks. You reply “no” and are then stunned to be read your rights because the pen on your desk is one you brought home from work and thus, you just lied to the investigator. This is gestapo stuff.

      1. andrewworkshop – Arwan’s court date has disappeared for the court calendar. Which can mean several things however the best of those is he is rolling over on DWS.

      2. Whatever you dudes are gettin paid to discredit Mueller is too much. Ya say da same thing every day.

        1. Ken – the anti-Trump sycophants on here are doing the same. You are just not noticing it.

  7. Might as well ask the question that always goes along with this topic. For all of you pro-deep state Muelleristas and Clintonistas: Let’s say this time next year Trump is impeached. What happens next?

    (I’ll pretend to be astonished that not a one of you can articulate a response).

    1. The legal remedy is “President Mike Pence.” The practical value in that is that we have a far better chance of avoiding a nuclear war, and that our diplomatic corps and alliances can still be repaired.

      1. “we have a far better chance of avoiding a nuclear war, and that our diplomatic corps and alliances can still be repaired.”

        Obama created a vacuum that was being filled by our enemies and terrorists. Trump has dramatically reduced that vacuum which was leading to a worse world with the risk of war higher in the future. It is true that any sudden change can increase short term problems, but if done correctly can improve the over all future.

        Look at it this way. You have serious heart disease that is killing you. You can take the immediate risk and potentially live a long life by permitting surgery where the immediate risks go up slightly but the long term risks provide you a longer and healthier life.

    2. Please post and discuss more about this “deep state” collection of ne’er-do-wells who are obviously hell-bent on fluoridating our precious bodily fluids.

      This is to “conspiracies are all around, dontcha know” shoppie

  8. I’d go so far as to question the legality of these special counsels. It seems highly questionable to appoint a special counsel and allow him to dither away $2 million per month without scope or focus. Before the usual suspects claim that I’m biased, I’d say the same thing about the special counsel that investigated Bill Clinton. Back then, it started at Whitewater and ended up with cigars and DNA on a blue dress. A special counsel is predicated upon the inability of the person being investigated to prove a negative – it’s impossible to prove a negative.

    1. The problem is that no one can credibly investigate him/herself. By way of example, see how well that the Catholic Church and our own federal judiciary and Department of Justice (see, Bradley Schlozman) have done it. And if even one man is above the law, there is no law. You have to have some way to investigate even the President.

      The ideal solution is to create an entity with near-absolute independence by constitutional amendment. But failing that, the current system is adequate.

      Everyone seemed to agree that Mueller was the perfect choice. And he has run an amazingly tight ship, w/ some of the best specialists on the planet. The minute he heard about Strzok, he was gone. What more can you ask from a prosecutor? Sure, he has ex-Obama people on board. So what? Should we limit the pool of investigators to those who have sworn an oath of loyalty to The Donald? To even state the case is to refute it.

      Your better system is?

      1. “The minute he heard about Strzok, he was gone.”

        Strzok was gone, but did Mueller immediately notify Congress? He didn’t. Look at the other members of the team and look at the leadership of the FBI. Something smells awfully bad for it seems our FBI became politicized during the previous administration just like the IRS became politicized.

        Special counsels are created to investigate a crime. This investigation is unable to name a crime even though loads of “crimes” were committed that should have been stopped at their onset or investigated in the previous administration. It seems that enforcement of crimes is a politicized one way street and so far the Mueller investigation hasn’t revealed any proven facts implicating the President.

        1. Fibbies are notorious lefties, everyone at Pravda Faux News says so.

          This is to “I think Hannity is speaking to me through my flatscreen” allan

          1. Marky can’t separate truth from fiction. Understandable since the past administration was so corrupt.

            I’ll repeat one of the things I said so that Marky can concentrate on fewer words, “for it seems our FBI became politicized during the previous administration just like the IRS became politicized.” Does Marky know what that sentence means? Are the words too big for him? I hope someone sent him a dictionary as a Christmas present.

      2. LD re “The minute he heard about Strzok, he was gone.” No, he was simply shifted over to another position – in HR where he can screen potential personnel to see if they hold his political POVs.

  9. The lack of “public evidence” of a crime is exactly as it is supposed to be. Mueller is conducting his investigation and keeping his cards close to his vest. Certainly, there are many on the left delving into wild speculation and hysteria (Richard Painter would be an example) and they should be tuned out. Perhaps not even given a forum. There is, in my opinion, an even greater number on the right taking every step they can to block an investigation and taint any result. The ones screaming about the corrupt FBI fit that bill. The FBI has always been and continues to be far more right leaning than left.

    For those of us who lived through Watergate, this investigation seems to be moving incredibly fast. There is enough public information to suggest several more members of the campaign/administration have at least lied to the FBI and one might eventually wonder what they were all lying about. My opinion of what they may or may not be guilty of doesn’t matter, we are all likely to see soon enough. There is no question that many are going to be greatly disappointed no matter the outcome.

    Happy New Year to all!

    1. Enigmainblack said, ” . . .one might eventually wonder what they were all lying about. My opinion of what they may or may not be guilty of doesn’t matter, we are all likely to see soon enough.”

      Enigma, your opinion may not matter in a court of law, but your opinion remains of vital importance to this here blawg. You are the best defender of the Russia investigation we’ve got. If they have nothing to hide, they ought not to have anything to lie about, either. Besides, where an investigation starts and where an investigation ends need not be foreseen at square one, step one, day one. Given the history of special counsels, it appears that the sky’s the limit. (IMO, This couldn’t’ve happened to a sweller bunch of fellas).

      1. Diane – Mueller and his over-sized team are eating up a lot of tax dollars, that we could be using saving baby seals.

        1. $3.2 million thus far for Mueller. $79.4 million for Ken Starr. That’s almost twenty-five times as much for Whitewater as for “The Russia thing–you know, with Trump and the Russians.”

          1. The last link has the highest figure–$6.7 million in the first 4 & 1/2 months. That yields $1.49 million/month. Which yields $17.87 million/year. Now let’s see andrewworkshop’s source for his figure.

          1. Happy New Year, Ken! The Secret Service works hard for three hots and a flop. We owe it to them. The fact that Trump collects on the bill is merely unfortunate. Strike that. Galling.

          2. Ken – nobody spent more tax dollars entertaining their skinny ass than Obama.

              1. David Benson – try reading the costs for his plane trips for his vacations.

                1. T rump hates da dogs and da kids. He likes to play da golf and grab da women he ain’t married to.

                  1. You’re thinking about our first black President Bill Clinton. And you failed to mention, Trump isn’t collecting a paycheck for being President unlike his predecessors.

                2. Andrew, maybe that is because Michelle like a lot of people can’t stand Barack and the dog can’t stand either of them. 🙂

            1. And don’t forget eight years of epic White House parties with every celebrity athlete, movie star and entertainer that Barack Obama ever wanted to meet. A friend was a server and a bartender at all those Obama parties and in his words, “they tore it up” with party after party at the White House. That is, when they were not flying on Air Force One to their next luxury vacation in Hawaii, Martha’s Vineyard, skiing in Aspen, golf in Palm Springs, etc.

        2. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. Benghazi. Benghazi. Benghazi, Benghazi. And did l mention Benghazi?

          Wake me up when this investigation comes close to that one.

          1. …And you shouldn’t forget Benghazi along with Hillary Clinton’s attitude that demonstrates she is not fit to lead.

            1. Well then you should vote to impeach her. Quickly, before she does any more harm as President.

              1. Well then you should vote to impeach her.
                In your view, justice is served by election results and not the rule of law. How progressive of you.

              2. Isn’t impeachment of Trump intended to put HRC in office? If not, why is the left so excited at the prospect of a Pence, Ryan, or Hatch administration?

                1. AWW – diehard Dems have an irrational hatred of Trump which is fueled by the MSM. They don’t realize that Pence is the choice of the corporate Establishment. Hello TPP goodbye sovereignty.

                  1. Autumn, I think you will find this debate about BDS interesting. The debate is between two leftists Cornell West and Alan Dershowitz where both were very respectful of one another and to the debate . Neither of the two are on my side of the political aisle.

                2. Nobody is excited about da Pence other than that he isn’t Puties agent orange.

                  1. That wasn’t the question. The question was, why do you support Pence, Ryan, and Hatch.

                    A corollary: if Trump is partnered with Putin, what’s been the result?

                3. HRC in office? More conspiracy theater? Obama was going to declare marshal law so that he could have 3 terms?

                  Workshop- you’re just messing’ with this blog. Gotta give it to you for staying in character.

                  1. As far as Obama declaring marshal law or whatever I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you suggesting that if Trump is impeached HRC gets to be POTUS? Do you actually know what happens AFTER a Trump impeachment?

                  2. Happy New Year, Linda. And congratulations for beating Schulte to top poster. It couldn’t’ve happened to a sweller fella.

                    1. Happy New year to you too, L4D. I don’t get the weird mentality of blog commenters like Michael and workshop who state that people who actually contribute to GDP don’t belong in the U.S. while those who do belong here, are men, like the WH’s Mnuchin, part of the financial sector, that rips off the country by dragging down GDP.

                      I guess it’s that, through the looking glass phenomenon, that makes up, become down…. as an example, Republicans self-identifying as patriotic, while they outsource jobs, pass laws giving global corporations dominion over the U.S. and allow them to skirt the bills for national security with tax avoidance, etc.

                    2. ” Republicans self-identifying as patriotic, while they outsource jobs, pass laws giving global corporations dominion over the U.S. and allow them to skirt the bills for national security with tax avoidance, etc.”

                      Amazing Linda. You sound like Trump. He wants to diminish the outsourcing of jobs and stop giving global corporations dominion over the US along with stopping foreign countries from exerting dominion over the US.

                      You talk out of two sides of your mouth at the same time. Not many people can do that.

              3. “you should vote to impeach her.”

                Since she is now a private citizen we won’t be voting to impeach her. Instead she could face indictment and conviction. However, that is not the most important thing that needs to be done.

        3. We probably need to be funneling more money into Trump’s Voter Fraud Commission as well. I hear everyone takes private or military planes to the meetings. Helicopters if less than 20 miles.

      2. I suppose what I meant was that I didn’t want to expend the energy convincing those who see nothing that mine is the correct view. It will hopefully all come out in the wash although efforts will be made to hide the results.

        One thing about Watergate was the number of public hearings where the American people got to see much of the evidence. Hoping we get to that stage.

      3. “Enigma, your opinion may not matter in a court of law, but your opinion remains of vital importance to this here blawg. You are the best defender of the Russia investigation we’ve got. ”

        Not demeaning Enigma, but if his arguments are the best you have got then you are in a lot of trouble. The type of linkage Enigma has brought forward is the type of evidence they used to use to lynch black people in the south which didn’t enhance America’s reputation for having a fair legal system.

        ” If they have nothing to hide, they ought not to have anything to lie about, either.”

        Said by a true Stalinist. Anytime Stalin had a gripe against anyone he too felt they should have nothing to hide, but something was always found and that led to 20-30million dead and many committed to slave labor camps.

        Take note how the investigation expands to look for criminality and if someone is actually convicted it will be due to a questionable mistruth about something not related to the criminality being searched for. At that point one has to wonder if the “admitted criminality” was due to the person running out of money while the government spent millions trying to convict. This is horrible abuse of law.

        1. So Allan still hasn’t looked up the word “agonistic” in a dictionary. If somebody says that Trump associates ought not to have anything to lie about, The Great Agoniste, Allan, accuses that person of mass murder. If that “mass murderer” compliments a black man for the importance of his contributions to this blawg, The Great Minstrel Trouper, Allan, accuse that black man of lynching black men. Is it possible that Allan lacks awareness of this own thoughts? Or is it something else?

          1. Diane – even for you, this para does not make sense. Correct and repost.

            1. Paul, that paragraph is about Allan. It’s not really possible to post a paragraph about Allan that would make much sense. Now go look up the word “agonistic” in a dictionary, Schulteacher.

              1. Diane – I already have a wide vocabulary. I know what the word means, Do you know what the word means?

              2. Diane, I am logical and you are not and that is why you have so much difficulty dealing with our disagreements. You also have trouble with numbers and maybe even a faded memory.

                1. Oxymoron- a claim to possession of logic coupled with a shot gun spewing of the label, “Stalinist”.

                  1. If the label fits wear it. If you believe differently then explain it. You just like to utter talking points one after the other without understanding what you are saying.

                    Stalinist is a good word to use when people act a certain way. You just don’t like the term because it is associated with the death of 20 to 30 million people and that forces you to think.

                    1. “And, there it is again… “stalinista”, never gets old for Allan.”

                      Linda, you and your ideas get old, but the word Stalinist is still fresh in many minds though absent from the minds of illiterates.

                  2. Linda, Allan is competing with Squeeky for the post of Bulverist-In-Chief on the Turley blawg.

                    In case you missed it the first time, Bulverism is C. S. Lewis’s neologism for a particular sort of genetic fallacy in which one merely presumes that one’s interlocutor is wrong because of some identifying trait imputed to him or her that supposedly explains how he or she got to be so silly without the Bulverist ever bothering to demonstrate that the interlocutor actually is wrong.

                    As such, Bulverism remains by far and away the most common logical fallacy committed on this blawg.

                    1. L4D- appreciated your information and analysis
                      It explains why competitors for Bulverist-in-chief condemn bridges that start with an “interlocutor” and end with evidence they don’t like e.g. redistributed wealth that enabled six Walton heirs to amass an amount equivalent to 40% of Americans combined.

                    2. Diane, one might call your creation a ‘fallacy’.

                      You can’t stand it that Squeeky writes better than you, is smarter than you and is logical.

          2. Diane, you truly are Late 4 Dinner and late for everything else. In our law, not Stalins law which you seem to adhere to, evidence is required. Enigma has done his best to make the Trumps into racists and criminals. He has done a lousy job, but I don’t fault him for that because the evidence he needs in an American court doesn’t exist. He did the best he could under the circumstances. You, Diane, admit that Enigma despite his failed attempt at demonstrating Trump a criminal actor say that is the best evidence you got. I can weakly applaud Enigma for his effort where no case existed, but I can’t applaud your imbecility.

        2. IWB (Investment Watch Blog) provided some insight into the obsession of some guys in the extreme right wing with using the tag line “Stalinist” for random other people who disagree with the installment of a U.S. oligarchy of the richest 0.1%. It was written May 11, 2012, title, “Koch/Stalin….”

          1. Linda, during the 50’s a lot of people were Stalinists and when Kruschev released the information on Stalin they remained Stalinist but tried to hide it because they didn’t want to be associated with 20-30 million deaths and millions sent into slave labor.

            Those feelings haven’t changed, but some forget what Stalin stood for and become upset when faced with a mirror.

            1. Slave labor…uh…what is the percentage of Americans without health care, the number of children living in poverty, the number who don’t pay federal income taxes because their incomes aren’t high enough, the number receiving assistance with heating, food and housing costs…but, Allan, you won’t cross that bridge.

              1. The deaths of 20-30 million and the millions in slave labor all resulting from policies you seem to recommend have left that nation with vast disparities in income and one of the worst economies.

                Our social entitlements provide more money, goods, and services to our poor than many in the middle class have in other nations. Start comparing our poorest quintile to the middle-class of other nations. I’m not saying our poorer American citizens shouldn’t be doing better. They should, but the policies you seem to promote prevent them from having more. You and your ilk are the blame.

                The typical (not all) poor American has A/C, cable TV, car, multiple TV’s (color) etc. Compare that with other nations. Poor Americans have more living space than the those that are not poor and living in Germany or France.

            1. You’d think the Koch Foods Chicken Kiev would be better than it is–not good at all.

                1. Paul, Koch Foods Chicken Kiev is dry, tough, chewy and rubbery. The political affinities of The Kochs remain utterly incapable of changing those facts into their opposites. Because there are no magical powers, Schulteacher.

                  1. Diane – I think you would be hard-pressed to say any anything nice about the Koch Bros.

                    1. Whoa there, Paul. The Koch’s son has a passion for and, a very sunny disposition while hawking “money bag” shirts for disco use.

    2. “The FBI has always been and continues to be far more right leaning than left”.
      Peter Strzok was a key figure in both the Hillary email and the 2016 Russia/ election issue.
      I didn’t see a pro-Trump bias in any of his emails/ texts to his mistress, an FBI lawyer, or in her emails to him.
      Strzok has been re-assigned within the FBI.
      Deputy Director McCabe recently gave closed testimony before Congress….he is resigning this month, I think.
      McCabe was probably questioned about references to him in the Strzok/Strzok mistress emails.
      He was probably also questioned about FBI legal council James Baker’s contacts with David Corn of Mother Jones, the only publication that wrote about allegations in the Russian Dossier about before the election ( late October, 2016).
      James Baker has also been reassigned.
      With respect to the 2016 election, there is far more evidence of a pro-Hillary bias.
      When an organization like the FBI has top-level officials exhibiting a strong preference for one candidate over the other, and involves itself in campaign political issues, it’s a cause for concern.
      I don’t know how far the shake-up in the FBI will go, or what the public will ultimately learn re the activities and political leanings of top FBI officials.
      There may be a 1970s style review and reform of the agency to prevent a recurrance of the questionable 2016 political activities within the top levels of the FBI.

      1. Excellent points, Mr. Nash. However, none of those excellent points of yours can derail the Special Counsel’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. If you will recall, I had previously mentioned that Australia is part of The Five Eyes Alliance. And the tip-off to the FBI from the Australians just so happens to have been the starting point for the FBI’s counter-intelligence investigation of Russian attempts to cultivate Trump campaign officials. The Steele dossier came along later. And the prior intelligence from The Australians verified and corroborated key allegations in the Steele dossier.

        Consequently, it no longer matters how the FBI came by the Steele dossier. The FBI had already obtained sufficient intelligence from The Australians to start the investigation. Sorry, Tom. You’ve been working very hard on these issues of partisan politics unduly influencing the FBI’s investigation. It’s a shame that it doesn’t matter anymore.

        1. L4D,…
          For you to complain about “partisan politics” is hilarious.
          Given your stated disdain for facts, accuracy, and logic, I don’t plan on wasting much time of 2018 on you.
          I wrote about the key, top-level FBI officials who were politically involved on the 2016 election.
          I didn’t say a damn thing about “derailing the Special Council’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election”, and you know it.
          You repeatedly deflect and distort…..you muddy the waters with non-sequiters, then expect somebody else to come in with a strainer to clear things up.
          a You dismiss any ny “unpleasant” facts, and approve only of investigations that selectively target the “right” people.
          I will say that you have demonstrated skill in your way of distorting and derailing exchanges.
          You probably have a ton of experience as a slick, dublicitous hack.

          1. Tom, I’m glad to hear that you had no expectation of derailing the Special Counsel’s investigation. The facts you posted are, indeed, unpleasant. If you want that 1970’s style house-cleaning at the FBI and the DOJ, then I will raise no objections to it. BTW, the bulk of my experience comes from reading this here blawg.

          2. The “slick, duplicitous hack” and, big-bucks-funded, spin sector has been pretty much sewn up by the Koch’s State Policy Network/ State Budget Solutions and PR guys like Rick Berman and operatives like James O’Keefe?

            Tom, if the defense you select is the false equivalency to unpaid citizens and people and groups working on shoe string budgets cobbled together from small donations or to Steyer and Soros, give us the comparative amounts spent.

            Fans of democracy should take a look at the Exposed by the Center for Media and Democracy website.

        2. The FBI warned the DNC in SEPT. 2015 that one of their computers had been compromised.
          In Nov. 2015, the FBI alerted the DNC that information from their computer systems had been compromised, and was being sent back to Russia.
          Both the FBI and the DNC were aware of the threat before Papadoupalous revealed his knowledge of this in April 2016.
          The Special Counsel may have identified, and questioned, those who told Papadapolous about the Russians’ acquisition of the DNC emails.
          The ultimate charges/ findings related to Papadopoulus’ involvement in this should answer that question.
          Another question is why there were apparently no alarm bells, no effective counter-measures taken at the DNC to protect their information.
          I’d have to check the dates, but I don’t think that the DNC itself actually recognized that their systems had been compromised until the spring or summer of 2016.

          1. Thanks, Tom Nash. I appreciate it. As for your questions, beats me. Besides, I think it was the Department of Homeland Security that warned the DNC about the vulnerability of their email servers. The head of DHS, whose name escapes me, offered assistance to the DNC; but they turned it down–possibly because of the reputed paranoia of HRC. Apparently the spyware on the DNC system was HRC’s idea and it facilitated the Russian hacking. Go figure. You’re not going back to Ten Rapt Men, again; are you, Tom?

            1. L4D,…
              I haven’t checked out “Ten Rapped Men” yet.
              According to CNN and others, it was the FBI that notified the DNC of their IT security issues.
              There’s a CNN Timeline that reviews the key dates involving the DNC email issue.
              Title is something like ” CNN Fast Facts, The 2016 election hacking”.
              Comey testified that the FBI made numerous requests to examine the DNC computer system, but as far as I know, only private firms were allowed to do the monitoring of security, and the “post-mortem” after the DNC became aware of the scope of the security breach.
              On Prof. Mifsud, whose name has surfaced earlier in this thread, he appears to have “vanished”.
              A lot of people probably want to question this guy, but it evidently no one knows where he is.

              1. Thanks again, Tom. We may never see nor hear from Mifsud again. But my best guess is that Mifsud is currently sipping chai with Edward Snowden. BTW, if you’re going to do the Scrabble tile thing, then you have to spell it the same way I did.

            2. More proof we’re better off with HRC as far from the Oval Office as possible…if she can’t even pick good protective software my heavens what would happen when she lost the nuclear football while hiking stone drunk in the woods?

              1. Whereas, dining tables located in large areas open to party invitees at Mar a Lago, are secure? (sarcasm)
                How did Dowd tweet from Trump’s account producing a very Trump-like tweet which became an official public record attributed to Tump?
                Thanks for staying in character for your performance, workshop.

        3. Diane – it matters if the Obama administration used the dossier to get FISA wiretaps on Americans. And Manafort is not a reliable witness,

          1. Try to keep up, Paul. Stay fluid. The FBI had evidence independent of the Steele dossier that was used for the FISA warrants on Page and Manafort. The fact that that same independent evidence verified and corroborated key allegations in the Steele dossier in no way whatsoever entails that the Steele dossier was the basis for the FISA warrants. Stay fluid, Schulteacher.

            1. Diane – you have a dodgy report by a diplomat who was drinking in a London bar about someone who is not involved in the emails. It smells fishy to me. I would want to interview the diplomat.

              1. You can interview Alexander Downer right after we’re through giving him a ticker-tape parade.

            2. “Try to keep up, Paul. Stay fluid. The FBI had evidence independent of the Steele dossier that was used for the FISA warrants on Page and Manafort. ”

              Diane, that is opinion, not proof.The answer to the question ‘what permitted the FISA warrants’ has been dodged over and over again and now a new story is being woven. Eventually the actual warrant might turn up and then we will know for sure. In the meantime we all understand your type of Stalinist logic so I think all but the stupid can disregard what you say.

      2. I want a separate investigation wrt how Bonnie Parker Clinton skated. But that was within the FBI and DoJ, and another object lesson in why we need an independent counsel to investigate wrongdoing by those in the Executive Branch.

        Pretty much every higher-level functionary in our law enforcement system has close ties to one of the two Parties. Director Wray is a Republican partisan. Comey was a Republican, and his actions appeared to be the deciding factor in the past election. Don’t know how you fix it, other than through some form of special counsel.

      3. With respect to the 2016 Election, the reason Comey came out with the announcement of the re-opening of the Hillary investigation was that he knew he couldn’t keep it from leaking. Ask Rudy Guiliani what the FBI looks like?

        1. You see what I mean, Enigma? We just can’t get by without you. If for no other reason than that your memory is way far better most of the rest of us. But there are other reasons than that as well.

          1. “your memory is way far better most of the rest of us. ”

            That is right Diane and that is why you are Late 4 Dinner. You can’t remember dinner or even your real name. 🙂

    1. Late4Dinner:
      Pravda could not have done it any better. If the DNC emails were hacked in July by the Russians then how did Papdapoulos and the FBI know about the dirt IN MAY AND JUNE and use it to respectively tell the Aussies and apply for the rarely denied FISA warrant? Answer: Papa was talking about Hillary’s dirty 30,000 email dump and the FBI were relying on the paid trash they got from Steele in the dossier. For the Dem obstructionists time not only stands still it runs backwards.

      1. Mespo, when are you going to stop posting contrafactual statements on this blawg? The Russian hack of the DNC emails took place over the course of several months beginning well before the DNC became aware of the hack. Wikileaks did not post the 30,000 missing emails to which you now claim Mifsud and Papadopoulos were referring. That, in turn, means that Mifsud and the Russians did not have the 30,000 missing emails to which you refer. Which, in turn, once again, means that Mifsud could not have been referring to those emails when he told Papadopoulos that the Russians had thousand of emails that were damaging to Hillary Clinton. But, supposing otherwise, you know, for the sake of argument, why wouldn’t Wikileaks have posted those 30,000 emails–you know, the ones Trump practically begged them to post?

        Perhaps you’re too accustomed to underestimating elderly women.

        1. Actually, the first hack of DNC emails was in the summer of 2015 and the second hack in April 2016. The first hack was attributed to Cozy Bear. The second hack, to Fancy Bear. So the Russian Foreign Ministry could’ve told Mifsud about the emails from either one of those hacks; but the second hack in April would have been nearly contemporaneous with Mifsud informing Papadopoulos about the emails.

          1. Diane – no one, and that include Crowdstrike, was actually qualified to examine the DNC computers. They should have turned their computers over to the FBI, except they had a scam going on and the FBI might have blown the whistle.

        2. You show a keen grasp of nothing. The hacked emails were made public in July so Papa had no access until then unless, of course, he was a mentalist. The 30,000 emails were unavailable to anyone (including Wikileaks) since the “I’m With Her” Gang deleted them but Papa like all of Washington knew about the disregarded subpoena. That’s dirty in every American era except the present one, apparently. Oh, and I do appreciate elderly women usually. I just don’t appreciate am ex-Nazi surrogate who blithely and nihilistically* helped them confiscate the property from fellow Jews in Hungary. Why don’t you get your talking points straight with Heir George before venturing out into the blog-o-sphere where fools sometimes aren’t suffered gladly.

          *From 60 minutes:
          Kroft: “My understanding is that you went … went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.”

          Soros: “Yes, that’s right. Yes.”

          Kroft: “I mean, that’s — that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?”

          Soros: “Not, not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t … you don’t see the connection. But it was — it created no — no problem at all.”

          Kroft: “No feeling of guilt?”

          Soros: “No.”

          Kroft: “For example, that, ‘I’m Jewish, and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be these, I should be there.’ None of that?”

          Soros: “Well, of course, … I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was — well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in the markets — that if I weren’t there — of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would — would — would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the — whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the — I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of gu

          1. Turley said, “We are approaching 34,000,000 views and saw a roughly 20 percent increase in 2017 over our views in 2016. Those following the blog grew by roughly 25 percent and now stands at roughly 36,500 followers. We also saw a sizable increase in our international followers.”

            Roughly 36,500 blog followers read Mespo727272’s posts. You’d think he might be more cautious. Maybe he had some of Turley’s Schramsburg Crement. Or bought a case of it on Turley’s recommendation.

            In any case, here’s what Mespo’s saying now,”The hacked emails were made public in July so Papa had no access until then unless, of course, he was a mentalist.”

            Access? Mentalist? Mifsud told Papadopoulos in April of 2016 that the Russians had thousands of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton. The first hack of DNC emails was in the summer of 2015. The second hack was in April of 2016. The notion that Papadopoulos had no more “access” to those hacked DNC emails than any of the rest of us did until they were made public in July of 2016 in no way whatsoever entails that Papadopoulos would have had to have been a “mentalist” in order for Papadopoulos to guess that Mifsud was referring to the hacked DNC emails instead of the deleted SoS emails when Mifsud told Papadopoulos in April of 2016 that the Russians had thousands of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton.

            Of course, Mespo also said, “The 30,000 emails were unavailable to anyone (including Wikileaks) since the “I’m With Her” Gang deleted them but Papa like all of Washington knew about the disregarded subpoena.”

            So Papadopoulos could have thought that Mifsud was referring to the deleted SoS emails when Mifsud told Papadopoulos in April of 2016 that the Russians had thousands of emails that were damaging to Hillary Clinton. Because Papadopoulos also could have thought that the Russians had hacked those SoS emails at almost any time before it was reported that those SoS emails had been deleted. But then, since the deleted SoS emails were, in Mespo’s own words, ” unavailable to anyone (including Wikileaks),” it follows that Mifsud was not referring to the deleted SoS emails when Mifsud told Papadopoulos in April of 2016 that the Russians had thousands of emails that were damaging to Hillary Clinton.

            Thus, the best that Mespo can get is that Papadopoulos could have been mistaken about to which emails Mifsud was referring. Mespo cannot demonstrate, indeed, has not demonstrated that Mifsud was somehow referring to the deleted SoS emails. Because, as demonstrated, above, Mifsud could not have been referring to the deleted SoS emails. BTW, the Russians had the hacked DNC emails in April of 2016 when Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russians had thousands of emails damaging to Hilary Clinton.

            1. L4D:
              And all you have to do is prove your surmises are proof if wrongdoing
              and impeachment material. All I have to do is raise questions about your assumptions.

              1. Ah-ha! Go back and reread the post to which you replied. I stated that the deep-state conspiracy theory is now dead as a doornail. Elsewhere on this thread, I explain why that is so. I made no assertion of criminal wrongdoing nor impeachable offenses. There is, however, at least one hypothesis of criminal wrongdoing that I posted on this thread. Your claim about Papadopoulos is a mere possibility. Your initial reply attempted to palm that possibility off as though it were a logical necessity. By all means, Mespo, do cling desperately to your hopes.

            2. L$D:

              “But then, since the deleted SoS emails were, in Mespo’s own words, ” unavailable to anyone (including Wikileaks),” it follows that Mifsud was not referring to the deleted SoS emails when Mifsud told Papadopoulos in April of 2016 that the Russians had thousands of emails that were damaging to Hillary Clinton.”

              You coup de grace’ conclusion is a little short on “coup.”

              The SOS emails were unavailable and are still unavailable except the 17,000 or so the FBI found with classified info on them (despite HRC’s assertion to the contrary.) The fact that the SOS emails had been deleted in December 2014 was known to EVERYONE by March 2015 when HRC told us all about it via the press:


              Most sentient beings doubted HRC’s words in 2015 on the innocuousness of the email scrub except perhaps the lapdog press (but maybe the adjective modifying “beings” is the tell here).

              And as Jim Comey told the WaPo on July 5, 2016, the SOS emails on HRC’s private server were subject to hacking and there were lots of “hostile actors” out there trying to do just that. Presumably you’d agree the Russians were “hostile actors.”

              If Mifsud was referring to the SOS emails (revealed publicly as “deleted” in 2015) instead of the DNC emails (revealed publicly in July 2016) it still would make perfect sense in this context that folks talking about it in April 2016 were discussing SOS emails and not the as-yet-unknown DNC emails.

              Real facts are pesky things, L4D, even when Soros does his damndest to obfuscate them.

              1. Mifsud is a Russian operative with established ties to the Russian Foreign Ministry. Mifsud knew exactly to which emails he was referring. Papadopoulos might have been confused on the subject. But so what?

                I’m not trying to demonstrate coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians at this juncture. I’m only demonstrating a sound national security basis for the FBI counter-intelligence investigation into Russia’s attempts to cultivate Trump campaign officials. The tip-off from the Australians is that sound national security basis for the Russia investigation.

                It’s up to Mueller, now, to prove coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Flynn and Papadopoulos are already cooperating witnesses. And, in the course of the Special Counsel’s ongoing investigation, Mueller could still uncover almost anything else besides, or in addition to, coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian election meddling.

                  1. At an Alzheimer’s nursing home where she could better relate to people and where no one will remember anything she says.

      2. P. S. Mespo, the FBI didn’t know what Mifsud told Papadopoulos until The Aussies told the FBI shortly after Wikileaks began posting the emails. Mifsud told Papadopoulos in April. Papadopoulos told Downer in May. The Australians told the FBI in July. As for the FISA warrant, are you referring to the warrant for Carter Page or the warrant for Paul Manafort? Because those warrants have different timelines and different sources of evidence as well.

        1. Roughly 36,500 blog-followers read Allan’s posts as well. What gluttons for punishment they all must be. I wouldn’t wish Allan on my worst enemy. Did you read that Mespo727272???

          1. ” I wouldn’t wish Allan on my worst enemy. ”

            Thank goodness you feel that way for I would hate to be considered a friend of a Stalinist.

              1. It doesn’t get old because Stalinist type behavior hasn’t disappeared from many on the left.

              1. Diane, the problem is that you believe what you say to be true or fact when it false or opinion. I don’t have to make that assumption. You continuously prove it when you cannot adequately document what you say or as with our policeman’s risk argument you make an absolute fool of yourself trying to prove something that is ridiculous. Thank goodness for your son who explained to you why you were wrong. If it weren’t for your son you probably would have continued to make an as$ of yourself to this date on that subject because you are totally unable to deal with numbers and logic.

          1. From Bulverism by C. S. Lewis:

            Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is “wishful thinking.” You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant — but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.

          2. More on Bulverism.

            Lewis wrote about this in a 1941 essay which was later expanded and published in The Socratic Digest under the title “Bulverism”. This was reprinted both in Undeceptions and the more recent anthology God in the Dock. He explains the origin of this term:

            You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.

            In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it “Bulverism”. Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — “Oh you say that because you are a man.” “At that moment”, E. Bulver assures us, “there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.” That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.

    2. Hardly. You should be ashamed of yourself for accepting this pathetic NYT piece as truth. Did you even read it? I did. No-named sources (probably McCabe, Comey, and Strzok). Some Maltese professor (not making it up). It is clear that the dossier was the insurance policy McCabe and Strzok met about in FBI headquarters. Know what happens if that insurance policy is revealed as a sham? Everything Mueller’s investigation has found becomes inadmissable because the warrant that generated information was granted under false pretenses. People like you know the dossier is about to be exposed as a sham…so enter from stage left, some weird NYT items informed by anonymous sources and complete with Aussies, Maltese professors, and George P binge drinking and talking himself up at a London bar.

      1. andrewworkshop said, “It is clear that the dossier was the insurance policy McCabe and Strzok met about in FBI headquarters.”

        No it’s not. The insurance policy is a metaphor. Strzok wanted McGabe and the FBI to go public before the election with the fact that the FBI was investigating Russian attempts to cultivate Trump campaign officials. McGabe and the FBI refused to go public with their investigation before the election; because they assumed that Clinton would win the election. Strzok’s comment about the insurance policy was a counterargument holding that the risk of Trump winning the election was greater than the risk of maintaining silence about the FBI investigation before the election. Strzok lost that argument. And now the Congressional Republicans want to exploit Strzok’s insurance policy statement to oust McGabe who refused to heed Strzok’s advise. Content yourselve’s with the dramatic irony of that reversal of fortune.

        1. L4D:
          McCabe’s already run up the White Retirement Flag and Strzok looks to be chasing Moose poachers in Denali in the foreseeable future. The swamp is not so impenetrable as once believed.

    3. NYT fake newz. Moon of Alabama nails it as usual….

      “In July 2016 the FBI under its director James Comey launched an investigation against the Donald Trump campaign and “Russian influence” on it.

      Comey and the FBI is under pressure to explain why they launched this investigation. The assumption has been that the Steele dossier, fabricated by a former British agent hired by the Clinton campaign, was handed to the FBI and led to the launch of its investigation.

      If that is true (as it likely is), the FBI and Comey are in deep trouble. The dossier was full of hearsay and abstruse rumors. It was obviously made up and fake stuff paid for by Trump’s opponent. To use it to launch an investigation and to get FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign stinks of partisan motives and may well have been a criminal offense.

      On Saturday the New York Times came up with a story that is designed to usher the question away and to give cover to the FBI.

      The headline already tells the reader what to believe: How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt

      See – it wasn’t the Clinton paid Steele dossier that triggered the FBI!

      The NYT presents a wild story, with epic details and with lots of obfuscation to confuse the reader. At the core is a minor member of the Trump campaign, George Papadopoulos, who was mostly in London while communicating via email with the campaign staff in the U.S. Papadopoulos advised on foreign policy and tried to build contacts between the campaign and foreign government officials. (He helped to set up a meeting between candidate Trump and the President of Egypt Sisi.)”

      NYT Writes Epic Cover For Comey’s FBI – Its Sole Source: “Officials Said”


  10. Some of these lefties and uniparty hacks (Kaine, Blumenthal, Jill Wine-Banks, Painter) make Joseph McCarthy seem in retrospect like a careful moderate.

  11. I would have guessed the revolution of the progressive socialists against the United States of America as taking first place. but the one you mentioned will do for starters.

  12. There has been so much talk and speculation about the Russia issue that we need an independent investigation. The country needs to know what happened, Even if Muller concludes that there was no wrongdoing by Trump, then I would consider all of this to be worthwhile so that we can move on. To us non-partisans, it is not about finding a crime or taking down Trump, it is about getting to the truth as best we can.

    1. Molly as a non-partisan how do you feel about investigating Hillary Clinton and even the Obama White House that made the IRS into a political weapon?

      1. Issa’s committee did the investigation of the IRS. It did not involve Hillary Clinton.

        1. “Issa’s committee did the investigation of the IRS. It did not involve Hillary Clinton.”

          Swarthmoron, read more carefully.

          “even the Obama White House that made the IRS into a political weapon?”

      2. Clinton is dirty and has been investigated over and over again. As for the IRS, ya, that should be looked into. As far as I can tell, the IRS did act improperly, but the underlying issue of political groups improperly claiming to be tax exempt non-profits is quite real.

        1. Molly

          Both the Department of Justice and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration investigated the IRS’s actions and issued reports in which they criticized the IRS. But the reports concluded that there was no political influence from above. In other words, the mistakes were self-induced.

          The problem was that IRS established an administrative rule which allowed 501(c)(4) organizations to engage in political activities if those activities were less than half of the organization’s activities, while the statute says that 501(c)(4) organizations should not engage in any political activities.

          The IRS set themselves up for failure by failing to enforce the law as written. The “50 percent” Rule is an unworkable Rule. Zero tolerance, which is the law, is more workable. But it is difficult to enforce the law as written when you have been telling people it is ok to violate the law as long as you don’t cross the (completely unenforceable) 50 percent threshold.

          Republicans have been screaming foul because they are afraid that the law will be enforced as written. And many on this blog mindlessly repeat their talking points without looking at the facts.

          I don’t have the links to the reports handy but google is your friend.

        2. Molly, Clinton was never placed under oath and the investigations all appear to have been shabby. Yes, there have been multiple accusations of Clinton because she has been accused of many different actions that weren’t appropriate or legal. The first one that needs to be looked at is her foundation where rules set by Obama were broken. The uranium scandal should be looked at while we look at all Russian involvement and that goes along with the investigation of her foundation. We shouldn’t forget to look into Debbie Wasserman Shultz as well and find out how much secret information was sent out of the country by the IT person that worked for so many Democrats.

          While conservative groups were awaiting their IRS designations for years leftist groups were getting the same certifications on a regular basis.

          1. Speaking of the Clinton Foundation, remember how the left was awash in praise for all the good the foundation allegedly was doing around the world? If it was doing so much good, I wonder why the Clintons shut it down after election day 2016 – not very humaniarian of them.

            1. Right Andrew. Remember the Clinton Foundation involvement in Haiti? I have met a lot of Haitians and always ask them what they think of the Clintons since they supposedly sent charity to Haiti. I have yet to meet one that didn’t curse the Clinton’s and call them self serving thieves. I was quite surprised that to date all of them hit the nail on the head since I didn’t think most of them would know.

            2. They ran out of inventory, so they had to shut it down. Nothing left to sell.

  13. Mueller should consult with Trump’s Obama investigative team based on Hawaii. Unbelievable things they are finding, believe me. An announcement regarding an announcement will be announced next week. People are talking, you know this.

    That said, there’s no collusion. Never was. But, there are Russian oligarchs and banks controlled by Putin who fund the bulk of Trump’s tacky licensing empire. Hence the constant subtle fawning.

    1. Actually I do not believe you as you have offered nothing to believe but the overwhelming lack of anything to support such a belief. But please keep it up. You are presenting a perfect face for the mid term voters to dwell on as they wonder why do so many keep referring to them as the Stupid Party. Then realize it’s because ..the only evidence needed is comments like yours and the propagandists posiing as journalists.

    2. Dave137 said, “But, there are Russian oligarchs and banks controlled by Putin who fund the bulk of Trump’s tacky licensing empire.”

      Excellent observation, Dave. Mueller subpoenaed Deutsche-Bank’s records on Trump as well as records about a wide array of real-estate deals that Trump had made. They say that real-estate is well suited to money-laundering schemes. And Mueller hired four FinCen agents from the Treasury Dept. Nobody solves a Where’s Vlad puzzle the way FinCen does. We know from previous experience that the starting point of an investigation is often far removed from the ending point of an investigation. Mull, Bobby, mull.

    3. “But, there are Russian oligarchs and banks controlled by Putin who fund the bulk of Trump’s tacky licensing empire.”

      Dave137, Interesting, but one has to ask where is your proof. You realize of course that most of Trump’s investments were heavily investigated before the creation of any of his properties especially the gaming properties (This is usual for all such projects by any promoter or builder). Therefore, you have available to you resources that are extraordinary, but never demonstrated anything that you claim.

      How does one categorize a claim that doesn’t include evidence that would be available. A lie? How would one categorize the claimant?

  14. 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. To add to the professors comments US Code Title 18- Section 798 is the crime we are waiting see used. Were Mewler doing his job or was he capable of doing his job that would have been filed some months ago… except for dare I say it… the obvious collusion which is not a crime… but intent is not a defense for 18-798 either. In fact it’s not even an element of that crime.

        1. If Trump used his real-estate empire to launder any dirty money for any Russians, then the Russians have compromising information about Trump that the Russians can leverage to extort favorable policies from a sitting POTUS. The best way out of that dilemma, for all concerned, is the public exposure of whatever compromising information the Russians might have about whatever real-estate deals with Russians Trump might have made. And that just so happens to be both what Trump adamantly denies and what Trump has declared off limits to Mueller. If Trump has nothing to hide, then why has Trump declared his business dealings off limits to Mueller?

          1. By your logic Hillary Clinton shouldn’t have even been a nominee for President given that Clinton financial interests around the world offered a potential for blackmail against her administration.

            It is evident the Russians don’t have anything on Trump because Trump has been tougher on Putin than the previous administration ever was.

            Trump a) hasn’t declared his business dealings off limits but b) would be right to do so. What is the charter of the special counsel?

            1. Trump and Clinton were both under investigation by the FBI. We only knew about Clinton. Why was that? Did Comey protect Trump?

                  1. SWM – Larry Tribe is totally crazy. DC is a liberal city, they would vote Hillary, as would the surrounding counties. I think they were scared to death of Trump, at least at the top level.

                    1. Larry Tribe is a con law professor at Harvard. He lives in Boston..He is not “crazy”.

                    2. swarthmore-
                      Tribe and Lessig, IMO, shouldn’t have weighed in, in an amicus brief in the Vergara case (Calf.). Their brief submitted to the court was on Shook, Bacon letterhead. Fortunate for the middle class, the verdict went the other way.

                    3. Correct grammar would have involved using the word “fortunately” instead of “fortunate”. I’m sure in your mind – those narrow confines – proper grammar is a Trump-construct designed to advance Russian objectives and oligarchs. You Linda are of course an ocholocrat.

                    4. andrewworkshop said, ” You Linda are of course an ocholocrat.”

                      The word is spelled ochlocracy. There are no individual ochlo-crats in an ochlocracy. So what’s up with this business about correct grammar, ninny na-na Andy???

          2. ” to launder any dirty money for any Russians”

            Hundreds of millions of dollars are in Hillary’s and Bill’s accounts while Diane is still looking for laundered money that would compromise someone she doesn’t like. Where does the Clinton money come from? Almost their entire work careers have been in government. I didn’t realize government salaries were that high.

          3. “If Trump used his real-estate empire to launder any dirty money for any Russians, then ”

            He didn’t, but we know that Hillary has obtained hundreds of millions of dollars under fishy circumstances.

        2. Huh? Nothing has come out of Mueller’s office. The “leaks” are from parties not bound by that statute.

          As for the investigation itself, remember that impeachable offenses ≠ federal crimes. Should it be found that Dolt45 is being blackmailed by Putin, it is something we as a nation need to know. Pressure points? Money- laundering. Capital infusion upon his financial collapse in 2009. Underage girls (see the Epstein case). There is a reason why DT doesn’t want us to see his tax returns.

    1. Paul C. Schulte said, “I think they will spend 2018 in search of a crime.”

      And DeeJay Trump will spend 2018 in search of a new cover story; because the magnificent Australians have put the kibosh on the “Crooked FBI, Lock ‘Em Up,” storyline.

      You see, Schulteacher, Professor Mifsud told Papadopoulos the Russians had emails damaging to Hillary Clinton in April 2016. Papadopoulos told Autralian diplomat, Alexander Downer, what Mifsud had told him in May 2016. Wikileaks began posting the emails in July 2016. The Australians told The FBI what Papadopoulos told Downer immediately after Wikileaks posted the emails. The FBI launched its investigation of Russian election meddling immediately after the tip from Australia and before the Steele dossier came their way. But later when Steele did file intel reports with the FBI, the previous intel from the Australians verified and corroborated key allegations in the Steele dossier.

      Way to go, Five Eyes Alliance. Way to go! Our cousins are the best cousins ever.

      1. Diane – so Wikileaks has stated time and again, they did not get the emails from the Russians. You really ought to see the kind of babble that goes on in diplomatic cables. Half the time they are right, half the time they are wrong.

        1. Paul, Wikileaks is a hostile non-state actor. You’re free to lend credulity to Julian Assange, if you simply must; but why would you, Paul? Just because he’s telling you what you want to hear at the moment? The original connection between Wikileaks and the Russians remains one Edward Snowden. There are likely to be further connections between Wikileaks and the Russians since Snowden.

          P. S. How else would Mifsud know that the Russians had thousands of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton that were subsequently posted on Wikileaks, if their were no connection between Wikileaks and the Russians? Coincidence???

          1. And not to put too fine a point on it, but what if the little Maltese Professor Joseph Mifsud is the connection between the Russians and Wikileaks? So much for coincidence, in that case.

        2. “You really ought to see the kind of babble that goes on in diplomatic cables.” — PCS

          A typical snarky PCS non-sequitur; as if PCS has read diplomatic communications for years, and as if this silly statement of his has any bearing on L4D’s timeline right above.

          Oh, I can hear it now, he’s researched all the publicly available encrypted communications from WWII and is stunned at the resources that were wasted with off-topic banter.

          PCS is an expert on most everything, and when he’s not he will pull one of these maneuvers out from some fallow part of his brain, convinced it represents the epitome of cleverness.

          What a pompous boor.

          1. WWAS – I have read quite a few of the Japanese cables from WWII. We can thank Gordon Prang and his team for deciphering them into English. They make fascinating reading. However, they are as wrong as they are right.

          2. WWAS, Happy New Year. I’m glad you’re back. Aren’t those Aussies just the best friends ever?

            1. Hi, L4D. I never left, I just rarely comment because of Allen’s strawmen, PCS’s non-sequitur’s, Darren’s self-righteousness combined with his blinders, Olly’s myopia, and Squeeky’s repetitious hysteria while she walks around with a knife and gun.

              Hope you have a good year!

              1. Thanks, WWAS. I can post easier, now, knowing you’re around when the going gets tough.

              2. WWAS – we can only hope that 2018 will remain the same. That is a statement of fact. You might have problems dealing with that, you might need to call a friend or two to explain it to you.

              3. “I never left, I just rarely comment because of Allen’s strawmen, PCS’s non-sequitur’s, Darren’s self-righteousness …”

                Poor baby. Someone get WWAS some long pants and a diaper.

                1. You miss the disgust in my statement, Allan, while mistaking it for intimidation; you and PCS are the most intellectually dishonest posters here.

                  Read your own words, Allan. Over time, even on a single thread, you present a hypocritical morass.

                  You build up strawmen of your own illusions, attribute the characteristics to others, and then argue on a basis that was only stated by yourself.

                  You, and PCS, are incapable of honest discussion, which is where my disgust lies.

                  1. WWAS – that is too bad because I really don’t use strawman arguments. Most people complain that my comments are short and pithy.

                    1. YNOT – the fact that you do not get my wit is not my problem. I write for everyone on the blog. I am sure at least one or two get my wit. 😉

                    2. “YNOT – the fact that you do not get my wit is not my problem.”

                      Paul, one cannot understand or recognize wit if they are witless.

                  2. “You miss the disgust in my statement, Allan,”

                    WWAS, you are the definition of disgust… Anytime you wish to take issue with any of my facts go ahead, but stop crying and asking others to change your diaper.

                    “You, and PCS, are incapable of honest discussion, which is where my disgust lies.”

                    I can’t tell if you are an incorrigible liar or just plain stupid. Take the issues I have discussed one by one and quote my words in context. Let’s have that debate you talk about.

                    1. I stand corrected, you are both half wits though combined only able to achieve dim-wittedness. Seriously, if you think you are witty – get help.

                    2. YNOT – I am much witter then some twit who spells his name in all caps. All I have to do is stay wittier than you. Are you aggressive? Passive-aggressive? Or just a wimp?

                    3. Paul, YNOT is a witless crybaby. Take note I offered to have that debate where he could attack any of my comments on any thread, but he prefers to complain and cry.

                    4. WWAS, since you may have missed some of the comment loop, I’ll expedite Allan and catch you up…, “WWAS, you’re a stalinista”. It is Allan’s favorite schtick in a nutshell (literally).
                      The reference is to a guy from the 50’s in Russia who murdered millions (but, that didn’t interrupt a U.S. oilman from cozying up to him to make money). There are today, right wingers who were closeted for decades, but who now have dusted off the bogeyman so that they can fling his name about at people they don’t like. Apparently, being called a stalinista is very very bad, like being called Gryla in Iceland which makes about as much sense.

                    5. Linda – don’t forget that Stalin had the solid support of the NYT until the death counts came out that they had been covering up.

                    6. Joseph Stalin: “The reference is to a guy from the 50’s in Russia ”

                      Linda, “a guy from the 50’s in Russia” sounds like a grade school reply to the question of who was Joseph Stalin. You are ignorant of history. Stalin led Russia from the mid-1920’s to 1953 when he died. His time as the leader of Russia included World War 2 (1939-1945) and almost the entire Korean War. Your knowledge of history and economics is abominable. (for those who have some level of education Linda compares Stalin to a mythical Icelandic creature that frightened children. Linda is an idiot.)

                    7. Paul
                      Hats off to the NYT in 2018 for employing so many journalists with an average age of deceased.

            1. Like you do, PCS?

              Ignore Ken at your leisure, but it is not your place to tell people what to post.

                1. Linda – is WWAS supposedly your knight in shining armor? I think I would get a new knight. I don’t think WWAS has the staying power since he has now insulted several bloggers. He is going to get a lot of mail that he is going to have to read and deal with.

                  And what do mean Sheriff? Can he arrest people? Can he put them in jail? Do we have a legal system with a judge and jury of our peers?

                  1. Paul, you’re the one who broached the subject of Julian Assange. And you know it. And you don’t care about knowingly accusing Ken of what you, yourself, did on January 1, at 4:57 am:

                    Paul C. Schulte said, “Diane – so Wikileaks has stated time and again, they did not get the emails from the Russians.”

                    You really can’t follow a thread; can you Schulteacher? Scroll, Paul, scroll!

                  2. My knight will be a judge who can give me “standing to appeal” in my oppressor saliva dispute.

        3. Wikileaks (Russian pawn) denies that Russia is the source of the information Russia had been telling Trump associates it had. Surely the defense has a better case than that?

          1. “Wikileaks (Russian pawn)”

            Enigma, what proof do you have? Wikileaks may have served Russian interests, but it has served other interests as well. We don’t call Wikileaks a pawn of those interests, do we?

              1. Enigma there is no question that Russia has some type of association with Wikileaks as do a lot of other entities, but being a pawn is quite different. Mike Pompeo didn’t even infer such a connection in the article you posted.

                I ask again what proof do you have that Wikileaks is a pawn of Russia? “Wikileaks (Russian pawn) “

                  1. That the word pawn is used in a title of an article doesn’t reflect proof that Wikileaks is a pawn of…

                    The article points to a Russian TV show, but that also doesn’t mean Wikileaks was a pawn of Russia. It might mean that Wikileaks will become a pawn of Russia, but that is something different than what you were saying. Has WikiLeaks dried up? Does Assange now wish to have more freedom of movement? A lot of things have to be considered, but your evidence continues to be the same type of evidence used many years ago to lynch blacks (a disgrace). Have you learned nothing from history?

                    1. Lynching seems to be your word for the day in the weakest of comparisons I’ve seen in some time. It didn’t make sense when Clarence Thomas used it, Roy Moore, or you. It’s like comparing things to the Holocaust (I should have checked to see if someone ever proved that to you).
                      You already know you’ll accept nothing as “proof,” I’m glad my life doesn’t depend on convincing you. Continue believing that all these things aren’t true, perhaps you’ll sleep better at night but you won’t be correct.

                    2. “Lynching seems to be your word for the day ”

                      Enigma, lynching is what you do best. You don’t require proof. All you need is to know that someone did something you don’t like and you lynch them without a rope. Instead, you utilize slander, innuendo and mistruths. That is your nature and lynching seems to be the best word to describe the way you treat those you don’t agree with.

                    3. “You obviously don’t know the meaning of lynching. ”

                      Enigma, you never heard of verbal lynching? That is what you do best. You verbally lynch a person with mistruths, innuendo, and slander. Best of all you don’t have to pay for a rope.

                    4. Actually, I never have heard of verbal lynching, the two words don’t even seem to go together. One is essentially harmless (sticks and stones) and the other deadly. I think the only people allowing themselves the luxury to discuss verbal lynchings, never had to be concerned about the other kind.

                    5. “Actually, I never have heard of verbal lynching”

                      Enigma, Now you know what it is and this verbiage has been used by others and is not coined by me.

                      “the two words don’t even seem to go together. One is essentially harmless (sticks and stones) and the other deadly.”

                      Sometimes words have been known to kill someone’s reputation, something you have tried to do. That is why (verbal) lynching is such a good word for describing some of your actions.

                    6. Allan – a verbal lynching, isn’t that what happened to Justice Clarence Thomas and Borq before him.

                    7. “Allan – a verbal lynching, isn’t that what happened to Justice Clarence Thomas and Borq before him.”

                      Paul, I think Thomas described it as a high tech lynching and as a lynching. I don’t know about Bork because he was borked.

                      Enigma just doesn’t want to look in a mirror.

                    8. Allan – I agree with you on Thomas, although I think the verbal lynching he went to was later called Borking. I remember that term bandied about during the hearing.

                    9. I actually looked it up before responding, I never once suspected you coined anything. I still believe that the only people that would use the term, never feared the real thing.

                    10. “I still believe that the only people that would use the term, never feared the real thing.”

                      I can’t help it if you do not know what you are talking about. If you looked the word up like you said you did then you should realize that lynching doesn’t always mean execution by hanging.

                      By the way, I repeat one of my favorite justices, Justice Thomas, who so happens to be black, said he was subjected to “a high tech lynching” and that he was “lynched”. I guess in your small world he is able to use the word lynched because he is black, but other’s of us shouldn’t use it because only you have the right to claim injustice. The world can be a terrible place Enigma for anyone of any color, race or religion. Maybe one day you will accept that fact.

                    11. I’ve had this discussion with Paul in another context. I agree wholeheartedly that lynching means something other than hanging, it can involve shooting, beating, castration, bombing but it always includes death.
                      I objected to Clarence Thomas using it, I objected to Roy Moore and sycophants of Donald Trump using it and you in this way. It demeans and belittles the word to equate a verbal attack of any type to a lynching. You do so because the word has no practical meaning.

                    12. Enigma, that you object to the use of the word lynching when only reputational death is involved demonstrates how little you care about slander, innuendo, and lies. In other words, you won’t physically support lynching a person’s being, but you will lynch his reputation without a care in the world about the truth.

                      That type of behavior might be acceptable where you come from, but not acceptable among educated honest people.

                    13. There’s a reason most celebrities can’t win slander cases. Since you’re so educated and honest. you won’t need any help understanding that “reputational death” (which you probably did coin) isn’t a thing an individual can cause.
                      If any of the few people I’ve called racist don’t want me to call them that. They could try not being one.

                    14. “If any of the few people I’ve called racist don’t want me to call them that. They could try not being one.”

                      So says Enigma, the prosecutor, judge and jury and if he had his way he would be the head hangman at the lynching.. That seems to be the nature you project and it despoils the black suffering (especially those unlawfully hung) that came before.

                    15. One of us is diminishing the term, oh, you’re the only one using lynching in a cavalier manner. I have more respect for the term. You may have the last word, I have to go order Michael Wolff’s book. “Ivanka is dumb as a brick,” The Trump Tower meeting with Russian’s was “treasonous” and “unpatriotic,” “They’re going to crack Donald, Jr on national TV like an egg.” And all that was Steve Bannon. Rupert Murdock called Trump “an idiot” on the phone. Ivanka mocked her daddy covering up his bald spot. “Fire and Fury,” promises to be a great read!

                    16. “One of us is diminishing the term, oh, you’re the only one using lynching in a cavalier manner.”

                      Enigma, Really? You are the one that likes to be the prosecutor, judge, and jury so you can sling around the term racist and in the process demean the suffering of so many injured by real racists. Get used to the term. Go ahead and tell Justice Thomas that he was being cavalier in using the term “lynching” and “high tech lynching”. Then again perhaps to you, Justice Thomas is nothing more than an Uncle Tom.

                      Enjoy the book, it is a very obvious way for you to soothe your wounds. I’ll enjoy the success we are seeing from this administration that is benefiting all classes and races of people. You prefer the slime so slime away. I’ll bask in the fact that black home ownership is the highest ever while Latino unemployment is at a low point. Go, Trump.

                    17. Though you have high trust in a fact checker that spins truth in every direction you might be correct on this one. I need to see a lot more information.

                    18. Allan – most horse and cattle thieves that were lynched in Montana were white. Lynching is extra-judicial justice.

          2. enigma – It will be up to Mueller to prove the Russians hacked the DNC, which as the fault of Podesta, BTW. For all I know it was Crowdstrike.

            1. Mueller doesn’t have to prove that, his investigation has multiple possible conclusions, one being that Trump is innocent. Of course, that’s not likely. Between you, me, and the Internet is there anything you’ve seen in the man’s character to suggest he wouldn’t break the law to achieve an aim whether political or financial?

              1. Enigma, I have never seen anything anywhere that would indicate Trump would knowingly break a serious law. I can’t say about jaywalking laws, speeding laws and the like or entrapment type of actions that cause the law to be broken.

                Can you prove what you say to be true?

                1. Now we have to differentiate between serious laws and apparently frivolous ones? Off the top of my head, Federal Housing Discrimination would be one he broke multiple times. Defrauding Trump University students, Violating US Trade Embargo with Cuba, breaking Wisconsin election laws by campaigning to voters while standing in line to vote, violating the Hatch Acts, Logan Act and Emolument’s Clause.

                  I have no proof of money laundering, being a tax cheat, conspiracy or treason yet. That’s what Mueller is for.

                  1. “Off the top of my head, Federal Housing Discrimination would be one he broke multiple times.”

                    We discussed this before and I quoted the statements made at the time and the settlements. This type of claim runs rampant in NYC, but it is a claim, not reality or proof of anything. In fact, the government spent a fortune trying to prove its case and failed. That is was the end product of an extraordinarily expensive investigation that failed to prove anything. In essence, the government gave up.

                    You keep making accusations already proven false.

                    “Defrauding Trump University students,”

                    Again you have a claim that is not proven. Businesses are frequently accused of fraud or other misdeeds, but that doesn’t make that misdeed a reality. Even your own doctor at one time or another has likely been accused of “fraud” (or indirectly accused based upon an accusation against his employer) in billing. Does that make that doctor or any doctor guilty of fraud?

                    You have to distinguish between a charge and proof of guilt. You didn’t do that before and haven’t done that to date.

                    You like lynching people based upon an accusation made by a friendly source, but you don’t like having to prove why you lynched the guy.

                    1. White collar crimes are resolved by settlements and consent decrees. Are you suggesting he shelled out $25 million for something he didn’t do?
                      You will accept no evidence of anything so you really should stop asking. Re the Housing Discrimination, he was sued not once but twice with plenty of documentation. Failure to admit guilt is not the same as innocence.

                    2. He neither pled guilty nor was found guilty. He faced the same problem faced by many many real estate owners in New York. I’m not sure how much he spent in legal fees, but I’ll bet the government spent multiples of whatever he spent.

                      You say “he shelled out $25 million for something he didn’t do?” as if that was part of a settlement. I think that is your way of lying since there was no such settlement payment. I don’t know even where you came up with that number but that type of logic is like lynching a black guy for wearing a Rolex watch because one can only believe it was stolen.

                      By the way, you might not know it but in a short time period about 100,000 housing units privately owned were turned over to the city of NY without payment merely because of the antics being played by government officials. This led to a crisis in the city and a return of those housing units with the government dropping their claims and their fines. That is the problem with your charges. You forget how the government was abusing landlords just to garner votes.

                    3. What Did Allan Say:

                      “You [Enigma] say ‘he shelled out $25 million for something he didn’t do?’ as if that was part of a settlement. I think that is your way of lying since there was no such settlement payment. I don’t know even where you came up with that number but that type of logic is like lynching a black guy for wearing a Rolex watch because one can only believe it was stolen.”

                      My, my; pretty convincing logic there, Allan.

                      Now, granted, Enigma could have helped you out by letting you know the $25M he referred to was the Trump University settlement, the second item in his 11:00 am list.

                      Of course, you made the erroneous assumption that Enigma was referring to the first item in his list and rode that rough pony till it died at your feet so that you could show everyone how Enigma’s arguments are equivalent to what you colloquially call ‘lynching logic.’

                      Good show, except for the fact that you were wrong. It was reported in all the loyal stalinist (did I spell that right?) websites that Trump settled for $25M in the fraud charges facing Trump U.

                      Here’s one link here:


                      Must be tough to be so right that you don’t read, and to posses logic where others flail.

                    4. WWAS, The case I was discussing involved housing discrimination so I appreciate the fact that you told me what you think Enigma was referring to. That is good because it shows you can have a reasonable discussion that involves factual material. I hope you continue doing so.

                      I’m not happy with the Trump University situation and consider that a stain on his reputation though I don’t know that he defrauded anyone. His settlement had to be made because of his run for the Presidency whether or not he was guilty in this *civil* case. I doubt that a court would have ruled in this fashion and the article makes that clear. The questions involved are very difficult to sort out because this was a licensing agreement and there is almost always puffery involved in things of this nature. One could say that many of our universities are defrauding students as well, but here we were dealing with a politically charged situation that creates aberrant actions.

                      I can’t tell whether Enigma meant to obfuscate the $25 Million or not, but Enigma has done things like that before such as when he called Donald J Trump a racist and his proof was an article regarding an arrest of Donald Trump’s father where the article didn’t say Fred Trump did anything wrong and stated that while the others were arrested and provided bail Fred Trump was released something that occurs when it is recognized the person is innocent. In this case, I will assume Enigma innocently left out that he was dealing with the Trump University issue.

                      I hope you continue in this manner for it is a better way of debating. Don’t gloat because it is unbecoming to do to so when a reasonable disagreement occurred due to confusion about the issue involved especially when the one you are defending didn’t adequately state what he was talking about.

                    5. You’re such a passive-aggressive hypocrite, Allan.

                      You throw out more “opinions as facts” than any poster here, chide people with scatological references, make rhetorical queries about their mental health — and so much more.

                      My disgust for you is unaltered. I’ll point out more examples of your juvenile and hypocritical thought process in my own time and fashion, so, please, don’t hang any hopes on me.

                      You wasted too many words trying to blame your faulty assumption on Enigma, and then audaciously lecture us all on how Trump “had”, just “had”, to settle — a grand example of your opinionated “facts.”

                    6. “You’re such a passive-aggressive hypocrite, Allan.”

                      I guess that proves you can’t hold an intelligent conversation for very long WWAS.

                      Once again you make statements that are vacuous and without fact. I guess we are back to the mindless WWAS that WAS here before.

                      “You wasted too many words trying to blame your faulty assumption on Enigma”

                      He didn’t state which argument the $25 Million referred to did he? No, but you will jump up and down like a chicken without its head over something as small as this even when I explained what appeared to have happened.

                      I actually replied that “ I appreciate the fact that you told me what you think Enigma was referring to. “ So much for appreciating what a small mind has said.

                      “then audaciously lecture us all on how Trump “had”, just “had”, to settle — a grand example of your opinionated “facts.””

                      That is what Trump said as to why he settled and if you knew very much about class action suits of this kind you likely would agree because the settlement paid a lot more than many would have expected if there were any payout.

                      It’s hard to deal with fools and it seems you are one for you could have tried to capitalize on your argument, but instead, you chose to act the part of a ranting fool.

                    7. WWAS – a settlement, at whatever the cost, was cheaper than having that go to trial during the campaign.

                    8. Allan,

                      It’s quite rich that you accuse me of being a ranting fool, because the other day you said I was a crybaby who couldn’t change their own diaper.

                      The more you write, the more your expose your unchecked anger and insignificant opinion which reveals that your claims of soliciting civil argument are highly suspect and carry little merit.

                    9. “It’s quite rich that you accuse me of being a ranting fool, because the other day you said I was a crybaby who couldn’t change their own diaper.”

                      You are right the other day you were a crybaby, but today you demonstrated a modicum of intelligence in your argument which was much appreciated.

                      Unfortunately, your follow-up discussion devolved into a ranting response which was more indicative of a fool than an intelligent individual that wanted an intelligent exchange of ideas.

                      “The more you write, the more your expose your unchecked anger and insignificant opinion which reveals that your claims of soliciting civil argument are highly suspect and carry little merit.”

                      No anger WWAS. I am blunt and say things the way they are or the way I see them. You are entitled to your views, but in an exchange of ideas sometimes you need to provide more fact and less ranting.

                    10. “… a settlement, at whatever the cost, was cheaper than having that go to trial during the campaign.”

                      Another sage opinion prancing as fact, diverting this branch of the thread that was pointing out Allan’s erroneously pathetic, yet heavily worded, response to Enigma.

                      Basically, PCS, your comment is a non-sequitur and not fact at all.

                    11. WWAS – try reading Inside Business on the strategy of settlements with the government.

                    12. Allan,

                      I wasn’t complaining the other day, I just wanted to explain to L4D why I don’t post often.

                      I’ll say it again: it’s due to my disgust at a few people, and it takes far to much time to deal with their foaming rants, sort of like your’s here.

                      You’re just a fool who thinks he knows everyone’s ideology, and they are all wrong. Your screeds are a waste of time.

                    13. WWAS – spoken like a true dictator, BTW, you didn’t happen to get kicked off this blog for trying to stage a coup?

                    14. “You’re just a fool who thinks he knows everyone’s ideology, and they are all wrong. Your screeds are a waste of time.”

                      You are wrong. I don’t know everyone’s ideology, but I recognize a Stalinist when I see one. I don’t even know your ideology, but I recognize your complaints and foolishness. Dry off your tears and either debate facts logically or stay on the sidelines.

              2. enigma – I only suggest that Trump and his assts. be treated the same way as Hillary and her assts.

                1. Hillary et. al. were certainly subjected to multiple investigations by the same people trying their best to shut Trump’s down. Gowdy, Nunes, McConnell… Despite their best efforts and millions and millions of dollars, they found nothing. We’ll see if the same can be said about Trump’s people, two of whom have been indicted and two who’ve pled guilty.

                  1. Hillary’s been treated with kid gloves. Who else goes in to be “interviewed” by the FBI off the record with no swearing in done at all?

                    1. Pretty much every interview with Trump officials have been off the record, all of them by the House investigative committees without subpoenas allowing them to ignore questions and walk out when they felt like it.
                      Of course, if an FBI agent is present you can still be charged with lying to the FBI which is what tripped up Papadopoulos and Gates.

                    2. andrewworkshop – Hillary had a rough week last week. She went to Wales to get an honorary degree and someone in the rope line spoke truth to losing power. Then she did a TV interview. You would have thought the interviewer was Maddow and she was interviewing Trump. They did tear her a small new one, It is on YouTube.

        1. Alexander Downer. A great and good friend to the American people. Not to mention a man who can hold his liquor far better than Professor Jonathan Turley can.

    2. I think they will spend much of 2018 filing charges and eliciting more guilty pleas. My bet in the pool for the next indictment… 19 days. This will be easy enough to check how close I am.

      1. Enigma, your ability to keep your cool under fire is truly astounding. I must learn your secret. Even if I can’t ever put it into practice.

        P. S. 19 days after January 2nd, 2018 (inclusively) would be January 20th, 2018. I would not bet against that date for the next indictment. But I will place my bet on Carter Page, even though there are far larger fry available.

  15. The crimes are entirely within the Deep State. Mueller, Comey, and all their corrupt FBI cronies are the people who ought to be investigated. Mueller, however, will continue his fraudulent “investigation” all the way through Trump’s 4-year term and will promise a bombshell just before Trump is scheduled to be reelected in a vain attempt to unseat him and replace him with one of the Deep State’s allies.

    1. The Obama/Hillary/FBI/”deep state” coup d’etat attempt will be judged by history as the most prodigious scandal in American political history.

    2. Ralph Adamo, Australia is not part of the federal government of The United States of America. It is, however, part of the Five Eyes Alliance. You need a new “story,” Ralph. The deep-state narrative is dead as a doornail.

      The FBI started its investigation of Russian election meddling based on solid intelligence reports from our allies before Christopher Steele filed any intelligence reports with the FBI. The evidence the FBI gathered during its investigation before they received anything from Steele verified and corroborated key allegations in the Steele dossier after they received Steele’s intelligence reports.

      Time to let go, Ralph. Move on to something else–one knows not what–besides this tiresome deep-state conspiracy theory you all keep blathering about.

      1. Keep the facts a comin cause is hard for them to keep
        up. Did anyone but T rump expect the
        Investigation would be over this year? Maybe Fox contributing Turley

        1. Leads. Context. Humint ≠ admissible evidence, but it can show you where to look.

          1. Umm no. The FISA warrant will have to be thrown out and along with it any information acquired because it was all predicated on the dossier.

            This weird story about George P binge drinking and running his mouth in a London bar, a Maltese professor, and Australians is an attempt to pull attention off the dossier.

                1. The FBI had intelligence on Page from a previous investigation and from sources other than Steele.

                  1. From Newsweek:

                    “In 2013, Page met with a Russian spy named Victor Podobnyy in New York City and provided him with documents about the energy business. (This connection was also cited by the FBI in seeking to obtain the FISC warrant.)”

              1. Diane, No one knows what the FISA warrants were based on, so you can’t know they weren’t based on the dossier.

                You probably did very poorly in classes that required or taught logic.

                1. Allan, just because you had the word LOGIC tattooed to your forehead doesn’t mean you’re fooling anybody else but yourself when you pronounce yourself logical.

                  1. Diane, This type of response makes you sound like a simpleton. I urge you to quote me in context and show us where my logic fails. If you do I will be very appreciative for I believe in self-improvement. I note in your recent discussions with mespo you weren’t logical, couldn’t separate fact from supposition etc. Your development seems to be moving in a backward direction.

      2. Australia is a corporate vassal state. Neo libs working against citizens is a commonality all the 5 Eyes share aside from speaking English.

Comments are closed.