Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, Media, Politics

Russian Indictments Are Long On Chicanery and Short On Collusion

fa0f116753ca535f6304144908b8b67e--russian-posters-propaganda-artBelow is my column in The Hill newspaper on the implications of the Special Counsel indictment of 13 Russians and the express statements of the Special Counsel and the Deputy Attorney General that there is no evidence of any American knowingly working with these Russians.  This indictment addresses the core of Russian hacking and misinformation campaigns by the Russian government.  The admission of no evidence of collusion is notable and significant. As I mentioned in the column, that does not mean that the investigation will not go forward, including pursuit of any collusion between the Russian and the Trump campaign. However, after a year and multiple pleas, none of the indictments have established the alleged nexus between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

There still remain a number of potential threats for the White House from new collusion evidence to financial-related crimes to new allegations stemming from the alleged payoff of former lovers.  However, while Rep. Adam Schiff is still insisting that there is ample evidence of collusion and obstruction, the core (and original) allegation against Trump has moved little in terms of real evidence (at least evidence made public).  Moreover, the evidence of the Russian campaign shows that it began in 2014 before Trump ran for president.  It seemed to target the presumed victor: Hillary Clinton. However, when Trump ran, it targeted Trump.  Both anti-Clinton and anti-Trump rallies were ultimately organized by the Russians to spread division. It was a curious effort since the country was already quite divided and the Russian-led protests paled in comparison to the massive anti-Trump rallies like the Women’s March or the continual protests over Hillary Clinton.  The most serious problem was not the trolling or the organizing but the hacking.

 

Lewis Carroll once wrote in praise of adjectives, saying that “adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs.” That is certainly true with the latest indictments by special counsel Robert Mueller of 13 Russians for interfering with the 2016 presidential election. For the White House, the entire report comes down to a single adjective. Let’s see if you can spot it: The Russian defendants “communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign.”

Despite a 37-page indictment with a long narrative on a coordinated Russian campaign of interference, the most newsworthy fact comes from the carefully placed adjective “unwitting.” It confirms that the special counsel has found no knowing coordination or collusion between these hackers and Trump officials. The indictment names 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities in alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election. It describes a coordinated effort by Russians, including the shadowy Internet Research Agency, to wage “information warfare” against the United States.

The charges themselves are not particularly novel or exotic. They involve identity fraud, wire fraud and other conventional charges. However, the context is anything but conventional. This is the largest indictment of a foreign effort to interfere with our elections, and the clear import is that the hand of the Russian government was behind this effort. Moreover, it is clear that the Russians were acting to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.

While the indictment is historic, it is hardly a surprise. Few people were questioning the Russian interference with and hacking of the election. Both Democratic and Republican leaders were in agreement on this fact, as were all of the administration’s top intelligence figures. The one hold-out seemed to be the president himself. He routinely referred to the “fake news” of the Russian investigation.

While Trump seemed to be focusing on the specific allegations of collusion by his campaign, he will now have a chance to make that distinction more clearly and concretely. This indictment is incredibly detailed and damning as to the effort of the Russians to interfere in the election and then hide their tracks once the FBI went into the field looking for the hackers.

That brings us back to “unwitting.” Not only did the indictment clearly say that no one in the Trump campaign was wittingly or knowingly involved with the Russians, it explains how the Russians used fake names and groups to hide their real identities. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein gave a press conference and drove home that point, stating that there was no evidence of any knowing involvement by the Trump campaign, as well as no evidence that this effort impacted the election. Indeed, Rosenstein stated that there is “no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge” of the Russian effort.

For over a year, some of us have been questioning the weekly “bombshells” announced on cable programs of criminal Russian collusion. Indeed, for months I asked for someone to point to a crime of collusion in the criminal code or the criminal evidence to support a criminal indictment if such a related charge is made. With each week, experts have given breathless accounts of the circle of collusion tightening on the Trump campaign.

Now, the special counsel and the deputy attorney general are saying that there is no evidence of knowing interaction of campaign staff with Russians interfering with the election. The paucity of such evidence follows a year of intensive investigation and the much heralded plea bargains with former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and the expected plea with former campaign official Rick Gates. There is still no evidence of anyone “wittingly” or knowingly colluding with these Russians. Moreover, the indictment says that the Russian efforts began in 2014, long before the candidacy of Trump.

None of that has stopped the spin. CNN political director David Chalian insisted that nothing in the indictment actually says that the Trump campaign did nothing wrong. But prosecutors generally do not use indictments to affirmatively exonerate organizations. They focus on the matter under investigation. On the same panel, CNN legal analyst Carrie Cordero speculated that the Mueller team added this language “to give it political cover” to protect his investigation and allow it to continue without interference from the White House. There is also the slight possibility that this is an indictment which stated the facts required to be truthful to the court and that there is no evidence of collusion.

Of course, the absence of collusion would not end the Mueller investigation, and reports indicate the collusion probe is ongoing. Mueller has already charged various figures with collateral crimes. Moreover, even if there is no case for collusion, there could still be a case of obstruction. The irony would be hard to miss. For months, many of us have been baffled by the president’s obsession and personal actions in relation to the Russian investigation. The evidence against Trump or his campaign has remained entirely speculative and thin. Yet, he has repeatedly acted in ways that have fueled allegations of obstruction, even though the underlying case is manifestly weak.

If Mueller ultimately finds no collusion, it could not only clear Trump but could even lead him to consider the use of his pardon power for individuals like Flynn. It is doubtful that Flynn’s indictment would have been handed down but for the appointment of the special counsel. Again, the irony is crushing. Before Trump fired James Comey as FBI director, his investigators reportedly decided that Flynn did not intentionally lie to them about his meeting with the Russians. Once Trump fired Comey, Flynn was a target of opportunity for the special prosecutors.

This all brings us back to “unwitting.” When this history is written, that adjective could well stand out as the turning point in the Russian investigation. The remaining question could be whether Trump wittingly obstructed an investigation into unwitting contacts with the Russians.

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

198 thoughts on “Russian Indictments Are Long On Chicanery and Short On Collusion”

  1. In THIS indictment. I guess it depends on what the meaning of THIS is.

    Turley is a red hat now.

  2. There’s still the issue of obstruction of justice. So far the focus of that has been on President Trump’s actions. Wouldn’t the efforts to drive an investigation towards Trump and away from those the evidence actually points to be considered collusion and obstruction? Not only does the evidence point to attempts to influence an election, it demonstrates an effort to undermine a legitimately elected President.

        1. She is one of those Faux Bernie Busters that troll for T rump Putin and MAGA. She fooled more than a few. We know. All fittin into place.

        3. Autumn sounds progressive to me, but that only proves some progressives are smarter than others. Don’t take that personally YNOT. God gives things to some that he denies to others. I’m sorry that you were particularly shortchanged.

          1. The above was responding to YNOT. (“She is the faux progressive propagandist assigned to this blog.”)

      2. kathy:

        Nope she’s raising a point of contention using an illustrative article. Now, kathy, you get to rebut, refute or slink away.

        PS to kathy:
        Attacking a source without addressing the point is ad hominem and is slinking away. Got the rules straight now?

        PS to readers:
        Yeesh, Soros must really be searching the bottom of the troll barrel.

        1. “PS to Kathy:
          Attacking a source without addressing the point is ad hominem and is slinking away. Got the rules straight now?”

          Kathy is a slinker.

  4. “The remaining question could be whether Trump wittingly obstructed an investigation into unwitting contacts with the Russians.”

    Of course, there is a “remaining question”. Without one there would be nothing to talk about. Without something to talk about employment drops or ceases. After all ratings is what has driven a lot of this controversy, not fact or even lawbreaking.

    What JT seems to forget is that this controversy has been a giant distraction just like it was in the FBI which may have played a part in the deaths of 17 children. We don’t need phony controversy to take our eye off the ball which is our economy and the security of the nation. Just look at the amount of time expended on this non-issue and then look at all the problems this nation faces.

    1. Allan

      Of course, Trumpsters want Mueller’s investigation to focus only on whether Trump personally acted in a conspiracy with Russia to steal the election.

      Money laundering, obstruction of justice etc. are also crimes which are being investigated.

      1. How to make a nothing case, seem suddenly all worthwhile.
        There was no crime, there was no ‘collusion’, there was no nothing except a personal dislike of Trump by a large portion of the people and people in power.
        So, the charter of the special counsel, to uncover collusion, has been routed out and all is left is a hollow vessel with nothing in it.
        To save face, and point to something that came out of it, now the useful idiots will go on to other crimes that have nothing to do with the original allegation, like Bill Clinton, the blue dress, and perjury for covering up another non-crime.
        I would not be surprised if Trump is guilty of some crime in his past before he became president. but that was NOT the purpose of the special counsel. That is why there are regular, plain ol’ prosecutors.

        They will have their pound of flesh from wherever they can get it.
        We all commit three felonies a day without even knowing it.

        1. “and unfortunately dysfunctional narcissism is not considered to be a crime.”

          Chris, if it were there would have been reason to execute Obama many times over.

      3. “Of course, Trumpsters want Mueller’s investigation to focus only on whether Trump…”

        It may be news to you, but the investigation had a purpose and it didn’t include everything under the sun. I know you would like Trump investigated for jaywalking. The problem is Trump is a pretty decent citizen and is benefitting Americans. Take note of the unemployment rate, jobs, pension plans and everything that affects normal Americans. At present Trump is doing a great job and you can’t provide evidence that he isn’t.

  6. I’m no fan of the Steak Salesman but I’ve said previously that it’s unlikely there was collusion. Trump has been neutral toward Russia, from the beginning, likely because of his own wormy financial ties: Russian investors who ultimately report into Putin. (Such investors were necessary considering Trump was a deadbeat, which is why he couldn’t secure further capital in the US.)

    That would be the same sort of damning leverage and potential for blackmail as Porter, but far worse of course. Hence in part why we never saw any tax returns or the like: just empty folders on a table.

    To widen the interpretation, the deputy AG said in “this” indictment. Who knows what comes next or after.

    1. Dave 132, you are full of fake news. In late 2017 according to Market Watch, the CMBS note that included Trump Tower was rated triple-A.

      Learn about interest rates before you speak.

      1. Mueller got a bronze star and a Purple Heart. Used to mean in this country until the woose bone spur sex fiend orange guy that pays some women to pee and spank while assaultin many many others took us down to the sewer.

          1. Compared to T rump and his hooker providing
            Pal Putin. The answer is yes. Your two are rottin to the core. McCain and Mueller have some redeeming qualities they served their country and they do not do Putin’s bidding or attack women or make payments to boocois of porno stars.

          1. whoops, meant to post this video

            Former FBI agent and 9/11 whistleblower Colleen Rowley says former FBI head Robert Mueller, now appointed to investigate the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, participated in covering up the pre 9/11 role of the U.S. intelligence agencies and the Bush Administration, helped create the post 9/11 national security/surveillance state, and helped facilitate the pre-Iraq war propaganda machine

  8. Turley takes a line from Lewis Carroll, I’ll take one from Shakespeare: “There is something rotten in the state of Denmark.” At least my chosen line is more apt than his.

    Here’s what Turley wrote: “Few people were questioning the Russian interference with and hacking of the election.”

    Here is what really happened: Trump:

    “We believe it was the DNC that did the ‘hacking’ as a way to distract from the many issues facing their deeply flawed candidate and failed party leader,”,

    “I think maybe the Democrats are putting that out, who knows? But I think that it’s pretty unlikely, but you know, who knows?”,

    “As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what Secretary Clinton said, we should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we’re not. I don’t think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. She’s saying Russia, Russia, Russia. Maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China, but it could also be lots of other people, it also could be someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK?”

    “Now, whether that was Russia, whether that was China, whether it was another country, we don’t know…”,

    “Knowing something about hacking, if you don’t catch a hacker, OK, in the act, it’s very hard to say who did the hacking,” the President told CBS.

    “With that being said, I’ll go along with Russia. Could’ve been China, could’ve been a lot of different groups.”

    But we did know. We did know it was Russia and Trump, time and again, with multiple quotes, either denied it outright or played the “I don’t think Russia did, but if they did then we should do something” line of BS and conning. And that’s good enough for Professor Turley…I wonder why?

    The fact that candidate/president Trump denied Russian hacking/involvement goes to the heart of Turley’s spinning and BS. President Trump is playing both sides of the fence: He denies time and again any Russian involvement, then he makes a lone dismissive comment. Trump asks for Russia to release the hacked emails on National TV…but he was only joking. I guess this is plausible deniability for Turley and the crowd at FOX News who pay him so well for his considerable opinion. Trump’s juvenile denials and half-hearted exhortations about “if Russia is behind this then . . .” seem to have suckered in the good professor Turley. He believes everything this conman says at face value.

    You see it in past articles from Turley. When Trump cleared the Oval Office to ask Comey to shut down the investigation of Flynn…why he was merely “voicing a wish that he’d already voiced in public many times.” Turley is playing the naive sucker. Comey testified that he was shocked by the president’s actions and words yet Turley sees nothing out of the ordinary. I suppose he had all those FOX dollars clouding his vision.

    Turley is a willing sucker because it pays for him to be a willing chump.

    Here is a professor of law being purposely obtuse: “For over a year, some of us have been questioning the weekly “bombshells” announced on cable programs of criminal Russian collusion. Indeed, for months I asked for someone to point to a crime of collusion in the criminal code or the criminal evidence to support a criminal indictment if such a related charge is made.”

    Either Turley is an idiot or liar. I think both. But he’s more of a liar. He damn well knows that ‘collusion’ is a terminology of art comprehending illegality (election fraud, theft, fraud, etc.) between foreign and domestic actors/entities. He also knows that all the major intelligence agencies in the US came to the same conclusion: Russia attacked our country with cyberwarfare and is still attacking our country. The British, Canadian, New Zealand, Australian, French, and Dutch intelligence agencies warned us of the ‘unwitting’ Trump administration collusion. Turley forgot that.

    Turley doubles down on his idiocy: “There is still no evidence of anyone “wittingly” or knowingly colluding with these Russians. Moreover, the indictment says that the Russian efforts began in 2014, long before the candidacy of Trump.” So I guess Trump never ran for president before 2016? He did? So he was a known viable candidate. Right Turley? And what of Trump’s extensive business and financial ties and lies about his relationship with Russia, Russian oligarchs and Putin himself? Nothing to see here. That’s just stuff, right Professor?

    “Moreover, even if there is no case for collusion, there could still be a case of obstruction. The irony would be hard to miss. For months, many of us have been baffled by the president’s obsession and personal actions in relation to the Russian investigation. The evidence against Trump or his campaign has remained entirely speculative and thin. Yet, he has repeatedly acted in ways that have fueled allegations of obstruction, even though the underlying case is manifestly weak.”

    Here is Turley lying again. Is Russian collusion the only thing we are concerned about with Trump and Russia…AS IT RELATES TO THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? No. How do we know this? Read the grant of authority to Mueller by the DOJ:

    (b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI
    Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
    Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

    (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).
    https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

    See that? Not just coordination btn Russian government and Team Trump (which has occurred by unwitting Trump players) but also any criminal matters that arise during the investigation. Why is that important? Bc it opens the president to exploitation by, oh I don’t know Russia. Much in the same manner that security clearance is needed before white house personnel can handle classified material. This is why Trump’s lies about his business ties and finances with Russia is important. This is why money laundering is important. Is our president a puppet of Russian control? Why doesn’t the Mueller investigation just wrap up if the 16 indictments are the heart and soul and end of the case? Bc Mueller knows things that Turley only guesses at.

    Turley is a Trump sympathizer masquerading as a law professor.

    1. Darrin Rychlak – Gawker is currently suing the DNC over that hack, but the DNC cannot give them the information because it was a leak, not a hack. Podesta was a hack and he was an idiot. Although he did get someone to fall on his sword for him for cover. There is also a rumor that Gawker is going to sue DWS over the hack.

  9. One wonders where the media outlets get there legal experts from. The Special Counsel alleged in an indictment filed with a court that no member of the Trump campaign knowingly cooperated with the Russians. The Special Counsel cannot back off that allegation. It precludes any indictment of any member of the Trump campaign for conspiracy with the Russians to interfere with the election. The legal experts at CNN and elsewhere should understand that fact.

    1. Vince said, “The Special Counsel alleged in an indictment filed with a court that no member of the Trump campaign knowingly cooperated with the Russians.”

      Assistant Attorney General Rosenstein said, “Now, there is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity.”

      Vince, you appear to be overstating your claim at least with respect to what Rosenstein said when he announced the indictment. There is a difference between what Rosenstein said versus the statement of yours that I cited above. Your statement makes it sound as though Mueller exonerated the Trump campaign of knowingly cooperating with the Russian information warfare that Mueller alleged against the 13 Russians named in the indictment. The way I read Rosenstein’s statement is that none of the Americans referred to in the indictment who had had contact with the Russians named in the indictment knowingly cooperated with those Russians.

      1. There are two reasons why this indictment is as good as an exoneration. First, the grand jury which was permitted full range of inquiry found that there were no members of the Trump campaign knowingly (the word used in the indictment was “wittingly”) assisted the Russians. Mueller signed off on the indictment. He cannot now modify what the grand jury said. If the grand jury’s wording was limited in the manner in which you suggest, that limitation would have been stated in the indictment. Your point, well taken though it is, puts too much emphasis on what Rosenstein said and not what the grand jury said. The grand jury said, in effect, no collusion on the part of the Trump campaign.

        Second, even if you were to consider Rosenstein’s comments that what the grand jury said was limited to this indictment, this indictment was the conspiracy indictment. It is logical to assume that all co-conspirators would be listed in the indictment. That is what prosecutor’s do. It does not make sense to indict some co-conspirators in one indictment and others in a totally separate indictment charging the exact same conspiracy. Multiple indictments would require the prosecution to prove its case multiple times, one for every indictment. Also, a trial jury might not understand the conspiracy if only some of the co-conspirators are before the court. Soooo, without probing into Mueller’s mind, we can assume that all of the conspirators have been indicted and none have been omitted.

  10. The Dems have been masters of illusion with their cry of “The Russians are coming The Russians are coming”. Within 24 hours of their loss the cry went out “impeach” and with tears in their eyes the propaganda arm of the Dems (MSM) have since carried the message daily. Each week it’s been les jours de la semaine BS when they reported on President Trump. A duly American President has been elected by the citizens of the United States and an attempt is being made by a political party that has lost its way to wrench that victory from them. Meanwhile the true culprits have quietly disappeared into the noise with nary a slap on the wrist. When will we see “and justice for all”? I think of Gen Flynn, 33 years of military service forced to plead guilty on BS and Strozck, Page and the Ohrs nada. Is this what we can now expect from our nation.

    1. The Great Zambini – Flynn’s sentencing has been postponed indefinitely. New judge is not a friend of the FBI or DOJ.

    2. Excerpted from the article linked above:

      The Oct. 27 indictment showed that prosecutors had amassed substantial documentation to buttress their charges that Manafort and Gates — who were colleagues in political consulting for about a decade — had engaged in a complex series of allegedly illegal transactions rooted in Ukraine. The indictment alleged that both men, who for years were unregistered agents of the Ukrainian government, hid millions of dollars of Ukraine-based payments from U.S. authorities.

      According to the indictment, Gates and Manafort “laundered the money through scores of United States and foreign corporations, partnerships and bank accounts” and took steps to evade related U.S. taxes.

      If Manafort maintains his not-guilty plea and fights the charges at a trial, the testimony from Gates could provide Mueller’s team with first-person descriptions of much of the allegedly illegal conduct. Gates’ testimony, said a person familiar with the pending guilty plea, would place a “cherry on top” of the government’s already formidable case against Manafort.

  12. The American political system is a circus run by oligarchs. So what if some foreigners go to our circus. Putin accused Clinton of meddling in Russian elections when she was Secretary of State; maybe she did maybe she didn’t. So far it is factual that both the US and Russia have been ‘meddling’ in the politics of other countries as well as each other for some time.

    It is imperative, however, that these goings on be investigated, especially with Trump and his Russian business connections which predate his latest fiasco. What is telling is his tweet/wailing on the subject. If he has nothing to hide he should be championing Mueller and the process, especially given the dirt he throws at Clinton and the Democrats. Perhaps he is fueling the controversy for the sake of distraction and chaos. Distraction and chaos keeps the focus off of his falling short.

  13. The U.S. has been meddling in more than 45 country elections for about 100 years.

    So why is Russia stepping up it’s meddling in the U.S.? Payback for the U.S. meddling in Ukraine politics under the Obama administration & Clinton state department.

    1. Agree. We are hypocrites. The US has been meddling in other countries all the time. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

      America is a three ring circus. Really, what are we showing the world? That we are hypocrites, the media acting like spoiled brats, constant bickering over the smallest things. America is collapsing.

    2. False equivalency. The only similarities between US elections versus Russian elections are the spelling and the pronunciation of the word “elections.” Other than that mere linguistic similarity, there are no other bases for putting Russian elections into the same category as US elections. Consequently, US meddling in Russian elections bears no comparison to Russian information warfare in US elections. Americans are supposed to know that. Americans are also supposed to defend their own democratic elections against Russian information warfare.

  14. Aside from the indentity theft and credit card fraud the rest of the indictment is garbage and merely proves the problems in our election laws.

    Mueller is indicting a bunch of russians for expressing a viewpoint with respect to US elections.

    We may not like that – but it is still free speech.

    If you say but “russians” !!!! Are you going to prosecute the Guardian for expressing a viewpiont regarding US elections ? John Oliver ?

    If it is criminal for the Russians to say Hillary is a Crook, how is it not similarly a crime for Oliver to say Trump is a dick ?

    Further very little of this was candidate advocacy before the election.
    Most of it was issue advocacy, and the pro-trump rallies as noted in the indictment were for the benefit of President Elect Trump – not candidate Trump.

    Regardless, please explain an a principled way what ought to be illegal and what can be practically made illegal.

    If Obama chastizes Putin during a Russian election – can the Kremlin indict him ?
    How is Mueller’s indictment not also an assertion that Voice of America has always been a criminal conspiracy – as the Russians have said,

    We need to get a clue – persuasion is not force and is outside the legitimate scope of government power.
    It is outside because restrictions on persuasion are immoral. It is outside because they do not and can not work. None of these Russians are getting extradited – though americans engaged in political expression in Russia are now at serious risk.

    One of the great fallacies of this whole Trump/Russia collusion thing is that short of active involvement in hacking the DNC the worst claims against Trump are not or should not be illegal, and all were done by the Clinton campaign and others.

    1. dhlii said, “Mueller is indicting a bunch of Russians for expressing a viewpoint with respect to US elections.
      We may not like that – but it is still free speech.”

      dhlii wants to extend First Amendment protections to the paid agents of The Kremlin who waged, who are still waging, and who will continue to wage information warfare against The United States. dhlii can’t tell the difference between US citizens versus Kremlin spies. Because dhlii is “unwitting.” dhlii can’t tell the difference between a comedian versus a head of state, foreign or domestic. Because dhlii is “unwitting.” dhlii can’t tell the difference between the political speech of US citizens versus the paid propaganda and disinformation produced at the Internet Research Agency by Putin’s cook. Because dhlii is “unwitting.”

      Most likely dhlii is “unwitting” because dhlii is worried that Trump can’t get reelected in 2020 any other way besides Putin’s cook cranking out more information warfare from the Internet Research Agency.

      And, of course, dhlii regurgitates, on cue, his “meta-logical” claim that the law cannot make one and the same act both legal for one individual and illegal for another individual. Only this time around dhlii is actually asserting that the law in one nation-state [The United States of America] cannot make one and the same act [political speech] both legal for its own citizens [Americans] and illegal for the citizens [paid agents] of some other nation-state [The Russian Federation]. I swear, dhlii is nothing if not “unwitting.”

      1. Diane – CA wants to give illegals the right to vote, so what is the problem?

      2. I am waiting for indictments for people associated with the hiring of Peter Steele, a foreign national who has admitted involvement in trying to influence our election.

        1. Don’t hold your breathe on that one, she’ll probably be out doing a book tour blaming somebody for her loss.

        1. Thanks, YNOT. And I love your work, too. As I’m sure you know, the Trumpettes can’t defend Trump without defending Putin and The Kremlin. And that’s going to cost Trump his bid for reelection in 2020. It’s also going to cost the Congressional Republicans their House majority. There’s a Big Blue Tsunami coming. Pennsylvania just got rid of its Crazy Kicking Donald Duck district. Things are looking up.

  15. Turley once again shows his hand by twisting claims and claiming the indictments are not what they ever purported to be. The indictments addressed the social media aspect of Russian meddling only, so Turley says there was no hacking shown. He may convince himself (and many of you) that there are no hacking related indictments coming but you are likely wrong.
    The indictments claim there were “unwitting” helpers in the Trump campaign. He doesn’t wonder who… and how. He twists it and says there is no collusion, sounding very much like the panicky tweeter in the Oval Office.

    The announcement of the indictment said clearly that “this indictment” doesn’t claim and collusion and he takes that to mean there is none. I hope he isn’t too embarrassed on his victory lap when he discovers the race isn’t over.

    1. So it sounds like you feel that the hacking of the DNC/Podesta emails is a collusion likelihood, is that correct?

      1. I think the initial hacking was mostly a completely Russian effort. The conspiracy (much better word than collusion) would have involved the undisclosed meetings in which that information was offered and accepted by Trump officials and when Cambridge Analytics used Russian information to target their efforts. Of course there may be dozens of other ways, the Mueller efforts seem to be fairly thorough as Rick Gates has already found out and Paul Manafort is learning.

        1. enigma – you and I have colluded before without engaging in a conspiracy. 🙂 Don’t over think this.

          1. I could readily believe that Trump himself neither colluded or conspired. Not so much for Jared and Don, Jr. I think Trump himself is most vulnerable to charges of money laundering, fraud, and obstruction. The Mueller investigation seems to be going down all those roads. Who believes that Trump is of such great character that he’s done none of those things?

            1. enigma – that has nothing to do with Russian collusion. If they found Kushner guilty of something, I would be happy as a clam at the bottom of the sea. I think he has been a problem for Trump in his administration and if he goes in leg irons, it would free up some ideological space for Trump to work in.

              1. I would agree that Trump personally didn’t conspire or collude (other than approval) because he’s not a hands-on person. One of his family members or aides may have run something past him and he didn’t grasp or didn’t care about the illegality.
                You may be suggesting that money laundering and fraud is outside the mandate of the special counsel. I don’t think it possible to look at the money from Russians flowing into his coffers and supporting him (according to his son’s) and not uncover additional crimes that arose from the original investigation.
                Yes, Jared is dirty in his own right. He and Ivanka barely avoided indictment for their own real estate dealings. But all his secret meetings and transactions weren’t just about himself, Donald, Jr, and Manafort were involved as well.

                We differ in that I don’t want him to have any ideological space to work in. I don’t see that he particularly has any ideology outside of making money. We’re left to the devices of Stephen Miller, Sessions, DeVos and the other Cabinet Members capable of making an imprint. I excuse Ben Carson who is so far outside his competence he’s only capable of trying to enrich his family which he’s going about badly.

              2. Paul re “I think he has been a problem for Trump in his administration and if he goes in leg irons, it would free up some ideological space for Trump to work in.” Spot on! I think a lot of folks would be happy to see him go. Personally ,I think he works directly for Bibi. He is not concerned with the best interests of the U.S. Wonder if it was him who hooked Trump up with killer Kissinger?

                1. T rump could work on cuttin Medicare and makin his himself and his Goldman Showers pals even richerand da pollution so heavy ya can’t breath. MAGA

                  1. Well, Obama tried to cut Medicare in his “grand bargain” but the Republicans backed off. Shows you what a great guy he was.

        2. But here’s my problem with your conspiracy thoughts. The Nation published a very detailed article last year claiming that the hacking had to have been done somewhere in the US due to download speeds. At the time of the article, which didn’t get widespread attention, there was no pushback from anyone with an opposing view.

          We were just informed recently that the Dutch were actually observing while the Russians hacked the DNC server. This counter story to the Nation article doesn’t seem to have as much credibility, as Pres. Obama would have known at the time but didn’t act or even notify the public.

          I’m certainly no legal expert, but since the DNC refused to turn their server over to the FBI and instead allowed CrowdStrike to analyze, technically there wasn’t a crime since it’s just the DNC’s word. These emails could just have easily have been leaked by someone at the DNC.

          1. We just learned of Russians who came to the United States to set up their social media operation. What rules out the same thing for the hacking operation? I hope to see soon enough if Republicans don’t suppress the report.

            1. So back to my point of since the FBI wasn’t allowed to examine the server, there is no crime. Hence, no one can be charged with a conspiracy.

              1. If it will make you feel better, we can eliminate any charges related to hacking the DNC server (although trading later for the stolen information is still viable). I’m also willing to set aside the porn stars, they are enlightening but I would hate to see Impeachment come down to that. There is so much to choose between after all.

              2. “Hence, no one can be charged with a conspiracy.”

                Those DNC people sure must be smart. They covered their tracks and the tracks of the Russians by not permitting the FBI access to the computer that was hacked. They are good at that type of thing. They even know how to wipe a hard drive clean.

          2. “but since the DNC refused to turn their server over to the FBI and instead allowed CrowdStrike to analyze, technically there wasn’t a crime since it’s just the DNC’s word. ”

            If the US was vulnerable to illegal Russian influence in our election process then the DNC whether willingly or not was culpable of conspiracy with the Russians because they hid or altered information so that the FBI would not investigate their computers where such investigation would have been done to protect America from illegal Russian influence.

            In short, it appears the DNC along with some FBI officials colluded with the Russian effort to influence our elections.

              1. Use a bit of the brain God gave you. The DNC blamed the Russians for the hack.Think after the fact. If the DNC claim was true then the security of the US was in jeopardy. To close security gaps we needed the FBI to investigate. The DNC said no placing the DNC ahead of American security.

                1. Allan,..
                  It seems likely that Ken is already using all of the mental capacity that he has, so go easy on the criticism that he’s not using his brain.
                  The problem is that he IS using it.

                  1. Tom, Kens’ brain doesn’t appear any bigger than that of a chicken. Perhaps that is why he does so well in the barnyard.

            1. Da Ruskie trolls said da DNC killed da Rich’s son to sow discord and hurt da Rich family. Da Russian trolls have copycats.

    2. If you had bothered to follow the credible hacking analysis by experts you would know that should Mueller actually claim to know something about hacking – he will be wrong.

      Actual hacking by significant nations and even most capable smaller hackers is not traceable unless they actually want to be caught.

      Contra the Crowdstrike report, it is not possible to tie a particular trojan to a country or person.
      Every significant hacking tool, rootkit, malicious code is available to every nation, and most consequential hackers. Every decent hack in the last decade is made to look like someone else did it.

      The most likely party to have NOT done it is the one all the evidence points towards.

      Everything that is claimed to point to Russia can be deliberately set by almost any competent hacker and certainly by nations.

      The only possible way to know the source of a hack is to get inside information from the hackers that proves they did it. Even that is suspect – Guccifer2.0 as an example is almost certainly a poser – trying to take credit for something done by someone else.

      The DNC was absolutely hacked – by atleast two independent actors both pretending to be russians.
      But those hacks do not also prove that those hackers – whoever they were, were also the sources of the DNC emails to wikileaks. There is good evidence that the wikileaks information came from a true leak, and there are a number of possible sources for that – including the Pakistani’s.

      Regardless, the bottom line is that nothing credible has leaked out as to the true source of the DNC Hacks/Leaks. It is highly unlikely that will be uncovered.

      I would also note – as Turley does, that when Mueller makes assertions in the indictment – those are assertions to the court. When he makes assertions beyond those necescary for the indictment – they are likely to be broadly true rather than misleading. There is an ethical and legal obligation not to mislead a tribunal.

      No assertions regarding “unwitting americans” were necescary for the indictment.

      Finally, we have had losts of theis “wishful thinking” from the left None of it has panned out.
      Maybe the remaining speculation regarding Mueller will prove true, but given the history today – that is highly unlikely.

      1. Hacking can also be proven via admissions to have committed the act. Among the e-mails in the recent indictment was someone claiming the’d been discovered by the FBI and spent the day covering up (paraphrased for those who will rightfully claim I didn’t go back and look up the exact words). Methinks that kind of evidence from the perpetrators would be proof.

        No assertions about “unwitting Americans” were made in these very narrow indictments. It doesn’t preclude them being criminal in other areas.

      2. dhlii said, “Everything that is claimed to point to Russia can be deliberately set by almost any competent hacker and certainly by nations. The most likely party to have NOT done it is the one all the evidence points towards.”

        Because it’s possible to simulate the source of a hack; therefore, dhlii would have us believe that A) the true source of any competent hack should always be presumed to have simulated a false source for that hack (otherwise the hacker would be incompetent or “brazen”); B) the simulated source of any competent hack is the least likely source of that hack; such that C) the true source of any competent hack is formally indeterminate. dhlii thereby presumes a presence of evidence from the possibility for the same plus the further presumption of competence that nullifies whatever evidence may actually be present–except in cases of incompetence or “brazenness.” This appears to be a rather clever trick. Intriguing. Stayed tuned.

        1. Once upon a time, not all that long ago, a fellow by the name of Bertrand Russell wrote that, “If I were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, I could not expect anyone to believe me solely because my assertion could not be proven wrong.”

          More recently, a fellow by the name of dhlii wrote, “Everything that is claimed to point to Russia can be deliberately set by almost any competent hacker and certainly by nations. The most likely party to have NOT done it is the one all the evidence points towards.”

          There is a fascinating variation on Russell’s Teapot squirreled away in dhlii’s argument. If the people who hacked the DNC email server were competent, then they would have simulated a false source for their hack. Since they must have been competent, therefore any evidence of a Russian source for the hack of the DNC email server should be taken as evidence for a non-Russian source for the hack of the DNC email server. And the claim that the unknown source of the hack of the DNC email server was not Russian cannot be proven wrong. So, can dhlii reasonably expect anyone to believe that the unknown source of the hack of the DNC email server was not Russian because dhlii’s assertion to that effect cannot be proven wrong?

          What if the people who hacked the DNC email server have hacked other targets before or since they hacked the DNC email server? What if there are similarities between one or several instances of hacking that show a common source for those hacks? What if the simulated source for several instances of hacking were one of the similarities that show a common source for those hacks? Might the people who hacked the DNC email server have simulated a Russian source for hacks on other targets before or since the hack of the DNC email server? What if the repeated simulation of a Russian source for several hacks could be exploited to cast doubt on any or all Russian sources for any or all instances of hacking?

          What if the boys who cried Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear one time too many are Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear? Can L4D reasonably expect anyone–say, dhlii, for instance–to believe the forgoing suppositions simply because they cannot be proven wrong? I wonder what Russell’s Teapot might say.

  16. Shakespeare long ago wrote the play about Muellergate. He called it “Much Ado About Nothing.” However, Mueller’s bogus “investigation” is actually less substantial than a Nothingburger served with Vapor Fries and wash down with an Air Shake.

    Not only that, but the REAL purpose of the Mueller announcement was to attempt to distract from the latest of many FBI failures to actually do its real job, and which resulted again in mass murders. Plus they needed to attempt to distract attention from their continuous engagement in political Leftist BS and getting paid to do so, without any penalties of any kind.

    But at least the Mueller announcement serves a purpose for the Leftists. They can perform mental masturbation for hours fantasizing about some nonexistent “collusion.” And mental masturbation is something that Leftists like to do and are actually quite good at it. So let them “savor” their fantasies.

    1. Trump cannot defend himself without defending Putin. Trump cannot defend Putin without attacking Mueller. Ergo, Trump cannot defend himself without attacking Mueller.

      Meanwhile, Putin is perfectly capable of defending himself without Trump. Ergo, Putin is perfectly capable of defending himself without attacking Mueller.

      Thusly has Putin made The POTUS, Trump, and the latter’s Twitter Trumpettes witting participants in Putin’s information warfare against The United States of America.

      But not to fret Twitter Trumpettes. You are protected by at least two things and at least one man: The First and Fourth Amendments to The Constitution of The United States of America and Robert Swan Mueller The Third who will not be deterred.

      1. “Trump cannot defend himself without defending Putin. Trump cannot defend Putin without attacking Mueller. Ergo, Trump cannot defend himself without attacking Mueller.”

        This is an example of one screwed up brain. Diane, I think HRC still has one large red plastic “RESET” button left. You should use it.

  17. This past Friday made me as angry as ever over this illegitimate investigation. Mr. Mueller, who if he had proper ethics, would have never accepted the Special Counsel position, has now informed us of what we all knew. Russians attempted to interfere in the election. No one has ever disputed that. We had already learned that Facebook testified about the small amount of ads purchased. Typical politicking as always. We did learn that they sponsored rallies for pro and anti Trump forces. Again, typical politicking.

    Now, Mr. Mueller has put our intelligence operatives in a conundrum. Now our spies can be arrested for similar shenanigans. Plus he’s wasted time and paperwork indicting people that will never face charges. What a disgrace and waste of money.

    1. And forgot to mention that since Pres. Trump is so ineloquent in his speech, yes he never claimed that Russia didn’t try to interfere. What he meant and this distinction is rarely mentioned, is that the Russians weren’t successful in their interference. And Mr. Rosenstein did declare this also.

    2. mike peterman said, “Now our spies can be arrested for similar shenanigans.”

      Putin has been arresting and physically beating our spies in the Russian Federation for more than a decade. Because of diplomatic immunity, our beaten and bloodied spies are usually expelled from the Russian Federation. If that changes, then the duty to defend our spies in Russia will fall to The POTUS, Trump. If The POTUS, Trump, shirks his sworn duty to defend our spies in Russia, then The Congress of The United States of America will bring fire and fury down upon The POTUS, Trump, the likes of which The Office of The POTUS has never seen.

        1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

          The broader messaging is also quite clear: Russia takes no guff from anyone—even from the world’s sole remaining superpower. As John Schindler pointed out in a recent op-ed, “physically attacking the other side wasn’t normal even in the depths of the Cold War.” People caught as “illegals” might have been tortured and even executed, but spies with official cover would in general only be expelled and persona non grata‘d, often with minimal fanfare. And yet here, after replaying the assault for a third time, the segment cuts to a photo of the American in question, who is publicly identified by name. Much as with the case of Ryan Fogle in 2013, there’s a lurid, tabloid air about the whole presentation—an attempt at ritual shaming. The FSB didn’t quite get their captured spy to do a perp walk like last time, but the effect is similar. This is the “bitch-slap theory of politics” (a concept identified and named by Josh Marshall in the run-up to the 2004 U.S. elections), gone global.

  18. Interesting that the author doesn’t mention congresses overwelmimg vote to impose sanctions against Russia and the POTUS refuses to enforce said sanctions. I guess when there’s an obsession to go after the Clinton’s, ones judgement to spin the narrative becomes a priority.

    1. Sorry Carterbo. Those 2nd set of sanctions are very innocuous. Pres. Trump hasn’t removed any previously placed sanctions. He has bombed a Russian airfield in Syria. He has authorized the sale of weapons to Poland and the Ukraine. Most importantly, he has put the foot on the pedal of oil and gas extraction as the US is now exporting fossil fuels to Russian customers, cutting into their pocketbook.

      So yeah, your attempt at claiming Pres. Trump is Putin’s puppet is baseless.

      1. If the 2nd set of sanctions are mild as you state, then all the more reason to implement congresses measurers. Fact is, the POTUS hasn’t. And to think fundies use to complain daily about the optics from Pennsylvania Ave. Remember “tan-suit” gate?

        1. The GQ retrospective on Tan-Suit-Gate:

          While President Trump is currently trying his best to defend his administration’s choice to leave many essential government positions empty, we’re looking back at a time when the President wearing a tan suit was the biggest controversy of the day. Now, Barack Obama had his fair share of legitimate mess-ups in office, but in terms of the kind of non-stories the media grabbed ahold of, the “tan suit scandal” was perhaps the silliest. (Rivaled only by the time Sean Hannity tried to claim Obama was an elitist for putting dijon mustard on his burger.) Remember? Then-President Obama wore a tan suit and people were…mad? That it wasn’t suitably presidential, or something?

          Let’s be clear that we at GQ do not, and did not, endorse Obama’s tan suit. But critiquing suits is also kind of our thing, and no President is above a style lesson, which is why we gave President Trump a much-needed fictional style revamp earlier this year. Barack Obama’s suit was bad! We call it like we see it—and while a tan suit is always in the cards come summertime, this one was a miss. But the hubbub from non-style quarters about the suit? That was…a bit much.

          The folks over at Now This! made a video to commemorate the anniversary, compiling all of the Fox News and Fox News-adjacent (we see you, CNN) talking points about Barry O’s beige jacket and trousers. Classic lines from goofy talking heads like “This proves he’s a Marxist” and “That’s an impeachable offense right there” invoke a more innocent (if perhaps naive) America—when ill-fitting suits, not possible collusion with foreign governments or pardoning racist police chiefs, were the kind of headlines you could expect to be caused by the President. What a three years it’s been.

        1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

          The Trump administration was required to publish the list by the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAASTA), which was meant to punish Russia for its interference in the 2016 US election, as well as alleged human rights violations, the annexation of Crimea and ongoing military operations in eastern Ukraine.

          It was supported by Democrats and Republicans who wanted to try and prevent President Trump from watering down US sanctions on Russia. The President described it as “seriously flawed” when he signed it into law in August.

          Earlier Monday, the Trump administration declined to impose sanctions against companies and foreign countries doing business with blacklisted Russian defense and intelligence entities, a consideration required by CAASTA.

  20. Well, the spin will never stop. I had Scandalous on TV tonite, and the spinning in that was over the top, and that was in the 90s. One of the anti-Clinton pundits said he would be on TV shows, and the Clintonites would be all over him, and then when the show was over, they would admit that he was right. It was like the Sheepdog and the Coyote cartoons, where they would clock in.

    I wonder if the spinners even admit that anymore?

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. I watched a lot of the Scandalous show as well, it was a quite interesting look back at the events. There was a bit of spin like the way the “Wag the Dog” segment was a bit skewed and when Lewinski was held for several hours and interrogated for hours, that was a bit shady but they make a good case for perjury and remind us that Impeachment is a political process and not a legal one.

      If what you gather from the show is that Clinton was a liar, I’d agree with you. If this is to be used to suggest Clinton bad makes Trump good. I’d say you went a bridge too far.

      2. No, I don’t think Clinton Bad=Trump Good. You have to judge people for who they are, and in the time they are. Where I do think those comparisons are helpful, is when it comes to judging whether a “speaker” is being honest with you, or is just a partisan shill. For example, if someone is all over Trump for his “pussy grabbing” remark, and then is remarkably quiet about Clinton stuffing one in Monica’s in the White House, and then lying about it. Or, some of the #metoo folks who are all over Trump, but think Hillary is the bee’s knees, even though she both lied, and attacked women who had valid complaints about her husband.

        In other words, comparisons are real helpful when it comes to exposing hypocrites. That is kind of like how it is in law, where a piece of evidence may not be admissible for one purpose, but is admissible for another purpose.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Reasonable enough. Like when the people who tried to impeach Clinton (some of the exact same people) are silent now). There must be a word that allows us to look at the past so we can relate it to the present? Oh yeah, History!

          1. Sooo, you watched Scandalous, and you don’t see a difference between Clinton’s ACTUAL behavior, and Trump’s ALLEGED behavior??? Hmmm, remind me, which Deposition did President Trump commit perjury in???

            Once again, your pre-existing biases are getting in the way of your thinking. Aren’t you glad I am here to help???

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. I like the wording, which deposition did “President Trump” lie in when he has had none to date. Regular old Donald Trump has lied throughout his career in depositions. Here’s an example of one instance where he was caught 30 times.
              https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-lies/?utm_term=.039a9ced11e9
              When you say Clinton’s “actual behavior,” you’re referring mostly to allegations because most of them have not been proven in court although we may assume many of them to be true. Trump is still facing legal challenges for some of his alleged behavior which his lawyers are trying feverishly to make sure they don’t have to be dealt with while he’s President because he’s so busy playing golf and all.
              I certainly have some pre-existing biases which are reinforced every day. You are the Queen of pre-existing biases where the only explanation you can find for a change in behavior is the depravity of a people. Mine are limited to the actions of one man.

              1. You are the Queen of pre-existing biases where the only explanation you can find for a change in behavior is the depravity of a people.

                Well, when 77% of a “people” are doing something like popping out illegitimate kids for the rest of us (including you) to take care of, to feed, to house, to pay medical bills on, to incarcerate, etc. etc., then yes, I feel pretty good about calling that “depravity.” And that’s on a good day! On a regular day, I will call them much worse!

                But tell me what you call it when women, who getting married and having their children in wedlock, to the tune of 80% or so, turn around and start having them out of wedlock to the tune of 80% or so, and the only difference is that now somebody is paying them to do it, what do you call such a people??? And to make it worse, those “people” blame everybody else in the world for their subsequent poverty (disparity) except for their own trashy behavior??? What would you call those people??? What would call people like:

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijHO0cTUOWQ

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                1. I would look for the reason for the change in a population that had been relatively stable for decades. Until approximately the late 1960’s. I’d ask what happened? What I would consider that you deny is a real thing is the effect of mass incarceration when a significant portion of the black male population was removed for doing the same things in the same percentages as the white population. If that didn’t provide a satisfactory explanation I would keep looking. I wouldn’t take the simple, easy, and false premise of blaming the people.

                  1. Enigma – is that when prisons became privatized? I thought a lot of young black males being locked up was due to the crack “differential”.

                    1. That contributed to the percentage of people going to jail and the length of time people spent there. There was also a new emphasis on arrests, spurred on by Federal funding tied to drug arrests and policies like stop & frisk, utilized only in black and brown neighborhoods. Then there was the “broken windows” policy involving arresting people for the smallest of infractions on the theory they were somehow stopping murderers.

                    2. ““broken windows” policy involving arresting people for the smallest of infractions on the theory they were somehow stopping murderers.”

                      Enigma, the murder rate radically fell and NYC became more habitable. No, they didn’t put everyone in jail.

                      “like stop & frisk, utilized only in black and brown neighborhoods. ”

                      It was stop, question, and frisk. In certain neighborhoods the risk of a lethal weapon being used against a policeman doing his job and keeping the children in that same community safe was high so of course, more of that activity will happen in that type of community. I know you want the police to stop, question and frisk all the nuns should they visit a nunnery, but that is just the PC crap that has caused the deaths of so many black children in Chicago.

                    3. Autumn – in the late 60s we get a heavy influx of marijuana and cocaine as well as heroin into all communities, but it hit the black community worst.

                  2. Hmmm. What could have happened in the late 60s, that transformed a relatively stable, and upwardly mobile bunch of people (Blacks), and turned them into a dysfunctional bunch of societal losers, and unwed mothers??? Hmmm. ! Hint– – it starts with “Great” and ends with “Society.”

                    As far as mass incarceration, I have provided you the information before. This time, why don’t YOU look up the black incarceration rate (hint: less than 5%) and then tell us how that translates to a 77% illegitimate birth rate. Or, how come people who have plenty of time to f**k, do not have sufficient time to get married. Because even people in jail can get married. Once again, it begins with “Great” and ends with “Society.” But mostly includes the actual behavior of the once relatively stable, and upwardly mobile bunch of people (Blacks).

                    And if that is not enough to occupy you, because that is only about 5 minutes worth of work, at most, then maybe you can try to wrap your noggin around how telling that once relatively stable, and upwardly mobile bunch of people (Blacks), that none of this is their fault, but is instead White Privilege, Institutionalized Racism, Jim Crow, The Civil War, Rosewood, The Hindenburg Disaster, The Titanic, The Great Flu Epidemic of 1918, and Madame Blavatsky and the Theosophists. (In short, just anything in the world except personal irresponsibility and mercenary monetary behavior.)

                    Squeeky Fromm
                    Girl Reporter

Comments are closed.