CNN Legal Analyst: Trump “Colluding In Plain Sight” and Criminal Case Is Now “Devastating”

Norman-Eisen-1200x1500I just posted a column detailing why I am “skeptical” of collusion theories against President Donald Trump, a view that the President recently tweeted.  CNN Legal Analyst and former White House ethics attorney Norm Eisen responded yesterday to my quote in the Trump tweet with his own analysis that the criminal case for collusion is now “devastating” and that Trump is “colluding in plain sight.”  His evidence? Trump’s failure to respond sufficiently to Russian attacks.  It does not seem to factor into Eisen’s analysis that the government is responding on various levels, imposed some sanctions, and that the specific means used to combat the Russians is a discretionary policy question that balances a wide array of technical, legal, and diplomatic factors.  Nevertheless, Eisen assured the public that the criminal case is now devastating.

Eisen responded to the Trump tweet with a tweet of his own: “Sir, you are colluding in plain sight by refusing to prepare for the coming Russian attack. As for obstruction, we lay out the case against you here. It is devastating.”

Eisen previously issued a report last October of “substantial evidence” that Trump obstructed justice.

Eisen has also claimed the House Intelligence Committee chair Peter Nunes could be indicted. Eisen previously declared the meeting at Trump Tower with Russians promising evidence of illegal contributions to the Clinton Foundation to be the long-sought “smoking gun” for prosecution. Eisen invoked the Logan Act, a law from 1799 that makes it a crime for citizens to intervene in disputes or controversies between the United States and foreign governments. It has never been used to convict a single U.S. citizen and is widely viewed as facially unconstitutional.

My column in the Hill is an effort to actually bring some legal content to this debate.   There have been countless hours of broadcast “analysis” but very little of the actual cited evidence and how it could fit with any criminal provision or even credible definitions of collusion.  The primary acts of collusion form a rather implausible basis for a criminal case.  While I have stated that there is still the possibility of new evidence, it is astonishing to hear that this evidence makes for not just a strong but devastating case for prosecution.

135 thoughts on “CNN Legal Analyst: Trump “Colluding In Plain Sight” and Criminal Case Is Now “Devastating””

  1. Sorry, but here on the Planet Earth, the word “devastating” means highly destructive or damaging, causing severe shock and distress or grief.

    The correct word to describe CNN Legal Analyst and former White House ethics attorney Norm Eisen’s findings is “feckless,” meaning lacking initiative or strength of character, and demonstrating irresponsibility.

    And speaking of feckless, soyboys like Norm Eisen have zero credibility.

    1. As in, lacking Feck. Not to be confused with “Feck you,” or a feck on the cheek.

  2. O.K. Here’s the latest: “Robert Mueller’s investigation is now asking witnesses what Donald Trump may have known about whether Democratic emails had been stolen before it was publicly known, and whether he was involved in their release – according to the latest leak out of the Special Counsel, from “multiple people familiar with the probe.”

    In one line of questioning, investigators have focused on Trump’s public comments in July 2016 asking Russia to find emails that were deleted by his then-opponent Hillary Clinton from a private server she maintained while secretary of state. The comments came at a news conference on July 27, 2016, just days after WikiLeaks began publishing the Democratic National Committee emails. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said. -NBC

    This really is BS and many of us a sick of it. It’s painfully obvious that a crime was committed by Clinton who used her private server for State Dept. business then wiped it clean (or tried to) with a soft cloth. There is a crime, a glaring crime.

    Impeach Trump for war crimes and draw up indictments against Clinton and Crew NOW.

    1. Jill – the DNC servers were a leak, not a hack. Seth Rich seems to be the leaker. The DNC knew this which is why they would not turn over the servers to the FBI.

          1. I’m inclined to think you get your news from the little voices in your head further amplified by Fox evening crazy news.

            1. Pick your Fox show Gable and we can record it at the same time and then you can spew your craziness I’ll record it the same time you do and then you can spew your craziness. Then we can see if you are able to back it up with fact.

      1. yup Paul. Wikileaks even offered a reward to find his killer – something they have never done. Also, KimDotcom has offered to testify to Congress and be interviewed by Mueller as he had direct info/evidence about Seth Rich’s leak – they are not interested.

        1. Paul and Autumn,

          Kim came out and said Seth Rich enabled the download. He believes he was killed by the CIA for this action. Kim is obviously giving his opinion but he has offered to give Congressional testimony as well as go before Mueller, neither group shows interest.

          1. Jill, the last thing they want is the truth – note they haven’t spoken with Julian assange either.

            “On Sunday, Internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom accused former president Barack Obama, ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Deep State of bankrupting the U.S. of its civil liberties.

            “The deep state favored a Clinton presidency because CIA & NSA powers massively expanded under Democrat leadership. They had laxity and wanted to maintain the status quo. The first black President did more harm to your rights than any other President, and he did it with a smile,” tweeted Dotcom.

            The deep state favored a Clinton presidency because CIA & NSA powers massively expanded under Democrat leadership. They had laxity and wanted to maintain the status quo. The first black President did more harm to your rights than any other President, and he did it with a smile.”

        2. Autumn,..
          – has a stack of criminal charges against him in the U.S., primarily relating to computer fraud.
          He’s fought extradiction to America for c. 5 years, and now his final appeals are running out.
          His “offer” to testify is something he’s dangled out there in exchange for a deal from the DOJ.
          One part of that deal was reported to be a demand for “safe passage to and from the United States” ,which kind of defeats the purpose of extradiction.😉
          He’s about the last guy I’d trust as a reliable source of information.
          If he was really in possesion of information relating to the Seth Rich murder, nothing is stopping him from revealing that information.

          1. TN – to me it makes sense that he is trying to barter. Deep State has it in for him as he plans to encrypt parts of the internet so the NSA can’t spy on users. Frankly I trust over them any day – especially seeing what’s happening right now with Trump.

            Vice did a cool video interview a few years ago

            1. Autumn,…
              -Did you follow the Rod Wheeler/ farce last summer?
              That story fell apart like a cheap suit.
     is a known con man, and he evidently is very good at pulling off computer-related crimes.
              I don’t think that either the DOJ or Congress
              or the Washington DC police or the Seth Rich family would all try to prevent from providing information related to Rich’s murder.
              If they thought this guy had any credibilty, they’d want to hear from him.
              But they’re not going to let this guy jerk them around, or accept his conditions in exchange for the “evidence” he claims to have.

              1. TN – no have not heard about that – coming relatively late to Thanks, I will check it out.

      1. How about, selling out your country for a few hundred million in real estate investment?

        1. “How about, selling out your country for a few hundred million in real estate investment?”

          Go ahead Jay and document that transaction and demonstrate how that investment was illegal.

  3. “Eisen previously declared the meeting at Trump Tower with Russians promising evidence of illegal contributions to the Clinton Foundation to be the long-sought “smoking gun” for prosecution. Eisen invoked the Logan Act, a law from 1799 that makes it a crime for citizens to intervene in disputes or controversies between the United States and foreign governments.”

    No one has ever been able to answer this question for me: If accepting a meeting with a foreign nation promising opposition research against a political opponent is a prosecutable offense, then why isn’t actually paying said foreign nationals for fabricated evidence, and using it, also a prosecutable offense? All they did was take a meeting. HRC and the DNC actually paid Russian spies for opposition research, which turned out to be false.

    Hillary actually did what they accuse Trump of doing.

    Opposition research obtained from foreign nationals is not illegal. How else would you ever know about bad behavior taking place on foreign soil? I don’t have a problem with Hillary Clinton obtaining dirt on Trump from Russians; I have a problem with it being false, and her trying to release it when there would be insufficient time to prove it’s false.

    1. The difference is:
      – the Steele documents were “procured” as opposition research, paid for by the owner of the Washington Free Beacon. Fusion GPS, a research organization located in Washington, hired Steele to get the info. The Beacon owner is an American. Fusion is located in Washington, D.C. The fact that a former UK MI6 agent provided the info ya irrelevant.
      – the people offering the “info” on HRC are Russian. It’s against the law for any candidate in the US to accept anything of value from a foreign entity.

      1. The Washington Free Beacon did hire Fusion GPS for opposition research on Trump, and other GOP opponents of Marco Rubio.
        The DNC and the Hillary campaign then paid for the Russian Dossier…that project was started after Trump had secured the nomination, when there was no inventive for the Washington Free Beacon to comtinue backing Rubio.

        1. Tom, it is amazing to me how some people comment with so little knowledge that has been predigested for them so that the real story is missing.

          1. Yeah, Allan, I’ve lost track at how many times that same claim about the Russian Dossier being funded by the Free Beacon or other GOP-related sources has been made just here in these comments.
            The known timeline alone shows that Steele was hired by Fusion GPS only after Trump had an insurmountable delgate lead.
            As does the source of funding and dates that payments were made through Perkins-Coie.

            1. Tom, these statements being made by people like Marco demonstrate how easily some are able to be convinced that black is white and white is black. I am beginning to wonder how they function in the world.

              1. Allan,..
                -There actualy are some less-than-reputable publications that still promote the “Russian Dossier as a GOP initiated project” theme.
                And even more publications that blur the lines with word games, like stating that “it was the GOP that first hired Fusion GPS”.
                Statements like that are technically true, but intentionally misleading.
                By late October 2017, after a lot of stonewalling, investigators ginally got solid proof that the DNC/Hillary campaign initiated and funded Steele’s Russian Dossier project.

                1. Yes, but one would think that intelligent people can read through the lines when there is so much faulty logic and proof. There is no question any longer the DNC connection to the Steele dossier.

  4. CNN – Corrupt Newz Network. Remember folks, it’s illegal to read Wikileaks if you’re not media…

  5. @HillaryClinton tweeted

    “I say this as a former Secretary of State and as an American: the Russians are still coming. Our intelligence professionals are imploring Trump to act. Will he continue to ignore & surrender, or protect our country.”

    How bout we give ol Killery a watch tower with a lantern in some remote locale – one if by land two if by sea…

    1. The fact that Herr Drumpfenfuhrer has failed to authorize actions to properly prevent Russian hacking of our voter roles (Russian hacked into at least 6 states’ voter registration systems) is, in my opinion, failure to protect the US as he swore to do on January 20, 2017.

      1. Today Reuters, Vox, NBC News have reported that the election systems of 7 states were compromised prior to the 2016 election
        Trump wasn’t president in 2016.

      2. Didn’t Obama have info about Russian “hacking” (no voting machines were ever hacked) in 2015? Did he act responsibly or did he downplay it until it looked like Trump might win?
        Why y’all want Trump to instigate is beyond me…EVERY nation state is meddling in others’ elections. Always have, always will. Deal with it.

      3. Why exactly do the states need “authorization” from Trump to protect their voter registration systems?

        1. The authorization is required at the federal level, for a federal agency to do so.

          1. Your words Jay were a bit jumbled so I am not sure precisely what you are talking about. What law is it that states “authorization is required at the federal level”?

  6. To me, this case starts with money-laundering. A RE developer who can’t get financing is in a world of hurt, and DT got blackballed. He needed OPM, and the OPs were Russian oligarchs. That money doesn’t come without strings.

    The beauty of this scheme is that the conduit–DoucheBank–was hiding in plain sight.

    Agent Orange apparently told the Russians he was going to run in 2013. Putin’s people set up their covert op to help him in 2014. And Putin is getting plenty of bang for his rubles. There’s your case–all from public info.

    Mueller has tax returns, bank records, and people to talk him through this. And so does Schneiderman.

    1. There’s your case–all from public info.

      Well gosh, then we should expect indictments of many, many people in the previous administration that did nothing to stop it. Now there’s your conspiracy.

      1. Links, please.

        Herr Drumpfenfuhrer will be bright down because of money laundering. He’s been “in bed” with the NYC mafia, and the Russian mafia for years.

  7. His evidence? Trump’s failure to respond sufficiently to Russian attacks.

    How is sufficiently measured? For instance, the DNC computers was supposedly hacked by the Russians. The FBI requested the servers, etc. be turned over. The DNC refused to turn over those computers to the FBI. Was that a sufficient response? A no-knock warrant was served on Manfort’s home taking everything but the kitchen sink. Was that a sufficient response? The DNC computer hack occurred during the last administration; the Manafort raid occurred during this administration. Which administration has more aggressively and sufficiently responded to attacks from the Russians? How could we know?

    1. Please read Admiral Mike Rogers’ public testimony on this subject. He specifically stated that his agency, the National Security Agency, has not received authorization to counter Russian attempted hacks on our voter registration systems.

  8. The whole Republican party are trying their best to be complicit in Trumps incompetence and willfully blind to his alternate universe. So go ahead and be tribal and believe reality is irrelevant. And when it’s said and done, you go right ahead and blame Hillary.

    1. You must be crazy or a Hil-bot (literally). Reality is that the Clintons and other Dims are using this fake Russia narrative to deflect from all of their shenanigans. Reality is that the Deep State is trying to remove an elected president from office. You should read Thomas Frank’s book “Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?” to learn how the Dems became neo lib / neo con.

        1. Yep, pretty much when they abandoned the working class and got in bed with the corps. I was disappointed that Frank caved and voted for HRC instead of Stein but I continue to recommend his book to my Liberal friends.

  9. If that CNN political illiterate lawyer thinks Trump colluded with Russia based on a lack of action he should read this. If he did he could only collude that Obama should have been convicted of treason and shot many times over. The article is somewhat long because the number of such “crimes against the state” Obama committed is very long.

    The Real Russian Disaster

    Victor Davis HansonFebruary 27, 2018 6:30 AM

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Barack Obama appear on a video screen at the G20 Summit in Strelna, Russia, September 5, 2013. (Grigory Dukor/Reuters)
    The Russian-reset steamroller: spreading hysteria, playing the media, exposing the FBI
    Donald Trump has said a lot of silly stuff about Russia, from joking about Vladimir Putin helping to find Hillary’s deleted emails, to naïve musings about the extent of Russian interference into Western democratic elections. But far more important than what he has said is what Trump has done. That same caveat applies to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

    Start with two givens: Vladimir Putin is neither stupid nor content to watch an aging, shrinking, corrupt, and dysfunctional — but still large and nuclear — Russia recede to second- or third-power status. From 2009 to 2015, in one of the most remarkable and Machiavellian efforts in recent strategic history, Putin almost single-handedly parlayed a deserved losing hand into a winning one. He pulled this off by flattering, manipulating, threatening, and outsmarting an inept and politically obsessed Obama administration.

    New Charges Filed In Manafort-Gates Case

    Under the Obama presidency and the tenures of Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, Russia made astounding strategic gains — given its intrinsic economic, social, and military weaknesses. The Obama reaction was usually incoherent (Putin was caricatured as a “bored kid in the back of the classroom” or as captive of a macho shtick). After each aggressive Russian act, the administration lectured that “it is not in Russia’s interest to . . . ” — as if Obama knew better than a thuggish Putin what was best for autocratic Russia.

    A review of Russian inroads, presented in no particular order, is one of the more depressing chapters in post-war U.S. diplomatic history.

    Just watching the film clip of Hillary Clinton presenting the red, plastic Jacuzzi button to Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva remains painful, more so than even George W. Bush’s simplistic, reassuring commentary after he looked into Putin’s eyes. Under the Obama-Clinton reset protocols, Russia was freed from even the mild sanctions installed by the Bush administration, imposed for its 2008 Ossetian aggressions. As thanks, in early 2014, Russia outright annexed Crimea. It used its newfound American partnership as an excuse to bully Europe on matters of energy and policy, confident that under American reset, it would face little NATO pushback.

    Russia assumed de facto control over large sections of eastern Ukraine. Its aggression sent nations of Eastern Europe and the Baltic States into a panic and raised fears of another Ukrainian-like intervention — thereby wresting pro-Russians concessions on the premise that it was nearby and unpredictably dangerous while the U.S. was distant and predictably inert. Russia succeeded in helping to dismantle previously negotiated U.S. missile-defense arrangements with the Czech Republic and Poland.

    Russia since 2013 had sought to interfere in U.S. elections with impunity, so much so that as late as October 18, 2016, on the eve of the anticipated Clinton landslide, Obama mocked any suggestion that an entity could ever successfully warp the outcome of a U.S. election. (“There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections. There’s no evidence that that has happened in the past or that it will happen this time, and so I’d invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and make his case to get votes.”)

    After a near 40-year hiatus, Russia was invited into the Middle East by the Obama administration. It soon became the power broker in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq.
    After a near 40-year hiatus, Russia was invited into the Middle East by the Obama administration. It soon became the power broker in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq and to some extent offered passive-aggressive support for Israel and Turkey — a position of influence that it retains to this day and that would now be hard to undo. It posed as a “helper” to the Obama administration with Iran and helped broker the disastrous Iran deal — and then used U.S. acquiescence to Iran to fuel the ascendance of the Iran-Hezbollah-Assad crescent.

    Unlike the United States, Russia had no need to maintain the nuclear umbrella, which protected the clients of the U.S. post-war alliance. Despite America’s nuclear responsibilities, Russia convinced the Obama administration to cut back radically on our stockpile of deployable nuclear weapons. Such promised reductions in deliverable weapons came at a time of massive U.S. defense cuts and cancellations, and delays in missile defense.

    Russia was relieved by Obama’s efforts to stall fracking and make huge swathes of American territory off-limits for U.S. oil and gas exploration — as this would tighten global oil markets and enhance Russian petroleum export profits. The Obama administration inexplicably approved sale of a sizable portion of scarce U.S. uranium holdings to a Russian company, despite the fact that it was known that investors connected with the Kremlin and uranium interests had paid Bill Clinton $500,000 to give a speech in Moscow. In additions, the chairman of the so-called Uranium One consortium gave $2.5 million to the Clinton Foundation, a fact that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not disclose, even though she had promised (during her confirmation process) to reveal all such possible conflicts of interest.

    Most significantly, the Obama administration had created a false orthodoxy of détente, a politically correct Lala Land, in which to question any of these lopsided Russian advantages was to be considered idiotic or unpatriotic.

    Mitt Romney learned that in the third 2012 presidential debate when he was tagged as a Cold War hack by a snarky Barack Obama for even suggesting that an opportunistic and conniving Russia was our chief geostrategic rival. Even when Putin became arrogant and greedy in his winnings, and finally, mostly through hacking, helped to collapse the disastrous Russian-reset misadventure, Hillary Clinton looked back on her role in Russian reset and made the astonishing claim that it had been a success: “I think it was a brilliant stroke, which in retrospect it appears even more so, because look at what we accomplished.”

    Barack Obama revealed himself with an open-mic promise to outgoing Russian puppet president Dmitri Medvedev, which, by any reasonable logic, could only be explained as a promise by Obama to retard U.S. missile-defense efforts in Europe in exchange for good Russian behavior during Obama’s reelection bid. (“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space. . . . This is my last election. . . . After my election, I have more flexibility.”) Had Donald Trump been caught in such a private conversation offering a Russian president a quid pro quo — massaging future U.S. national defense policy in a pro-Russia direction in exchange for Russian behavior that would help Trump’s electoral chances — he would probably be facing impeachment on grounds of real Russian collusion.

    By the 2016 campaign, however, amid allegations of Russian hacking of Democratic and Clinton campaign communications, the Obama administration could no longer see its failed reset as “a brilliant stoke.” As a result, the architects of one of these embarrassing concessionary policies became not just embarrassed; she pointed to Trump’s loud bombast as proof that he’d colluded with and appeased the Russians. And so began the real collusion between the Clinton campaign and elements in the U.S. government to smear Trump as a Russian patsy.

    The odd result of such failed reset policies and bought opposition research was a yarn that the neophyte and recklessly talking Donald Trump was a clever Russian lackey. Yet Trump’s strategic, defense, and energy policies, and his later appointments of realist Russian skeptics — such as General James Mattis, General H. R. McMaster, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, and, yes, Rex Tillerson — were anathema to Moscow.

    The Trump administration has armed Ukrainians, reentered the Middle East to bomb ISIS, squared off against Russia, and decimated Russian mercenaries in Syria. Trump also has ensured that the U.S. is well placed to usurp Russia as the world’s largest oil producer within about twelve months.
    In just its first year, the Trump administration has armed Ukrainians, reentered the Middle East to bomb ISIS, squared off against Russia, and decimated Russian mercenaries in Syria. Trump also has ensured that the U.S. is well placed to usurp Russia as the world’s largest oil producer within about twelve months. He upped the defense budget, ordered the updating of the nuclear arsenal, bantered NATO members to increase their defense contributions, and traveled to Eastern Europe to bolster Western solidarity,

    Given the media dismissal of Donald Trump and its eagerness to canonize Barack Obama’s eight years with another eight of Hillary Clinton, Russia by late 2016 went from a deity to a demon. It was reinvented as Mitt Romney’s enemy of liberal democracy, and, after the election, served as Hillary Clinton’s excuse for losing the election — and Putin became the new ally and collaborator of Donald Trump!

    Thus spread the fertilizer that fed the national hysteria leading to the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate a crime — active collusion with the Russians to warp an election — that likely did not exist. And if it did exist, it was probably committed by Hillary Clinton, her campaign, members of the Obama administration, and the miscreants of Fusion GPS. After months of politicized special-counsel investigations, together with House and Senate investigations, Americans are only now being apprised of what we always should have known from the beginning:

    1) Russia implants chaos as cheaply as it can inside the U.S. How bold it is depends on how much it worries about a U.S. response. During the Obama reset tenure, it felt there were no repercussions and thus few bounds to its disinformation efforts.

    2) Like the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton campaign, Moscow was convinced that Hillary Clinton would win the nomination and would be a shoo-in during the general election. Predictably, Russia invested comparatively meager resources to encourage pro-Sanders and pro-Trump campaign efforts to stir up trouble. It may have hacked into the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign emails, and perhaps it even found access to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private, illegal, and deleted emails to embarrass the likely future president and perhaps to find avenues for threats of future blackmail against her. Note well, that if the sure thing had happened — the election of Hillary Clinton — then no one but the Russians might have known, and possibly disclosed at a time and under conditions of their choosing, the shenanigans of Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, and his Russian sources.

    3) The result of the Russian-fed, Clinton-bought Steele dossier is as depressing as was the earlier Russian wins from the reset: The gullible and partisan FBI hierarchy is now discredited and compromised. The intelligence agencies, politicized under John Brennan and James Clapper, may soon share the embarrassments of the FBI. The critical FISA-court protocols have been undermined by deceit and untruth. The highest echelons of the Obama administration were probably complicit in surveillance of political opponents, spying that was predicated on Russian sources for a bogus dossier, and some Obama officials may well have committed felonies by unmasking the names of U.S. citizens and leaking them to the press.

    The highest echelons of the Obama administration were probably complicit in surveillance of political opponents, and some Obama officials may well have committed felonies by unmasking the names of U.S. citizens and leaking them to the press.
    The verdict on Russia, the Obama administration, and the Clinton campaign is now becoming clearer. Russian reset resurrected Putin’s profile and hurt U.S. interests. It grew out of a partisan rebuke of the Bush administration’s perceived harshness to Russia and was later massaged to help Barack Obama’s reelection campaign by granting Russia concessions in hopes of a foreign-policy success that would lead to perceived calm. Russia deliberately inserted itself into the 2016 election, as it had in previous elections, because 1) it had suffered few if any prior consequences, 2) it wanted to sow chaos in the American political system, and 3) it saw a way to warp Clinton’s efforts to smear Donald Trump, first, no doubt to compromise a likely President Clinton, and, in unexpected fashion, later to undermine an actual President Trump.

    At very little cost, Russia has embarrassed American democracy, played the media for the partisans they are, completely discredited the Clinton campaign and name, and created a year of nonstop hysteria to undermine the Trump administration.

    And it is not over yet.

      1. Fox news is pretty accurate Jay. The opinion on Fox news may be slanted but the facts provided are carefully assessed by the left so we know when Fox news opinion lies about the facts. However, we can compare notes by taping the same show and then you can prove your contention and I can prove mine.

        When one looks at the history of what has been said on the various newscasts Fox news and opinion has been more accurate in the long run.

        Take the Reverend Wright claim by Hannity who seems to be the most objectionable to the left. He provided that information for a year while it was poo-pooed by the left and he was called a liar. The tapes of the Reverand demonstrate Hannity was correct.

      2. Jay S – I use several sources for my news, Fox is NOT one of them. I do use Breitbart though, the Daily Mail, the Guardian, NY Post, Washington Times. I get my opinions from YouTube commentators who can spend time explaining the situation and then I can agree or disagree with them.

        I have pretty much cut the cable.

        1. Paul, Fox adds another dimension. We might never have found out about the Reverend Wright but for Fox. My viewing of news mostly comes from the net aggregators, but I Tivo a lot of news programs so I can quickly scan various channels and focus in on some of the particulars on more than one channel.

  10. I agree with Turley. No Trump indictment for collusion could come down unless there is an airtight case. There will be insufficient evidence and therefore no criminal indictment. And also no impeachment charge by Congress.

    The best that anti-Trumpers can hope for is that he does not run in 2020 – either by voluntarily bowing out (saying, “Mission accomplished”) or due to the GOP finally coming to its senses and refusing to nominate him again.

    1. It was all gonna be so simple: HRC vs Jeb! Neo lib / neo con candidates. Coke vs Pepsi. But along came Bernie and Trump – both of whom had enthusiastic supporters. At least the Repubs had the decency to step out of the way and nominate him – unlike the Dims who destroyed Sanders.

      MSM was complicit all the way – giving so much coverage to Trump hoping it would work against him but it didn’t – he won and now they are turning all their attention on the absurd Russia narrative. People are woke and only the brainwashed are buying the narrative

      “Adam Schiff Has Given 227 TV Interviews Since Trump’s Inauguration”

      “It’s clear that Schiff, who recently had no national profile, has used the House’s Russia investigation as a self-serving platform to increase his visibility and is incentivized to prolong, dramatize, and overhype the investigation so he can continue preening for the cameras,” the RNC argues in its report, which is entitled “The Schiff Show: By the Numbers.”

      Schiff’s go-to networks are not surprise. He has appeared on MSNBC a total of 111 times since Trump’s inauguration,according to the RNC’s research report. CNN has interviewed the former federal prosecutor 87 times over the same time span.

      Schiff has spent a total of 23 hours on the two left-leaning networks, according to the analysis.”

    2. “The best that anti-Trumpers can hope for… ” Or that all those cheeseburgers in bed will catch up to his arteries.

    1. Dr. Graham’s son, Franklin, dismantled his father’s legacy. Reportedly, Franklin’s not even welcome in some European countries. Without a legacy (evangelicals now backing Republican hypocrites) there’s little reason for an extended Billy Graham eulogy. If Graham’s daughter had inherited his position, the story might be different. If her opportunity was quashed by Billy in favor of Franklin, that’s on Graham Sr.

      The southern “Christians’ ” lack of relevancy (or, the disdain with which they are viewed because they share values with Russians and the NRA), is of their own making.

      1. Unfortunately your claim is wrong in which you minimize the current political power of Christian “evangelicals” who were aligned with Graham. Of all US so-called “Christian evangelical” denominations, more are SBC members than any other. Without SBC political support for illegal and unwelcome US foreign military wars and excursions, such events might not exist, being politically impossible. The only known group more fervently supporting US military excursions than the SBC (see Lindsey Graham who feverishly foments war now with Iran, Russia, and your mother in law if she’s a big enough target) are MIC members themselves.

        When Bushie was POTUS it was quite common among DNC stage holders and their sycophants to claim strong anti-war status. We often heard them call Bush “war monger.”

        Soetoro bin Bama and HRC incinerated all anti-war DNC memes. The only time the current left cheered even Satan Hitler Pol Pot Anti-Christ (their opinion) Trump himself is when he launched cruise missiles into some hapless pile of ME dirt. For about 1.5 days they called Trump “Presidential!”

        Anyone fomenting peace in today’s political landscape is now labeled a “Putin water boy.”

        1. They are irrelevant as Christians- Billy Graham had some moral ground to stand on until Franklin took the lead. Had Billy died sooner, a eulogy, broadcast over media would have been viewed positively.

  11. I think that it is DEVASTATING that a–purportedly–educated and well-established man, who doesn’t–presumably–live in some trailer park, where he is devoid of any discretionary funds, can’t be bothered with purchasing a simple mirror. Yes. A mirror. One which would allow anyone, breathing and with even the worst of vision vision, to see how hideous this being looks with a white beard, accompanied by his self-applied box of Miss Clairol, number 579, in Dark Poop Brown, on his head. Yeah, Norm. Time to spend a few shekels and go see a professional hairdresser, who could dye your hair without it looking like you had a can of dark brown paint fall onto your head and, accidentally, miss hitting your beard. How can anyone take what this guy says, seriously, when he is so confused by what is considered to be acceptable, in terms of appearance and presentation, for someone in his position? Oh, yeah. . .I forgot. . .he is a legal analyst for CNN. Nevermind.

    1. Kush can run for prezzy. You don’t need a clearance and can be in debt to da Russians up to your eyeballs. Javanka 2024. Long live da corrupt T rump Kushner dynasty.

      1. I hope Kushner leaves the WH. Creepy guy. But I found it interesting that another creepy guy – John Podesta – tweeted “Seems like those “unnamed sources peddling second-hand hearsay with rank speculation that continue to leak inaccurate information,” came straight from 1600 Penn. Jared better start wearing his kevlar on his back.”

        Kevlar on his back?!?

        His name was Seth Rich

    2. Where were the leftist Progressives during:

      Obama’s extra judicial drone assassinations of US citizens Anwar Al Awlaki and his 16 year old son by the same name?

      The US promise to spare Gadaffi’s life if he swore off nuclear weapons, followed by Gadaffi swearing off nuclear weapons, followed by HRC ordering the CIA to arm and train alleged (not) “moderate Islamics” to anal rape and behead Gadaffi? (TPTB stopped using the term “moderate Islamic” because no such thing exists; pray for the same fate to the similarly oxymoronic “Mid East Peace Process”.)

      1. JJ – there were plenty of Leftist Progressives who covered the Awlaki killing – Jimmy Dore, Real News Network, Lee Camp, Ed Schultz, etc.

        Leftist progressives are NOT mindless Liberals who were blind to Obama’s failures and supported HRC.

  12. Hey, Normie, the Russian conspiracy indictment has already been handed down and, guess what, no Trump associates are named as defendants.

      1. Yup, the Russian conspiracy investigation is over. Remember where you heard it first. If not, why was the indictment handed down. Do you think a prosecutor will sign off on a conspiracy indictment that does not include all co-conspirators? Why would s/he do that? The grand jury heard the evidence of the conspiracy and returned an indictment against the conspirators. Why would the grand jury omit conspirators from a conspiracy indictment?

      2. The entire premise of Russian collusion started with the FISA warrant against Carter Page. Maybe you missed the 3000 times Page appeared on CNN during the last 1.5 years. Page wanders the face of the earth, apparently (per you, Schiff, the DNC, the Deep State FBI employees, and 99% of MSM) conspiring against the USA with Putin, etc.

        If your premise is true, then Schiff, Eric Swallwell, Mueller and his DNC run team have spent $50M and 1.5 years and are still unable to stop Page and Trump from selling off the USA in pieces to Putin, all the while committing felony impeachable treason.

        Please explain why and how that is? Why are all the above persons such abject failures in performing their jobs? Has Trump and/or Putin threatened to kill them?

        The Soetero birthers pale next to your conspiracy theory.

  13. Sure sounds like Mr. Eisen took a class from the Harvard Law professor, Mr. Lessig. Or maybe they’re just colluding.

  14. Mr. Eisen appears to be far more interested in raising his public profile than in presenting an objective analysis.

    Given the monetary benefits to being a CNN analyst, you can understand Mr. Eisen’s apparent willingness to mislead his viewers – he does know where his bread is buttered.

    Fortunately, in this time of multiple news sources , Mr. Eisen’s prevarications quickly become apparent.

  15. Where did this CNN “Legal expert” get his Law Degree? I know in “OUTHOUSE< Fourth Dimension". I am sure he Never passed the Bar in the USA.

  16. The government Mr. Turley is not responding. You should know better than making a blanket statement that “government is responding on various levels,” have you not bothered to listen to Adm. Rodgers testimony that he has not been given orders to respond to cyber attacks made by the Russians and as such Adm. Rodgers has limited options to respond. This action is the same response stated by other intelligence agencies: no direction from the White House to defend the nation. You’re so dead set on protecting Trump; you use every excuse to justify this president who is compromised to Putin and the criminal oligarchs of Russia. How about saying Trump is derelict in performing his Constitutional duties as president and as such should be removed.

    1. Do you ever read more than headline or talking points?

      o While Rogers pushed back on the notion that the administration has done nothing to counter Russian interference, he acknowledged that the response so far—which has included sanctions passed by Congress—has been insufficient in deterring such behavior.

      o Rogers did say he has directed the cyber mission force to “begin some specific work” on the issue, but would not go into further detail on the steps in the unclassified setting.

      o While Rogers said he has not asked for additional authorities to stop Russian cyberattacks at the source, he noted that it would ultimately be up to President Trump to give him that permission.

      Oh, no, Rogers hasn’t received authority for something he hasn’t asked for!!!! TRUMP, COLLISION!!!

      1. Oy, you’re not even reading what you posted. Why don’t you share your thoughts on how the government is supposed to stop having any entity from using straw men to purchase ads on social media? Or organizing rallies?

        I suppose you expect Google, Facebook and the other social media giants to let the government decide how to run their business.

        Or I’ll just leave you with a quote from YOUR post: Rogers did say he has directed the cyber mission force to “begin some specific work” on the issue, but would not go into further detail on the steps in the unclassified setting.

        And since when does he need authority to do his job?

Comments are closed.