Report: McGahn Refused To Issue Statement Denying Trump’s Desire To Fire Mueller

160px-Official_Portrait_of_President_Donald_Trump_(cropped)Yesterday, there was a troubling story in the New York Times that President Donald Trump had two conversations with witnesses in the Mueller investigation about matters touching on their statements to investigators. Both former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and White House CounselDonald F. McGahn II reportedly were the subjects of inquiries by Trump that raised concerns over witness tampering and, in McGahn’s case, eliciting a false public statement. As I explained this morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program, I do not view the accounts as establishing witness tampering violations but the conversations were clearly inappropriate and ill-advised. Moreover, they can be legitimately pursued by the Special Counsel and fit a narrative that is being advanced by critics. The failure to respect legal and ethical boundaries has been a constant and continuing problem for this White House. Nevertheless, there is an obvious defense to such charges and, as I explained on MSNBC, people are again ignoring the actual criminal elements to this offense. Putting that aside, there should be concern that this is yet another tripped wire that should have been avoided.

First and foremost, I am not especially concerned about the account involving Priebus if the current facts are accurate.  Trump reportedly asked Priebus how his interview had gone with the special counsel’s investigators and whether they had been “nice.” It was exceptionally ill-advised to ask the question.  Trump should avoid all discussion, even passing references, to the role or statements of witnesses in the investigation.  Nevertheless, it is hard to see why this would be a case of witness intimidation or tampering.

The McGahn matter is a bit more serious.   According to reports, Trump told an aide that McGahn should issue a statement denying a New York Times article that the president once asked him to fire the special counsel.  McGahn reportedly refused and reminded the president that he had indeed asked McGahn to dismiss Mueller.  Trump reportedly noted that it was not true, as reported, that McGahn threatened to resign, but McGahn said that he did indeed make that threat to high-ranking officials at a time (though perhaps not to Trump himself).

The incident bears uncomfortable semblance to the role Trump allegedly played in crafting the misleading statement from Air Force One on the meeting of Donald Trump Jr. with Russians in Trump Tower.

Is this another self-inflicted wound?  Yes.  Is it witness tampering? Probably not.  Trump was seeking a public statement to spin a scandal.  McGahn had already given his account to Mueller.  There is a difficult line to draw between what is political and what is prosecutable.  The White House is a political operation and a president is allowed to direct statements in response to damaging stories.  For a prosecutor to target a president, he needs to find an act that is well within the heartland of the criminal code. There are obvious defenses to this claim.

The federal code states in pertinent part:

18 U.S. Code § 1512 – Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

(b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(2) cause or induce any person to—

(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;

(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;

(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process . . .

Notably, the code contains an express defense and is provable under the lower standard of a preponderance of the evidence:

(e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.
It is lawful for the President to seek a public statement denying wrongdoing and he can claim that he was objecting to aspects of the story, including McGahn’s threat to resign.
The encounter however opened up another avenue for inquiry for Mueller.
What is also striking is that leaks continue to occur in the White House from Trump inner circle — leaks that are clearly designed to undermine Trump.  Many of these stories reflect a degree of hostility as well as close proximity to the President.

408 thoughts on “Report: McGahn Refused To Issue Statement Denying Trump’s Desire To Fire Mueller”

  1. Reportedly and Purportedly defined as not supported by facts so far the conversations may not have even taken place.

    adverb: reportedly

    according to what some say (used to express the speaker’s belief that the information given is not necessarily true)

    adverb: reportedly

    according to what some say (used to express the speaker’s belief that the information given is not necessarily true)

    Both are another way of saying allegedly meaning not backed up by facts.

    1. suze:

      Apparently great since he holds you (and everyone else) in utter contempt as this line shows: “What the president and his supporters really mean, of course, is that experts have not shown the proper deference to people who do not understand anything about the world around them.”

      Oh the Rule of Experts is upon us. As David Halberstam reminded us:

      “Among those dazzled by the Administration team was Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. After attending his first Cabinet meeting he went back to his mentor Sam Rayburn and told him with great enthusiasm how extraordinary they were, each brighter than the next, and that the smartest of them all was that fellow with the Stacomb on his hair from the Ford Motor Company, McNamara. “Well, Lyndon,” Mister Sam answered, “you may be right and they may be every bit as intelligent as you say, but I’d feel a whole lot better about them if just one of them had run for sheriff once.” It is my favorite story in the book, for it underlines the weakness of the Kennedy team, the difference between intelligence and wisdom, between the abstract quickness and verbal fluency which the team exuded, and the true wisdom, which is the product of hard-won, often bitter experience. Wisdom for a few of them came after Vietnam.”
      ― David Halberstam, The Best and the Brightest

      1. Wisdom is something seldom seen in Washington. The Democrats there certainly don’t have it, don’t want it and feel they don’t need it. Schiff exemplifies a Democrat. Trump despite some of his eccentricities seems to have a degree of wisdom not seen in the recent past.

    2. Trump’s know-nothings- top of the list- his privatizing secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, Erik Prince’s sister.

  2. From the tariff signing:

    Trump tells metal industry worker at signing event: “Your father is looking down on you, he’s very proud of you.”

    Metal worker: “Oh, he’s still alive.”

    What a bunch of incompetent boobs.

    1. suze:

      Well,he oughta investigate Henry Kissinger then since he pioneered the back channel to both China and Russia (Oh the horror!). Nothing illegal about back channels but why throw water on your parade with facts and history. Join the hysteria! Mueller got a fishing vacation to Seychelles at taxpayer expense. Yay!

      1. Or the back channel meeting during the Cuban Missile Crisis at the Occidental Grill, where a Soviet agent relayed information to a news reporter an offer to withdraw the missiles to secure a stand down. I guess according to some, Kennedy should have been impeached for that transgression.

        1. Darren:
          Absolutely, the Dems stopped being human when they even glanced in the direction of a Russian! Off with their heads. We should only communicate by search lights — like Batman. Then everybody can see it.

          1. Back-channel communication could be the real story. Or it could be a cover story. The former is no big deal. The latter is a big deal. Seychelles just so happens to be a conduit for several money-laundering schemes devised by Russians and their accomplices. I’m thinking Jared Kushner on that count.

            1. Trump as Mueller’s next indictment would be a big story. But, Dem wins going forward are also an important story. Recently, the Dem Party sent out a survey that allows the “priority” choice of, “protecting and strengthening public schools”, a goal relatively new to the party. Unfortunately, the listed item that is above that priority, states, “protecting S.S. and Medicare from privatization. ” Rhetorically, weren’t 1000 seats lost, enough to get the party to fight against privatization of public schools (e.g. DINO Michael Bennet of Colo. backs contractor charter schools labeled “public”)? And, weren’t 1000 seats lost, enough for the Party to fight AGAINST CUTS to Medicare and Social Security? That selling point got Trump elected.

              1. Linda, the Democratic party needs a new strategy, especially at the State, County and Municipal levels, to rebuild their “farm system” (by analogy to MLB). They spend too much money on national campaigns and not enough on local campaigns. It’s why the average age of Democrats holding national offices is higher than for the Republicans. It’s also why the Democrats appear to emphasize national issues over local ones.

                However, whatever new strategy the Democrats come up with, they ought not to chuck overboard their longstanding commitment to protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. I have not yet seen any convincing evidence that the coveted Millennials are hostile to the Democratic party’s stance on entitlement programs. But that could change, if the Democrats continue pursuing their current national strategy to the detriment of rebuilding their farm system.

                1. Agree, L4D. I was surprised to learn, during 2016 campaigning that the national Democratic Party does not provide funding for the county Democratic parties. Hillary’s team sent its own arrogant representative to work the county. For leadership of the Hillary campaign in economically depressed Ohio, a 31 -year- old son of venture capitalists, who had attended the most expensive school in Cincinnati, was selected He and his wife had formerly worked as chiefs of staff at D.C. government agencies, (speculating) as reward for their work on Obama’s campaign. It was a recipe for failure as was Michael Bloomberg speaking at the convention. HRC’s team, the Center for American Progress, is funded by corporations and John Podesto, her campaign manager, was very amenable to Jeb Bush policies.
                  The Republican Party is many magnitudes worse, so anyone voting Republican cares more for themselves than their country. Voting for the tech tyrant’s CAP candidate was making the best of a bad situation.

                  1. The Democrats have to stop talking about how to win an election and develop principles that can be carried out in the real world. Right now its rob, steal and kill as long as a Democrat gets elected.

    2. Wait – so after colluding during the entire campaign – they had to set up an entry new “channel”.

      Bless your heart, Suze. I know you try……

      1. In reporting today, the former spy poisoned in London, Sergei Skripal, has been linked as a source for the Steele Dossier.

        When the info. that a blackmailer has, is exposed and proven, it loses its coercive impact. Sometimes, when a blackmailer and/or his target, attempt to discredit the disclosures, crimes are committed.

        1. Linda the story is in The Telegraph. They have a pay wall and an web address that’s a mile long. Nevertheless, the teaser paragraphs report that Skripal was a friend of a security consultant who is a friend of Christopher Steele. It makes sense that Skripal and Steele would be familiar with one another. But it’s doubtful that Skripal was one of Steele’s sources for the dossier. Skripal did his intelligence work for the Russians in Estonia. He was imprisoned in Russia from 2004 through 2010. And he was granted asylum in The UK after a prisoner swap in 2010. So Skripal was no longer in the spy game, proper. However, he could have acted as an intermediary between Steele and his Russian informants.

    1. I think black and brown people can speak for themselves about what Obama did for them. If you are black or brown, then you are speaking for yourself. If you are white, then you ought just shut your trap.

      1. suze:

        “If you are black or brown, then you are speaking for yourself. If you are white, then you ought just shut your trap.”


        Of course, since we all know that only those affected can speak intelligently. Just like only doctors who’ve had cancer can treat cancer; only those historians who lived the history can talk about that; and only those who’ve worked in politics can criticize politicians. Oh, the liberal mind — or lack thereof.

      2. ” If you are white, then you ought just shut your trap.”
        Does this mean you will shut your trap also, or just remain a hypocrite?

        1. From the Wikipedia article on quoting out of context:

          “Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Contextomies may be both intentional, as well as accidental if someone misunderstands the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it to be non-essential.

          Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms:
          1.As a straw man argument, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. It is common in politics.
          2.As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.”

          Darren Smith has committed the first type of straw man contextomy. It was not an accident.

          1. Diane – we often only need to deal with one statement out of many in an argument. You take out the right building block and the whole building falls. I would disagree with you. Darren did not take it out of context, he was responding to the blogger on their own level. That, as you may know, it called tit-for-tat. It is not a fallacy, it is a style of argument.

            1. I prefer the tit-for-tattle argument recently employed by Stormy Daniels and her Legion of Boom Boom pals like that easily forgettable Playboy Bunny with the story to sell.

            2. suze also said, “I think black and brown people can speak for themselves about what Obama did for them. If you are black or brown, then you are speaking for yourself.”

              The omission of those two sentences from Darren Smith’s quotation out of context of suze’s argument effectively removed the true import of suze’s argument. It is therefore an instance of contextomy. Meanwhile, your tit-for-tat misinterpretation of the argument merely escalates the fallacy into putting words into other people’s mouth–which, oddly enough, is yet another form of quoting out of context.

              1. Diane – much as I hate to be the one to do this, you need to get on your meds. My logic is never flawed. 🙂

                    1. The blawg has institutionalized each and every last one of us. (See: Dr. Benson’s “This is the common room at Bedlam”).

                1. Allowing black people to speak for themselves is NOT innately stupid.

                  P. S. Now there’s your tit-for-tat.

                    1. Now you’re attributing to suze a power that suze does not possess–the power to restrict White people.. Go back and read the bit about “false attribution.” When you’re finished with that, explain how suze has restricted you because you are White. Are you claiming an immunity from criticism for White people that you would not grant to Black people? Probably not. Because that would be an instance of special pleading. Wouldn’t it?

      3. Sure, looks like you are in a whirlwind of stupidity save yourself; they are beyond reason.

      4. Hey Suze – check out LTMB, Tim Black, Nico House, Jamyrl,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ALL on YouTube!

      5. Autumn speaks for Putin and White Russians. She supports his re election and is workin hard.

    2. How did Obama come into this discussion? When presented with unpleasant news concerning Donald Trump, his supporters will invariably post right-wing media ‘scandal’ stories regarding Obama or Hillary. It’s like a knee-jerk reflex one can find in these comment threads every time Professor Turley writes that Trump has genuine problems.

      1. Nope. She made an ignorant comment, pretending she can speak for people of color. They are the ones who get to decide what Obama did or didn’t do for them. But, of course, white people have been speaking “for” people of color for generations so why stop now?

          1. And Autumn is a vice-signaling, smudgeprint of a MRW [Mighty Righty Whitey].

            1. Diane – you want to give us your racial/ethnic background? Are you a race traitor?

              1. Notapotapean. Same as you and everyone else. We’re all Notapotapeans. It’s a Notapotapean world. Always has been. Ever will be. Stop denying your Notapotapean heritage.

                    1. In the beginning there was not a pot to pee in.

                      Now you write the next scripture.

                    2. L4D said, “In the beginning there was not a pot to pee in.”

                      PCS said, “My god could care less.”

                      Notice the contextomy, Paul? Your quote taken out of context reflects poorly on a god in whose existence you neither believe nor disbelieve–which, in turn, is quite an accomplishment.

                      Verse 2: And the waters were on the Word.

                    3. Diane – there is a problem with people who do not understand that there are two types of agnostics. One type of agnostic neither believes or disbelieves in god. The other believes in an Uncaused Cause but that god does not direct or shape our lives in any way. I am part of the latter.

                      You have got to up your game, Diane.

  3. Sorry, this is a disgrace

    Who is LEAKING this?
    They should be prosecuted.
    Obviously conversations between a client and his lawyer is no longer protected.


    The NY SLIMES and those who leaked this are committing felonies.

    Trump is being attacked on 1st Amendment right.


    1. McGahn himself could have been the source, too. Lots of possibilities.

      I like knowing that the president is trying to interfere with an investigation.

    2. Sorry “counselor.” Your talking point issued by Pravda Faux News reveal your gullibility; and Hannity set you up to look foolish. First, McGahn is not the day glo bozo’s lawyer. He’s White House Counsel. He serves the Office of the Presidency; he’s not day glo bozo’s personal fixer. Second, even if he were day glo bozo’s fixer/counsel, where a third party hears the conversation between a lawyer and his client, that conversation is no longer protected by the attorney client privilege. On the bright side, at least you are consistent in not really knowing anything of what you speak of. I regret to inform you, that even your all caps proclamation isn’t sufficient to change the facts.

      this is to “hannity most have forgotten to mention any of that” jeanie

    1. Now, Jill, you know that the crap about “FISA abuse” was cooked up by Fox News. Hannity and that homely snarky bottle blonde harp on it nightly.

      There is NO FISA abuse, except in the minds of the people at Fox News who feed this malarkey to their talking heads. Stop accepting their word for it. As a post a few days ago pointed out, HRC didn’t even know that the dossier was provided to the FBI. Also, there was evidence over and above the dossier to support the FISA warrants.

      1. Natacha – so, Hillary, who with the DNC paid FusionGPS for the Steele Dossier, which was padded with additional material from the State Department who got it from Sidney Blumenthal and Cody Shearer, did not know anything? She is like Sgt. Schultz in Hogan’s Heroes. Or maybe like Obama who only learned of things when he heard of it on TV. Evidently, he wasn’t paying attention in his briefings.

        I thought Hillary was the smartest woman in the room. This would make her pretty dense.

                1. suze – go, devils. We were part of the Confederacy here, too. Lighten up.

                    1. suze – well, it appears the socialist state of California is very much into state’s rights right now.

        1. Didn’t you read the post the other day, citing the article from The New Yorker? The dossier investigation was started by Republican Paul Singer, who hates Trump. Once Trump secured the nomination, Singer didn’t want to pay for further investigation, so the HRC campaign was contacted about continuing the investigation, because it wasn’t complete and there were more leads to investigate. She didn’t start the investigation. As evidence of Trump’s ties with Russia mounted, Christopher Steele, formerly of MI 6, took it upon himself to contact the FBI. HRC was not informed. Steele has an impeccable reputation and knew the implications of what he was discovering. HRC didn’t start the dossier, and she had nothing to do with the information Steele gathered being reported to the FBI.

          When President Obama was briefed on the information, he wanted a bipartisan warning statement to be issued about Russian interference, because if it just came from the Democrats, it would be dismissed as partisan. Your bitch Mitch McConnell refused.

          1. This was a great article in The New Yorker. One of the saddest things to me is that Chris Steele, who is not even an American citizen, was even more of a patriot than most in the GOP. He was terrified by what the raw intelligence he was gathering, not because he cared who was president, but because he realized the negative consequences for the US and the UK in electing such a person. John McCains was shocked as well.

              1. suze – McCain started out as a NeverTrump and is still a NeverTrump. He cannot be taken at his word. Still, that is why he ended up with the dossier because they knew he would throw Trump under the bus. However, the FBI already had a copy of it. Funny about that.

                1. That just gives him more credibility.

                  I can understand why some in GOP are scared of Putin and his gang. Polonium tea, anyone? Nerve gas, anyone?

            1. John McStain – otherwise known as the firestarter and/or Song Bird. Don’t know what you read “Suze” but to many many veterans the guy is not a hero. Especially after he had the records sealed of MIA folks who may still have been in Vietnam. McStain is a shameless warmonger – w/o his Daddy he would not even have made it into flight school – his Daddy who covered up the USS Liberty “incident”

              F McStain – neo con neo lib a traitor to his country

              1. Yeah, he likes war too much for my taste like his buddy, Sen. Graham

                Nevertheless, I’m glad he recognized the danger of Trump in every way and did what he could regarding the Steele memos.

          2. Natacha – I have been a registered Independent for at least 40 years. Mitch McConnell is NOT my bitch. BTW, the only thing good about the New Yorker are the cartoons. Their articles have sucked for the last 25 years. Even their entertainment section is sliding downward.

            1. How true. I am ending a couple of my subscriptions because of the utter silliness in them. One is Vanity fair, and the other is the New York magazine. Their crap has become one dimensional caricature of Trump. Cartoonish to the max. I dropped The Atlantic several years back. I would subscribe to the NYT, but why feed the beast? I think I shall try Lapham’s Quarterly as a replacement.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

                1. Yes, I know. I am staring at a cover that has a picture of Clarence Thomas, and a caption, The Case for Impeaching Clarence Thomas. It comes out about every two weeks, but I do not plan on renewing it.

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

                  1. It’s too late to impeach him. But it’s a shame that the other women who wanted to testify to his disgusting behavior along with Anita Hill were not allowed to do so.

                    1. I don’t believe Anita Hill. First, while all women are liars, black women are even worse about lying. And she just looks like a liar in her pictures. My GUESS is, she was jealous of him because he had a white wife, or she just wanted some attention. But, this was before my time as a grown up, sooo:

                      6 Pieces Of Evidence Anita Hill Was Lying
                      ByAmanda Prestigiacomo
                      April 22, 2016

                      Anita Hill made her claim to fame by accusing Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his confirmation hearing back in 1991. The Left painted Thomas as a misogynistic monster despite the glaring contradictions, lies and lack of evidence to support such a narrative. The U.S. House and Senate dismissed the baseless accusations presented by Hill, confirmed Thomas to the court, and the public largely viewed Hill as discredited.

                      Despite all this, the Left, through HBO, continues to smear Thomas for the irredeemable sin of being conservative while being black. On April 16 a slanderous film called Confirmation, a “fictionalized look” at the drama of the Thomas confirmation hearing, was released. The star of the film was none other than Hillary Clinton surrogate actress Kerry Washington.

                      Here are 6 pieces of evidence that Hill was lying:

                      1. A witness said she was told details about the supposed sexual harassment while the two were living in Washington, except this witness was not living in Washington when Hill worked for Thomas.

                      The witness supposedly corroborating Hills’ allegations had moved out of Washington before Hill even began working for Thomas. How could she have possibly been told about the harassment before it happened?

                      2. Hill followed Thomas, a man she accused of sexual harassment, from job to job.

                      Hill claimed that she feared losing her government job if she did not follow Thomas from job to job. As Brookings Institute senior fellow Stuart Taylor Jr. points out, Hill was an employee of the federal government, known for its incredible job security.

                      3. Hill made numerous phone calls to her supposed sexual harasser after she stopped working for him.

                      Phone logs document numerous calls from Hill to Thomas after she stopped working for him, notes Thomas Sowell. It seems rather odd that a woman would consistently call a man who sexually harassed her.

                      Further, Hill initially denied that she made these calls — which doesn’t exactly boost her credibility either.

                      4. Hill initially asked to be kept anonymous when her accusations were presented to Thomas. But if her accusations were true, then Thomas would know that the accusations were launched by Hill, so why ask for anonymity?

                      Sowell elaborates: “The really fatal fact about Anita Hill’s accusations was that they were first made to the Senate Judiciary Committee in confidence, and she asked that her name not be mentioned when the accusations were presented to Judge Thomas by those trying to pressure him to withdraw his nomination to the Supreme Court.

                      “Think about it: The accusations referred to things that were supposed to have happened when only two people were present,” adds Sowell. “If the accusations were true, Clarence Thomas would automatically know who originated them. Anita Hill’s request for anonymity made sense only if the charges were false.”

                      5. Hill lied five times about being told something from a Democratic staffer, which she later admitted to under oath.

                      The Federalist highlights that Hill admitted, under oath, that although she previously denied being told something by a Democratic staffer, she actually was. This of course reeks of a political motive for the allegations and, again, a lack of credibility of the accuser.

                      6. A dozen females who worked with Thomas and Hill gave favorable testimony about Thomas and refuted the claims by Hill of Thomas’ inappropriate behavior.

                      As noted in the Wall Street Journal, “a dozen” women came out in support of Thomas, giving glowing testimony of his behavior,


                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                1. I never heard of N +1, sooo I looked it up. It seems interesting. I will do some more reading in it. I am also looking at Jazziz and Three Penny Review. Jazzis is sort of pricey, and while I do love the CDs, I am not really into all the minutia of Jazz the way the editors are.

                  I send all my “read” magazines to a nursing home/assisted living place with a friend of mine who works there. She says the old folks like the variety. I keep my Poetry magazines and Guitar magazines, though. Is that wrong???

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

                  1. First, while all women are liars, black women are even worse about lying. And she just looks like a liar in her pictures.

                    No more submissions today. We have a winner for most ignorant comment of the day. Congratulations, SF.

                    1. Kinda shocking when you realize you’ve been communicating with someone who still thinks like this, huh? That’s why she’s proud to be know as squeeKKK

                    2. LOL.

                      My loosely conducted study over many years of conducting depositions absolutely validates Squeeky’s observations: women lie far more often than men and black women lie more than all others combined. And, they lie about minutia that they have no reason to lie about – destroying their credibility on all other things that do matter. It is predictable and fascinating.

                      And, I actually watched the Clarence Thomas hearings. He summed it up best when he called it a “hi-tech lynching of a black man who deigned to think for himself.” Anyone who watched those hearing will never un-see the outrageous and despicable racism of Joe Biden and the Democrats.

                    3. You’re welcome! Oh, and there is some scientific support for my ignorance:


                      Honesty though, compels me to admit that I did not rely on science for my conclusions. I relied instead on my experience. Do enough depositions and domestic relations work, and criminal work in a chocolate city, and you sort of wind up where I am.

                      With Anita Hill, the pubic hair on the Coke can fable has all the dramatic flair of a complete and total fabrication. Hear enough, “I came in and found him having sex with Tilly, the poodle!”, or “I found 20 used condoms on the floor when I got back home from my Mother’s, but no, I didn’t save any. . .” stories, and the pubic hair nonsense just makes your antennae twitch. Plus, I have seen a few videos of her testifying, and her body language and demeanor just screams LIAR.

                      Plus, she is black. If she did find a hair, how did she know it was a pubic hair? It could have just been a hair off the top of her head. Black women have curly, kinky hair under their weaves, right?

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    4. Squeeky, on the odd chance that you are not a man, you might want to ease up on the claim that women lie more often than men. There’s a famous paradox that addresses the problem of self-referential statements that illicitly exempt the self-referential speaker. Originally named The Epimenides Paradox, it is more commonly known as The Liar’s Paradox. Here’s an application to your argument:

                      Squeeky says women lie more often than men.
                      Squeeky is a woman.
                      Either Squeeky is lying about women lying more often than men or Squeeky is telling the truth about women lying more often than men.
                      Either Sueeky is a woman who lies more often than most men do, or Squeeky is a man who tells the truth more often than most women do.

                      Perhaps we should put the question to a vote of the blawg hounds.

                    5. Diane – Squeeky is a woman and has supplied us with a cite for her claim. What do you have to back up your claim?

                    6. Paul asked L4D, “What do you have to back up your claim?”

                      My claim literally speaks for itself. Squeeky’s argument is a paradox of self-reference. There is a solution, though. And an obvious one at that. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with citing sources. All it takes is little bit of head-scratching. You’ll see.

                    7. Paul said, “Squeeky is a woman and has supplied us with a cite for her claim.”

                      Obviously, neither Paul nor Squeeky actually read AND understood the article to which Squeeky linked us. What that article actually states is that more women admit that they lie than men admit that they lie. It is not a claim about verified instances of lying. It is a claim about verified admissions of lying. IOW, men are more likely to deny that they lie. Women are less likely to deny that they lie. Consequently, women could actually be more honest than men on the basis of that same article to which Squeeky linked us.

                    8. Diane – that is one of the poorest pieces of logic I have seen in a long time.

            2. Paul, I disagree – until about 3 years ago I think the New Yorker had some excellent writers and stories. Unfortunately during the primaries they went insane as did so many other previously good mags. I subscribed for 20 years, dropped my subscription after they started Bernie bashing HRC promoting. I renewed it briefly but it was quite clear they have lost their way. A real shame as I want to support writers.

              Now I only have Smithsonian, Harpers and am thinking about The Baffler and Orion.

                1. Oh my – but Paul, isn’t the daily “newz” even more than The Onion can come up with? =)

            3. Paul C. Schulte,.
              – You may want to wait for the Cliff Notes version of Jane Mayer’s New Yorker article.
              In the meantime, The American Spectator has an article entitled “Jane Mayer’s Publicity Work for Christopher Steele” .
              The laat time that I checked, no individual Democrat knew anything about aithorizing or paying for the Steele Russian Dossier.
              If their denials are to be belived, Hillary knew nothing about this.
              John Podesta knew nothing about this.
              Debbie W. Schultz, and her successor, Donna Brazille, knew nothing about this.
              If all of these denials are to be believed, the DNC and the Hillary Campaign fund forked over at least $12.4 million to Perkins Coie for “legal fees”, and no individual connected with the Hillary campaign had any idea that part of those “legal fees” went for the Russian Dossier project via Perkin Coie’s payment to Fusion GPS, which in turn paid Steele.
              There are civil suits and ongoing investigations into the “who knew what” aspect of the Steele Russian Dossier project.
              There are enough intermediaries involved here to blur the picture, and combined with stonewalling, it took a year to trace the source of funding for the Russia Dossier.
              That’s the DNC and Hillary Campaign funding, without the knowledge of Hillary, Podesta, etc., etc.
              The civil suits and the ongoing investigations may provide some details about the identities of individuals from the DNC and HRC Campaign who knew what was going on re the Steele Russian Dossier project, but I haven’t seen that information come out yet.
              In the meantime, we can lump together all of the denials and take these people at their word.😒

                1. I didn’t mention “Fisa warrant abuse”, but if you need to pretend that I did in order to get in one of your talking points for today, I guess you’ll pretend that I did.

                  1. Tom Nash said, “I didn’t mention ‘FISA warrant abuse.'”

                    That’s true. It’s also true that you neglected to mention the reason that you’re no longer complaining about FISA warrant abuse. Why is that, Tom?

                    1. Immediately below this post Paul Caviler Schulte claims that FISA warrant abuse against people other than Carter Page somehow demonstrates FISA warrant abuse against Carter Page.

                    2. Diane – has Carter Page been charged with a crime? No. As such, then it is abuse. They needed him so they could double-hop to others.

                2. Diane – the FISC came out with a 90+ page report on FISA warrant abuses. Do you deny that? The problem is all the major players are redacted, so an IG or outside investigation would get those names and open them to the public.

                    1. mespo – I did see a mention he had hired someone but had not read the article. Thanks for the cite. It does appear Sessions is more engaged than he seems. This should make a few people wet their pants. 😉

                    2. mespo – it depends on which swamp he wants to clean out first. DOJ or FBI? Where do were send the porta-potties? And maybe a portable dry cleaner. Those stains can be hard to get out. 😉

        2. Let’s see if Jeff Sessions appoints a Special Counsel for Uranium One. Chances are he won’t! Because no real case exists. It’s another Benghazi: a ‘scandal’ that exists in only right-wing media.

            1. Don’t forget: Pavlov worked with pigeons, too. OTOH, there’s no scientific evidence that pigeons drool, least of all foam at the beak.

      2. I have no idea what the DOJ investigator will find on FISA warrants, reopening Clinton’s emails, Uranium One, etc. BUT, I am sure that if the investigator finds no wrongdoing on those issues, the cult members will go exponential into ever more wild and crazy conspiracy theories about it.

        1. Suze: glad you brought up Uranium One. See below for the facts.

          The Uranium One sale was unanimously approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which comprises representatives of nine U.S. government agencies. When the issue was voted on, the State Department was represented not by Clinton, but by a lower-level official.

          Five committees in the U.S. House and Senate previously looked into the issue and found no evidence that Clinton was behind CFIUS’ approval of the deal, according to congressional records.

          What the hell does it take to shut up Hannity and the other talking heads at Fox about what they claim is the “Uranium One Scandal”?

          1. Natacha – what does it take when yellowcake uranium for Uranium One ends up in Canada? None of the uranium was supposed to leave the country. Do you not think that Hillary does not have very loyal minions still working for her in the State Department slow-walking her emails? Do you think she would not send someone who would vote the way she told them? You cross the Clintons you end up like Seth Rich.

              1. suze – at my age, I am required to take several pills every day. My doctors seem to want to keep me alive. Which pill would you have me take? I do have a sequence.

                  1. suze – I have a full head of hair. There are people who would kill to have my hair. I do not need vitamin H.

                    1. I could be wrong, but suze could be alluding to vitamin B#Crooked H–not to be confused with vitamin B#Hannity, which is merely the synthetic form vitamin B#TrumPutin.

                    2. Paul C. Schulte said, “. . . neither of you make any sense to me.”

                      That’s the plan, Paul. Now go take your vitamin Haldol. Or your Preparation H as the case may be.

                    3. Diane – I do not take mind altering drugs and I do not use Preparation H, You have got to get better material. Have you considered hiring a writer?

                    4. Diane – you can take out an ad in Craiglist. Pay for each insult you accept. You really do need better material.

                1. Are you sure they’re not suppositories? Because, given your blog banter, you might be confused as to which orifice you ingest your medicine.

                  1. Actually Rolf, suppositories are one of the best methods of delivering certain drugs as the stomach is bypassed. In Western Europe they are very commonly used. But Big Pharma for sure wouldn’t want this out there. They are making plenty of cashola from the neo libs

                    1. Thank you for you edification. You, however, miss the point; a common trend in your interactions here.

                    2. Autumn, I seriously doubt that either suze or rolf would object to the whole lot of you taking vitamin Haldol up the back end of the tube. Meanwhile, I recommend Ibogaine suppositories for all Seth Rich defamers.

                    3. Diane – I think Seth Rich is a hero, I do not see how that is defaming him.

                    4. Paul C. Schulte said, “I think Seth Rich is a hero, I do not see how that is defaming him.”

                      You’re taking the word of an accused felon, Kim Schmitz, for the notion that Seth Rich was the email correspondent with the alias “Panda,” whom that notorious racketeering, money-laundering, copyright infringing online pirate, Kim Dotcom, invented out of whole cloth for the sake of bargaining for a plea deal toward a reduced sentence on charges that could put Schmitz in prison for several decades once he’s extradited to the U.S. And that’s defaming Seth Rich on the word of thief.

                    5. Diane – I thought Seth Rich was a hero long before Kim Dotcom made his claims. Mine is based on unnamed sources who have seen his communications with Wikileaks from his computer taken by the police and then the FBI after his murder. He was selling info to Wikileaks and trying to set a price of $20k. Since he was going to be out of a job, I will give him that. Her was sending a sample to Wikileaks to see if they were interested then he would open a secured dropbox for them.

                      The speed that was necessary to upload the emails required a flash drive, it was too fast for bandwidth. That meant it was an inside job.

                    6. Diane – it was a murder, plain and simple. There was no botched robbery. Nothing was taken. BTW, Snopes has lost some credibility over the years since it is very left-wing.

                    7. Paul said, “Mine is based on unnamed sources.”

                      Your unnamed source is Roger Stone–the infamous dirty trickster. And you know it. And you don’t care about knowingly palming off Roger Stone as an unnamed source. Now go stick those Ibogaine suppositories up the back end of your tube–STAT.

                    8. Diane – if it was Roger Stone, then he is not an unnamed source. You do not know how to play the game. My source is still unnamed.

                    9. From the article linked above:

                      Claim: There is evidence on Rich’s laptop of communication with WikiLeaks.

                      Response: The source of this claim was Rod Wheeler (and an anonymous federal investigator), during a Fox News report in May 2017. According to Fox, an anonymous federal investigator claimed the FBI were in possession of emails between Rich and WikiLeaks. However, a law enforcement official has reported that DC police examined Rich’s laptop and found it “never contained any e-mails related to WikiLeaks and the FBI never had it.” FBI sources have said the bureau is not investigating the murder and Washington police never gave them Rich’s laptop. In August 2017, Fox News was sued by Wheeler. According to Wheeler, he believed he was giving viewers a preview of the Fox News story, and a Fox reporter had told him they had learned about the source connecting Rich with WikiLeaks. Wheeler’s lawsuit suggests the story was an attempt to discredit theories that Russia was responsible for the DNC leaks. Wheeler has since admitted that he had never seen Rich’s computer and never talked with the federal investigator. Shortly after its initial broadcast, Fox News retracted the story for not meeting the “high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for our reporting.”

                    10. If your source is unnamed, then you don’t know that source is not Roger Stone. So much for your gamesmanship, Schulteacher.

                    11. Diane – I don’t know that it is or is not Roger Stone, but I suspect it is someone else.

                    12. Cui bono: “as a benefit to whom?”

                      This is the logic that says umbrella salesmen make the rain. A conspiracy theorist’s favourite.

                      Roger Stone is an umbrella salesman for both Trump and Manafort

                  2. I think PaulCS is one of the smarter commenters here. He is usually on topic (unlike me) and not nearly as mean and snarky as some of the others here. (like me) His knowledge is spot on in most cases. Plus, he knows lots of esoteric and eclectic things (like me) which is over many people’s heads.

                    Go Paul!

                    Squeeky Fromm
                    Girl Reporter

                    1. Of course you would think this.

                      Now, if you could just pare your comments down to match his word-count.

                    2. “Plus, he knows lots of esoteric and eclectic things (like me) which is over many people’s heads.”

                      You attribute silence, or lack of response, with a lack of knowledge. You forget disgust.

                    3. mespo – thanks for the support. Although I would like to state for the record that I am not the least bit snarky. 😉

                    4. @rolf

                      You said, “You attribute silence, or lack of response, with a lack of knowledge. You forget disgust.

                      No, actually I am pretty comfortable with choosing lack of knowledge over disgust. Because if it was just disgust, then there would be no comments at all. That, combined with the obvious dumbsensical and substanceless comments by most of the Lefty Libtards here, makes me really heavily favor the “lack of knowledge” option.

                      But what pushes me over the edge into full blown “lack of knowledge” is that the same commenters show a lack of knowledge responding to other people here, who are not nearly as disgusting as me. Such as Autumn, and PaulCS, and Mespo, and VinegarT, and Allan, and others. They are all pretty nice people, and they still get bupkis from people like you.

                      I am pretty good at analysis, aren’t I??? Disgustingly good, one might say!

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    5. Agree Squeek. Let’s hear it for Paul! Hey, where is Nick – he’s been absent for some time.

                    6. Autumn – thanks for the vote of support. 🙂 I would vote for you guys, too. Nick is either traveling or working.

            1. Paul: I believe the results of 5 different committees in the House and Senate, both of which are controlled by Republicans. You believe Hannity and Carlson. There is no Uranium One Scandal. HRC wasn’t involved. These are facts.

              1. Natacha – I do not follow Hannity or Carlson, so I have no idea what their take on Uranium One is. I would rather have a special prosecutor than a political committee. Having said that, I think Mueller is in the bag for the Democrats.

                1. Paul C. Schulte,
                  -It doesn’t matter if you watch Hannity or Fox News…there are a few fools here who seem to think that repeating ” Pravda Faux News” or “Hannity is some sort of clever denating tactic.
                  It is in fact a cheap,repetitive stunt that’s popular with some here.
                  You can go back and look over this thread for examples;recent examples, that is.
                  It’s pretty much of a daily habit for a few people who post here to pull that stunt.

                    1. “debating tactic”….didn’t mean to distract you from your daily talking points, L4D.
                      – I know you put in a lonh shift with your multiple columns and links you post, so I’ll let you get back to work.

                    2. No need to apologize, Tom. I thoroughly enjoyed the typo denating tactic. It could be a veiled reference to Caesarian section, you know. Or just plain natural child birth, for that matter. Besides, it’s good form to show other commenters that someone is actually reading what they posted. George repeatedly expresses his grateful for having been read. So thanks for reading, Tom.

            1. I heard you the first time. Why are you telling me what I already know??? Believe it or not, it isn’t usually us conservative right wingers who hang out just in echo chambers. That is why we are able to discuss issues, while Democrats, well Democrats just call people racissssts! and then high tail it away. That’s the norm for Democrats.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter.

              1. I don’t know why the comment posted twice. Usually, the site won’t allow a duplicate.

                1. True. There are glitches sometimes. The other day it would not let me post a comment at all, and I rewrote it 3 or 4 times. No bad words. Not much hatefulness or venom even. But it just would not let me post it. Maybe the Russkies are screwing with us???

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

          2. Natacha asked, “What the hell does it take to shut up Hannity and the other talking heads at Fox about what they claim is the ‘Uranium One Scandal’?”

            Yesterday Gable kindly recommended Haldol. But experiments have recently been conducted on the use of Ibogaine in the treatment of opioid addiction. Haldol is safer but less effective than Ibogaine. The known side effects of Ibogaine include hallucinations, hearing impairment and temporary loss of motor function. There may be other side effects as well. I’ll check and report back. Stay tuned.

        2. And if the Mueller investigations result in no criminal charges against Trump, the other “cult members” will quietly accept that result. Sure.

          1. This got posted way out of sequence, but my last comment was in response to Suze’s 1:01PM comment about “cult members”.

    2. Excellent. She cited “zerohedge” as if it was something more than the punchline to a joke about goggle-eyed conspiracy paranoids.

      this is to “I just discovered this thingy about the black helicopters” jillie

      1. Yep. They actually quote these sites without any sense of irony. I know the papers of record have biases and I know they make mistakes sometimes [which they usually correct] . But if your source of info is ZeroHedge and you eschew the Times, Post, LA Times, WS Journal, etc. you’re up ****’s creek without a paddle.

        1. Legacy media is a direct conduit for the Deep State – educate yourself. Their redactions are frequent. What’s really funny is that Zero Hedge often calls em out. Only diehard Dim cultists take their newz seriously.

          1. This “Deep State” entity which you have so cleverly uncovered is intriguing. It seems that through your dogged sleuthing, you have revealed a nefarious cabal of ne’er-do-wells, seemingly hell-bent to eradicate our ‘Merican way of life, our love for apple pie and mom, or to fluoridate our precious bodily fluids, or some other such dastardly deed.

            this is to “Inspector Clouseau, at your service” autumn

            1. Marky Mark, dude the “Deep State” is not new. It’s existed since governments were formed – call em cabals or whatever – the group of elites trying to stay in power and manipulate the commoners – bread & circuses.. Just with the internet things changed and all ordinary citizens can do research and form their own opinions. We are no longer held hostage to the bs offered by the MSM etc.

            2. Marky Mark Mark – Autumn did not uncover the Deep State, it has been there since the Federal Reserve started, maybe before. Knowledge of the Deep State is just becoming common knowledge and you would be a fool to ignore it. Although that has not stopped you before.

            3. Mark M:

              If you don’t think there is a guiding hand behind the media’s mass insanity and the noveau leaky sieve intelligence agencies, you’re just not paying attention. Trump is their worst nightmare because he can’t be cowed into their hysteria for profit scam. That’s why the not-so-silent coup is underway after the public manipulation before the election. They knew he could win so every move was made to undermine his polling and to surveil his administration even before it began. Ever seen administration leaking like this? How about one -sided press bias so flagrant? How about immense interest in a Presidential transition team? These swampers are scared by the only thing — an awakened populace who’s armed to the teeth. Hence the attacks on Free Speech, the Second Amendment and the current mode of interaction — social media.

              You got another explanation? I’m all ears but spare me the patriotism angle. That’s a quaint notion to these cynical purveyors of their fellow citizens. Profit feels lots better than patriotism to this invasion of the body snatcher bastidos.

              1. The “other explanation” is as plain as the day glo bozo. Never before have so many Americans fallen for such a con job under such critical circumstances. Leaving the Republican – Democratic party tensions aside, we’ve elected a genuine menace to the entire world; not just our little corner of it. Assuming for argument sake that the level of leaking is higher than usual, its easily explained by the simple fact that the level of unconstitutional, illegal, unethical, immoral and incompetent conduct committed by those in the current Executive Branch is much greater by an order of magnitude than any I can recall in my lifetime. The government IS the American people. Anyone who works for the government owes it to the American people to expose such behavior. Sunlight disinfects, so the saying goes. Those who are “scared” of the antics of the current president are rightfully concerned that the direction this country is going in can’t be undone. I’m not talking about esoteric minutia that the conspiracy nuts prattle about, I’m talking about geopolitical transitions that would greatly increase the likelihood of a major conflict with other nations that have nukes. In just one arena, the day glo bozo’s refusal to order the Executive Branch and the military to prepare and safeguard our data systems against Russian incursion weakens our defense. I can foresee a scenario where Russian electronic intrusion could drastically reduce our capability to respond to an act of war by Russian military forces. This is little different from a commander unlocking the back door to a fortress under his command, so that the enemy may surreptitiously capture it without firing a shot. If the day glo bozo is innocent of any Russian involvement, why isn’t he acting like it. The possibility that the Russians have “something” on the day glo bozo is one that should keep everyone awake at night. Such an possibility cannot in any way be characterized as outlandish, due to the day glo bozo’s repeatedly-admitted personal conduct, combined with the multiple opportunities the Russians have had over the years to obtain same regarding the bozo.

                This topic deserves a more thorough, organized and complete discussion, I merely free-styled the commentary above; there are other examples that come to mind regarding the danger our nation is in at this time due to the occupier of the White House being completely unsuitable and unqualified for the position. However, this is not the place for such a discussion. I answered you with a serious and responsive post because you are “rational” in a sense that others who post here are not, and you are a respected member of the bar, which does mean something in real life. Such qualifications do not adhere to most of the the bedlam denizens here.

                this is to Mespo

                  1. Mark M. – according to Frontline’s Putin’s Revenge, everyone is flawed, which is what Putin wanted to prove. It is in two parts and worth the watch, even if you don’t agree with its results.

          2. Bit of ambiguity, Autumn:

            “What’s really funny is that Zero Hedge often calls em out. Only diehard Dim cultists take their newz seriously.”

            Does the word ‘their’ in the second quoted sentence of yours refer to zerohedge or legacy media?

            It reads as referencing zerohedge, given that was your last reference to ‘media’. You should take some writing classes, I’m sure you’d do well.

            1. Thank you Rolf for that suggestion! Seriously. I need to take time and clarify so you Dimtards understand my comments.

              1. Yes, please simplify and present your thoughts as clearly as possible — the world is waiting.

                Fewer video posts would be nice too. Put your opinions out there, in your own words, don’t be shy.

                As to Dim, I am not, but if you insist on wrapping everyone who doesn’t wait on your every word in this large blanket of simplification then I’ll do my best to keep up.

      2. Yep- Zerohedge and Fox- shown to result in viewers (readers) who are less well-informed than if they watched (or read) no news.

        1. That’s an old study from Maryland that didn’t say what you think is says. BTW, post-Trump the legacy media dwarf Fox for flagrant bias and disinformation.

      3. Marky Mark Mark – I think I told you before, but if not it bares telling again. I used to live just north of where they tested the black helicopters is South Phoenix. We got to see them flying day and night, single and in groups. They do exist Marky Mark Mark.

  4. Please, I wish you all would wear your red hats out in public so America can see the village idiots. WAKE UP, it’s NOT the deep state or any other crazy thing, it’s the fact that you backed a con-man and a tax cheat.

    1. FW – I just wish you and other cultists would understand that it is NOT all MAGA hat wearers. Indie Progressives are calling out the Dim BS. Shoulda run a better candidate. That’s on YOU

      1. You are not a progressive and if you are an “ indie”, it is only because no one is willing to associate with you. I would rather read squeKKKy’s ignorance then your self congratulations on being part of the in crowd.

        1. I am most definitely an “indie’ and a progressive. And most certainly anti Establishment. Unlike yourself. A Dim cult member.

  5. OT – Deep State rules our “justice” system

    Awan case been delayed again – the one the MSM NEVER mentions. Where the hell are the Capitol Police on these cyber spies who worked for some crooked Dims in the House?

    “Over a year after a group of House Democrats cut ties with a number of part-time IT workers amid questions about illegal activity on Congressional data networks, few public answers have emerged from the government’s investigation of whether Imran Awan and his family members did anything criminal during their employment on Capitol Hill, as unrelated charges of bank fraud leveled against Awan and his wife continue to languish in a Washington, D.C. federal court.

    Thursday was supposed to be the date of a status hearing in federal court on the case against Awan and his wife Hina Alvi, which centers on fraud involving a home equity loan.

    That status hearing was delayed from January 8, which had been rescheduled from November 30, after being delayed on November 20.

    The next scheduled status conference for Awan and his wife – if it happens – is now set for May 4.”–politics/more-legal-delay-puzzling-case-house-aide-imran-awan/j1xyfxuEc7p4J0o9StspXP/

    1. About the Seychelles meeting- Blackwater’s Erik Prince (his sister is Trump’s privatizing Sec. of Ed.) told investigators some people told him, “There’s this Russian guy…. you should meet…”. In response to the reporting, an internet commenter wrote, “People close to Trump always accidentally by chance find themselves in the same room with people close to Putin”.

      1. So true. Amazing to just run into a Putin guy in a bar on a tiny island in the middle of the freaking Indian Ocean.

      2. It’s got to a point where Trump supporters are putting their fingers in their ears and saying I don’t hear a thing. Sad very sad.

        1. Fingers in their ears? Obamabots come to mind, seriously. It’s human nature and totally bi-partisan: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

          Wiith all due respect, while Trump has provided plenty to be critical of, such as his tax breaks for the rich that is simultaneously a Trojan Horse to enable deep cuts to the social safety net; Russiagate, however, is a nothing-burger. It’s the DNC stamping their feet and throwing a hissy fit – and who cares a fig if it starts a war with Russia – because they can’t get their way and now they can’t back out. So is his philandering because we the electorate are not given the choice to vote for anyone, Pinko-Commie or Hard Core Fascist, or anywhere in between, who isn’t totally corrupt and immoral anyway.

          1. If us Right Wingers are sooo stupid, how come it is the Lefty Democrat Party-ish colleges who riot to keep us from speaking??? Isn’t it really the Lefty SJW types who put their fingers in their ears and go nanananananana???

            My goodness, but if all my opponents did was watch FOXNews, and read conspiracy sites, I would just love to engage them in conversation just to show up how dumb they are. Not Liberals! Nope, they grab their masks and baseball bats and head out to rumble, with the other Democrats cheering them on.

            Truth is, it is now the Liberal Left who comes across like a backwoods part-time preacher/pulp wood truck driver who dances around with rattlesnakes while blabbering in tongues. I mean what sense can you make out of “There are no illegal people!”, or these idiots who have fallen for the Russian Collusion drivel.

            The Left has even created their own version of Original Sin in the White Privilege crap, and they sit around spinning horror stories about how God, oh excuse me, I mean Mother Earth is going to destroy us for global warming or whatever.

            6000 Year Old “Earthers” are a pretty dumb lot, but Liberals have knocked them off the totem pole for sheer idiocy. Liberals will sit right there and stare at an illegitimate black birth rate that has gone up from less than 20% or so in 1965, to 77% in 2018, and then blame Institutionalized Racism for black poverty! What kind of a nincompoop does that take???

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. Straw man, yet again. Such doesn’t work here, but Reddit is down the hall.

              this is to squeeKKK

            2. Us ‘left wingers’ have our extremists, who go ‘nana nana’ instead of listening to your right wing extremists while they advocate racism, white supremacy, unlimited gun proliferation, arming to fight the governments-both real and imaginary, the appreciation of Adolf Hitler, the resurgence of the KKK, and turning back the clock to a time when most Americans desired the life we have today, brought to you by the left wingers. Is that an anchor or a tail south of your belt line?

              1. Your big mistake is, that you have mislabeled things. You call a desire to keep our country the ethnic mix that it is, White Supremacy, or White Nationalism. That is the Left’s label for it, because anyone who disagrees with them must be an evil racist, with a noose in the closet, just waiting to lynch some poor innocent Darkie who ogles a White Virgin Woman.

                But that is not what it is at all. It is simply a desire to pass down your own country and culture to your descendant. Which, for example, the Mexicans do. And the Chinese. And the Kenyans. And the Indians on reservations. No one calls them racissssts!, or xenophobes, or anti-whatever.

                But you lefties do, when it is White People, Like somebody once said, “If there was no God, we would have to invent one:, you Liberals are in the same boat, “If there are no White Supremacists (or very few of them) we shall have to invent them!” And for you guys, it is all about making yourselves feel good. No matter how badly your theories hurt other people, including the poor innocent Darkies.

                How can you sit there with a straight face and maintain that letting in millions of low-skilled and unskilled Mexicans and Central Americans has not repressed wages for blacks in this country. Who, are mostly unskilled and low-skilled. I mean what else do you get when those black kids in the schools are not nary a one of them proficient in either Math or English? What do you get when those little heathens turn 18??? You get an unskilled or low skilled worker.

                In Chicago, when ICE raided a bakery and hundreds of illegal Mexicans/Hispanics vamoosed, guess who started getting those jobs??? Black People. Here is a link if you want to read up on it:


                And here is the money quote from that link:

                “In the past, most of the workers at Cloverhill were Hispanic. Now, most are black.”

                But how will this get labeled, by your side of the aisle? As racist, as xenophobic, as White Supremacy, as fascism. That’s how it will get labeled.

                Sooo, put that in your pipe, and smoke it.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                1. Your default racist argument never seems to change. Life is good when it’s so simple, practiced, repeated, ingrained, selectively reinforced. Ya wanna broaden your perspective a little, at first, or you will be overwhelmed. Then continue to open that mind. From a left of centrist.

                2. Thanks. I guess that the whole “We take these truths to be self evident…” was just some sort of public relations gimmick in your mind. Oh ya, none of those other countries you mentioned has our Declaration of Independence. Clearly, you didn’t get the memo of what we’re trying to do here. We don’t operate like the clannist tribesmen and third world countries which you seem to think is optimal. Further, don’t cry about being identified as “white supremist” or racist when you spout white supremist and racist garbage. Now go get your two-fer special on pillowcases at the white sale down to the piggly wiggly.

                  this is to squeeKKK

                    1. More awesomeness. You seem to think I care? As you know, I’m not here to convince anyone of anything. Just as a leopard won’t change it’s spots, an ignorant, ill-informed, frightened, intolerant racist won’t change her mind. My amusement here is merely to poke at that ignorant, ill-informed, frightened, intolerant racist through her self-imposed cage. So, you don’t even have a response; so sorry for your loss.

                      this is to squeeKKK

                    2. Marky Mark Mark – you are projecting again. It is not healthy, son. Still, it tells us a lot about you and your past. For one thing, you have no people skills which is why you are doing Chpt 7s. Check your insurance coverage and see if they have psychiatric coverage. You have issues that go waaaaay back and need to be dealt with.

                    3. @Marky Mark

                      Oh, how magnanimous of you! Such noblesse oblige! Here, let me translate what you said for everybody!

                      “I am not smart enough to argue, and I don’t want everybody to see how stupid I am, sooo – – – I will just call people names!”

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    4. Mark practices his debating skills in the barnyard with Nellie the goat and Ken. I understand from Henrietta the Hen that even Nellie has gotten tired of Mark’s lack of intelligence and inability to defend an argument.

                    5. Mark M:
                      “As you know, I’m not here to convince anyone of anything. Just as a leopard won’t change it’s spots, an ignorant, ill-informed, frightened, intolerant racist won’t change her mind. “
                      Well, yes you are here to do that because if you’re not the contrary must then be true: your mind can’t be changed, either. Which of course makes you the “ignorant, ill-informed, frightened, intolerant [ideologue who] won’t change [his] mind.” Careful when you thrown down gauntlets. They tend to bounce back.

        1. They’ve got balls, I’ll give them that. Interesting to see who attends, if it’s made public!

          1. Yes, the buying event’s guest list (and, checks written) deserves publication. But then, that’s my opinion because I believe in democracy.

            Turley writes that money spent in the political system isn’t a problem (his Citizen’s United position). And, he writes that non-disclosure of financial sources has valid reasoning (his free speech argument). The rebuttal was written by Justice Brandeis, “You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few or, you can have democracy. But, you can’t have both.”

        2. One of the guests of honor at Prince’s event is Rep. Tom Garrett, whose campaigns get funding directly from Koch and, indirectly from Koch, via the National Federation of Independent Business, which has Freedom Partners as its major funder. NFIB opposed employee sick leave. (The Guardian, Feb. 11, 2018) The Koch’s false flag, “freedom”, is synonymous with leaving the 99% with nothing left to lose.

      3. You noticed that too?! Doesn’t Blackwater have close ties to Dick Cheney…another “never-Trumper” with a Bush brand?
        “…some people told him,…”, sounds like gossip as it is ALWAYS indirect. If Prince isn’t ready, willing and able to name names he should be quiet
        I’ve also noticed that the drips that cannot help themselves from “leaking” information(?) are GLOBALISTS!

        (All these leaks make me wonder what the Bilderbergers docket consisted of last year, June 1 – 4 in Chantilly, Va)

        1. The UAE’s representative may be “naming the names” to Mueller, providing the dish that may make Prince … sad.

  6. Ship of fools
    “Leaks from Trump’s inner circle” How hard can it be to find them, how many are even left? Security clearances have been a continuing problem for WH staff so, why would there be any expectation that there is a willingness or ability to uncover an enemy within?
    Scaramucci, the spy detector, announced the leaker was Priebus…he said it in neon lights….and, he was predictably wrong-evidence that Trump hires “good people”. (sarcasm)

  7. If Mueller goes after him for this, he will look even weaker than he is. He has 17 lawyers (13 of them Democrats, no Republicans) and a staff of around 200 and look at what he has accomplished to date.

      1. Original Ken – I think, at this point, that Mueller is hunting for grubs under rocks because he cannot make his main case and he has to justify his existence. Personally, I think he is a bully who has gotten his way far too long and needs to be taken down a notch or two.

        I am waiting with bated breath for the IG’s report and I hope it is not redacted. I think Mueller is going to get a lead in it. 😉

        1. Paul, you’ve been listening to Hannity for too long. Just to cleanse your palate, why not tune into Rachel Maddow tonight? She’s kicking Hannity’s ass in the ratings, BTW.

          1. Natacha – I don’t listen to or watch Hannity and I am not going to watch Maddow either. I get my news from alternative sources. You will have to ask the NSA.

            1. Same, Paul. I am truly flabbergasted when I learn there are citizens actually watching these media conglomerates – and, worse, actually admitting it! They humiliate themselves even with the admission. Lazy willfully ignorant citizens with an insatiable appetite for nonsensical entertainment ……..

          1. You go ahead and leave Linda likes the original Ken ya know the one that is anti Koch and anti Trump. Darren Smith is da one that wants me gone so highjack my name and carry on.
            Me gone.

          2. No problem he’ll be back with a new name etc etc as soon as the programmer picks one out.

      2. I can only imagine how many Stormy-Daniels-bimbos are bumping around in Lurch’s closet. I suspect that there are more than a few. Don’t think that he can be compromised? Laughable.

        1. I wonder if a judge will rule that Peggy Peterson can’t talk about her deal with David Dennison but that Stormy Daniels and Stephanie Clifford are free to say whatever they want. And if Ms. Daniels/Clifford is required to repay the hush money in order to speak, I bet she could start a Go Fund Me page and would have it covered in about an hour.

          And then she won’t have to ask George Soros for the money [sarcasm alert].

      3. Trump et al probably would have gotten away with everything if only he hadn’t fired Comey. POTUS will be a unanimous entry into the America’s Dumbest Criminals’ hall of fame. And a well deserved notoriety it will be!

          1. *was not were I was thinking in plural as to all the degenerate criminals she is associated with who should share the same fate.

            1. Hey Rolf, why don’t YOU get behind Progressives who are having to fight the disgusting Establishment Dims? Be a better use of your time

              1. I’m more “progressive” than you might imagine.

                You act and write like a child when they first learn the sun always comes up in the east.

                Every generation has an obligation to fight the entrenchment and solidification at every level of government.

                You just sound like a zealot — pigeonholing when convenient. The world didn’t start when you arrived at this blog.

                Grow up, read more.

                  1. You lump me in with your ‘Dims’ so you can trot out your rhetoric and just point fingers. It’s the only tactic you have.


                    Great response, btw.

                    1. What really irritates the likes of cultists like yourself is that Independents refuse to fall in line behind party A or B. We get our information freely whether from Daily Caller, Zero Hedge, RT, Al Jazeera, der Spiegel, Information Clearing House, Counter Punch, etc.

                1. That’s why the Constitution was written to allow exactly that it does not however advocate a return political slavery it was written to replace that regressive state of unacceptable affairs

              2. Because it’s a facade they are one and the same. and have been since 1909 despirte the phony name changes.

      1. So?

        Experts say the conversations most likely DO NOT constitute witness tampering

        a. Not a reputable source

        and b So what was the point if any?

    1. Paul
      Was out in your neck of the woods last week.
      We opted for the Petrified Forest instead of Davis Momtham/Pima

      1. Roscoe – did you go to the Painted Desert? They are right next to each other. There is a lot to see in AZ. BTW, the Petrified Forest is 3 1/2 hours from my house. 🙂 Pima Is only 2 hours. 🙂 If you get in the Phx area let me know and we can have coffee somewhere. 😉

      2. If you get back again the air museum at Davis Monthan has lunar lander mock up where you can use the same controls to attempt a landing and not to far south is the Grand Canyon’s big brother Copper Canhyon or CanonCobre with tons of hiking trails. (In Mexico)

      1. suze – Mueller sat on the Uranium One scandal and did not notify anyone in power above him. A special counsel would be able to look into that. Past is not present.

  8. “What is also striking is that leaks continue to occur in the White House from Trump inner circle — leaks that are clearly designed to undermine Trump. Many of these stories reflect a degree of hostility as well as close proximity to the President.”

    Behold the coup de swamp.

    1. Pence is the Koch’s man. Given the opportunity to govern Indiana, he became widely loathed by the state’s citizens.

      1. Ummmm – Pence was not loathed in Indiana. He was an extremely popular Governor in our fine State. What is your source for this drivel?

      2. Dunno if he’s “widely loathed” in IN, but he surely is by everyone who is against the TPP. Corporations above country.

        1. It is interesting how closely aligned a contingent of commenters at this site are, being both pro Russia and pro Koch.

          1. So true. They’re all either sitting around the coffee shop in BFE nowhereville watching the one stoplight blink wearing their MAGA caps, or they’re sitting in adjoining cubicles in a warehouse a few kilometers south of Moscow.

                  1. Linda – Freud was mostly wrong and ruined a lot of patients, mostly women. I would not accept anything associated with him. If you have Freud’s slip, you should give it back.

          2. Linda – I am neither pro-Russia nor pro-Koch, however, I am anti-Linda. You are a one-note band.

            1. My concentration is focused on allowing the concert of “democracy” to continue play in the U.S. and, in the world.

              1. Linda – you want your version of “democracy” not real democracy. Real democracy allows for Koch, ALEC, labor unions, George Soros, George Clooney, etc. to donate money to the causes they want. You want to limit that. You want a limited democracy.

                You need to be honest with yourself. Look yourself in the mirror and say “Linda, I want a limited democracy with me in charge.”

                  1. The Koch addiction, in a quote by Charles Koch to donors, reported Jan.18, 2018, If we increase our network’s scale and effectiveness by an order of magnitude …we can change the trajectory of this country…we’ve made more progress in the last 5 years than I had in the previous 50. (End of quote)

                    The ALEC network’s progress led to the lowest share of national income going to labor in U.S. recorded history and to the nation with the most incarcerated population in the world.

                    Can you explain the common thread that makes a contingent of commenters at this blog, simultaneously both pro Russia and pro Koch? It’s as curious as Republicans running interference for Russia in the House and Mueller investigations.
                    An answer would add to the understanding we are developing about the link among the NRA, evangelicals and Russia.

                    1. Koch is libertarian and wants less government. You, Linda, appear to be Stalinist and want government control over every portion of our lives. So yes, with the government out of the hands of the socialist Obama the trajectory of the nation might stop falling into the sewer and head in a more positive direction.

                      ALEC even works with the ACLU and Black groups to reduce incarceration rates. Linda probably works with the groups that like to free rapists and murderers onto the streets.

                  2. Rohrbacher’s fundraiser features Rep. Tom Garrett . He is one of two Congressmen listed to attract donors. The Koch’s are direct and indirect (NFIB, whose largest funder is the Koch-linked Freedom Partners), big donors to Garrett’s campaign. NFIB opposed employee sick leave. (The Guardian, Feb. 11, 2018) The meaning of Koch’s “freedom”, is nothing left for the 99% to lose.

                    1. It seems that one so opposed to all of the money involved for campaigns and political causes would know things like “Democrats win fundraising battle for Senate campaigns”.
                      -Politico, Feb. 10, 2018.
                      There are mumerous similar articles about the massive amounts of money raised and spent by Dem. candidates.
                      You’d think that a person “so committed” to pointing out campaign funding and expenditures would realize that this issue involves far more than the Kochs.
                      That is, if the person was truly serious about the issue of limiting campaign spending.

                    2. Parsing an argument like Turley? The Koch network is far more insidious than just spending on politicians. Bill Gates’ anti-democracy strategy to privatize and corporatize public education is a $1+ bil. attack on the middle class and poor. The Koch’s plotting is similar to his, but they added the element of having politicians with feet in both legitimate government and, in ALEC, the parallel government they created.
                      Gates’ limited his tentacles to targeting elected judges for defeat, placing his foundation employees in government agencies, funding the Senior Congressional Education Staff Network, financing astroturf groups,
                      giving grants for promotion to groups like the PTA and the national Chamber of Commerce, financing intellectual prostitutes at universities and think tanks,….

                    3. The main problem Linda has with Koch is Koch’s belief in individual freedom and responsibility. She might have some real policy differences as well, but we will never know what they are as all she does is bring up names and soundbites some of which state the opposite of what the ACLU and black groups agreeing with what ALEC states on certain subjects.

                1. al·leg·ed·ly
                  adverb: allegedly

                  used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no proof.

                  which neatly ties up the value of reportedly, purportedly and alleged in the propaganda industry or in the court rooms.

                  The result is a big fat zero.

                2. Not only that the term democracy applies to nothing under discussion since such a system does not exist in our country… maybe Canada?

              2. How can it continue to play in the USA when it has never played in the USA and in fact was rejected by the founders in favor Constitutinmal Republic meaning ‘of, by, and for the citizens.” FACT is in democracy was rejected by the founders, is not in The Constitution and doe s not exist except in the mnds of… the illiterate and uneducated who rely on copy cut and paste others of simillar education levels… as in zero.

          3. The problem with Russia is they put their geographical boarders waaaay too close to our military installations.

        2. As far as the USA is concerned there is NO TPP just as their is no Paris Accord nor any Iran Deal. Thehy don’t exist.

      3. Linda have lived in Indiana recently?
        I have and your comment lacks any factual basis

      4. You and the Koch Klan all voted for Hillary, as did Bill Kristol (son of a Russian Bolshevik), George Will, The Bush Krime Klan, John Kasich, etc.

        How are your above friends doing, dear Linda?

Comments are closed.