Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Politics, Society

White House: diGenova and Toensing Will Not Represent Trump

1600_executive_branchThe White House announced today that President Trump will not hire Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing as counsel due to conflicts of interest.  The announcement of diGenova’s selection led to a chorus of objections from his being a “television lawyer” to a conspiracy theorists.  I recently wrote a column that noted that diGenova was the former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and considered one of the most experienced lawyers in the city.  However, there was reportedly opposition in the White House including reportedly from John Dowd who resigned around the same time.  Dowd has not spoken publicly to confirm or deny that reported position.

Jay Sekulow (who reportedly favored diGenova’s addition to the team) announced on Sunday morning that “The president is disappointed that conflicts prevent Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing from joining the president’s special counsel legal team. However, those conflicts do not prevent them from assisting the president in other legal matters. The president looks forward to working with them.”

The only conflict that has been reported involves Toensing who is representing Mark Corallo, the former spokesman for Mr. Trump’s legal team in 2017.  There are reports that Corallo may have given statements inimical to the position of aides like Hope Hicks on obstruction allegations.

Trump in the meantime is tweeting from Florida and denied that he was having trouble enlisting new legal talent. He denounced such stories as a “Fake News narrative.”  He stated “Fame & fortune will never be turned down by a lawyer, though some are conflicted.”  He assured his followers that “many lawyers and top law firms want to represent me in the Russia case” and that reports of flux on his team were a “Fake News narrative.”

 

The decision not to hire diGenova and Toensing leaves the team one person short but there remains ample legal staffing.  The question remains whether the departure of Dowd reflects a change in strategy and whether the President will agree to sit down with Mueller. I recently wrote a column that, if Mueller is willing to confine the questions to the four categories and make this a one-time sitdown, it may be the best deal in an otherwise bad situation.

 

106 thoughts on “White House: diGenova and Toensing Will Not Represent Trump”

  2. “The only conflict that has been reported involves Toensing who is representing Mark Corallo, the former spokesman for Mr. Trump’s legal team in 2017.”

    Uh — Toensing also represents the FBI whistleblower/informant that has accused the FBI of covering up massive corruption related to the Uranium One deal.

    Does JT not know about that, or does he not consider it a potential conflict?

    Plus, though not technically a conflict, via multiple appearances on Fox News (Hannity and Carlson), diGenova and Toensing becoming part of Trump’s official legal team would present the appearance that Fox News was playing an active role in Trump’s defense and/or the likely coming prosecution of several (or more) members of Obama’s DOJ and FBI, and others involved in their conspiratorial activities

    1. Haha. “Uranium One.” As if. Please post more of this entertaining material. I’ve heard rumors of black helicopters and some underground talk about something called “Whitewater.” Perhaps your “contacts” have further info?

      this is to “I wear a disguise to bring in the paper” willie

  3. If Trump hires an Ital he will get accused by fake news of colluding with the Mafia.

  4. I agree that any contact with Muller needs to be limited to one-and-done. I also feel that this needs to be done in writing, so that President Trump’s loquaciousness doesn’t get him into deeper trouble, and also to prevent follow-up questions being asked.

    1. Hello Buddy, do you guys have any Trump and Stormy videos yet? I’m writing an article on Trump’s depravity and I need illustrations….

      Have a Great Day

  6. Trump would only attract lawyers who are into personal aggrandizement and money, just like him. That’s why it’s ironic that he’s complaining about fees and attention, two things that drive him. What lawyer wants a client who cannot stop shooting off his mouth (via Twitter in this case ), and who doesn’t have enough sense to follow his lawyer’s advice? Then ,there’s the simple fact that he’s guilty as hell.. Since there’sno satisfaction for helping a deserving person obtain justice, personal aggrandizement and cash are all that’s left.

    2. LOL — “Then ,there’s the simple fact that he’s guilty as hell.” — LOL

      Ah, the old we-don’t-need-no-stinking-evidence evidence. The evidence is that he’s guilty as hell.

      Of course you’re dead wrong, but there IS the fact that “guilty as hell” is not a “fact” — it’s a CONCLUSION that must be BASED upon facts.

      Man, Harry Truman and JFK must be rolling over in their graves because of what has become of their democrat party since INSANE Hillary became its standard bearer.

      1. That the day glo bozo is “guilty” of something is an entirely reasonable theory. People who are innocent, don’t act as if they’re guilty, which the day glo bozo does with about every other tweet, and his hysteria-ridden attacks on the Special Prosecutor.

        this is to “I’d still vote for the clown even if he did start a nuclear war” willie

  7. @JT
    “White House announced today that President Trump will not hireJoe diGenova and Victoria Toensing as counsel due to conflicts of interest. The announcement of diGenova’s selection led to a chorus of objections from his being a ‘television lawyer’ to a conspiracy theorists.” (sic)

    Whoa! That’s getting up there in Bill Wilde’s “pathological lawyer” territory, isn’t it? (March 25, 2018 at 12:30 PM)

    I mean, being a TV barrister is, agreed, arguably more respectable than being an ambulance chaser, but being someone who could theorize that two or more people might have secretly conspired to commit some crime? Forget the American Bar Association, it’s time to call Dr. Phil.

    Unless, that is, unless we’re talking about the behavior of Government attorneys, conspiracy theorists par excellence, who charge people day in and day out with conspiracy to commit one crime or another:

    “Conspiracy, coined the prosecutor’s ‘darling,’ is one of the most commonly charged federal crimes. [Emphasis added] The charge of conspiracy is a prosecutor’s darling because of the great advantage it gives to prosecutors, and the government, and the great disadvantage it gives to the accused, the defendant.

    “Keep in mind that, one of the intents of the founders was for prosecutors to be neutral, unbiased pursuers of truth and justice, not convictions. Prosecutors, paid for by the people, were to represent both the government and the defendant equally, in the quest for the truth. Today, nothing could be further from the truth, as the government prosecutors are interested only in convictions and protection of their employer, the government.

    “The offense of conspiracy has great breadth, and prosecutors have applied it to a variety of situations. Commentators have noted that ‘it is clear that a conspiracy charge gives the prosecution certain unique advantages and that one who must defend against such a charge bears a particularly heavy burden.’

    “The Supreme Court has described the gravity of the conspiracy offense: ‘For two or more to confederate and combine together to commit or cause to be committed a breach of the criminal laws, is an offense of the gravest character, sometimes quite outweighing, in injury to the public, the mere commission of the contemplated crime. It involves deliberate plotting to subvert the laws, educating and preparing the conspirators for further and habitual criminal practices. And it is characterized by secrecy, rendering it difficult of detection, requiring more time for its discovery, and adding to the importance of punishing it when discovered.’ ”
    https://redoubtnews.com/2017/04/conspiracy-prosecutors-darling/

    But it simply cannot be overstressed that unless you are a Government attorney (or a member of a Government body such as the 9/11 Commission), you are ipso facto the wrong kind of person to be theorizing about conspiracies.

    If you have the temerity to do so, and you are not an employee of the Government, you will answer to the term coined by the CIA to discredit critics of the Warren Commission, and disseminated relentlessly by their friends in (and their unthinking readers of) the Corporate Media ever since.

    You have been advised.

    1. I recall saying that Trump was debauched and despicable, a vile and loutish imbecile, and a pathological LIAR, but if I called him a pathological LAWYER I clearly went too far and I apologize.

      Cordially, Bill

      1. @Bill Wilde, March 25, 2018 at 3:43 PM
        “I recall saying that Trump was debauched and despicable, a vile and loutish imbecile, and a pathological LIAR, but if I called him a pathological LAWYER I clearly went too far and I apologize.
        Cordially, Bill”

        Apology accepted on behalf of lieyers wherever they may dwell. 🙂

  8. Turley: “I recently wrote a column that noted that diGenova was the former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and considered one of the most experienced lawyers in the city.“

    Experienced? Sure. Ethical? No. Scumbag? Res ipsa loquitur.

    http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2018/03/the-washington-times-reported-on-a-controversy-involving-the-latest-attorney-brought-into-the-mueller-probe-prominent-dc-l.html

    ——————-

    The Washington Times reported on a 2011 controversy involving the latest attorney brought into defend the Mueller probe

    Prominent D.C. lawyer Joseph E. diGenova has billed himself as a battle-tested former prosecutor who, as the U.S. attorney in the nation’s capital, supervised the high-profile prosecution of John W. Hinckley Jr., who tried to kill President Reagan.

    But Mr. diGenova had no role in the prosecution or the trial, according to court records and those who did prosecute the case. Although Hinckley was listed on his law firm biography for 10 years as one of his biggest cases as U.S. attorney, he wasn’t the U.S. attorney when the case was tried. He was named to the post 17 months after the case ended.

    “Mr. diGenova played no role in the trial and did not supervise the case,” said Washington lawyer Roger M. Adelman, lead prosecutor who began working on the Hinckley case right after Reagan was shot on March 30, 1981, outside the Washington Hilton Hotel.

    But the change did not satisfy Marc B. Tucker, another member of the Hinckley prosecution team and now a lawyer in private practice. He said he was “enraged” by the original biography and that he had “never seen anything quite like this.” He said the revised version “still implies” that Mr. diGenova had a role in the case.

    The same source noted that a complaint concerning this conduct was filed with the D.C. Bar Counsel, where it presumably was deposited in a circular file.

    Disclosure: Roger Adelman was a friend for whom I had great admiration.

    Roger was, among other things, a huge Phillies fan. He invited me to an NCLS game in Philly and was going to drive us up there in his signature Caddy. I begged off and gave away the ticket when the plans changed and he decided to take the train.

    I missed Roy Halladay’s no-hitter. (Mike Frisch)

  10. Prof Turley is using the wrong venue to join Trump’s legal team since he does not read much if at all. My suggestion is to get on Faux while Trump is watching, they will know when that is, and say what you wrote in many columns. He will be happy to get you, and let you become more famous. Of course, you will have to get your fee up front since he is notorious for not paying those he has written contracts with. For any further expenses, you will have to find a judge who has no further ambitions to advance to enforce any judgement you get against Trump. Then you will have to find another sheriff who also has some courage to follow that judges ruling and put up some of Trump’s property for auction to pay the judgement. Just ask the poor paint contractor who had to spend over a quarter of a million dollars to get paid, at least he did not have to bear all the legal costs to get paid. I imagine he DID have to spend that money first to pay his lawyers, even if he did get the money back. Then you can get to join the distinguished ranks of Trump’s lawyers like Roy Cohn and get praised by Trump. I imagine you will find no greater honor than to be listed as one of his lawyers. Good luck.

    1. Indeed, to his credit, Ted Olsen decided not to besmirch his own reputation by working for our Bizarro President. Good point.

    2. “turned Trump down, refuting Trump’s claim that nobody would.”

      Once again Enigma makes a statement for another person that is a lie. This is what was on the blog. One can’t trust Enigma.

      “He stated “Fame & fortune will never be turned down by a lawyer, though some are conflicted.” He assured his followers that “many lawyers and top law firms want to represent me in the Russia case””

      1. Excellent. Words have meaning. Day glo bozo was proven wrong, yet again. So sorry for your loss.

        this is to “dammit, I’m having trouble supporting this clown’s insane tweets” allan

  12. Prof Turley is not taking the right venue to become Trump’s new lawyer. Since he does not read much if at all, Turley needs to get on Faux news and offer his opinions while Trump is watching. I am sure Faux will let him know when Trump is watching. Of course, you will have to get your fee up front since Trump is notorious for not paying those who do work for him. Even if you have a signed contract with him, it will take a court order to get paid, and then find a judge who has no desire to advance his career and will order a sheriff to auction off some of his property if he does not pay up. Good luck. I hope that Turley will enjoy being Trumps new Roy Cohn.

  13. I am sorry he will not have these two on his team for this, but he has their advice on other matters. If he has listened to Joe on TV he has gotten the best legal advise yet. NO sit-down. Written questions only, limited scope.

    1. Paul – That’s only good advice if it was something attainable. In no universe would Mueller settle for written answers to his questions on only what the President wants to talk about.

      1. Actually, there’s a tremendous amount of legal leverage that can be applied against Mueller and his entire corrupt enterprise. Either that leverage is being very-stupidly disregarded or it’s being very quietly applied or it’s being very-wisely saved for the precise, correct moment. Only time will tell.

        Meanwhile, in my view, Mueller’s investigation will collapse under the weight of it’s own corruption once the Inspector General releases his report — assuming it’s a comprehensive report explaining how the investigation that became the Mueller investigation got started in the first place.

        Something that begins corruptly remains corrupt, and Mueller is essentially continuing a criminal operation that was begun by his predecessor in charge of the investigation. Mueller even employed many of the same corrupt members of Comey’s corrupt enterprise — in direct defiance of the whole point of having a special counsel, which is to take an investigation out of the hands of people with a conflict of interest.

        If the IG’s report is not comprehensive, the available legal leverage is still there. At this point, everything that Mueller does is just digging Mueller, himself, deeper into a hole.

        Many people — Turley included — have expressed concern that by talking to Mueller Trump might fall into a trap. There’s also a possibility that Mueller will fall into Trump’s trap if he insists upon interviewing the President.

        1. William – Talking to Mueller is not a trap that will snare the innocent. If he’s innocent and tells the truth he’ll be fine. I believe he’s neither innocent or capable of telling the truth. Time will tell.

          1. I guess you’re unfamiliar with the process. It helps if one has ever had experience in court to discover first hand how these prosecutorial games are played.

            FBI special agents interviewed Flynn, even though they had a transcript of his phone conversation and already possessed all of the pertinent information that they questioned him about. The entire exercise was aimed at seeing if they could get Flynn to say something that was contradicted by the phone call they already knew about.

            It was NOT an interview intended to obtain information. It was an interview SOLELY intended as a trap. And even then, the reports are that those doing the interview didn’t believe that Flynn had lied. But then later, when Mueller got his slimey hands on the interview notes, he claims Flynn lied.

            That’s how traps work — and if Mueller wants to interview Trump, that would be the ONLY purpose for doing it.

            One reasonable first step would be for Mueller to submit written questions to Trump, by way of demonstrating that there’s actually information Mueller needs from Trump which Mueller doesn’t already possess. That might be a legitimate way to proceed. But it’s not Mueller’s general style. He’s the opposite kind of guy — more likely to just subpoena Trump for questioning, if for no other reason than to grab the headlines and give the MSM knuckleheads fuel for sensationalism.

            That’s Mueller’s “style.” It’s like what he did by having Manafort’s house raided in the pre-dawn. Totally unnecessary, accept for the purposes of attempting to intimidate Manafort, grab some major headlines, and provide fuel for MSM sensationalism.

            Meanwhile — while Trump may not hold himself to the strictest definition of accuracy in some of his statements — I don’t believe he’s lying about not colluding with Russia. AND I think we’d have heard a LOT more about it by now if there were any evidence that he had colluded with Russia.

            Rather, what the evidence appears to suggest is that, knowing full well that Trump has had business dealings in Russia or with Russians, the democrats and Hillary campaign set out on a plan to contort Trump’s dealings with Russia/Russians into something nefarious, even while they, themselves, have dealings with Russia and Russians that appear to be equal to or greater than Trump’s. Bill Clinton, for instance, got paid a half million bucks by a Russian bank just for a speech. No speech is that good. No speech has ever been that good, because a speech is just a speech.

            What would the democrats that have been peddling the Russia Russia Russia nonsense say if it had been Trump that got paid a half million bucks for one lousy speech?

            And information has been steadily coming out for months that certain people in the FBI and DOJ went along with the democrats and Hillary in manufacturing excuses to employ the justice system against Trump.

            Mueller KNOWS all of this, It’s not a matter of opinion. He has the evidence that proves it, so every step he takes which forwards that initial plan against Trump — a plan that included manufacturing “evidence” against Trump — digs the hole Mueller is in deeper and deeper.

            If he interviews Trump, I predict he will regret it. Trump might also regret it, but not nearly as much as Mueller will.

            In the end, Mueller’s conduct will not bear up under scrutiny any more than the conduct of Strzok, Page, McCabe, or Bruce or Nellie Ohr. If he continues pushing forward their conspiracy which has already been exposed, he will be begging to be named in an indictment as a coconspirator.

            1. When he interviews Trump, the President will likely regret it. We can agree on that much. There will be no need to “manufacture” evidence against him. His financial records will do most of the talking.

            2. @William Bayer, March 25, 2018 at 6:43 PM
              “If he interviews Trump, I predict he will regret it. Trump might also regret it, but not nearly as much as Mueller will.
              In the end, Mueller’s conduct will not bear up under scrutiny any more than the conduct of Strzok, Page, McCabe, or Bruce or Nellie Ohr. If he continues pushing forward their conspiracy which has already been exposed, he will be begging to be named in an indictment as a coconspirator.”

              You apparently didn’t read my post in this thread in which I explained that only Government attorneys, aka prosecutors, are allowed to theorize about conspirators and their conspiracies in public.

              Are you a Government-Attorney-Prosecutor person? I don’t think so. Ergo, you are what is known in the official Government Media lexicon as a “conspiracy theorist,” i.e., are at least slightly crazy.

              To a man and woman, the selfless public servants who people our Federal Government, Visible and Invisible, may not all be as “straight an arrow” as Mr. Mueller, William, but for you to suggest that some of them may have secretly conspired against a sitting President of the United States,,,well, and there’s no other way to say it, that’s just pretty crazy.

                1. For the purpose of argument, Bayer, if Comey had made a criminal referral to the Justice Department to charge Hillary Clinton with mishandling classified information, would that have precluded a subsequent conspiracy to frame Trump for a crime that Trump did not commit or a crime that is not even a crime?

                  If the answer is no–which it ought to be–then there is no logical connection between the exoneration of Hillary Clinton and the supposed conspiracy to frame Trump for a crime that he did not commit nor a crime that is not even a crime.

                  Also for the purpose of argument, Bayer, if Hillary Clinton successfully bribed Andrew McCabe falsely to exonerate Clinton of mishandling classified information, then how, exactly, did McCabe prevail upon Comey actually to exonerate Clinton of mishandling classified information?

                  If the answer is Bayer does not know–which it ought to be–then, once again, there is no logical connection between the exoneration of Clinton and the supposed conspiracy to frame Trump.

                  Finally for the purpose of argument, if the FBI’s counter-intelligence investigation into Russia’s attempt to cultivate members of the Trump campaign became a special counsel’s investigation both after and because Trump fired Comey, then how in the world did the supposed conspiracy to frame Trump manage to trick Trump into firing Comey?

                  Once again, if the answer is Bayer does not know–which it ought to be–then maybe Ken Rogers has a point when he calls William Bayer a conspiracy theorist.

                  1. P. S. Ken Rogers may very well have been sarcastic when he put proud Bayer in the crazy conspiracy theorist category. Even so, sarcastic craziness does not refute sincere craziness.

              2. Ken:
                “To a man and woman, the selfless public servants who people our Federal Government, Visible and Invisible, may not all be as “straight an arrow” as Mr. Mueller, William, but for you to suggest that some of them may have secretly conspired against a sitting President of the United States,,,well, and there’s no other way to say it, that’s just pretty crazy.”
                **************
                Do the names Strzok and Page fit into your concept of “selfless” public servants? Does changing wording in a memo that would exonerate the Chief political opponent of Trump and initiating a red herring Russia collusion probe based on a salacious faux dossier make one “straight as an arrow”? Does the now infamous “can’t tske that risk [of a Trump Presdiency] and the meeting in “Andy’s office” about the “insurance policy” suggest an agreement to undermine the duly-elated POTUS? Are you illiterate or just Pollyanish?

                1. @mespo727272, March 27, 2018 at 7:06 AM

                  I thought that even if we weren’t living in a post-JFK assassination, post-Iraq invasion, and post-Snowden world, “To a man and woman, the selfless public servants who people our Federal Government, Visible and Invisible, …” was a pretty clear clue to my ironic intention, but it’s hard to know when your irony’s going to be missed by a given person. 🙂

                  As to Trump’s being the “duly-elated POTUS,” according to some evidence, at least, his supporters may have been (at least initially) much more elated about his winning than he was:

                  http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-book-donald-trump.html

                    1. @mespo727272, March 29, 2018 at 2:41 PM
                      “Sorry Kenny. I considered that intention but erred on the side of sincerity. Won’t mistake that again.”

                      I’m appropriately pleased (almost duly elated) to hear that, regarding myself.

                      If you’re ever in doubt about it with other people in the future, though, you may want to consider simply asking them about their intention, rather than unilaterally deciding and then trying to insult them if you disagree with your interpretation of what they’ve said.

                      Just saying it would make for friendlier communication. 🙂

                      P.S. In case you missed it and are interested, see my exchange with Late4Dinner in which I pointed out that attempting to smear someone as a “conspiracy theorist,” rather than looking at the evidence, pro and con, of a suspected conspiracy, is both dishonest and feeble-minded.

                      Ken

            3. Haha. Please posts more of this entertaining material.

              this is to “I sometimes just make sh*t up for the hell-of-it” willie

      2. enigma – Hillary got an interview without being put under oath. Why can’t he have questions in advance? They have not specified a crime.

        1. Paul – I imagine they will have several specific crimes in mind when they talk to him. The least of which are money laundering, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy. That’s my opinion which means nothing so I’ll just have to wait and see what the investigation brings out.
          As for Hillary, an interview with the FBI is different in what way than testifying under oath? If lying to an FBI official in an interview carries the same weight as lying under oath. Isn’t that just semantics?
          Trump can have an interview if that will make you feel better. He is still likely to perjure himself because he can’t keep from lying.

          1. enigma – Hillary’s interview was not only not under oath but they did not take notes.

            1. Paul – It could have been worse. It could have been before the House Intelligence Committee where it’s strictly voluntary. They pick and choose what questions they feel like answering and leave when they get ready.

  14. I am VERY disappointed, as I ‘felt that Finally President Trump had hired Both Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing, and WOULD FINALLY be in “capable hands”…..I don’t know WHY this has happened but if there is ANY WAY TO KEEP THEM BOTH ONBOARD, THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE WISE TO DO SO. They Both are brilliant and aggressive attorneys and THAT is what POTUS Trump Needs-Those who WILL HAVE HIS BACK. I personally DO NOT agree with the president sitting down and doing an interview with Mueller, as HE, is “Still fishing and looking to REEL SOMETHING IN, THAT HE CAN USE AGAINST THE POTUS.

    Mueller was also involved as ‘The Bag Man’ who “TOOK samples of uranium to Russia in ’08-09′ I have read….and that makes HIM someone who IS INVOLVED, JUST LIKE HILLARY, PODESTA, ETAL. Is Mueller just looking to blame Others, for him and the rest who WERE INVOLVED? He has NOT leaked ANY thing about Hillary, who as SOS, made $145 MILLION from Putin on her deal(and Obama’s) in Russia having 20% of America’s Uranium Deal…as did EVEN her campaign manager, John Podesta, who made a whopping $35 Million from the deal. Perhaps IF this was REALLY an honest investigation, it WOULD BE ABOUT OBAMA/HILLARY/BILL/PODESTA/AND THOSE WHO ‘MADE THE DEAL AND ARE INVOLVED!

    1. “I personally DO NOT agree with the president sitting down and doing an interview with Mueller”

      Nor do I — but having taken a few depositions (and Mueller would essentially be conducting a deposition), I can assure you that when someone agrees to be interviewed it’s no guarantee that you’ll get answers to your questions — not when the lawyers for the deponent start in objecting to every question, based on the scope of the inquiry or relevancy of almost every question that is asked.

      1. The minute Trump’s lawyers advise Trump to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination the OSC will ask the grand jury to subpoena Trump to testify before the grand jury. Trump’s lawyers would not be available to counsel Trump during grand jury testimony. And that would be the gravest peril for Trump.

    2. That’s it I’m convinced. Of course, it was the ALL CAPS that sealed the deal.

      this is to “time for your meds” itsy

  15. This just out… Marcia Harris has been signed by Trump to make sure the glove don’t fit. Stormy Daniels says it’s way too big for Trump’s member but Trump says she had trouble getting it on. One thing is for sure, the lawyer that signs on with Trump will not get paid and get no vaseline to boot. There are some rats/lawyers that desert sinking ships and then there are the smart ones who don’t board.

    1. Da whole T rump presidency is like a very long O J trial. His supporters say he is innocent no matter what just like O J s.

      1. Sounds like Clinton supporters — the difference being of course that HRC and the Clinton Foundation actually engaged in criminal activities. If they can find something real – with evidence – on Trump I’m all for his prosecution. Thus far lots of smoke and mirrors – empty insinuations.

            1. Her followers are shrinking by da day. There are some DCCC bots I have done battle with on da twitter. I get in trouble with da T rumpers and da corporate dems. I am supporting Emily Sirota here in Colorado. She has Bern’s endorsement.

            2. What are you his mother? Anything to be aggrieved, what no NZ indie paper spinning to your liking today? You and PCS are duking it out for most worthless.

              1. YNOT – every day is Opposite Day for you. So if it is worthless for you, it is valuable for me. Hope I win. 🙂

              1. That Trump is a decent and good Christian gentleman? Just kidding folks…

            4. “Tiresome” — what’s really tiresome is Original Ken’s unoriginal “da” nonsense. Tiresome, and quite stale.

                1. Nothing like waking up in the morning and discovering that an INSANE moron has become fixated on me to the point where he goes through the comment section posting his trash in reply to a dozen comments or replies I posted yesterday.
                  Get help, you frickin’ insane piece of human garbage, before it’s too late and you mental illness causes you to strike out at people with physical violence.
                  And hey, Turley — you run one of the trashiest sites on the web, with your fraudulent civility rule.

                  1. Above: In which proud Bayer refuse to heed the advise he gives to others: “Get help, you frickin’ insane piece of human garbage, before it’s too late and you mental illness causes you to strike out at people with physical violence. And hey, Turley — you run one of the trashiest sites on the web, with your fraudulent civility rule.”

                    Bayer’s words–not L4D’s. So much more mere special pleading with the host to overlook proud Bayer’s incivility while censoring such supposedly trashy terms as “proud” and “boorish.” Evidently Bayer is a delicate flower ensconced with thorns. Be advised Bayer: L4D is a Field Bindweed. Your thorns are but rungs on a ladder to climb up and overtop thee.

          2. Trump’s policy on transgender in the military? The catfishing Autumn, silent?

        2. If he and Bolton stay a few more years and turns da country into a nuclear waste land you will still be yacking about Hillary Clinton. Look at some new people. Quit wastin your time in da old Clinton and old orange porn King and Stormy, Melania and da rest of his betrayed women. Da mini series is gettin old and da content is X rated.

        3. Wow! Breaking News! Where do I find the indictments for Hillary!?

          this is to “I subscribe to hannity’s legal analysis” autumn

    1. Submit for your approval, welcome to the world of living in a bubble, or really thinking for yourself. It’s your choice.

      1. Send Chris White to the customer service desk. They’ll show him what a tough customer he isn’t.

  17. No talented lawyer who cares about his reputation wants Trump as a client. Trump takes advice from no one and shoots his mouth off whenever he feels like it.

    1. He does not pay da bills. He will go bankrupt again and stiff em. Cash up fron would be da only way to go and lots of it cause your reputation will be destroyed by this corrupt porno King.

      1. Chris Bacon – I watched Trump in four hours of interrogatories and he handled himself very well. It was very civil and he knows when to talk and when not to. I was very impressed with his testimony. Although he was being sued, he really did not attack the person suing him. As he explained, it was in his best interest that that person run the business and the modification was costing him money, which he was suing for.

  18. The “You’re fired” President is entering a dangerous cycle of distrust with his Cabinet and staff. John Bolton will be shocked at the inner workings of the WH. I’ll give him 2 months before he quits or is fired.

    1. 2 months? Did you not read today’s post that you commented on? Besides Bolton is more crazy than most that already work for Trump……….So in other words, he’ll be fine.

      1. Now, now, now . . . We’ve never tried a National Security Adviser who couldn’t get a security clearance. Who’s to say it won’t work?

        P. S. Did Flynn ever get his permanent security clearance? Or was Flynn fired while the temporary security clearance was still in effect?

  20. This Administration is a dumpster fire and Chos President Trump is the reason. How could any lawyer want Trump to sit down and answer questions from the Special Counsel knowing their client is a pathological lawyer with a tenuous grasp on reality?

    2. Please read my above post (under ItsJo) and face some FACTS you may NOT be aware of , or are you just ANOTHER TRUMP BASHER, AS THE LEFTIST/LIBERAL MEDIA WHO DO IT 24/7 EVEN AS THE POTUS CONTINUES TO ‘OUTWORK ANY CONGRESS PEOPLE, IN GETTING THINGS DONE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AS HE SAID HE WOULD?

      1. My post, btw, is for Bill Wilde, along with Other ‘Trump Bashers”, who most likely wanted the Criminal Hillary to be next POTUS.

        1. If you have 2 bad choices, pick the sane one. Apparently, nutso, you need a lesson in thinking.

          1. Still not convinced Hillary would have been any better. She is in many ways more toxic simply because, as part of the elite establishment, she looks more sane. She is openly a chicken hawk (meaning happy to send others to their death), a neoconservative as well as a neoliberal, vindictive, haughty, and as deeply corrupt as Trump but a little better at hiding it. Lethal.

            1. I think many people miss just how bad the two choices were, not simply the one or the other, and just how much real danger we are in. It’s cold comfort that if it hadn’t been either of them, it would be someone just as bad. They are the symptom, not the cause.

              1. And I should have put scare quotes around the word “choices” since they were no more of a choice than tax breaks for the rich, death squad health care, or self driving cars missals will be.

                  1. Brooklin Bridge – glad you changed that. I was going to ask if it was the other. 😉

              2. The Mock Impeachment of Mock-President Hillary Rodham Clinton will not save Trump.

            3. @Brooklin Bridge, March 25, 2018 at 4:16 PM
              “Still not convinced Hillary would have been any better. She is in many ways more toxic simply because, as part of the elite establishment, she looks more sane. She is openly a chicken hawk (meaning happy to send others to their death), a neoconservative as well as a neoliberal, vindictive, haughty, and as deeply corrupt as Trump but a little better at hiding it. Lethal.”

              Speaking of lethal people, Trump hasn’t exactly distinguished his own from Killary’s lethal mindset when he called upon the take-no-prisoners neocon John “Cross Us and You Die” Bolton to be his new National Security Adviser. The Onion has Bolton’s number, and anyone who isn’t consequently even more apprehensive than they already were about Trump’s posture vis a vis North Korea and Iran, is either on tranquilizers or simply isn’t paying attention:

              “WASHINGTON—Acknowledging that total war with a personality cult ruled by a nuclear-capable despot will be a harrowing commitment posing many unique challenges, newly appointed National Security Advisor John Bolton promised the American public Friday that the upcoming war with North Korea certainly won’t be a cakewalk like Iraq.

              “ ‘You have to admit, things in Iraq were pretty cut-and-dried—we went in there, we deposed the leader, we installed our own government, we never even had to think about the long-term consequences, and certainly no hordes of soldiers were forced to fight the tens of thousands of American teens we’re going to throw at them in great, meat-grinding, human-wave attacks like we’re about to see in North Korea,’ said Bolton, who noted that as one of the architects of the ‘ultimately painless and remarkably successful’ 2003 Iraq invasion, he knew what he was talking about when it came to planning a massive land campaign in Asia.

              “It’s a good thing we have regional, expendable allies, because after the first 90 minutes of this war, somewhere around 2 million South Koreans are going to be a thin layer of greasy soot in the stratosphere, if my plan goes correctly. Then we simply commit an entire generation of young Americans to dying in numbers so great that they will permanently change the geography of the Korean peninsula. As will North Korea’s nukes and our fission weapons, of course.

              ” ‘Believe me, this war is going to be an absolute mess.’ Bolton also warned that further delays in mobilizing for war with North Korea would inevitably push back the start of the U.S.’s upcoming war with Iran.”

              https://politics.theonion.com/john-bolton-warns-war-with-north-korea-won-t-be-cakewal-1824031861

        2. 2016 was the Election from Hell with arguably the two worst candidates in American history. I had no horse in that race.

          Have a Great Day

        3. Dear Itsjo, Thank you for your advice but IMHO Trump is a benighted and debauched lout who every day disgraces the Office he holds. Other than that, I might agree with you.

          Cordially, Bill.

      3. Outstanding debate style. The ALL CAPS really causes the entire post to practically ring out with convincing sincerity. Well done, well done indeed.

        this is to “when I’m out on pass, I don’t hafta take my meds” itsy

    3. Pathological Lawyer, My mistake, should be pathological Liar which is bad enough.

Comments are closed.