Columns, Criminal law, Lawyering, Media, Politics, Society

In the Wake Of Stormy Daniels: Trump Must Face A Credible Threat From An Incredible Character

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedBelow is my column in The Hill Newspaper on the potential legal fallout from the Stormy Daniels interview on CBS 60 Minutes.  Notably, yesterday the White House again expressly denied not just the “allegations” but specifically the allegation that President Donald Trump had a sexual tryst with the porn star.  That direct denial is precisely what I have warned against in this and other columns.  While the Daniels matter is not currently on the table with the Special Counsel, the worsening situation only reinforces why I believe Trump should close the deal on a sit down on the four prior subject matters lead out by Robert Mueller.  Notably, my repeatedly stated view that Trump should sever any ties with his radioactive personal counsel Michael Cohen does not appear likely since Trump just arranged a dinner with Cohen at Mar-a-Lago.  

Here is the column:

The long-anticipated interview of Stormy Daniels on “60 Minutes” was certain to disappoint after two weeks of unrelenting build up. For the first time, millions of viewers were impatiently waiting for the NCAA basketball tournament to end to get to the real action.

The interview itself added few new details beyond a description of a parking-lot threat made to Daniels. On this and other issues, there was a maddening failure to follow up for greater details. Indeed, Anderson Cooper looked about as comfortable as Alastair Cooke introducing “Debbie Does Dallas” to the “Masterpiece Theatre” audience.

Nevertheless, the interview represented a key legal moment in which Daniels unequivocally smashed the non-disclosure agreement (NDA) that she signed with Trump’s personal counsel, Michael Cohen. The stakes have thus changed for the array of figures swirling around Stormy Daniels.

Stormy Daniels

The most immediate risk in the interview runs to Daniels, who admitted that she knowingly signed a “strict contract” not to disclose the information. That agreement comes with a $1 million-per-violation penalty, not just for disclosures but also threatened disclosures. She could also face other civil liability from Cohen or even President Trump, including defamation actions. Such tort claims, however, would open both men up to potentially damaging discovery and depositions.

Of course, the danger to Daniels diminishes dramatically if the agreement is found to be invalid. While the court generally enforces NDAs where money has been accepted, this could be a close question: The agreement itself is missing the signature of Trump (who is identified under the agreement with the false name of “David Dennison”) and boilerplate language on unneeded elements like paternity liability. There is the question of whether the agreement was truly executed without Trump’s signature. The agreement has obligations going both ways, but Trump never appears to have agreed to it.

Moreover, it does appear that the arbitration clause allowed Trump, not Cohen, who signed on behalf of a shell company of his own creation, to seek arbitration. The $1 million penalty would also seem unconnected to any measure of reasonable or cognizable damages that a court would be willing to enforce. In the worst case scenario, the concerns of Daniels are largely financial, which is better than some of the others in this scandal.

Keith Davidson

There are growing concerns over the role played by Keith Davidson, the attorney representing Daniels during the agreement’s drafting and execution. Curiously, Davidson was also the attorney used by former Playboy playmate Karen McDougal, who was given roughly the same amount of $150,000 to sign away her rights to her story in what appears a “catch and kill” agreement with the National Enquirer and its owner (and Trump friend) David Pecker.

McDougal’s filing suggests that Davidson may have had a conflict of interest or undisclosed relationship with Cohen. Davidson has been accused of facilitating false statements from Daniels. When Daniels raised questions over the truth of the statements, Davidson issued an email assuring the media that Daniels was just “having fun…and being her normal playful self.”

In her interview, Daniels says she signed the agreement after being warned that “they can make your life hell in many different ways.” She does not say that it was Davidson who told her that, but there is a question of what Davidson said or did before Daniels signed her statements. Davidson (whose law license was previously suspended but is currently a bar member in good standing) could face possible ethics questions over his role in this scandal.

Michael Cohen

Cohen is facing the most serious legal jeopardy for his ham-handed representation of Trump. I have previously discussed the troubling ethical questions in Cohen using his own funds to pay “hush money” to a porn star for a client. There also are questions over his alleged failure to confer with Trump on a critical binding agreement, as well as the propriety of representations and threats made to different individuals.

However, it is not just Cohen’s license but his liberty that could be at stake if this matter goes criminal. Special counsel Robert Mueller is already looking closely at Cohen’s involvement in Trump deals like the proposed Trump Tower in Moscow and, reportedly, has been asking about payment to women associated with Trump. Cohen’s greatest exposure could be the payment to Daniels just days before the election.

When this payment was first disclosed, I warned that it could present a serious threat to Trump as an “in-kind” campaign contribution. Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was indicted for such payments by third parties to a mistress. Cohen later made matters worse by publicly saying that Trump never reimbursed him. That left an arguable campaign contribution that was unlawful under federal law.

Most campaign-finance violations are treated as civil, not criminal, matters — but this is not most cases. Cohen could find himself under a microscope and is unlikely to improve with closer examination of his methods or dealings. Indeed, Cohen may be one of the few lawyers who could make Daniels look virtuous in comparison.

Donald Trump

The threat to President Trump is still to be seen. For an administration notorious for self-inflicted wounds, this could be lethal if it is not handled correctly. If Trump conferred on the payment to Daniels, he could be accused, like Edwards, of being a party to a campaign-finance violation. McDougal’s payment also could be raised as a possible violation. Nevertheless, it is easy to overstate this danger. When Edwards was indicted, I was critical of the prosecution as an overextension of the federal law. Ultimately, Edward was not convicted on the counts.

The greatest danger will come not from allegations by Daniels but from Trump’s reaction to them. He has, thus far, remained wisely and uncharacteristically silent on the controversy. He would be wise to sever any and all contact with Cohen. The ultimate question is whether Trump will do what Bill Clinton found impossible to do when first confronted with the Monica Lewinsky scandal: Tell the truth.

The vast majority of people believe Trump has had affairs. Indeed, many of his supporters simply do not care. If Trump fails to tell the truth in any interviews with Mueller, a John Edwards problem would become a Bill Clinton problem. He should instead drop the litigation with Daniels and simply say that he will not discuss any past sexual relationships. If forced to answer questions, he should ask to respond in written interrogatories as outside of the four areas laid out by Mueller for his proposed interview.

While Trump could take the Fifth, such an invocation would be a first for a president and raise huge political risks. If he has to respond, he should admit the affair (if it occurred) and be done with it. What he cannot do is try to spin the scandal. That is what caused the ongoing investigation over the statement that he reportedly dictated on Air Force One for Donald Trump Jr. on the meeting at Trump Tower with Russian figures.

Whatever political or personal costs the Daniels scandal presents, those costs have already been largely incurred through leaks and the “60 Minutes” interview. The key is to stop the scandal from metastasizing from a civil to a criminal matter. Daniels is a self-admitted liar and adulterer. However, a lack of credibility does not mean that she does not present a credible threat.

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

347 thoughts on “In the Wake Of Stormy Daniels: Trump Must Face A Credible Threat From An Incredible Character”

    1. Carey, your comment “Ms. Coulter is the prototype Trump supporter.” demonstrates a total lack of knowledge on this subject. She has written some good books, but she doesn’t represent the average Trump supported either now in her present addled state nor before when her sarcasm likely flew over your head.

        1. The fact that you totally agree with her opinion is not the same thing as being right.
          And as Allan pointed out, you are wrong that she is the prototype Trump supporter. She is not.

          1. She is better educated although she somehow left that behind. My point is that most Trump supporters knew what he was and voted for him anyway. Remember that poem about the snake? He was talking about himself.

            1. “My point is that most Trump supporters knew what he was and voted for him anyway.”

              Exactly !!! Not only that – all of his supporters had fairly high expectations but really could never have imagined, or dared hope for, his absolutely phenomenal accomplishments – and so quickly!

              I don’t want to call him a hero – but, holy shizzz the dude is a hero.

        2. Coulter has had two completely opposite opinions with regard to Trump just like your name can represent the opposite sexes. I think that was a good choice of name for your type of rhetoric.

          One thing Trump is not, lazy. No one that worked with him whether they liked him or not, thought he was bright or not, thought he was lazy. Coulter presently appears unhinged to many of those that know her, but I think she will eventually get her head back on straight and continue writing good books.

  2. It appears the author is trying his darndest to get hired as counsel to the WH.

    1. He and Dershowitz are one step removed from those lawyers begging for work on later night cable TV.

      Have some dignity, man.

      1. MBITRW, Dershowitz is a 79 year old emeritus at Harvard Law School and Turley is tenured at GW.

          1. I love guessing games. I’ll guess that DSS is saying “Meanwhile back in the real world.” MBITRW.

            1. That sounds like a good guess, but this is something I have never seen before.

              TSLAGGBTISIHNSB Try this one which should be easy, but not an effective way of communicating.

    1. Yet, the GOP couldn’t get enough of Monica Lewinsky. And, she didn’t have a non-disclosure agreement, drafted by a Cohen-like attorney with no signature on the line for trump, to amp up the interest.

      1. Billy Clinton was sued by Paula Jones. He was deposed as a sittin prrsident. He paid up, T rump needs to be deposed. If he lies he gets impeached. If he doen’t He can start paying da lawsuits. He and Cohen could beat da charges by roughing up people in Manhattan and Jersey but now they need to pay up.

        1. If Stormy loses, Cohen gets the $20 mil. (a nice repayment on the lost $130,000). Trump didn’t sign the contract. As a 3rd party beneficiary he wouldn’t have standing in the arbitration or in a lawsuit related to the contract? He had obligations, which were novel for a contract, in which he was not a participant.
          Hard to tell if Cohen was smart like a Fox or, more as Turley suggests. I’d bet on the latter, no $20 mil and $130,000 down the drain.

  4. The 60 Minutes interview was a dud just like the rest of the story. The issues out there like North Korea and the economy are what the public voted on. Before anyone pressed the lever for Donald Trump did anyone think he was a choir boy? Trump is the same guy one pushed the lever for or against and this case doesn’t change things.

    It does, however, show how the mainstream media isn’t reporting the news, rather it acts like a rag. Turley is being paid for his columns so I don’t blame him for doing his best to make the story interesting and exciting when it isn’t.

    1. If you exclude much of cable TV, the mainstream media is doing a great job reporting the news. Read a newspaper.

      1. Carey, your idea of a great job doesn’t reflect the mind of a person who reads a sufficient variety of news and then uses history to assess the validity. The MSM fills empty heads with empty news that is over editorialized, incomplete and frequently lacks newsworthiness.

          1. That is up to you to prove, but you won’t for your complaint is hollow. In this day and age, we all have recorders. Why don’t you, in advance, state the show and then prove your point. I’ll tell you why. Your point is garbage if one recognizes that op-eds are personal opinions. If one compares any of the three majors to a similar Fox broadcast any of those three will look like sh-t in comparison. Go ahead and make the comparison. You choose the shows and then you can try and prove your point.

              1. Again you make claims, but when it comes to proof you are empty. Pick the shows and we can all record them and discuss them after the fact. You won’t because your arguments are hollow and meant only for the emptyheaded.

                You are full of talk but no action.

                1. You could pull out all the shows on Fox, Limbaugh, Jones, and many right wing websites, etc. that promoted birtherism, Pizzagate, Seth Rich, Uranium One. For starters.

                  1. Take note how non-specific you are. Take Hannity, for one year he talked about the Reverand Wright and was dismissed by people like you along with the MSM, but today we find what Hannity said was true. Uranium One is an open question. We now know that Uranium was sold to the Russians and Hillary’s bank accounts swelled. We will know even more as the dots are traced and proven and perhaps the investigations of this act are released.

                    However, we don’t need your generalities. You, I and everyone here almost certainly have some type of recording device. You pick the show and we all can record it and provide our input with proof that can be validated on everyone’s recorder. That is something you aren’t interested in because you know you can’t prove your case and this exercise would prove it.

    2. The public voted for Hillary. The electoral college voted for Trump. In a prior election, the Florida Supreme Court chose Bush.

      1. The results of the election were based on the electoral college and that is how the candidates were supposed to compete. If the results were based on the popular vote Trump might have divided his time differently. Linda, you are a typical dictator that tries to alter the results of a free election after the election takes place.

        Not only are you trying to change the results of the recent election but you are trying to change history as well. That goes along with most of your comments on this blog that have little to do with reality and more to do with your made up history.

        1. “Public voted” implies mandate. You could make the case that the electoral college gave Trump a mandate but, not that the “public” did.

          1. We have a win or lose type of election. Mandates have nothing to do with who wins and governs. Whether Trump won by one vote or 10 million votes his Presidential powers remain the same.

            In your Stalinesque world, it doesn’t matter how many people actually voted for a candidate. It only matters how the ballots were counted and Stalin always counted them in his favor.

              1. Why don’t you tell us the significance of your question? After Fred Koch returned home hating communism I am sure he had a sandwich with Russian dressing. Did that mean to you he was involved in Russian elections? You need to join Rod Serling in the Twilight Zone. He was always looking for crazy.

                1. Allan compares Fred Koch’s experience, which was described as so profound that Koch self-published his ramblings and scattered them around on 2,600,000 pieces of paper in Russia (while Koch, coincidently, got rich during Stalin’s reign of terror) to a salad dressing- false equivalency, have some shame, Allan.

                  1. Linda, we already know what you are. Koch was anti-communist but ate sandwiches with Russian dressing. Keep rambling. You are making less sense every day.

        2. Agreed. Her worldview is composed of a concatenation of fictions.

      2. In a prior election, the Florida Supreme Court chose Bush.

        Only in the addled heads of partisan Democrats. There were two issues in front of the Supreme Court, one in which 7 or 9 justices were in agreement and one in which 5 of 9 were.

        At stake in the Florida recount was whether partisan Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court were going to get away with disregarding clear statutory language which delineated proper tabulation procedure and whether the Democratic lawfare artists were going to be able to arrange for one procedural permutation after another until they found one which would give the state’s electoral votes to Albert Gore. (As it was, their media auxilliary was able to verify after the fact that there was no path to victory by Gore with any fair set of procedures).

        The electoral college is what some evolutionary biologists call a ‘spandrel’. It was useless for nearly two centuries but revealed one utility in the last 20 not readily understood in public discussion (bar by George Will, when he defended the EC ca. 1975). What it does is to contain the effects of electoral fraud.

        1. If I remember correctly the leftist newspaper did a recount at their own expense and found that GWB won even when they did the counting.

          1. Wake up, Allan. Who do you already know who would use Gould and Lewontin’s sense of the term “spandrel” as an analogue for the hidden utility of the Electoral College at containing the effects of electoral fraud?

            P. S. The thesis at issue is somewhat inconsistent with the typical GOP complaint about the election results recorded in the State of Illinois for the 1960 presidential election.

            2. Apparently, you are in the dark, Diane. My comment had to do with the Bush election and the Florida count. According to the leftist newspaper, situated deep in the southern part of the state of Florida, at their own cost they did a recount and found that Bush won the popular vote.

    3. New global trade dynamic, geopolitical white flags flying all over the globe, energy revolution, greatest deregulation bonanza in our history, incredible judiciary appointments, the strategic brilliance with NoKo, China, SoKo, geopolitical boot on Vladimir’s neck …….. shall I go on?

      Rag Headlines: “Stormy Daniels says she had unprotected sex with ‪Trump.”

      Our collective response: And, amazingly, liberals STILL question Trump’s courage ??

      1. Trump has done far better than expected by me. I will vote for him again. I didn’t care about Bill Clinton’s sex life (Though I was concerned about his use of force and Hillary’s destruction of women). I don’t care about Trump’s sex life either. His job is to run the nation and he is doing a good job.

        1. Trump’s MO throughout his career and into his presidency is revenge, threats, deception, blackmail and being a savvy media manipulator.

          1. His underlying MO is being a success.

            As President, he has been quite successful though having little support from either party. I mention the economy and North Korea at the present.

            Let’s compare him to the Democrats that failed despite having control of Congress and the Presidency.

            Let’s compare him to the Republicans that failed despite having control of Congress and the Presidency.

            Trump is the only one moving in a forward direction.

            1. He became a “success” by using revenge, threats, deception, blackmail and being a savvy media manipulator.

              1. There is a bit of vengeance in all of us, but for the most part, vengeance doesn’t help one be successful so my guess is he wasn’t as vengeful as he could have been or the general public would be if they had his opportunities. We do see a lot of vengeance and hate coming from the left. Where is your proof of blackmail which is illegal? What do you mean by threat…’My button is bigger than yours and it works’? There may be a meeting with Kim that might lead to good things. Is that bad? He is a savvy media manipulator, but what Republican can win without that ability when the media is so far to the left?

    4. Allan, regardless of the back-and-forth of you and CV, he is absolutely correct that your interactions with Linda and Diane are not at all helpful. You are correct in your engagements with them, but ignoring them would go a long way towards making this blog a more pleasant experience.
      Just let them throw their dung on the board, and then scroll past it.

      1. “Allan, regardless of the back-and-forth …”

        FFS, that is your opinion and I appreciate that, but I take note that there is very little significant discussion on this blog. When it does occur you should chime in and drown out the other less significant discussions. I found the most interesting discussions occurred with John Say who responded to a number of people including Linda. I didn’t see you jumping in and adding more to the mix so the blog would turn in a different direction.

        I don’t understand why comments of this nature are made when the Delete button is so accessible. Why do you believe you should tell others what they should or should not do?

      2. L4D (a.k.a. Diane) said, “. . . the questions about Trump and Cohen’s efforts at paying women associated with Trump to remain silent about their alleged affairs with Trump and, of course, the alleged affairs themselves, strike me as the exact sort of issue that is best decided at the polls on election day.”

        FFS said, “. . . your interactions with Linda and Diane [L4D] are not at all helpful . . . just let them throw their dung on the board, and then scroll past it.”

        Allan said, “. . . but I take note that there is very little significant discussion on this blog.”

        So Allan actually took FFS’s advise and scrolled past L4D’s comment about leaving the propriety of Trump’s extra-marital affairs to be decided by the voters at the polls on election day. And that’s why neither Allan nor FFS have any significant comments to discuss on the blawg other than their constant carping complaints about a lack of significant discussion on the blawg. Worse yet, both Allan and FFS are agreed that a significant discussion on the blawg about the lack of significant discussion on the blawg is something, almost anything, else than “throwing their dung on the board” in the futile hope that Linda and L4D will just scroll past it. Fat chance, gentlemen.

        1. What I said is true “. . . but I take note that there is very little significant discussion on this blog.”, and part of the reason is that people like you don’t deal in principle paying attention mostly to twisting the truth along with concepts while combining almost everything with junk.

          I didn’t scroll past your comment because of what FFS said. Firstly, I scroll past a lot of your comments because they are junk and all too frequently don’t make sense. Secondly, there was no comment of yours to scroll past. You are hallucinating again.

  5. Why doesn’t the blog play the audio tape and video of Trump yakking with the news guy about grabbing that woman’s Pu___y. When was that event? Was the Trumpster married then?
    But, if the voters did not care about that then why do they care about Stormy whatshername? Or all the others. And. This just in from Cloud 9: Trump twitted: “Pork em if ya gottem.”

  7. Mueller’s laughing all the way to the bank, as his millions and millions of dollars continue to pile up for simply serving out an endless display of nothingburgers that Jon Turley and others of the Clinton-Sore-Loser-Klan can salivate over. And the Clinton-Sore-Loser-Klan are easily satisfied. While even some of their most devoted cheerleaders were obviously despondent at the latest Stormy Daniels nothingburger, they still cling to hope that Mueller-Daniels will somehow deliver an impressive nothingburger that cannot be ignored. They think, “Perhaps the 13 indicted Russians (or is it the 14 indicted Russians, but who’s counting?) will somehow throw them a tidbit that will make the Ultimate-Mueller-Grand-Mega-Nothingburger that will bring Trump down!” But, alas, a nothingburger all dressed up is still a nothingburger. However, hope springs eternal.

  8. Trump is supposed to be a tough, self made man, who breaks the mold, and goes on his gut. If he is such a man, then he should simply respond to any and all questions regarding his philandering that it is nobody’s business but his and his wife’s. Clinton should have done the same but underneath was a weasel.

    Trump is President, unfortunately, and should be Presedenting and not dealing with this sort of pablum.

    The response to any questions regarding his sexual adventures should be “Mind your own business.”

    1. I think you’re right. It doesn’t excuse Trump or Clinton, but it would be far better than lying. Turley is correct that Trump’s personal lawyer is a disaster. And if Trump must answer the question, then he should simply tell the truth. Again, it doesn’t exonerate him as a moral being, but it would make that part of any legal challenge disappear like melting snow.

      Our sense of personal pride or ego (men and women ), is always what kills us, especially for people like Trump or Hillary.

  9. Likely outcome. The left having shot off all their toes and both feet will remember their RINO sub branch and have to be forcibly removed at the ballot box as preferential to the ultimate role and duty of the US Military becoming a requirement.

    The rest of the whole conversation is of no moral value whatsoever. Only the continuance of the destruction of the left andit’ s RINO segment is important. So. Worst case. Impeach, Pence becomes President Trump pardoned and becomes counselor to the President. The voters who go for the foreign ideology route and their states pay the price. like all good losers. Oh yies and the propaganda arm be officially disconnected from the First Amendment and made subject to the rule of law.

  10. A minority of voters voted for a reality-TV buffoon and now we’re surprised that America has turned into a years-long Maury episode?

    The Cameo actor may have to spend less time at his weekend country-clubs and more time in court: a place with which he, as a professional charlatan, isn’t unfamiliar.

    Gooooo Trump U!

    1. Another loser troll with a loser excuse and nothing to back it up. REJECTED.

  12. Turley wrote, “Special counsel Robert Mueller is already looking closely at Cohen’s involvement in Trump deals like the proposed Trump Tower in Moscow and, reportedly, has been asking about payment to women associated with Trump.

    If Trump fails to tell the truth in any interviews with Mueller, a John Edwards problem would become a Bill Clinton problem.

    While Trump could take the Fifth, such an invocation would be a first for a president and raise huge political risks.”

    In the interest of belaboring the obvious, Trump could not assert executive privilege in refusing to answer any questions from Mueller about Cohen’s payments to women associated with Trump. Thus, if Trump wishes to avoid answering such questions, then his best bet would be to accept Mueller’s current interview offer before Mueller becomes interested in posing questions to Trump about Cohen’s payments to women associated with Trump. Otherwise, asserting his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination might be the only remaining way to avoid giving truthful answers to questions about Cohen’s payments to women associated with Trump.

    Even so, I would be surprised if Mueller were as interested in this topic as Turley is. I see no reason that the several civil suits currently being pursued on the subject of Cohen’s payments to women associated with Trump could not resolve the issues raised in those suits without involving the office of the special counsel. Moreover, those issues are a far cry from the Russian efforts to cultivate members of the Trump campaign and the Russian information warfare operation in the 2016 election. But most importantly, the questions about Trump and Cohen’s efforts at paying women associated with Trump to remain silent about their alleged affairs with Trump and, of course, the alleged affairs themselves, strike me as the exact sort of issue that is best decided at the polls on election day. Obversely, money laundering, bank fraud and tax fraud are not the sort of issues best decided at the polls on election day.

    Mueller is not Ken Starr.

    1. Meuller has yet to conduct any serious investigations when might we expect that to begin?

        1. Those indicted are a collection of Russian internet trolls. Mueller will never have to defend these indictments in open court.

              1. The convicted when incarcerated for a process crime, feel more free while imprisoned?

              2. Nii said, “On process crimes.”

                Money laundering, bank fraud and tax fraud are not process crimes. Manafort is charged with each of those. Gates entered into a plea deal to avoid those charges. And so did Flynn.

        1. What began?

          The Mueller investigation has turned into a farce run by almost all if not all Democrats except for Mueller. What is Mueller’s prior record? He ran the FBI and was close to Comey. He shouldn’t even be involved unless one is looking for a particular result.

          I think you ought to read more than the headlines of the newspapers.

            1. Are you unable to put that which reflects your own ideas in your own words and defend it? Obviously not. That is the problem your side seems to face. Your side relies on library references that more frequently than not do not provide significant proof to elevate their case.

              I await your words and a quote. Then we can debate your position and see if the Vanity Fair article provides any useful proof that your position might be correct.

              1. “It sounds like he does.”

                Ken, I can’t help it if you can’t rise above Carey’s level.

        3. carey said, “It began May, 2017.”

          Thanks carey. It has been less than a year since Mueller was appointed special counsel. Historically speaking, Mueller is moving at a rapid pace and has produced more charges and guilty pleas than any of his predecessors. It is probable that Mueller will conclude his investigation in less than the average length of his predecessors’ investigations. And, with the possible exception of declining to charge the hacking crimes of Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, Mueller’s work will probably be complete and thorough. The expectation is that Putin would retaliate against American intelligence operatives in Russia if Mueller indicted the Russian intelligence operatives who run Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear. But Mueller can, and probably will report, as many details as the intelligence community permits him to report about the Russian hackers. There could be an indictment coming against Julian Assange. I doubt the Russians would retaliate for that.

          1. Mueller didn’t start from scratch.
            Some of those he indicted have been under investigation since 2014.
            He may or may not be “moving at a rapid pace”…I don’t think that’s possible to determine, any more than the end date of his investigation is predictable.

  13. Pingback: In the Wake Of Stormy Daniels: Trump Must Face A Credible Threat From An Incredible Character — JONATHAN TURLEY – Home of all trends

  14. Donald Trump shows up with 2 hot chicky poos, but Vince McMahon tells the
    Chicks to get the hell out of the ring. Life isn’t all peaches & cream.

  15. NATIONPOLITICS
    Trending
    MUELLER MADNESS: Special Counsel Hands Over All ‘EVIDENCE’ On Mike Flynn
    What’s next for the embattled former national security advisor?

    Sara Carter Sara Carter March 27, 2018 73,866
    Share FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestShare via Email
    Highlights
    Rumor and speculation as to why District of Columbia Judge Rudolph Contreras was recused from Flynn case
    An option being discussed by attorneys, pundits and supporters is that Flynn withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing
    The Office of Special Counsel complied with a federal judge’s order and as a result turned over all evidence related to former National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s case, according to two sources who spoke to this reporter.

    In December, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered Special Counsel Robert Mueller to provide Flynn’s attorneys with any and all information that may have been withheld from the case. Sullivan took over as the presiding judge after District of Columbia Judge Rudolph Contreras was recused from the case on Dec. 7. There was no explanation as to why Contreras, who presided over Flynn’s guilty plea on Dec. 3, was recused from the case. Flynn pled guilty to one count of lying to the FBI, despite testimony provided to Congress by former FBI Director James Comey, where he stated that the agents did not believe Flynn had lied about his conversation with former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016.

    Sullivan ordered the government to produce any evidence in its possession that is “favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.”

    More..

    https://thelibertydaily.com/

    https://saraacarter.com/mueller-madness-special-counsel-hands-over-all-evidence-on-mike-flynn/

  16. Forgotten in Turley’s list of potential perils are the alleged eight other women who have identified themselves to Daniels lawyer with similar stories and NDA’s in a couple cases. Of course, this could be simply made up by the attorney but I’d bet he’s holding the cards and waiting to play them.

    1. Ahh yes the famous or infamous alledgers, who purportedly and reportedly seem to disappear faster than Allred can produce them Daniels standing alone hoping for a million dollar pay day – after lawyer fees- only to suddenly remember that knock on the door “IRS calling!” The Bimbo is of no importance whatsoever and neither is the phonier than thou mud covered slingers of same.

      The eight took a hike and failed to show up when called. Took a a few thousand in expenses and went looking for a new producer..

    1. Which is exactly the level it needs to sink to and remain. Along with the space alien fathered my baby stories. A rag for moorons.

  18. On topic just as much as old way too big fake boobs, etc…, I do not wish to insult any poor used up sex workers further. I pity them far less them lawyers hanging around places like DC & NYC, but pity I do.

    I’ll have more as I feel well enough or rested & time to post.

    But notice the important stories Prof Turley skips over now. Hasn’t he heard, Trump isn’t the Nixon case, that it’s flipped in Trump’s favor this time. I believe.

    https://www.infowars.com/red-alert-dems-announce-plan-to-repeal-2nd-amendment-triggering-potential-civil-war/

  19. What if the NDA was not for sex but for discussions about being on the tv show? Hmmmm????? Adds a twist doesn’t it?

  20. If the Democrats don’t take the House this fall and impeach Trump, surely Mueller will indict him.

      1. At this point does it really matter. To quote the left ‘ it’s nobodies business.’ To also quote the left ‘with a morals and ethics systems such as we subscribe to which means anything goes if it supports and advances the party then anything goes’ AND ‘given our own tarred image’ who are we to be given any credence whatsoever” That goes double for the GOP most of whose leadership are closet leftists anyway.

        As for the THE LARGEST voting block from the 2016 election the President is doing a fine job of destroying the Democrat Socialists and their RINO partners six more years of this and we’ll be ready to start rebuilding the Republic on a solid footing. Now is the time for the grass roots to decide if they want a socialist autocracy faking themselves as non existent Democracy or a Constitutional Republic.

        Aquarius is over it’s the rebirth of the self governing citizens whose government works FOR them and is staffed by temporary employees for the most part and a return to the multi party system instead of The Government Party.

        As for this Bimbo system? He whose group has not covered themselves with the muddy leavings of outraqgeous self imposed misfortune should stop spreading their ipartricular brand of flatulent effluent.

        Now back to the 40% and growing largest voting block. We don’t care what you second and third place losers think …your opinion is worthless

        Next step we recommend is pink slipping all appointees from previous administrations with three goals in mind.

        Downsize government except in the areas of government concern, rebalance the budget with a huge savings in personnel costs, and get rid of the Fourth Branch and go back to the Checks and Balances system. .

        In this day and age we cannot afford one party, one leader rule under a foreign ideology which even their own trolls cannot or will not or are not allowed to explain. Mud and All. .

      2. or worse than neither … or Meuller lengthens his fat paycheck and goes after the Clinton and the rest of the left on a Conspiracy plus Felony roller coaster to ultimate success.

    2. What makes you say that? Anything credible for a change. NBD worst case imipeached, then convicted then out of a job and that is all that happens. except then pardoned and becomes Counselor Behind The Scenes to President Pence and the left is still screwed.

    3. Include in scenarios, the Kochs (players behind-the-scene). Pence is their guy.

      1. MBITRW, the Koch brothers are promoters of libertarian thought and policy. Pence has no time for wide swaths of what they advocate and they have no time for crucial components of what he advocates.

        1. Insufferable,
          ICYMI, Paul Weyrich, founder of ALEC, the Heritage Foundation and the architect of the religious right.

          1. 1. ALEC is a perfectly benign organization which promotes template legislation. It’s irritating to dolts who think in MadCow talking points and to partisan Democrats who think it’s sinister for the political opposition to promote their viewpoint.

            2. Paul Weyrich sold the idea for the Heritage Foundation to donors. He himself never had the skill set to actually work there.

            3. Paul Weyrich wasn’t the ‘architect’ of ‘the Religious Right’. The religious right is a subculture, not an architecture. To the extent there have been actual institutions and organizations, they were dominated by evangelicals. Weyrich was Catholic and his specific organization antedated the advent of specifically evangelical organizations by a half-decade.

            4. The Koch Brothers and Weyrich represent opposite poles of starboard thought.

            5. Weyrich was at the peak of his influence when Mike Pence was a college student. At the time of his death, Pence issued a pro-forma note of condolence in his capacity as chairman of the House Republican caucus.

            2. Do benign organizations have opposing sites like ALEC exposed? Do benign organizations have corporate sponsors that abandon for cause when the public demands it? Do benign organizations shroud their influence in secrecy? Do benign organizations wine and dine Republican legislators?

              So, so so many meetings, where security denied access to media and individuals. And, in those meetings, state law was drafted by corporations like private prisons, bail bondsmen and the AARP, which claimed it was leaving after public outcry, stating they only joined to have a “seat at the table”. But, then records showed their lie in states like Florida.

              1. Linda, if they let the press attend, the cover story wouldn’t hold water.

            3. A person who says ALEC is benign can’t be trusted to say anything truthful. The lesson, “falsehoods are necessary”, comes from the Weyrich training manual posted at Theocracy Watch.
              Blog readers can catch up on the religious right’s history and, its architect, Weyrich, at Wikipedia.

              1. Technically speaking, Linda, Nii is capable of stating the truth. Unless I’m mistaken, Nii’s previous persona made truthful statements on several occasions. Although, I can’t remember any of the details on that count. The trick is to consider each statement separately. And be careful, Linda. Nii is the most formidable adversary on the blawg.

                    1. FSS – I didn’t think DSS was that dangerous. 😉 NII does not seem dangerous, except to the left.

            4. The Kochs are Heritage Foundation donors. Clarence Thomas’ wife “earned” $600,000+ at Heritage which Thomas did not report, until publicity demanded it. The Koch’s finance ALEC.
              Weyrich and the Kochs are not opposites.

Comments are closed.