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. The new Trump lawyer (age 69) made famous (obscure) by the Jews for Jesus case should make sure he gets paid upfront or else, we’ll have to listen to reports about whining over unpaid bills like those for $130,000.

    1. Excerpted from the Wikipedia article on Jay Sekulow:

      In November 2005, Legal Times published an article which alleged that Sekulow “through the ACLJ and a string of interconnected nonprofit and for-profit entities, has built a financial empire that generates millions of dollars a year and supports a lavish lifestyle—complete with multiple homes, chauffeur-driven cars, and a private jet that he once used to ferry Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.” In the article, former donors and supporters claimed that Sekulow engaged in a pattern of self-dealing to finance his “high-flying lifestyle.” According to a ranking by the American Institute of Philanthropy, a charity watchdog group, Sekulow was the 13th highest paid executive of a charitable organization in the United States.

      On June 27, 2017, The Washington Post reported that “Jay Sekulow’s family has been paid millions from charities they control”.

      On June 27 and 28, 2017, The Guardian reported, that documents obtained by them confirmed later that “millions in donations” were steered to his family members, that Sekulow “approved plans to push poor and jobless people to donate money to his Christian nonprofit, which since 2000 has steered more than $60m to Sekulow, his family and their businesses”, and that attorneys general in New York and North Carolina opened investigations of Jay Sekulow’s group Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism (CASE) for possibly using pressure tactics in telemarketer calls to raise money which was allegedly misdirected to Sekulow and his family.

      1. Interesting, L4D
        What if…a commonality between the Kremlin and the American conservative movement exists
        (1) destabilization and (2) repressive oligarchy.
        What if… there was commonality in means used to get conservatives elected.

        The GOP shuts down the House investigation before Cambridge Analytica’s whistleblower came forward describing meetings with the Russian company Likoil about American voters.
        “Christian” Erik Prince raised funds for the GOP’s Rohrbacher.
        Heritage, ALEC and the religious right had the same founder. From Paul Weyrich’s eulogy- “His influence reached from the Capitol…to the churches.” The Koch’s Mike Pence attributed the conservative movement to being what it is today because of the man who was the architect of the religious right and the founder of ALEC and Heritage.
        From the conservative training manual posted at Theocracy Watch- the means to achieve (a) appearance of brutality (b) the necessity of lies.

      2. Again, the IRS 990 form is available. Jay Sekulow as of 2016 was retired and not collecting a salary from the American Center for Law and Justice. His son, an attorney, is employed there but not one of the most highly compensated employees. His salary isn’t listed but is under $150,000 a year. His brother Gary Sekulow is the CFO and is paid about $250,000 a year. The average attorney in the United States has about $115, 000 in salary and fee income in a typical year. They pay Jordan and Gary Sekulow $370,000 over six years and – VOILA – millions in compensation.

        The salary scales are inflated at the American Center for Law and Justice. The Chief Counsel – a fellow named Monagan – is paid $500,000 a year, which actually is obscene given that it’s a philanthropic concern with a two-digit workforce. That sort of abuse and trustee negilgence is something for state legislators to address. However, it is not at this time the Sekulows who are the prime beneficiaries. This sort of thing has grown increasingly common among Washington NGOs.

    1. TBob – I saw that earlier – I also hear Obama might get his own show on Netflix. Might be time to punt my account. Then again, HRC blamed Netflix for her loss so there IS that =)

      1. Hillary blamed Netflix too? Hadn’t heard that one. I’ve never subscribed to Netflix, but it is certain now that I never will.

        1. The tech tyrants and the corporate funded Center for American Progress get along great. Rice with Thiel at Netflix-no surprise. The 99% have to oust Republicans and the corporate wing of the Dem, or the future will be bleak.

          1. CAP? Oust the Republicans? Honey, isn’t it the Democrat party that is in self-destruct mode with its future looking rather bleak at the moment? The Dems and the MSM won’t talk about it, but they can thank Obama for nearly destroying the party. The Dems have bitter Hillary out there still talking about the election (when’ she’s not falling down and breaking more bones.) And now Netflix is going to put Obama out there streaming his own original ‘content’ to the masses when his ideas and his policies nearly destroyed the Democrat party? Talk about disconnect.

            1. The Russians used Facebook to dupe enough people to vote for Trump and he was elected. Trump and Ryan then passed the tax scam bill. A Koch check for Ryan’s campaign, delivered shortly there after.

              1. Trump handily won 30 states to Hillary’s 20. Russians on FB did not ‘dupe just enough people’ to vote for Trump in all the right states so that he could win the Electoral College. Please. Show us the hard evidence of that. It was utterly insignificant.

                Forget the Russians, how about the fact that FB gave the Obama campaign direct access to all of its private user data as a means to influence ‘just enough’ voters to go out and vote for Obama? Maybe Romney would have won in 2012 if not for FB’s influence on the Obama campaign?

                How about mainstream media’s liberal bias being used to influence ‘just enough’ of the electorate to vote for Hillary? How about late night comics ‘influencing’ just enough voters to vote for their preferred candidate, Hillary? How about all the chat shows like The View and Ellen and all the rest of Hollywood and the music industry influencing ‘just enough’ voters to help Hillary win the popular vote?

                Russian ads on FB did not dupe ‘just enough’ voters so that Hillary could win the popular vote and lose the EC. Please.

                1. TBob, if I’m not mistaken, Linda’s thesis includes the possibility that Cambridge Analytica may have helped The Russians target their ad placement to the so-called swing states needed to deliver the Electoral vote to Trump. But, yes, Clinton should have campaigned harder in Pennsylvania, especially, as well as the other swing states.

                  1. The Russian campaign worked in Mich. I know first hand about younger blue collar workers who wouldn’t bring themselves to vote for Trump or Hillary, and threw away their votes on Jill Stein, just like the Russians plotted.

                    1. “just like the Russians plotted.”

                      Linda is flying high. She must have gotten into the good stuff.

                    2. Linda – I have voted for Mickey Mouse before. Now the State of Arizona will not count the votes of any candidate like Mickey, so he is a wasted vote. So, tell me again, exactly how much money did the Russians spend on ad buys in MI and how much was spent on Jill? Oh, and what percentage played before the election?

                2. TBob, the next census may have the question “are you a citizen?”. If accurately performed we might find that California is not as populous as thought and that much of the voting might have been illegal. I can’t say if that will happen or not, but if permitted to appropriately determine voting rights we might find considerable illegal voting.

                  It appears that Democrats are very much afraid of making sure the voting process excludes illegal voting.

    2. They are up to something. Here we have a former president who is going to be running around producing his own talk shows/propaganda – streaming on Netflix of all places. He’s a former president for pete’s sake, why doesn’t he go do some good in the world besides working so hard on his own self-promotion and self-glorification. And now Netflix bringing the whole Obama mafia onboard too? It’s time to dump Netflix. I hear HULU is pretty good.

  3. CV Brown – Patriot has been consistent, he accused Obama of the same crimes.

    1. I don’t C any CV, brown, green or any other color.

      Has Paul C taken up writing to himself?

  4. CV Brown – with all the sexual harassment going on in the entertainment industry, they just wanted someone they were SURE would not be tempted by Stormy. Anderson Cooper is their go-to guy for good-looking women. 😉

    1. Cooper’s gonna be doing a town hall with Comey next month Paul. Wonder if he would touch THAT? =)

  5. Off topic but possibly provides insight into the FBI and those that run it. I offer no opinion as to how this video should be interpreted.

    “Matt Schrier tells ‘The Story’ why he’s upset over the FBI’s handling of his case and is accusing the bureau of misleading his family.”

  6. EU Deep State really ticked at Julian Assange for comparing the arrest of Catalonia’s elected president a few days ago to a Nazi arrest and handover of one of his predecessors.

    @wikileaks

    ⌛

    Wikileaks editor @julianassange has been gagged and isolated by order of Ecuador’s new president @Lenin Moreno. He cannot tweet, speak to the press, recieve visitors or make telephone calls. Ecuador demanded that he remove the following Tweet:

    @JulianAssange

    In 1940 the elected president of Catalonia, Lluís Companys, was captured by the Gestapo, at the request of Spain, delivered to them and executed. Today, German police have arrested the elected president of Catalonia, Carles Puigdemont, at the request of Spain, to be extradited.

    1. Dr. Benson, may I presume that the diagnosis is brain syphilis? IOW, the contagious stage of the infection would have been successfully treated many years ago–ex hypothesi?

  8. “All the President’s Thugs”
    Editorial in today’s TNYT.
    Comment, Turley?

        1. oh, that’s boring. we are already familiar with Mnuchin (Kamala Harris’ mentor / pal) and his trips, the good doctor’s dining room suite, continual staff turnover, etc.

          Not nearly as macabrely interesting as all the deaths associated with the Clintons! And she was never prez!

          2. Deaths? Is that sarc? I’d hate to think you actually believed crap like that. Nah, must be sarc…

      2. Autumn, you obviously blatted off without reading the editorial: To a mother with her young daughter, “Nice child you have there. Too bad if something happened to her.”

        1. David, that is a self-serving statement. Did she go to the police? No. Did she identify the man? No. Does she have any tangible evidence? No. It was you who threatened her, right? My statement has as much weight as Stormy’s.

          1. No it doesn’t.

            Go read the whole editorial before blatting off.

                1. There was no proof in the editorial.

                  Now I understand your position on global warming. You don’t even know what constitutes proof.

                  1. Oh, I thoroughly understand scientific proof. I don’t know what proof is to mean in the context of the editorial.

                    1. Scientific proof and proof in the context of the discussion are very similar. Let us hear your proof regarding the editorial.

                      I understand. You can’t and you won’t.

                    2. Scientific proof and legal proof are very different.
                      Start with the Wikipedia page on proof and follow the links.

                    3. Mental gymnastics from one that is said was a professor at a university in a field of science. Not a good recommendation for the university. I can’t prove a negative except by saying it doesn’t exist, but that becomes proof when you make claims you refuse to back up. This is a consistent problem of yours.

                  2. Allan said, “There was no proof in the editorial.”

                    The editorial at issue is now linked downstream on this page. The editorial reports a pattern of allegations of similar threats against multiple people involved in disputes with Trump extending from the present-day well into the past. Surely Allan is willing to consider evidence. Whether the evidence amounts to proof remains to be seen. But Allan didn’t demand evidence. Allan demanded proof. Allan will just have to learn to be patient and wait in line along with the rest of us.

                    1. “Allan demanded proof. ”

                      That is a good point Diane, but when one asks for proof, one is actually asking for evidence.

                      Proof (def) = evidence establishing the truth of a statement.

                      You talk in circles Diane and when you finish your argument you haven’t moved the discussion from the spot where you started.

              2. Proof? This is no court and your are not T rump’s lawyer. New order s from headquarters as da T rump virtual defense team thinks they are gettin bossy.

                2. Ken, this is a discussion group. Intelligent people generally have a rationale for their comments. Some on this blog say whatever comes to their minds whether or not they are lucid at the time. If you wish to be considered mentally incapacitated you can make all sorts of outlandish statements, but if you wish to engage in an intelligent discussion rationality will have to prevail.

      3. No, I believe they’re referring to the disgusting swine currently disgracing the White House.

          1. Diane – I told you not to play with the fallacies until you really understood logic. You still cannot make a logical argument and now you are misusing fallacies. Small steps for beginners. 😉

        2. Excerpted from the article linked above (with apologies to wildbill99 for piggybacking on his reply):

          An on the spot fallacy (OTS) is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater is considered wrong (or even incapable of having an opinion) if they cannot recite specific data or technical minutiae on some topic. The fallacy asserts that one must be an expert on a topic in order to discuss anything related to it (and, at that, an expert with flawless memory).

          The fallacy often occurs during a Gish gallop — because people are unable to respond to so many arguments at once.

          The fallacy is a conditional fallacy, because people are expected to provide evidence for their position; this fallacy occurs when people ask for evidence that’s unreasonably in-depth.

          2. Excerpted from the article linked above (without apology to mespo727272):

            The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it’s unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.

              1. Not you, Esposito. Allan going after Dr. Benson and others with his constant demand for proof of every last observation posted on the blawg. [I piggybacked on wildbill99 and you to get out of the narrow indentation space] P. S. Sue me.

                    1. “I’m practically a pauper, too.”

                      Is that intellectually or intellectually and financially?

                2. “his constant demand for proof”

                  Diane, in your world slander and libel are acceptable as is being untruthful and having no principles. Congratulations, you fit in well with the Democratic Party.

            2. L4D,..
              – I don’t think you want to say too much about ” proof by verbosity”.

              1. My verbosity is usually directed toward a single point, sometimes two, rarely as many as three. The Gish gallop raises dozens, if not scores, of points in rapid-fire succession. Think of the blawg-itself in its totality as a Gish gallop.

                  1. Maybe it’s that tiny text window you’re working with, Tom. I have been repeatedly assured that I am highly repetitive–even obdurate, like an ostinato, or an onager, as you like it.

                    1. ” I am highly repetitive–even obdurate, like an ostinato, or an onager,”

                      Onager? Sounds true enough.

                      onager (def).= wild ass

                2. “My verbosity”

                  Diane, it is not the quantity that counts rather the quality. You have too much of the former and almost none of the latter.

            3. Diane – the Gish Gallop is exactly what you are doing. Well spotted. Now stop doing it.

    2. From the Wall Street Journal, 3-27

      “The Stormy Daniels case is typical of Mr. Trump’s pre-presidential behavior in thinking he can, with enough threats and dissembling, get away with anything. He’s never understood that a President can’t behave that way, and this may be the cause of his downfall,”

      If the Times and the Journal agree that must make it unanimous: Trump is a jerk.

      1. “getting away with anything”- the SCL/Cambridge Analytica strategy to get guys like Trump re-elected is described by Quartz, “Despite tough times the country is working well and improving”. Which commenter at this blog repeats that message- answer- Allan.

  10. Has Ecuador cut off Assange’s outside contact? If so, I guess the Russians will have more trouble getting GOP politicians elected and calls to Hannity won’t be as easy for Julian.

        1. Grammatical mistakes are even more embarrassing when you’re calling someone else an idiot. I endeavor not to call other commenters idiots, I retain that term for our wretched President. Perhaps this would work for you as well?
          Cordially, Bill

          1. Wildbill:
            You put a comma after “idiots” when you need a period or a semi-colon for the two independent clauses. See how tedious being the grammar police can be. Oh and you can righteously call people “idiots” with less than perfect grammar. Adds to its charm as you have demonstrated quite amply here.

      2. Great link, Autumn. Particularly the part where Binney discusses the Intelligence Community Assessment where the selectedanalysts from the CIA, NSA and the FBI said, “[In our judgement] We have high confidence that the Russians did it.” They go on to say, on the very bottom of the very last page of their report, ha,ha,ha, :-), that ” ‘Judgement’ is not intended to mean that we have evidence to prove something to be a fact.” thus denying everything in their entire report as being nothing more than a mere possibility.

        Scratch a little on any of the so called “proofs” and all you have is allegations.

        1. Putin’s has some sex tapes on T rump that will make even Stormy blush. That is what they say.

          1. Hard to believe Stormy hasn’t seen it all, and then some. But with our depraved pig of a President, who knows?

      3. So ya think da T rump and K ushner families are not in debt to Putin and his oligarchs. Da money trails are gonna prove you wrong. Plus da Saudi Prince said they are in his pocket. Those are all crooks.

        1. Da Saudi Prince also said that at the behest of the West madrassas and Wahhabism was supported. Sad part is it might be true. Chaos means $$$

          1. Tr ump and da Saudi Prince are killin civilians in Yemen plus they are in crooked business deals with da T rump Kushner families. They plan to bomb Iran now that they have added Bolton to their
            Mix of scoundrels.

      4. Don’t be upset Autumn,
        If Trump’s told that no collusion has been found, he’ll congratulate Putin on capitalizing on an opportunity. He did the same thing with China… if China can get away with dumping in our markets, that’s what good business is. Paraphrasing, that’s on us for not stopping it. The only wrinkle is that Trump’s party is against regulation, in favor of business cronyism in political appointments (Flynn) and, in favor of funding cuts for the government services to prevent exploitive activities.
        Russia doesn’t have a legacy of honest government that is being undermined by a well-funded domestic party and a foreign nation. The only win for Americans is the defeat of all Republican candidates and the defeat of Dems like Chicago’s Mayor 1%, Governors Cuomo and Raimondo, Congressman Michael Bennett of Colo. etc.

        1. Autumn is a progressive that supports da Putin T rump kleptocracy oligarchy. She avoids da Koch’s. Laughing out loud.

        2. re: “Russia doesn’t have a legacy of honest government that is being undermined by a well-funded domestic party and a foreign nation. ”

          very funny. US of A being undermined by DINOs/RINOs, corporations and Israel.

          2. Israel? Are you in reality the DC Councilman who said the Jews control the weather? Fess up now….

      5. Don’t forget Joseph Rago.

        “VEROPHARM”

        Joseph Rago –

        “Wall Street Journal Reporter Asks Russia For “Clinton Information” —-Turns Up DEAD 2 Days Later”

        “A Wall Street Journal Editor who was investigating how a Russian
        Pharmaceutical firm could have been purchased in 2014 by an American
        Pharmaceutical firm while Sanctions against Russia existed against such
        business transactions, has been found dead in his New York City
        apartment. The crux of the dead journalists investigation was how
        then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton influenced the transaction to be
        finalized, but only AFTER her husband Bill was paid $500,000 for giving
        a speech in Moscow.

        The Russia Consulate General’s office in New York City was contacted
        by Wall Street Journal reporter/editor Joseph Rago who requested a
        Thursday (20 July) in person interview with consular officials regarding
        an upcoming article he was preparing on Hillary Clinton and her links
        to Russia. Rago failed to attend the meeting and was later discovered
        dead in his apartment of as yet “unknown causes” just hours prior to
        this meeting occurring.”

        http://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/news/world-news/878-wall-street-journal-reporter-asks-russia-for-clinton-information-2-days-later-turns-up-dead

    2. Good point, Linda. And with the current legal push to rein in gerrymandering the Republicans might have to earn whatever House seats they retain in November.

      1. The words, Republican and earn, create an oxymoron. Look at Josh Duggar…, wife’s at home schoolin’ the youngin’s. Josh is doing what he wants to do and then, goes to camp to cure it. Wife remains at home, no bread winner, single parent and the conservatives tell her to be a “sweet woman”. Trump would say, if people fall for a con that’s on them. Conservatives mastered the con of calling others lazy while they get the entitlement that they think is their birthright.

  11. For one, Trump has a history of failed marriages, and seems to be diligently continuing in the same path. He might just be the first President to get divorced in office. Infidelity was quite common among previous Presidents and public figures, sadly.

    I am pretty sure that the vast majority of men categorically deny an affair when confronted. Trump may continue in that tradition, however, if he does so under oath, then he’s vulnerable to perjury. So went Bill Clinton. Other than to feel sorry for Hillary and perplexed at her continued participation, I felt Bill Clinton’s infidelity was a character flaw, and a private matter. I was more concerned with the allegations of assault and harassment. A the time, I did not understand why one of Bill Clinton’s many affairs was a matter of public concern, and believed that we spent too much money and time for little result. I still feel that the allegations of sexual harassment, assault, and Orgy Island with trafficked minors are far more important. However, he did lie under oath, which made him vulnerable to consequences. Strangely, his wife seems immune to those consequences.

    We all know he had affairs in the past, and we knew that before he was elected. It’s a character flaw, to be sure, but a well known one. Since past predicts future, I fully expect him to blow his chances at preserving this marriage, too. Shame, since I quite like Melania. The media has been savage to her. She and Baron have my sympathy while they go through this. Honestly, there is always going to be someone young, lovely, and interesting, but there is no substitution for trust and longevity. Someone new has no history with you, they don’t know your flaws, and they have not proven their loyalty to you through thick and thin. That should be a precious treasure to be preserved at all cost. A brief affair, and the risk of STDs just aren’t worth it.

    You can condemn adultery and then move on. At least we are not France, where affairs, or “playfairs” are expected, discrete, and not a concern. If France spent this much time investigating past allegations of affairs of their leaders over the years, they would do nothing else.

    1. Karen S – that Trump had unprotected sex with Stormy proves how brave he really is. 😉

  12. None of Trump’s behavior regarding the Russia investigation make sense through the lense of presumed innocence. A president from either party, if innocent, would seem to encourage the investigation to preserve our electoral process. Today’s news (and no, it’s not fake. And it’s not run by the deep state, George Soros, or the lizard people) indicates that Gates was meeting with Russian intelligence and the additional stories of White House counsel suggesting Trump pardon Manafort and Flynn making it harder and harder to presume Trump’s innocence. Of course if one presumes his campaign with knowingly conspiring with Russia his actions do make sense. To paraphrase Trey Gowdy’s (not a member of the deep state, and probably not a lizard person) advice to Trump’s lawyers,”Hey numbers-nuts, if your client’s not guilty why to you try to talk him into acting like it.”

  13. Does anyone have Turley’s email address? In the “Civility Rule” section he requests complaints be made to him by email but it doesn’t seem to be provided. Thanks!

    1. You will have to find it on the GWU law website. Otherwise he has i idea what bad stuff goes down here.

        2. enigma – sorry it did not work out for you. 🙁 Keep the email address though, it may come in handy. 😉

  14. Professor Turley, the FBI/DOJ/”deep state”/Obama holdover coup d’etat in America is continuing. It is long past time for you to add your voice to those calling for a second special counsel.

    Politicization of extra-marital affairs should not be perpetuated by courts of law and should be thrown out. The exploitative and destructive extra-marital affairs of FDR, JFK, RFK, MLK and WJC were completely ignored. Edward “Ted” Kennedy was responsible, by way of driving under the influence of alcohol, for the slow horrible death of a young paramour. Mr. Kennedy paid no legal or political price as he plead guilty only to leaving the scene of an accident.

    And there are other tales of extra-marital sexual affairs:

    “FDR and His Women”

    “… she was deeply wounded to discover that Franklin had been having an affair with her secretary, Lucy Mercer.”
    _____

    JFK, Monster
    By Timothy Noah

    “I knew that John F. Kennedy was a compulsive, even pathological adulterer, given to taking outlandish risks after he entered the White House. I knew he treated women like whores. And I knew he had more than a few issues with his father about toughness and manliness and all that. But before I read in the newspaper that Mimi Alford’s just-released memoir, Once Upon A Secret: My Affair With President John F. Kennedy And Its Aftermath, described giving Dave Powers a blow job at JFK’s request and in his presence, I didn’t know that Kennedy had an appetite for subjecting those close to him to extreme humiliation.”
    _____

    “Clinton pays Paula Jones $850,000”
    Associated Press
    Wed 13 Jan 1999 13.15 EST

    “WASHINGTON (AP) – Paula Jones is awaiting the arrival of an $850,000 cheque from President Clinton, bringing an official end to the four-year saga spurred by her allegations of sexual harassment.”
    _____

    Bill Clinton as enabled by Hillary Clinton

    1. Eileen Wellstone (1969) Allegation: Sexual assault
    2. Anonymous female student at Yale University (1972) Allegation: Sexual assault
    3. Anonymous female student at the University of Arkansas (1974) Allegation: Sexual assault
    4. Anonymous female lawyer (1977) Allegation: Sexual assault
    5. Juanita Broaddrick (1978) Allegation: Rape
    6. Carolyn Moffet (1979) Allegation: Sexual assault
    7. Elizabeth Ward (1983) Allegation: Unclear
    8. Sally Perdue (1983) Allegation: Unclear
    9. Paula Jones (1991) Allegation: Sexual harassment
    10. Sandra Allen James (1991) Allegation: Sexual assault
    11. Christy Zercher (1992) Allegation: Sexual assault
    12. Kathleen Willey (1993) Allegation: Sexual assault

    2. George: you’ve perfected the Kellyanne Pivot, but none of this has anything whatsoever to do with Trump. None of this, even if it were true, which it likely isn’t, excuses the Fat Dotard or his conduct. That’s the Fox News mentality: whenever Trump gets caught being stupid, lying, or unethical, pivot to point the finger of blame at Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, FDR, JFK, LBJ or any other Democrat you can think of. NONE of this excuses Trump. He is an out and out swine, unqualified for the office, a disgrace to this country, misogynist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic liar.

  15. “Daniels is a self-admitted liar and adulterer.” What about Trump? He is the worst, chronic, habitual liar ever to serve in national public office. He lies about things that aren’t even important. At least Stormy doesn’t pretend to be something she isn’t.

  16. Reading the comments from Trump sycophants and their glowing tributes of a outright unfit pathological liar, one has to laugh and think of watching America’s funniest video’s because sooner or later you know someone will get kicked in the b*lls.

  17. As Professor Turley notes, the Daniels affair is fraught with peril for Trump. It appears that both lawyers who executed the Daniels pay-off engaged in improper conduct. What’s more, Trump may have run afoul of campaign laws.

    Trump supporters must acknowledge the gravity of this situation. To dismiss this matter with trite responses like, “What about Hillary?” will only deepen their eventual dismay. Therefore I beseech Trump supporters to cease their practice of “What about Hillary?” comments. Trump supporters must learn to accept the unraveling of this president.

      1. Insufferable,
        Let’s follow-up at this point in the thread with your falsehoods as a necessity (Weyrich training manual posted at Theocracy Watch). You said that ALEC was benign. The site, ALEC Exposed, documents, otherwise e.g. the U.S. is the most incarcerated population in the world and, labor receives the lowest share of national income in U.S. recorded history.
        You said that Mike Pence (the Kochs’ guy) merely issued a pro forma letter of condolence for Paul Weyrich (founder of ALEC and the Heritage Foundation). Pence, in one eulogy, said, “I grieve my personal loss.”
        You said, Weyrich was not the architect of the religious right, which contradicts Wikipedia and Pence’s statement that Weyrich’s “influence reached from the capitol …to the churches”.
        You said that Weyrich’s role at Heritage was only to get donors. He was the organization’s first president. From a eulogy, “The conservative movement, we are what we are today because of Paul Weyrich”.
        You said the Kochs and Weyrich were opposites on the political right. Conservatives elect the politicians that the Kochs fund.

        1. You’ve uttered not one true statement in that paragraph.

          1. Insufferable-
            “Not true”… brevity in fulfillment of a lesson that demands falsehoods as a necessity.. lazy conservatives.
            (I chuckled at your reply so, I felt a tad bit bad about the accurate, “lazy” dig).

          3. DSS, you’ve been gone for awhile. Linda never, ever writes anything true. And she is not bothered by that in the least. She has her talking points delivered to her front door each morning, and gets on the web to spew them out.

            1. Does the individualization cost extra, to the “them”, whoever that group is, who is willing to pay someone to speak up for the poor and for democracy? Wrong address and poor bookkeeping on my part, must explain why my porch is limited to junk mail.
              On the other hand, the conservative training manual posted at Theocracy Watch actually mandates lies from its ranks.

      2. Trump is Sir Galahad??? Are you sure? Are your really sure? Why not cast Trump as Sir Lancelot?

    1. It’s a nothingburger. That refers to the business interests of a partner of a man who worked for Donald Trump for 3 months. That’s the sort of thing you get with fishing expeditions.

      1. Oooh, you are slippery. A comment typical of what happens when you try to defend Trump.

        You are referring to Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager who ran the convention. And to Gates, Trump’s deputy campaign manager, who came on with Manafort and continued on working for Trump after MAnafort was fired.

        And maybe read the article so you can see when the interactions took place.

        1. carey, Nii needs the special counsel’s investigation to produce a nothingburger. The notion that Manafort and Gates were trading on their roles in the Trump campaign without Trump’s knowledge nor approval for the sake of getting whole again with Oleg Deripaska is soon to be dismissed out of hand by Nii on the grounds that Trump fired Manafort (but failed to fire Gates) as soon as Trump found out what Manafort was up to. And how did Trump learn about Manafort’s scheme? Perhaps there’s a nice letter in Don McGahn’s White House safe from former FBI Director James B. Comey informing McGahn about the FBI’s interest in Manafort. Maybe there’s a companion letter in the same location informing McGahn about the FBI’s interest in Carter Page. Or maybe one of the two letters in McGahn’s safe was originally hand-delivered in a gift box from Vladimir Putin to Trump at Trump Tower in 2014 not too long after Trump had returned form The 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow.

          Somethingburger???

          1. If you want to produce something, you have to have a defined crime you’re investigating. Mueller doesn’t have it. Rosenstein commissioned a counter-intelligence investigation. Mueller has proceeded with a criminal investigation even though he does not have the defined mandate to conduct one and Rosenstein has not complied with the law and issued such a delineation, pretending instead that Mueller’s commission to conduct a counter-intelligence investigation legitimates everything he does. The indictments to date have been on process crimes arising from the investigation itself, in re Manafort’s business interests in which neither Trump nor his camarilla are involved (matters which could surely have been handled by the Criminal Division of the Justice Department), or in re a bunch of Russian internet trolls (almost a parody of an indictment). Everyone can see this ‘investigation’ is a fraud, but partisan Democrats have to play let’s pretend.

            1. NII, you called it right, a fraud. But it is more than a fraud for the entire scope of events has interfered with normal Constitutional processes. This interference has been of great aid to our enemies even though none of the acts yet appear to be treasonous.

    2. Excerpted from the article to which carey kindly linked us above:

      The FBI has found that a business associate of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort had ongoing ties to Russian intelligence, including during the 2016 campaign when Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates, were in touch with the associate, according to new court filings.

      The documents, filed late Tuesday by prosecutors for special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, also allege that Gates had said he knew the associate was a former officer with the Russian military intelligence service.

      1. Diane – just in passing, Putin is a former member of the KGB. Using your logic every person who has met with him is tainted.

            1. Yeah, they left their first whispy-bearded boyfriend, socialism, for that bad boy, anarchy. Fickle teenage kids. When will they learn? Before or after the car wreck?

              1. mespo – this has reached train wreck level. I see the IG has agreed to examine the FISA warrants.

  19. JT,

    This is really sexist and takes away from your argument. “Daniels is a self-admitted liar and adulterer. However, a lack of credibility does not mean that she does not present a credible threat.”

    That is such a ridiculous statement given that Trump is a self-admitted liar and adulterer. Further, he is an abusor of women. That abuse a criminal act.

    Where is the credibility of Trump? He’s been caught lying about business matters and matters of state. This statement shows gratuitous contempt of women.

    Apparently when it comes to women, no amount of disparagement is too much, even though the accusations apply equally to Trump. I object to this hatefulness towards women and the differential judgement heaped on us for engaging in the same thing (only less of it) than the man involved. WTF?

    1. “That abuse a criminal act.”

      State the act and prove it.

      Also prove he is hateful to women.

      Do you know the difference between puffery and lies, mistakes and lies, necessary deception and lies? Where has he lied under oath? Can you prove it?

      Stormy, with all that makeup, looks a lot older than her stated age. Could she have a bunch of other problems? However, despite her reported candor, her statement is that when he wanted sex again she didn’t give it to him and he didn’t do anything to her. If her statement is correct it means that Trump doesn’t molest woman though like most men he likes sex with women. What is the nature of people’s obsession with a normal activity that is performed by almost all able adult humans?

      1. So just like with Roy Moore you are saying T rump’s accusers are lyin. It is not normal to seek out porn stars for sex when you have a wife and kids. What kinda of morals do you have? Can’t da old predator keep his pants on as an example to his kids. Looks like Donny Jr. is cheatin and creepin like Donny Sr.

        1. Ken, lean to differentiate accusations made in the pursuit of a political victory and legitimate accusations.

          “It is not normal to seek out porn stars for sex when you have a wife and kids. ”

          That is not normal to you, but maybe you find it normal to go after ducks and sheep. I don’t complain as long as the ducks and sheep are consenting and I don’t give a damn about a politician’s sex life. If such moral issues are important to another they can voice their opinion at the ballot box. One thing is certain, we have had plenty of Presidents that acted in ways that were far worse than what Trump is being accused of. All I care about is the job they do as President.

          The statistics on infidelity tell us that it is not surprising that many of our leaders have cheated on their significant others and are likely to do so again. Monogamy seems to be rareity.

      2. Allan: how about the testimony of Ivana Trump, his first wife in the divorce? She said he physically abused her and pulled out hanks of her hair when she seemed less than superficially sympathetic to the unexpected amount of pain he had after his scalp reduction surgery. He raped her, too. The Donald quickly shut her up by paying her off, but her testimony was on public record before the payoff.

        1. Because the briefs people file in divorce proceedings are absolutely truthful. We have Nutchacha’s word on it.

          1. So, your mission in life is to personally attack me, rather than rationally discuss or disagree with the content of what I write? You are a true Trumpster and obvious Fox News disciple.

            1. Natacha, there’s an excellent chance that your current nemesis “Nutchacha is insufferable” is the same person as your old nemesis “Desperately Seeking Susan.”

        2. “testimony of Ivana Trump”

          It’s a good question, but do we really know what happened? No. For all we know she beat her husband. I am not trying to say that Trump handled himself perfectly in his personal matters. Few of us do, but what we know for sure about Trump’s activities aren’t far off from the American norm and he might even be better than average. Humans are far from perfect and we accept some of these imperfections in our leaders. That is all there is to it. There is no need to combine one’s legal personal life with their political life. That is managed at the ballot box.

    2. Yes, I noticed that too Jill. At best, I think Professor Turley should do more to make himself clear, and at worst he richly deserves your assessment.

      His comments on foreign affairs are often, if anything, even more one sided and at least seemingly superficial of circumstance – Iran, Venezuela, Ukraine, Syria). Similarly, one of his posts on black players kneeling during football games where Turley seemed perfectly happy with the irony that the President has freedom of speech as a constitutional right (“they should be kicked out”) whereas the football players don’t – because they are employed (and the President is not?) – particularly in so far as they are expressing solidarity with those who legitimately fear for their lives in dealings with police. Perhaps a very unfair categorization, but it seemed like Turley was saying this rather trifling concern of black football players (for their lives) impinged on our nationalistic rituals with our flag and thus disturbed his sense of togetherness (hopefully not his digestion) at Thanksgiving dinner.

      In deference to Turley, and this can be somewhat generalized, I thought of what he might change if in this particular case; Daniels, was replaced with a male porn star, say Harry, and a female President – why not Hillary for verisimilitude. I think he might use exactly the same construct; that is, “Harry is a self-admitted liar and adulterer. However, a lack of credibility does not mean that he does not present a credible threat.” Granted, it would be equally “sexist” in a universal sense, but in context of our reality on the ground where women are just about always the victim, the same sentence only with a ‘he’ would quite possibly pass unnoticed.

      So, for the sake of argument, assuming that to be the case, what can one infer? Possibly that Professor Turley is simply trying to present the dangers of the case to a sitting President. Who represents a risk to the POTUS and why. A gender neutral dissection of the case where simple lack of oversight and editing makes the construct very loaded. Of course, being generous and assuming that is correct, a short paragraph explaining his intentions or revising the sentence in question, would be very helpful.

      If it’s not the case, then of course we come up against the hard reality that even scholars are subject to rank social and gender bias.

    3. Hers late breaking news, Jill. Everybody’s a liar and 2/3 of married people cheat. More would if given the opportunity. And worst of all, women aren’t genetically immune from lying or crisis making for profit nor from criticism for both. Welcome to the facts of the human condition.

  20. Today, a retiring GOP House Representative called out evangelical supporters who appear blind to Trump’s debauchery, asking them how they can reconcile their values with the information. April Fools Day coincides with Easter this year and the pastors will be in their pulpits leading their sheep.

    1. When choosing to pull the lever there isn’t much choice. What type of respectable and knowledgeable person would pull the lever for Hillary Clinton?

      1. One who preferred a qualified, and corrupt, public official to an uninformed, authoritarian, racist con man. It really wasn’t difficult.

        1. Carey, you might be uninformed, but Trump wasn’t. Listen to his statements made decades ago. He hit the nail on the head. What makes him unqualified? Is it that he isn’t part of the swamp that takes care of itself instead of the American people? What makes him corrupt? With all the investigations that had to be done before he could build a casino or build a building what was turned up on him that was corrupt? You call him a racist. What proof do you have other than your uninformed opinion.

          I note over and over again you make comments but never do you attempt to prove anything you say. You are starting to sound like some others that used to be here and had the same problem. If so a change in name doesn’t change one’s uninformed opinion.

            1. I try and stay within the realm of the discussion. The GDP is going fine and the stock market is still up from where it was. One expects the cycles especially when there is so much division in the nation and foreign threats are at the forefront. As these issues resolve the underlying economic wellbeing of the nation under this President will continue and the stock market will rise even more. Take note that we have near full employment and the number of people on food stamps has fallen precipitously. It will take time to reverse the destruction of the Obama administration especially with a Congress (both sides) that is so used to serving itself instead of the people.

          2. Allan:

            Here’s what will happen if I present proof:

            1. Oh, Trump is just kidding.
            2. Take him seriously, but not literally. Or take him literally, but not seriously.
            3. That’s just the way he is – he speaks his mind.
            4. He’s not politically correct.
            5. Bring up Clinton, Obama, Comey, Mueller, or any other human distraction in the free world.
            6. Accuse me of being part of the deep state. Excuse me, I mean the DEEP STATE
            7. Call it fake news.
            8. Invoke the Divine Right of Kings because god appoints imperfect messengers like Trump.
            9. Ignore my response
            10. Include links to sites like Infowars, ZeroHedge, Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham.

              1. You’re welcome. It is exhausting and entertaining at the same time.

                And I bet they’re not even aware of the actual news of the past two days: the emoluments case, the Russian GRU contact for Gates and Manafort, and Dowd’s discussion about pardons last year.

                    1. While I agree with your 11 point manifesto, there is quite reasonable argument that Hillary was never all that qualified (in addition to being corrupt).

                      http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/11/hillary-clinton-isnt-qualified-deal-with-it/
                      Not the best article, but sufficient as “reasonable argument.”

                      The 2016 election was just one more example of NOT having any real choice other than that between two neoliberal and neoconservative elitists. When a rigged election -Tweedledee or Tweedledum – is the best you can get, it’s not a legitimate democracy.

                    2. Carey
                      Insufferable is running on empty (all figurative senses of the word). He’s reduced to responses of “rubbish” and “not true”.
                      As some “conservatives” falter from Trump labeled “weakness”, the hyperactive Hannity and Alex Jones will carry the water.

                    3. “11. Call it rubbish”

                      Carey, until you learn how to provide proof instead of unsubstantiated garbage what you say comes under the title of rubbish.

                      Rubbish is for the uneducated or those with low intellectual skills.

                    5. Carey:
                      You forgot dismiss you as a whiny, disgruntled, self-admitted malcontent who sees everything through the prism of “Trump ever bad,” facts notwithstanding. Let’s call it #12. See not exhausting after all just illuminating.

            2. In other words carey you have no proof, you draw conclusions without knowledge, and it seems that you are wrong most of the times.

              1. If Allan’s demand for proof from carey were warranted, then Trump would have to be facing legal jeopardy from carey. Given that Trump is not facing legal jeopardy from carey, it follows that Allan’s demand for proof from carey is unwarranted. (Modus tollens)

                If Trump were not facing any legal jeopardy from carey, then Allan’s demand for proof from carey would be unwarranted. Given that Trump faces no legal jeopardy from carey, it follows that Allan’s demand for proof from carey is unwarranted. (Modus ponens)

                Parenthetically, has Allan yet proven that Clinton bribed McCabe into talking Comey into exonerating Clinton of mishandling classified information?

                If L4D’s demand for proof from Allan were warranted, then Clinton would have to be facing legal jeopardy from Allan. Given that Clinton faces no legal jeopardy from Allan, it follows that L4D’s demand for proof from Allan is unwarranted. (Modus tollens)

                If Clinton were facing no legal jeopardy from Allan, then L4D’s demand for proof from Allan would be unwarranted. Given that Clinton faces no legal jeopardy from Allan, it follows that L4D’s demand for proof from Allan is unwarranted. (Modus ponens)

                P. S. That’s what a formal proof looks like, you unwarranted demander, Allan.

                  2. Go prove that Clinton bribed McCabe and that McCabe somehow prevailed upon Comey to exonerate Clinton of mishandling classified information. Modus presumptuous.

                    1. “The nearly $675,000 was donated to McCabe’s unsuccessful run in 2015. That money came from the Virginia Democratic Party and Common Good VA, the political action committee of McAuliffe, a longtime friend and supporter of both Hillary and Bill Clinton who is now the outgoing governor of Virginia.”

                    2. “A report by The Wall Street Journal cited text messages exchanged by FBI agent Peter Strzok, who headed up the Clinton email probe, and FBI lawyer Lisa Page. Strzok said he met with McCabe to discuss emails discovered on a laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner, the husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin who was being investigated for sexting with a teenager.

                      “Got called up to Andy’s earlier,” Strzok wrote in a September 28, 2016 text to Page, referring to McCabe. ”

                      and

                      “CNN learned on Monday that it was Strzok’s decision to edit key language in a memo that former FBI director James Comey authored about the bureau’s assessment of Clinton’s actions.

                      The original draft of the memo, which was created in May 2016 and turned over to the Senate Judiciary Committee early last month, stated, “There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information.”

                      Around June 10, 2016, the memo’s language was changed to say Clinton’s actions were “extremely careless” instead of grossly negligent.”

                      and

                      James Comey drafted a statement about the conclusion of the Hillary Clinton email investigation months before interviewing Clinton.

                      The records show that on May 2, 2016, Comey emailed Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, general counsel James Baker and chief of staff and senior counselor James Rybicki. The subject of the email was “midyear exam,” and though the email says its contents are unclassified, the body of the email is redacted in the release.

                      On Monday, the bureau also released a response to the May 2 email. Rybicki sent the response, dated May 16, 2016, to several colleagues: Peter Strzok, Jonathan Moffa, Baker, Trisha Anderson and E.W. Priestap. He copied McCabe and David Bowdich, the associate deputy director. In the email, which is marked “unclassified,” Rybicki wrote, “Please send me any comments on this statement so we may roll into a master doc for discussion with the Director at a future date. Thanks, Jim.”

                      2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 8

              1. Paul, what are you thanking Carey for? Those talking points are excuses for not providing proof when making outlandish statements.

                    1. Allan – as someone who has missed the point before, this one was intended to be humorous.

                    2. Paul, this type of discussion can be confusing enough. If you wish to make it more confusing and risk being misinterpreted more than necessary that is your problem.

                    3. Allan – it is clearly my problem for not being clear enough, I agree. 😉

        2. One who preferred a qualified, and corrupt, public official

          Activity is not accomplishment. The most notable feature of her tenure as Secretary of State was a gross security breach of which she was the author. The breach was undertaken to frustrate FOIA requests and she was allowed to skate even though she and her minions destroyed correspondence under subpoena. Another notable feature was her stupefying lying over Benghazi. As for her time in the U.S. Senate, she established herself as a maven in no area of policy. Her legal career, of course, is a scandal.

          1. NII:
            “Her legal career, of course, is a scandal.”
            ***************
            Hey, she pulled some strings and got a child rapist off humiliating the victim in the process. That passes for societal service in some Democratic circles. Plus she’s the best damn sexual predator enabler on the Potomac and that’s saying something in the land of booze, broads and bribery.

      2. The sheep of the majority religion, were led to embrace Judaism so that solidarity between money sources and the GOP could be established i.e. Wall Street fund managers and Adelson.
        Those sheep are easily turned when Jewish assets are too coveted to be ignored. Labor’s been tapped out, their pensions, their Social Security (GOP balanced budget agenda), who is next? Bannon’s courtship was handwriting on the wall.

            1. They are pulling out all da stops to attack you. Their bosses want you to shut up.

              1. The staff at the Center for Media and Democracy, ALEC Exposed, UnKochMyCampus, Koch Off Campus and activist authors, Diane Ravitch and Jane Mayer, are the people that the bosses have in the crosshairs.

                You, Ken, like me, can’t let injustice stand without calling it out. And, we can not let out democracy be undermined without being compelled to word and action.

                1. Linda:

                  “You, Ken, like me, can’t let injustice stand without calling it out. And, we can not let out democracy be undermined without being compelled to word and action.”
                  ****************
                  As you write, I can hear the violins warming up and the wind instruments tuning. The music is rising to a full crescendo but it sounds awfully German. Maybe Wagner. BTW, Democracy means submitting to the popular will even when you vehemently disagree with it. You and Ken aren’t exactly Madison and Jefferson; more Laurel and Hardy.

                  1. Mespo,..
                    I think that Steve Martin, Chevy Chase, and Martin Short used a similar line about “wherever there is injustice” in The Three Amigos”.
                    They were funnier than the 3 amigos mentioned in the self-serving comment above, but not by much.

                  2. I get that you, Mespo, don’t care if your kids and grandkids grow up in a democracy which explains why the statement, “If you don’t fight for democracy, you lose it”, is just rubbish to fill the bottom of a trash can for you.
                    And, it explains why you vote for the candidate that the Mercers, Bannon and the Russians tell you to vote for.

                    1. “If you don’t fight for democracy, you lose it”

                      This Stalinist believes that 51% of the population can vote to enslave the other 49%.

                    3. Majority rule, minority rights… representative democracy. You don’t believe in it, leave the country, Allan.

                    4. “Majority rule, minority rights… representative democracy. You don’t believe in it, leave the country, Allan.”

                      Linda, that is one of the purposes of the Constitution and its amendments, to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. You are a Stalinist at heart so you don’t care about rights, you know “the right to life. liberty and happiness” (property. You don’t care about free speech. You only care about your speech and you wish to eliminate anyone with a differing mindset.

          3. Nii said to Linda, “Sober up.”

            Allan asked of carey, “What proof do you have other than your uninformed opinion.”

            Evidently Allan demanded proof from the wrong person. Given that Allan still hasn’t figured out who “Nutchacha is insufferable” is, it’s not surprising that Allan is constantly demanding proof from pretty much everyone for well nigh everything.

            Well, Nii has not yet told Jill to go back on her medications. Maybe Allan will figure it out when that happens.

            1. Is Sue back? He is a republican to da core but has an antiquidated encyclopedia at his fingertips.

              1. That’s the way I read Nii. Of course, I could be wrong. But I don’t think so.

                1. I believe DSS has been around for short periods under a couple of other names.

                1. Drivel is silly nonsense. When there is so much lack of content it is called drivel. One generally can’t prove a negative so you would have to prove the opposite.

      1. Autumn prefers Redacted Tonight, “The Kremlin’s principal international propaganda outlet.”

Comments are closed.