Sessions Moves To End The Spin Cycle: The Independent Investigation of FBI Allegations Is Long Overdue

jeff_sessions_official_portraitBelow is my column in The Hill newspaper on why a separate and independent investigation of the FBI’s conduct is warranted.  My support for the investigation is not because I believe that criminal charges will likely be brought. Rather, I have never seen our country more divided and I cannot imagine any way for us to get beyond this poisonous political environment without full and complete investigations with public disclosure of the findings.  As I have stated in interviews, I comment Attorney General Jeff Sessions in not only giving this matter to the Inspector General but ordered U.S. Attorney John Huber to assist in the investigation.  The combination of the U.S. Attorney and the Inspector General is likely to expedite the investigation and maximize the options for the Justice Department — including the option reserved by Sessions to eventually order the appointment of a Special Counsel.  Critics of Sessions are missing the import of the joint investigation.  He has selected a line prosecutor from outside of the Beltway to review the conduct of FBI officials, including James Comey and Andrew McCabe. Huber adds prosecutorial experience and powers to the ongoing IG investigation.

The decision of the Justice Department inspector general to investigate the FBI over its handling of the Russian investigation is long overdue. At a time when the country is becoming more divided over allegations of misconduct by our government officials, there is little hope for reconciliation so long as the public feels it is being played by both sides. We are likely to continue to disagree over our conclusions, but we can at least agree on the underlying facts. That is why there is a compelling need for public and independent reports from both the Special Counsel and Inspector General.

Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general, announced that he will investigate the allegations of abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the Obama administration. The scope of the probe will cover officials in both the Justice Department and the FBI as related to a “certain U.S. person.” This includes reviewing what “was known to the DOJ and the FBI at the time the applications were filed from or about an alleged FBI confidential source.” The “certain U.S. person” appears to be Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

The greatest failure of our government has been not the underlying allegations of misconduct but the failure of our elected officials to retain the trust of the public that they are seeking the unvarnished truth in these scandals. Instead, the public has been given endless spins by both parties. While Democrats rightfully criticized Trump supporters for belittling or opposing the special counsel investigation, they have done the same thing with regard to the FBI controversy. Democrats have dismissed legitimate concerns over not just the origins of the dossier but its reliance (to any degree) by our intelligence services.

For months, the Clinton campaign denied any connection to the dossier compiled by Fusion GPS and former British spy Christopher Steele. In October, when confronted by journalists, the Clinton campaign finally admitted that it did indeed fund the dossier research. Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias has been accused of not only lying in his denials of any connection to the campaign but sitting next to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta as the latter also denied any campaign role to investigators. Moreover, Steele reportedly shopped the dossier to media outlets and had told one official that he despised Trump and wanted to keep him from being elected president.

The fact is that there are serious concerns raised on both sides. These are allegations that have seriously undermined the public faith in our government. The diametrically opposing reports of the majority and minority on the House Intelligence Committee has only magnified those doubts among citizens. Consider a few examples from both sides on the FBI investigation.

The “wiretapping” spin

In March 2017, Trump was roundly ridiculed for saying that the Obama administration “wiretapped” his campaign. This was portrayed as paranoia or diversion by the media. Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper, went public to deny any such surveillance and said he would have certainly known of a “court order on something like this.” It is now confirmed that there was not a single but multiple orders to intercept communications of Carter Page and others associated with the campaign. Ultimately, no evidence of criminal conduct was presented in the form of an indictment against Page, despite the renewal of the surveillance.

The Free Beacon spin

Once the funding of the Clinton campaign was belatedly disclosed, media ran with a spin that it was a conservative website, the Washington Free Beacon, that first funded the research. That appears untrue. The Free Beacon paid for research on Trump (and Clinton) but ended its funding in spring 2016. The Clinton campaign later paid for the dossier research, and Steele was retained after the closure of the Free Beacon research. It now appears that the dossier was entirely paid for by the Clinton campaign, despite repeated claims to the contrary on networks and cable shows.

The corroboration spin

The Steele dossier has been portrayed by Trump critics as “largely corroborated” by subsequent investigations. In fact, the Steele dossier was found by the FBI to be largely uncorroborated before it was used to secure the Page surveillance order. Steele was given information by individuals associated with Russian intelligence, and some details have already been shown to be false or inaccurate.

Steele wrongly identifies people that Page met with in July 2016, even though that consulting work by Page was open and lawful. Steele also wrongly claims that Trump counsel Michael Cohen met with Russians in Prague when there is no evidence of Cohen ever going to Prague. With Clinton communications already leaking out, Steele said that it was not due to hacking but to intercepted calls. It further downplayed Russian hacking success of primary targets.

The concealment spin

The FBI was wrong not to reveal the fact that the dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign. However, it is not true that the FBI entirely hid the source of the information. The FBI did reveal that the dossier was from a political source. Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee have reported that the FBI “repeatedly informed the court about Steele’s background, credibility, and potential bias.”

The reliance spin

Republicans have maintained that, absent the Steele dossier, there would not have been a surveillance order. Democrats have responded that there was ample evidence submitted beyond the dossier. It certainly seems likely, given the length of the application and the renewals of the order, that more information was submitted to the court on the suspicions concerning Page. The renewals were ordered by four different judges, all of whom were appointed by Republican presidents. Republicans have also suggested that the Page surveillance was ordered as part of a “deep state” effort tied to the election. However, it appears that the underlying investigation preceded Page’s involvement in the campaign.

The concerted effort on both sides to spin this scandal has destroyed the trust of citizens in what is being reported from politicians and press alike. This political crisis is ultimately a crisis of faith. We have lost faith in our government and remain deeply divided in what actually occurred before and after the election. If we are to restore the lost faith in our government, the public will need to see full and independent reports of the underlying facts. That is why this investigation is long overdue. Americans are is not longing for indictments, just for information they can trust. It is time to end the spin cycle in Washington.

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

223 thoughts on “Sessions Moves To End The Spin Cycle: The Independent Investigation of FBI Allegations Is Long Overdue”

  1. The Huber Commission = The Warren Commission.

    Move along, folks.

    Nothing to see here…it’s been fully whitewashed.

    We are the “deep state” “swamp” taking America to the Outer Limits of totalitarian “governance”.

    “There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to… The Outer Limits.”

    1. Warren Commission

      Allen Dulles, Director CIA, conducted the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. President JFK withheld air support and left the CIA force stranded on the beach to be slaughtered. JFK fired Allen Dulles saying he would break the CIA into 1,000 pieces. Allen Dulles successfully heads the conspiracy to assassinate JFK. The newly ensconced President and co-conspirator, Lyndon Johnson, assigns Allen Dulles to the Warren Commission investigating the JFK assassination.

      Hiding in plain sight, your “deep state” is and has been in complete control all along.

      1. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, “…a dupe which will live in infamy”.

  2. Will Huber has prosecutorial powers? If not, what is the point? Can’t they just call to convene a grand jury? They certainly have the evidence?

      1. sorry, fast fingers hit send too soon ……

        yes, the same prosecutorial powers as a ‘special counsel’ has. In reality, Sessions has had a ‘special counsel’ working with IG for months. Incredibly, and to his credit, with zero leaks. No small feat.

      2. But what about the asst. attorney general. He is doing things that are not legal for him to do. My understanding is that he did not have the power to allow Mr. Mueller to expand his investigation. Only the attorney general does and Mr. Sessions has only recused himself as far as the campaign. Otherwise, he should be working. It is all such a mess because they let it go on for so long.

        I think for the reasons stated by a person above, Mr. Sessions needs better performance. I think there is a huge scandal that will go all the way to Obama, but someone really needs to convene a grand jury for all of these investigations, several grand juries.

  3. This political crisis is ultimately a crisis of faith. We have lost faith in our government and remain deeply divided in what actually occurred before and after the election. If we are to restore the lost faith in our government, the public will need to see full and independent reports of the underlying facts.

    Crisis of faith? We should never have put faith in government in the first place. Our faith should be in what we believe is the source of our natural rights, rights that preexist any form of government. As for trust, we should never put full trust in government. It is embodied by people who have an inherent sinful nature. Because we must have a government, the most we should have is limited trust in what they do, we should know what they are supposed to do, and be prepared to act to remove anyone that violates what little public trust they should have enjoyed in the first place.

    This is not a crisis of faith. This is an awakening of the people who have long been asleep at the wheel of their civic duty. Yes, we are divided, but that is the first step in being awake. Now it’s on to learning the real story of how are ignorant trust has been violated and to unwind the damage created by the administrative state.

    1. Indeed! For those of us who lost faith in our federal government decades ago, only indictments and trials/tribunals brought against prominent and blatant criminals can come close to restoring anything. We’d really like to see The Rule of Law restored. Stopping spin? New disclosures of information? New and improved talk ain’t gonna get ‘er done, not now. Action is required and is long overdue.

  4. ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Did someone really type “My support for the investigation is not because I believe that criminal charges will likely be brought” …………but then also typed…….. “Rather, I have never seen our country more divided and I cannot imagine any way for us to get beyond this poisonous political environment without full and complete investigations with public disclosure of the findings.”

    So basically you are saying that since president dennison/trump is the most divisive president who lies more then the all past presidents combined……….and that his supporters are the biggest whiners in US history…….then that is justification for an investigation? Not evidence…..but pervasive whining. How is it you are in the legal profession? How is it that you paid to teach? I get that The Hill publishes your garbage because the Hill publishes most every piece of conservative dribble.

    Better subsections might have been “the Whiny Spin”, “the fake news spin”, “again with more of the whiny spin”, “the they disclosed the source, but I want them to use other words spin”, etc…………

    There may well be a need for an investigation. But your starting comments and weak supportive data where one picks and chooses not only the data, but also pre-selects the conclusion evidences the weak legal concepts relied upon………………….. and hopefully not taught in class.

    Maybe the next investigation should be why those that supposedly recused themselves from the russia investigations (crooked devin nunes, habitual liar jeff sessions, etc…….) seem to continue to be involved on a regular basis?

    1. Bill W, Turley’s statement is a curiosity. He comes awfully close to saying that non-criminal conduct should be investigated for the good of the country. Although, what he actually said is that he doubts that criminal charges would be filed as a result of investigating the conduct of the FBI and the DOJ. Presumably that would be consistent with Turley’s position that criminal charges are unlikely to be filed against Trump as a result of Mueller’s special counsel investigation, even though Turley has stated that Mueller’s investigation should continue, anyway.

      1. “He comes awfully close to saying that non-criminal conduct should be investigated for the good of the country. Although, what he actually said is that he doubts that criminal charges would be filed as a result of investigating the conduct of the FBI and the DOJ.”

        I understand where his weak, weak, weak, “logic” arises from. And I think he stated (not awfully close) this extra investigation is needed only because dennison/trumps base is to divisively stupid to accept reality that their weak, effing moron (not my words – but those that work closely with the idiot) president is a pathological liar and possibly a traitor.

        I imagine the unworthy prof. appreciates your attempts to cover his party before law thread. But fear not – between this garbage thread and his regular anti-clinton posts he’ll still likely merit another tucker carlson $pot. And isn’t that what he maybe really angles for?

        1. Bill W, I knew I couldn’t fool you. But I was hoping you’d play along with my efforts at fooling myself. The distemper of Trump’s supporters and defenders has reached a fever pitch. When they’re not threatening us with nuclear armed civil war in America, it is only because they are accusing Mueller of trying to start World War III by backing Putin into a corner. Maybe Turley has now become genuinely frightened of his own Frankenstein’s monster. But don’t worry. Turley will blame that one on us as well.

  5. This “investigation” is nothing more than an attempt to smear Mueller and to placate a president who who not happy with hims (Sessions). Apparently, we now run the DOJ to make the President happy. It is a sad day.

    1. Justice Holmes – this is going to come as a shock to you, however, the DoJ is part of the Executive and is ultimately run by the President. Yes, you make the President happy as long as it is legal. If you do not like the direction the President is taking the DoJ, then leave.

  6. Turley wrote, “We are likely to continue to disagree over our conclusions, but we can at least agree on the underlying facts.”

    Underlying fact 1) Trump fired Comey. Will anyone dispute underlying fact 1)? Do we really need a special counsel investigation to reconcile the country to agree upon underlying fact 1)? The primary purpose of a special counsel investigation is to assure independence from The POTUS and his subordinate public officers. When Trump fired Comey, Trump threatened the independence of the FBI’s investigation into Russian attempts to cultivate members of the Trump campaign and the Russian information warfare operation in the 2016 election. There was no deep-state conspiracy to trick Trump into firing Comey. There is, however, a concerted effort on the part of political partisans retroactively to justify Trump’s decision to fire Comey in an anachronistic manner. And that is what the call for a special counsel investigation into the FBI is all about: a retroactively anachronistic justification for Trump’s decision to fire Comey. FUBAR!

    1. Turley wrote, “In March 2017, Trump was roundly ridiculed for saying that the Obama administration “wiretapped” his campaign. This was portrayed as paranoia or diversion by the media.”

      The Trump campaign’s legal counsel, Don McGahn, fired both Carter Page and Paul Manafort from the Trump campaign several months before the FBI applied for its first FISA warrant on Carter Page.

      Let’s call that one underlying fact 2) Will anyone dispute underlying fact 2)? Do we really need a special counsel investigation to reconcile the country to agree upon underlying fact 2)? Carter Page was not a member of the Trump campaign when the FBI got its first FISA warrant on Carter Page–because Don McGahn had fired Carter Page from the Trump campaign months before.

      1. Turley wrote, “Steele wrongly identifies people that Page met with in July 2016, even though that consulting work by Page was open and lawful. Steele also wrongly claims that Trump counsel Michael Cohen met with Russians in Prague when there is no evidence of Cohen ever going to Prague.”

        It is true that Carter Page did not meet directly with Igor Sechin. But it’s also true that Carter page met with high ranking representatives of Igor Sechin. Thus to call that allegation uncorroborated is in fact “spin” on the part of Turley.

        It is also true that there is no evidence of Michael D. Cohen ever going to Prague. And yet, there is evidence that Michael D. Cohen met with Russians in Moscow in 2016. Thus, once again, to call that allegation uncorroborated is also “spin” on the part of Turley.

        1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

          Bertrand’s article, for example, cites Page testifying to Congress that he met with Rosneft’s head of investor relations and briefly with Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich as supporting key portions of the Steele dossier.

          What the dossier actually says, however, is that Page met with Igor Diveykin (a Russian intelligence official) and Igor Sechin (the CEO of Rosneft). In some sense, this confirms Steele’s reporting, in that the broad strokes of Page’s testimony are similar to some of the things Steele said. But in another sense, Page is testifying that Steele got key facts wrong.

          1. “In some sense, this confirms Steele’s reporting . . . But in another sense . . . Steele got key facts wrong.”

            Key facts for what purpose? Steele did not have the legal authority to bring criminal charges against Carter Page. That Steele got key facts wrong would only be relevant to criminal charges against Carter Page. Meanwhile, that Steele correctly reported that Carter Page met with a Russian government official and an official of Rosneft (Igor Sechin’s company) is a partial corroboration of Steele’s allegation against Carter Page that is sufficient for the purpose of issuing a FISA warrant for Carter Page.

        2. Excerpted from the article linked above:

          According to the dossier, after August, Cohen continued to manage Trump’s relations with Russia, but after this point, contacts were made to Russia’s “trusted agents of influence” instead of officials.

          Cohen also supposedly discussed how to make “deniable cash payments” to hackers working under Kremlin direction, and how to cover up those operations.

          Cohen’s purported proof that he’s never been to Prague — showing a passport that lacks a Czech Republic stamp — is unconvincing because he could have traveled to Prague via another Schengen area country and might have multiple passports. But none of this has been proven.

          1. Underlying fact 3) the standard for issuing a FISA warrant is probable cause to investigate a suspect. The standard for issuing a FISA warrant is NOT proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by a jury of the suspect’s peers.

            Underlying fact 4) the Steele dossier is an instance of raw (unanalyzed) human intelligence gathered from informants. Raw human intelligence is frequently sketchy and occasionally wrong on the specific details. And that is why analysis by means of in-depth investigation is necessary to evaluate the veracity of raw human intelligence. The FBI corroborated a sufficient portion of the dossier’s allegations against Carter Page as to provide probable cause for a FISA warrant on Carter Page. That the FBI failed to prove Carter Page’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by a jury of Carter Page’s peers is a rather hyper-attenuated explanation for the far simpler fact that the OSC has not even charged Carter Page with a crime. It is not at all necessary to charge someone with a crime before issuing a FISA warrant to investigate that suspect.

            1. Diane – Buzzfeed is currently suing the DNC trying to get them to back up the Steele Dossier, which they published and the DNC paid for. You can be an apologist all you want, but crap is crap. And the Steele Dossier is crap. Buzzfeed is going to be sued into bankruptcy for publishing it.

              1. Admittedly you are a crap expert, one only has to read any of your responses to recognize your crappitude.

              2. I gladly concede that raw, unanalyzed, human intelligence ought not to be published. I do not concede that raw, unanalyzed, human intelligence ought not to be analyzed by means of an investigation. If, at the end of a thorough investigation, the human intelligence at issue is found to have been unsubstantiated, then no criminal charges ought to be brought against anyone based upon that unsubstantiated human intelligence.

                In return for my concession, would you care to concede that civil suits against web magazines are not a proper way to analyze and investigate human intelligence???

                  1. That was a chuckle; can not handle a factful exchange except to dismiss it. Mensa is not an accurate measure for achievement or reasoning or so you prove.

                    1. Paul C. Schulte now states that the FBI and the FISC must wait for a jury verdict in a civil suit against a webzine that published raw human intelligence before the FBI can apply to the FISC to issue a FISA warrant for Carter Page so that the raw human intelligence can be analyzed by means of investigation. You know what, Caviler, that truly does say it all. But this is simpler: FUBAR!

                    2. Diane – you are reading things into my statements again. Don’t. You are illiterate.

                  2. My argument is that the FBI met the burden for probable cause to issue a FISA warrant for Carter Page. Your argument is that Buzzfeed has been accused of defaming someone for having published the Steele dossier. I have already conceded that Buzzfeed ought not to have published the Steele dossier. You have yet to concede that the defamation suit against Buzzfeed is utterly irrelevant to the FISA warrant issued for Carter Page. Your entire procedure consists of retroactive anachronism. FUBAR is as FUBAR does.

    2. Late4

      Imagine what would happen if every person accused of serious wrong-doing demanded an investigation of their accuser.

      1. It is a rather newfangled legal theory, billmcwilliams. It’s also about one step shy of declaring The POTUS to be above the law.

        P. S. While my cynicism is growing and developing every day now, I’m am not yet bemused. I am, however, beginning to wish that I could be.

    3. I am far from an admirer of Trump, but Comey sees himself as a one-man defender of the faith — of Comey. What he did to Hillary before the election was simply done to make himself seem the purest of the pure. And it clearly violated FBI nondisclosure rules. Sure, Trump ginned up Rosenstein’s memo recommending firing Comey. But Rosenstein was right.

      1. Was Rosenstein also right to appoint Mueller as special counsel–because Trump fired Comey?

        1. “Was Rosenstein also right to appoint Mueller as special counsel–because Trump fired Comey?”
          No….Given Mueller’s close relationship with Comey, Mueller was not a good choice to investigate the guy who fired Comey.

          1. Was Rosenstein right to appoint a special counsel to assure the independence of the investigation into Russian attempts to cultivate members of the Trump campaign and the Russian information warfare operation in the 2016 election?

            1. Rosenstein’s memo blasting Comey’s performance was solid, and was cited at the time of Comey’s firing.
              Trump then went beyond the contents of that memo and ties Comey’s firing to the “Trump-Russia thing”.
              That was just asking for trouble; at that point, I think Rosenstein felt like he had the rug pulled out from under him.
              So I think Rosenstein made the right call in appointing a special counsel, but should not have selected Mueller.

                  1. I don’t work there, Diane, and neither do you. How am I supposed to answer that question?

                    1. Rosenstein did not nominate himself for Deputy Attorney General.

                    2. No, he was recommended to whomever is in charge of vetting patronage appointments at the White House. Why they approved the recommendation, I don’t know. Who made it, I don’t know. Very often discretionary appointees have a trusted patron.

                      John Dean, to take one example, was a protege of Richard Kleindienst. Richard Kleindienst and William Rehnquist were pillars in the Goldwater network in Arizona. Dean, working as a staff lawyer to the House Judiciary Committee in 1968, was a personal friend of Barry Goldwater Jr. So, in 1969, Kleindiest is appointed deputy attorney-general and brings his protege with him as ‘associate deputy attorney-general’. Dean was also a friend of Egil Krogh, John Ehrlichman’s protege. So when the position of counsel to the President opened up in May 1970, Krogh puts Dean’s name in the hopper as a replacement.

                    3. So The POTUS, Trump, had nothing whatsoever to do with nominating the supposed “double-agent” Rosenstein to Deputy AG???

                    4. What part of “I don’t work there” don’t you understand?

                    5. The part where the great businessman, Trump, is absolved of responsibility for nominating Rosenstein. You might as well go ahead on and blame Chris Christie for recommending Rosenstein to Trump. What was Trump to supposed to do? He had to nominate Rosenstein. Just like Trump had to hire Christie for the Trump campaign and the Trump transition team. The system is rigged. Everybody is in on it. And everybody is out to get Trump. It’s so unfair!

            2. Diane – assuming Rosenstein was correct in appointing the special counsel, he did not follow the law in doing it. Manafort is already attacking his appointment.

              1. Andrew McCarthy has delineated quite precisely the shell-game Rosenstein and Mueller have been playing in re the scope of Mueller’s authority.

                1. Trump fired Comey. Rosenstein did not trick Trump into firing Comey. Nobody tricked Trump into nominating Rosenstein. Nobody tricked Sessions into recusing himself from the Russia investigation. Rosenstein appointed Mueller. At some point along the way Trump has to learn how to take responsibility for his own actions. So long as Trump’s supporters and defenders keep making flimsy excuses for Trump’s mistakes, Trump will not stop making mistakes. So when will you hold Trump accountable for his own mistakes?

          2. Tom Nash – I sent you an email. I found an invite from you from 2015 in my FB account, so I finally responded. Shows how often I use my FB. 😉

            1. Paul C. Schulte,..
              I’ll check my email accounts…I have some “dormant”, seldom-used email accounts I don’t review often.
              The emails in those segregates accounts are to be “Bleachbitted” before I run for political office.😉

      2. Comey should have been fired on day one for blabbing about the Clinton investigation and sayin nothin about the T rump investigation. Instead da marmalade dictator fired him much later cause he would not do his bidding. Da T rumpers hate Comey for standing up to their dictator but in all reality they should love the dude. He delivered their holy king in their eyes but really a debauched perv da election.

        1. Comey was equally distrusted by both Democrats and Republicans.
          His standing among Democrats is higher since Trump fired him.
          And given Mueller’s ties with Comey, I think it was a mistake to appoint him as special counsel.
          None of the moronic “Original Ken” posts change that.

          1. The bfff memo between Comey and Mueller is a Foxy News Laura Ingraham Sean Hannity Saturday night special

              1. Comey should have resisted Guliani’s whipsawing campaign against the FBI. Had he done so, he probably would have been fired on day one. What else might have happened after that is just about anyone’s guess.

            1. Ken, Nash agreed with you that Comey should’ve been fired. Nash then claimed that you were supposedly moronic for agreeing with him. Nash doesn’t understand agreement. None of them do. I think they’re opposed to it.

          2. Coney did not disclose da FBI was investigating Trump and Clinton. That is a fact.

            1. The Clinton email investigation by the FBI was not a secret, whether Comey himself announced it or not.
              Nor was re-opening that investigation in late October, 2016.
              The FBI was clearly investigating Flynn, and others, in the Trump camp, while Comey was director.
              It’s not clear if he was targeting Trump himself, or if he felt that the other investigations of Trump associates would ensare Trump.
              Original Ken stated earlier that Comey threw the election to Trump, but he now states that “Comey did not disclose” that the FBI was investigating Clinton.

              1. Both were under investigation. If people knew T rump was being investigated he would have lost votes.

              2. Tom Nash said, “Original Ken stated earlier that Comey threw the election to Trump, but he now states that “Comey did not disclose” that the FBI was investigating Clinton.”

                If Nash truly believes that that’s what Ken said, then Nash is the moronic one. If Nash does not truly believe that that’s what Ken said, then Nash is shamelessly exploiting a scope fallacy. Either Nash truly believes or does not truly believe that that’s what Ken said. Either Nash is the moronic one or Nash is shamelessly exploiting a scope fallacy.

                1. L4D,…
                  Given that you are impressed with Ken’s articulate and cogent posts, I won’t try to review the exchanges I had with him.
                  Or try to unravel or “upspin” your versions of what was said.
                  And I don’t want to cut into your time needed to review, restate, and distort JT’s columns….I know how important that is, and how dedicated your columns are to enlightening everyone to what JT or others actually said.
                  Happy trolling…I’ll let you get back to work.

                2. Diane – we know you just learned about scope fallacies, but this is not one. The internet is riddled with better examples.

                  1. Ken said, “Comey should have been fired on day one for blabbing about the Clinton investigation and sayin nothin about the T rump investigation.”

                    Ken also said, “Coney did not disclose da FBI was investigating Trump and Clinton. That is a fact.”

                    Tom Nash said, “Original Ken . . . now states that “Comey did not disclose” that the FBI was investigating Clinton.”

                    The first of Ken’s statements cited above clearly shows what Ken meant. The second of Ken’s statements cited above contains an ambiguity centered on the scope of the conjunction in the phrase Trump and Clinton. Tom Nash exploited that ambiguity to create a scope fallacy. Comey did not disclose that the FBI was investigating Trump and Comey did not disclose the FBI was investigating Clinton. The first clause is known to be true and he second clause is known to be false. And Ken says both clearly in the first of his statements cited above. Ergo, it is a scope fallacy. And Paul C. Schulte is now a proven logic chopper.

                    1. Diane – because of the latest email releases we know that the FBI was investigating Clinton, so that is true. You still have it screwed up. 😉

                    2. L4D,
                      If I spent 15-20 minites reviewing “who said what and when”, I’d be wasting my time.
                      You’d just respond with your “proof by verbisity” that you mentioned, and practise.
                      Then I’d have to go through the process again to untangle your next post.

                    3. Eleven days before November 8th, 2016, Comey notified Congress by letter that the FBI was reopening its investigation of Clinton’s mishandling of classified information. Congress promptly leaked that information to the press. Had Comey not notified Congress, Guliani would have leaked the information about Huma Abedin’s laptop to the press. You cannot possibly be unaware of those facts. Nor can you possibly expect anyone else to fall for your most recent claim that it is only “because of the latest email releases we know that the FBI was investigating Clinton.” You don’t get a “Nice try, though” for that risible ruse.

    4. Short version:
      INVESTIGATE TRUMP GOOD.
      INVESTIGATE ANYONE AGAINST TRUMP ESPECIALLY ANY DNC SUPPORTER BAD.

  7. There are some historical similarities with J. Edgar Hoover’s management style

    Hoover became a controversial figure as evidence of his secretive abuses of power began to surface. He was found to have exceeded the jurisdiction of the FBI, and to have used the FBI to harass political dissenters, activists and to amass secret files on political leaders, and to collect evidence using illegal methods. Hoover consequently amassed a great deal of power and was in a position to intimidate and threaten sitting presidents.

    Richard Nixon was recorded in 1971 stating that one of the reasons he did not fire Hoover was that he was afraid of reprisals against him from Hoover. President Truman said that Hoover transformed the FBI into his private secret police force.

    Hoover obtained a Bachelor of Laws from The George Washington University Law School …..JT’s school.

    Hoover was sometimes unpredictable in his leadership. He frequently fired Bureau agents, singling out those he thought “looked stupid like truck drivers”, or whom he considered “pinheads”. He also relocated agents who had displeased him to career-ending assignments and locations.

      1. Bill,

        I was going to touch on that gay rumor about Hoover liking FBI guys who could handle a Tommy machine gun. The smell of gun powder turned Hoover’s love lights on……..Thanks

      2. J. Edna wasn’t happy, he was just gay.

        Mark Felt was of the opinion that historians pushing the gay meme completely misunderstood the dyad between Hoover and Clyde Tolson. Felt adjudged Tolson a brother substitute, not a butt-buddy.

        1. Nutcha,

          Was Hoover a gay daddy? Going after those young FBI blond haired, blue eyed newbies?

          1. Why are you asking me?

            See also Arthur M. Schlesinger on the original trade book alleging homosexuality on Hoover’s part: the supposed evidence for the contention was very sparse and not cogent.

              1. Diane – for Hoover we have one reference to his cross-dressing and that is iffy. I know that Cohn was homosexual, but that does not make him a cross-dresser and some cross-dressers are heterosexual.

                1. Are you going to tell us your pal Morty swears it’s true?

              2. No, I won’t. Cohn’s homosexuality was surmised by Joseph Welch, among others (who alluded to it during the Army-McCarthy hearings), and in subsequent decades known to reporters acquainted with Cohn (Sidney Zion offered that Cohn lived in a ‘neon closet’). Cohn also died of AIDS. Ralph de Toledano, one of Hoover’s biographers, said that Hoover’s enemies had attempted and failed to substantiate such contentions against him. (Hoover told John Dean that he’d caught employees of Jack Anderson rummaging through his home trash cans).

    1. He was found to have exceeded the jurisdiction of the FBI, and to have used the FBI to harass political dissenters, activists and to amass secret files on political leaders,

      Just to point out, his biographer Ralph de Toledano was quite skeptical those supposed ‘secret files’ ever existed.

      1. From The Straight Dope article linked above:

        Given Hoover’s ability to cover his tracks — his associates, with Tolson’s help, destroyed many of his files upon his death —

        1. Who cares? Ralph de Toledano was Hoover’s biographer, not some random twit on the internet.

  8. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds …”

  9. Here are two relevant reports concerning the OSC investigation, one about Manafort’s lawyers seeking to quash his indictment and the other an interview of former Assistant Director of the FBI, James Kallstrom:

    “Paul Manafort‘s legal team brought a motion to dismiss on Tuesday, noting that Rosenstein could not appoint Mueller to any investigation outside the scope of the 2016 campaign since Sessions did not recuse himself for anything outside the campaign. I agree with this take on Mueller’s authority.

    “If we follow that argument, that would mean Sessions himself has exclusive authority to appoint a special counsel for non-collusion charges, and Sessions has taken no such action. Sessions himself should make that clear to Mueller, rather than await court resolution. Doing so would remove three of the four areas of inquiry from Mueller’s requested interview with President Trump.” [Emphasis added]

    https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/constitution-jeff-sessions-dismiss-robert-mueller-non-campaign-cases/

    Kallstrom alleges in an interview that the whole OSC investigation rests upon acts of malfeasance going all the way up to Obama:

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/28538/bombshell-former-fbi-asst-director-says-obama-ryan-saavedra?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=idealmedia&utm_campaign=dailywire.com&utm_term=68763&utm_content=2207206

  10. I think there is some 4-D chess going on and Mueller only plays 2-D chess. He is in for a surprise.

    1. You are assuming that anyone associated with this is sane.

      Everything inside the Beltway is part of Bedlam.

  11. Here’s a summary of what we’ve learned: Mr. Comey and Mr. McCabe have acknowledged passing along information to the MSM. Their credibility is shot. Mr. Rosenstein didn’t recuse himself from the collusion investigation due to his conflict of interest. His credibility is shot. Mr. Mueller didn’t have the morals or ethics to not accept the Special Counsel position due to his conflicts of interest. His credibility is shot. AG Lynch met with Pres. Clinton on a tarmac during an investigation of Sec. Clinton. Her credibility is shot. Mr. Wray has continued the practice of stonewalling requested documentation from Congress. His credibility is shot.

    How can anyone have any faith in the DOJ or FBI? And we should expect neutrality with Mr. Huber?

    1. Mike, your analysis is flawless, except for one critical difference. Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Mueller, Lynch, and Wray did not have any credibility to begin with.

      1. I’m puzzled as to why Wray was selected as FBI director. He’s a lawyer, not a cop. IIRC, although he was practicing law in Atlanta, he’s from the same social nexus which includes the seedy Mr. Rosenstein. See Andrew McCarthy on Rosenstein’s supervisioin of Mueller. Those two are thick as thieves.

      2. Ralph, I can agree with your response if my post was directed only at veteran DOJ/FBI watchers.

        But you should also have dinged me for leaving out Mr. Holder, whose credibility never existed and is easily one of the most corrupt appointees ever selected to serve the public

  12. I am not so sure the ‘both sides’ equivalency is all that accurate. It is kinda deceptive though. There should be some kind of qualifying notation showing which side had the most fingers in this ‘pie’. I think that, as usual, the Dimms would be shown to have many hands in the pie & that Repubs would maybe have a few fingers in there.

    “It certainly seems likely, given the length of the application and the renewals of the order, that more information was submitted to the court on the suspicions concerning Page. The renewals were ordered by four different judges, all of whom were appointed by Republican presidents.”

    If there was any evidence/’information’ added to the Clinton DNC dossier that the judges considered, we would have heard about it. Especially if it were true. 😉 Muleear & Comedy & other destroy the USA from within the deep state cabal of their ilk are leakers big time. If there was even a smidgen of truth to the fairy tale that Mr. T colluded with Russia…it would have been shouted by every Soros & fringe stream fake media outlet on the planet.

    Anyone know what crime Muleear is basing his witch hunt on? Isn’t there supposed to be–crime first, THEN evidence found & presented in following investigation later? Muleear is in Bizzaro World on this one.

    SamFox

    1. That one statement you cited is also on the list of totally absurd statements in this piece:

      “The renewals were ordered by four different judges, all of whom were appointed by Republican presidents.”

      This statement raises the question of whether JT is being dishonest, or is out of touch with reality. The FACT is that republicans tried harder to stop Trump from getting the nomination than they’ve ever tried to stop any democrat from getting elected — and many of them still opposed Trump after he secured the nomination, fought to help Hillary defeat Trump, and continue to oppose his presidency.

      Trump’s hostile takeover of the broken, corrupt, and dysfunctional republican party, was made possible because We, the Shareholders of the United States of America, were dissatisfied with the previous CEO of the United States and the Board of Directors consisting of democrats AND republicans.

      The inference that because FISA judges were “appointed by Republican presidents” somehow translates into an absence of bias against Trump, or an absence of collusion in the criminal plot against Trump, is laughable.

      The notion that republican participation somehow counterbalances democrat bias is bulk-rate NONSENSE.

  13. Way too many misrepresentations in this piece to address them all — certainly impossible in one comment —but here’s a whopper:

    “In October, when confronted by journalists, the Clinton campaign finally admitted that it did indeed fund the dossier research.”

    Confrontation by “journalists” played no role whatsoever in finally dragging that one sliver of truth out of the Clinton campaign-of-lies.

    Rather, it was purely the result of a subpoena issued by the House Intel Committee, and the inevitability that the court would uphold the subpoena after Fusion GPS tried every trick in the book to have it quashed, which led the Clinton campaign-of-lies to decide to try to get out in front of the ultimate disclosure and admit as much of the truth as it had to, and not one molecule more.

    This also, by the way, relates to another absurd statement in this piece:

    “… Democrats rightfully criticized Trump supporters for belittling or opposing the special counsel investigation …”

    The special counsel investigation was/is the ultimate result of the Clinton campaign-of-lies criminal plot to use the FBI and “intelligence community” to tamper with the election, and when that failed, nullify the election and/or “resist” the duly-elected Administration.

    There’s NOTHING legitimate about the appointment of the special counsel or his continuing investigation. It’s all just a furtherance of a criminal plot that began in the sick, criminal minds of the Clinton campaign.

        1. William,

          In private for decades I cursed God the Father & his Son Jesus Christ for not showing up & helping me fix things that needed fixed. I took care of the problems without them.

          In the very recent past years problems have shown up in which I 1st started to panic as I knew I couldn’t fix & damned if Jesus didn’t show up with bells on & fix those problems. How? I think it’s called selflessness in my case likely different for others.

          Yes, I understand many have a hard time accepting or understanding. That’s for them to work for themselves & I wish them well.

          Happy Holy Day!

          1. One thing I know about religion (any religion) is that it’s similar to art or music (or math or physics) — some people just don’t get it.

            My dad never got art (and I mean visual art). He was a genius in other regards — almost a flawless intellect in matters of technology — but he just didn’t get art, and didn’t get why anyone would be interested in art.

            And the only music he appreciated was of the Tex Ritter or Hank Williams Sr. genre.

            To try to interest him in Van Gogh or Beethoven was like trying to get a dog interested in calculus.

            Some people are like that about religion — and they not only write it off for themselves, but they even deride people who have a better appreciation of its value.

            1. William,

              I’m still learning, If I heard it correctly I did not fully understand what John the Regulator predicted thousands of years ago. Many, many more interesting facts I’ve learned since the internet has opened up hidden knowledge to the gen pop about 20 years back.

              John of Patmos (also called John the Revelator,

              1. Not familiar with that. But I can cite my favorite scripture — one that didn’t make it past the Holy Editors of the Good Book. It’s something supposedly said by Doubting Thomas:

                “The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the face of the Earth, and men do not see it.”

                There are various quotations of that line, depending upon who’s doing the interpreting — but to my mind, it’s one of the most beautiful and inspirational ideas ever expressed.
                And it’s all the more significant, coming from someone who famously had doubts. As a matter of both literature and human faith, I consider Thomas to be the most interesting character in the Bible.

                1. Oky1
                  April 1, 2018 at 3:45 AM
                  Your comment is awaiting moderation.

                  Very Nice William.

                  There are many of us that have always struggled, we know we can be b*stards, but it’s recorded sometimes God needs B*stards to fix shifft, so we do.

                  I would add as I see it the wide spread USA, etc., Debauchery has to be cut the heck back among man kind.

            2. William,

              I looked for the lyrics but it’s late & no luck but I’ll close with John The Revolator. G Nite.

    1. Turley has posted that God-forsaken sentence about a dozen times! Every single time I read it I knew something was wrong! Thanks for pointing that out!

      Honestly, I know Turley is following this story very closely. Is he naïve or just outright stonewalling in favor of Geeziz Soetoro Obama’s and Turley’s beloved DNC?

      1. ” Is he naïve or just outright stonewalling in favor of Geeziz Soetoro Obama’s and Turley’s beloved DNC?”

        Alas, one of the central issues that so many refuse to recognize is that the democrat party of today bears no more resemblance to the democrat party of JFK than the republican party bears resemblance to the party of Ike Eisenhower.

        Even otherwise-perfectly-reasonable, adequately-intelligent people appear to have a blind spot when it comes to that reality, and that (in my opinion), more than any of the issues JT cites, is at the root of the problems lamented here and elsewhere by JT.

        1. Notice what JT stays away from, like the bad FISA Warrants.

          IT’s BEEN Years! We, the American People, Know Turley! Close the legal deal or special forces likely will.

          1776 Redux! We don’t need it so help stop it Turley, Please!

          1. I would think that any clear-sighted person has been able to observe by now that, whatever their original purpose, the FISA warrant(s) have been translated by Comey, Rosenstein, and Mueller into the Stalinization of the American justice system, per the concept expressed by Josef Stalin’s sidekick, Beria:

            “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”

            That’s the Stalinist legal theory behind appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller at the behest of the DNC, directly contradicted by federal regulation, 28 CFR § 600.1

      2. The Deep State, whom ever m*rdered his kids music teacher & then I think he caved with his words.

        I know, I’ve seen it here, but I think if we cave our loved you will be k*lled anyway. IE: John Paul Getty’s kidnapped grand kid.

        Tough Love.

    2. Haha. You are of course, allowed your own opinion–no matter how batsh*t crazy and divorced from reality it is. However, you are manifestly not allowed your own facts. Unfortunately for you, your echo silo, the shills on Pravda Faux News and the day glo bozo, federal grand juries operate in the arena of facts; not hyperventilated screeching from TV shills, not paranoid conspiracy fantasies from obscure loner-loser websites, and most assuredly not from the goggle-eyed opinions of you or your ilk. So sorry for your loss.

      This is to “dag-nabbit, hannity didn’t tell me what to say about this” willie

      1. Sorry, you flaming moron — as it happens, I’ve posted at least a dozen comments at various websites just in the last three days calling Hannity a fraud and his viewers morons. They’re just different kinds of morons than you.

      2. I take it you have a set of macros to write your comments.

      3. Marky Mark Mark – since you have never been on a grand jury, let me educate you a little. The jury only gets the “facts” that the prosecution think is necessary to get a true bill. They never hear from the defense. Rarely is one empaneled for a single case, since they are on-going in most major communities (there are 3 federal grand juries in San Diego Co. right now). And each grand jury has its own personality, so depending on what the prosecutor wants, they pick the grand jury that fits their needs. It is like judge shopping.

        BTW, grand juries do refuse to vote a true bill from time to time. When they do they will tell the prosecutor what was missing that they needed to vote yes. Then the prosecutor can go out and get that piece and present it to a new grand jury and get a true bill.

        The general rule of thumb is, the weaker the case, the more likely they are to use a grand jury.

        1. I regret to inform you that watching Perry Mason reruns is not the same as graduating from an accredited law school. Your “playing” attorney doesn’t sit very well, especially when your “expert” opinion is utterly wrong. With the exception of the rare occurrence where the defendant agrees to waive an indictment (such as where a plea bargain has been struck very early in the process), a felony charge requires an indictment. In other words, “weak” cases are not more likely to use grand juries, because “all” cases require a grand jury, which is where indictments come from. without an indictment, the district court doesn’t have jurisdiction.

          this is to “esquire” paulie

          1. Marky Mark Mark – unless things have changed in criminal law, there are two manners of proceeding. The preliminary hearing before a judge in which the defendant can cross-examine witnesses or the grand jury. Are you sure you went to law school? Or maybe you slept through criminal law?

  14. The washing machine manufacturers are loving it.

    So is the Daily Tatler.

  15. Cynthia o is absolutely correct, Neither a US Attorney nor any Inspector General can objectively, thoroughly, and honestly investigate the FBI. Neither of them are sufficiently independent of the DOJ and will not rock the boat by taking appropriate action even when the evidence demands it. Only an independent special counsel can do that.

    Moreover, neither Huber nor Horowitz have ever demonstrated any aptitude for catching criminals. Can they point to anything on their resumes where they can demonstrate such accomplishments? No, they’ve accomplished nothing in the their long careers, even though rampant corruption and criminal activity was taking place continuously during their tenures.

    Furthermore, the DOJ itself shows evidence of corruption and criminal activity, which is why Sessions took the route of avoiding an independent, special counsel. By selecting government insiders to conduct the pseudo-investigation, they could ensure that all corruption and criminal activity from within the government could be covered up, contained, and silenced.

    Additionally, an independent, special counsel not only needs to investigate the FBI and the DOJ for the FISA issues that Jon Turley mentions, but also because of the FBI’s blatant failures to perform its basic security functions.

    You would think that the recent disclosures that Saddique Mateen, the father of the Orlando mass murderer Omar Mateen, worked for the FBI–would raise a few eyebrows and demand an investigation. But no.

    Think about that for a moment. The FBI had been working with Saddique Mateen for several years and then they investigate their employee’s son because the son had repeatedly made terrorist threats. Then, after more than a year of investigating Omar Mateen, the FBI gets a hot tip that he was trying to buy body armor to be used in combat and thousands of rounds of ammunition. But the FBI decides to do nothing and to let Mateen carry out his mass murders without interference.

    Then, of course, there are failures of the FBI in the more recent Parkland Florida mass murders. The FBI’s close connections to terrorists needs to be researched and all of the FBI and DOJ traitors need to be identified, fired, prosecuted, and imprisoned.

    But, of course, none of this will happen because Sessions is going the cover up route, not the independent, special counsel route that is badly needed here.

    1. Then, of course, there are failures of the FBI in the more recent Parkland Florida mass murders. The FBI’s close connections to terrorists needs to be researched and all of the FBI and DOJ traitors need to be identified, fired, prosecuted, and imprisoned.

      What few people have mentioned to date is that keeping track of obstreperous juveniles really should not be a matter for the federal police.

      1. Nutchacha, the FBI itself claims that “fighting terrorism is the FBI’s first priority.” Terrorism is not limited to adults. The Arabs should have taught you that a long time ago, as many of their children are raised to be terrorists. The FBI received multiple warning that Nikolas Cruz was going to take terrorist action, but the $9 billion budgeted FBI deliberately stood down, just as they did with Omar Mateen in the earlier mass murder. And Cruz was no “obstreperous juvenile.” He was a cold blooded killer just like he claimed he was going to be. You must have been one of those hundreds of admirers sending fawning love letters to Cruz.

        1. Nikolaus Cruz wasn’t a terrorist any more than Dylan Klebold or Charles Whitman.

  16. Wishful thinking. The spin cycle is NOT going to stop. The whole Russian Collusion Thing is a laughable farce, and no reasonable person ever believed any part of it.

    Therefore, having another investigation will not stop the absurdity. Whatever the results are, the Democrats will simply toss them into the machine and continue spinning.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  17. did you ever get the feeling with Sessions and the Prez the whole schtick is pre scripted, recorded and practiced…. in advance?

  18. Appointing Huber is not good enough. Someone who is part of DOJ cannot be depended upon to honestly investigate DOJ. Our trust level has been destroyed, it is zero. Sessions must do better and he needs to do it now.

    1. “Sessions must do better and he needs to do it now.”

      Why now? What reasonable basis is there to not at least wait for the first chapter of the Inspector General’s report, see what it says, and then see what the DOJ intends to do about it?

      If the Inspector General is thorough, he will surely point out that Rod Rosenstein should have long ago recused himself from these matters — as soon as questions began to arise about misuse of the FISA process — since his signature is attached to one of the FISA applications and, therefore, he is (or should be) among those being investigated and, regardless of his guilt or innocence, should have immediately been cut off from playing any role in any investigation.

      The ethical standards that Sessions followed by recusing himself have not been followed by his deputy. Whether or not the Inspector General recognizes that matter will shed significant light upon whether or not the DOJ can, in fact, investigate the DOJ.

      1. Sad. Hannity’s barking isn’t evidence; so sorry for your loss.

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

        1. Your presence here indicates that Turley’s civility rules are a fraud, so I’m not actually violating anything when I tell you to go F*CK yourself.
          Meanwhile, you could search my entire comment history, on the facebook comment platform, on the NYT comment platform, on the Disqus comment platform, and on this comment platform, and the only time I’ve ever referred to Hannity is to call him a fraud.
          Nice try, you lying, belligerent loser. But keep up that kind of behavior. Don’t go changin’, ’cause we love you just the way you are. Your hate-and-insult strategy worked great in 2016, so there’s no reason to believe it won’t work just as good in the coming elections.
          “Hillary in a landslide!”

          1. William Bayer – your posts here are thorough and spot on. I wish you would ignore the ‘Mark M” types. His posts are barely coherent and offer absolutely nothing of value. If posters would stop engaging him, and others like him, they would go away.

            Moving on….. tho JT does not discuss that Huber’s investigation has been underway for months – what are your thoughts on where the grand jury is ? DC, NY, Utah?

            1. I have no guess as to where a grand jury might be empaneled, but it seems likely at least one is doing its job somewhere. DC would be a mistake, given the demographic. They should be shopping for a jurisdiction that isn’t 93% democrat.

              That said, someone posted information to me the other day about an executive order signed by Trump a while back which amends the rules of military courts martial so that people charged with terrorism or corruption can be tried in military courts — one purpose being to eliminate the possibility of jury nullification when conspirators are eventually charged with crimes related to the FISA scandal or Clinton email scandal. The man who posted that information is a retired civil servant who’s been following these issues quite closely, so I have reason to believe he knows what he’s talking about.

              That’s really a key issue, because as difficult as it is investigating these matters, that difficulty is nothing compared with securing convictions when there’s no way to keep democrats off the jury, and when democrats have advertised their total disinterest in the rule of law as long as it’s democrats violating the law and/or Trump being the victim of their crimes.

              One person that knows far more details about these matters than you or I is Andrew McCabe, and as I’m sure you’re aware, he started up an emergency go-fund-me site for his legal defense, despite the fact that he’s worth $11 million. And he did it almost simultaneously with the announcement about Huber (though many of us have known that Huber’s been working the case for some months, but didn’t know his name).

              Anyway, it seems that McCabe is anticipating some very heavy litigation in the not-too-distant future, so I expect we’ll be finding out soon. Of course there could be other grand juries — a different one for Clinton matters than for FISA abuse matters, and possibly NY would be the site for a Clinton-crime grand jury — or Little Rock would be another likely possibility.

              1. despite the fact that he’s worth $11 million.

                He’s a public employee, his wife is a surburban doctor. Unless they come from money, they don’t have a net worth of $11 million. Even if they did come from money, they’re both of an age to have living parents.

              2. @William Bayer April 1, 2018 at 7:42 AM
                .
                “That said, someone posted information to me the other day about an executive order signed by Trump a while back which amends the rules of military courts martial so that people charged with terrorism or corruption can be tried in military courts — one purpose being to eliminate the possibility of jury nullification when conspirators are eventually charged with crimes related to the FISA scandal or Clinton email scandal. The man who posted that information is a retired civil servant who’s been following these issues quite closely, so I have reason to believe he knows what he’s talking about.”

                And, if true, you see this as a salutary development?

                1. I see it as a potentially practical alternative to jury nullification due to flagrant, institutionalized disregard for the rule of law by a corrupt political party.

                  1. @William Bayer April 1, 2018 at 3:51 PM
                    “I see it as a potentially practical alternative to jury nullification due to flagrant, institutionalized disregard for the rule of law by a corrupt political party.”

                    And you don’t see the inherently authoritarian nature of such a proposal for going after one’s political enemies and its real threat to jurisprudence and the rule of law?

                    How much like Turkey’s are you willing for US governance to become?

                    1. What part of the word, “potentially,” don’t you understand?
                      Go watch cartoons, or post your own reply, FOOL.

                2. Ken R,

                  Trump signed the EO on Dec, 21 2017. I don’t recall the number. I saw the EO on Infowars.

            2. Excellent. Because I’m not a Trump bot, my posts are “barely coherent.” What you’re apparently seeking is the same sort of echo silo that your ilk prefer. I understand how difficult it is to admit you were played for the gullible dupe you were. However, doubling down on your breathtaking lack of judgment merely makes you look pathetic. I will continue to point out the ridiculous pretzel-like machinations of the gullible rubes, patsies, dupes and avowed racists who have tried to destroy my country by electing the day glo bozo. I will do so by using — wait for it — ridicule. Your remedy is actually quite simple, but likely not very easy for you. If you want to cease being identified as a ridiculous buffoon, stop being a ridiculous buffoon.

              this is to “but he promised he was gonna make ‘Merica great again” eaglet

              1. Marky Mark Mark – it was my country long before it was yourcountry. And I do not remember us taking a vote and letting you into the OUR country part. I would like to see your proof of myness.

    2. Our? What, you got a mouse in your pocket. Or do you mean the dwindling collection of rubes, racists, left-behinds and gullible dupes who will still admit to supporting the day glo bozo? Make me laugh, please. You are about to see the backlash from you marks getting taken for the big con. No republican who can win a primary owned by you wackjobs will get a vote from a normal person anymore, so we will be saddled with whatever stiff the democrats prop up. Thanks a lot.

      This is to “still isn’t seeing the con” cindie

      1. That would be about 40% of the population, with the media and the Washington establishment his implacable enemy. I know they don’t exist as agents with rights and interests in your mind, but they actually do have rights and interests. What’s really in a state of decay is what’s between your ears.

        About our political life, Walker Percy called it nearly 50 years ago. More humor in it in his rendering.

        1. cynthia o argued that the standard for appointment of a special counsel should be the distrust level of a partisan segment of the electorate. By that standard, Rosenstein did a fine job appointing Mueller. Perhaps in the near future there will always be two special counsels appointed for every investigation of the executive branch. One to investigate The POTUS; the other to investigate the first special counsel. That way we can politicize the law at the same time we criminalize politics–and vice-versa. Wouldn’t Turley be overjoyed. MAGA!

      2. Marky Mark Mark – if you are so sure of this, put a month’s salary on it. I am sure you can afford it. I think the lines are open in Vegas.

    3. Perhaps. One thing I like about this fellow Huber is that he’s lived in Utah his entire life.

Comments are closed.