The Curious Case of The Andrew McCabe Legal Defense Fund

Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the curious timing of a legal defense fund for Andrew McCabe — started and closed before the release of a report on his conduct.  With the sentencing of the first Mueller defendant, Dutch lawyer Alex van der Zwaan, there are obvious questions of why people like Flynn and van der Zwaan should face prison for single false statements while McCabe is accused of lying four times, including twice under oath.  Mueller’s office insisted that anyone who lies to investigators deserves to be sentenced and punished, but that standard appears to change be somewhat fluid when a former high-ranking FBI official is implicated.  Nevertheless, I can certainly understand McCabe’s interest in a legal defense fund given the ongoing IG investigation and addition of a prosecutor to the team.  However, the money was raised before donors could know the full account of the allegations against McCabe. Moreover, McCabe can use this money for any legal needs as he enters private life.

Here is the column:

The Justice Department recently indicted four “fraudsters” in New York who raised more than $125,000 through a bogus “wounded warrior” charity to benefit themselves rather than to help veterans. It is a recurring problem for people who watch those constant commercials showing trembling dogs in wire cages or heartbreaking kids with cleft lips. Most charities fund legitimate, desperately needed programs but often are harmed by an unscrupulous few.

One recent campaign has attracted huge donations based on dubious claims – and it comes from within the Justice Department itself. The cause is Andrew McCabe, and both the timing and the pitch are strikingly premature. Former FBI Deputy Director McCabe’s GoFundMe page for a “legal defense fund” appeared after he was fired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Originally asking for only $150,000, the campaign continued to adjust its goal upward and, in a matter of a few days, surpassed half a million dollars. That is equivalent to more than a decade of McCabe’s expected pension.

McCabe issued a statement, saying that the legal fund “will cease accepting donations on GoFundMe” and acknowledging that the “donations have more than tripled the original goal.” McCabe said in part that the campaign “began organically, with generous people spontaneously giving to accounts that others had set up. I never imagined that I would need to rely on this type of assistance.” Yet, with reports of various investigations “and misleading information about the circumstances of my firing,” he said, “the need for substantial resources for a legal team has become clear.”

Before leaving the Justice Department, McCabe seemed eager to portray himself as the putative victim. It is not easy to transform oneself from a once-powerful public official terminated for cause to the equivalent of a late-night, mud-splattered stray seeking shelter. However, McCabe had the media, which portrayed him as a noble civil servant viciously and unfairly targeted by Trump operatives.

The key to this narrative was the insistence that McCabe was fired hours from his retirement to deny him the pension that he took decades to accumulate. People were outraged, and MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell tweeted that a McCabe supporter said that “if a friendly member of Congress hired him for a week he could possibly qualify for pension benefits.” Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) thanked Mitchell on air for promoting ways to save McCabe, as he and other members of Congress offered McCabe jobs.

The problem is that the original narrative in the media bordered on the fraudulent. McCabe was never at risk of “losing his pension.” Federal Employees Retirement System benefits are vested after five years and, thus, were not “lost.” McCabe is entitled to recover at the standard period between 57 and age 62. What McCabe wanted to do is receive his roughly $60,000 annual pension early at age 50 under a special law enforcement program. His dismissal only means that he will receive the pension when he reaches the federal retirement age, like the vast majority of other federal employees. He will likely receive a pension of roughly $2 million.

But career Justice Department officials in the office of professional responsibility made the unprecedented finding that the former acting FBI director not only lied to investigators but deserved to be fired. That recommendation was reportedly embraced by the career officials in the inspector general’s office. When apolitical FBI Director Christopher Wray read the summary, he asked McCabe to take a terminal leave and not return to the bureau. Attorney General Jeff Sessions then followed the advice of those career Justice Department officials and fired McCabe.

It was curious to many that McCabe would so quickly embrace a GoFundMe site before he was “referred” for criminal investigation, let alone charged with any crime. (The inspector general could refer his case for possible criminal charges but, historically, Justice Department officials have avoided such referrals.) However, McCabe clearly did not want to wait for the release of the inspector general report on his conduct before soliciting donations.

In fact, a member of Congress has indicated that McCabe was accused of lying not once but four times about leaking information to the media on the Clinton investigation: lying to FBI Director James Comey, lying to the office of professional responsibility, and lying twice under oath to the inspector general. That is hardly the stuff for a late-night pitch for just a $19.95 monthly donation to support a self-wounded FBI man.

What also is striking is that McCabe has used the same defense as Michael Flynn, who took a plea for a single false statement to investigators. Flynn, however, was given the choice between a plea and prison. There was no pension involved. Comey’s investigators reportedly did not believe Flynn was intentionally lying in not recalling the discussion of sanctions with Russian diplomats during the presidential transition. There was nothing unlawful about the meeting, yet Flynn was charged by special counsel Robert Mueller with a false or misleading statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

McCabe now insists he “may well have been confused and distracted” four times, and twice under oath. Flynn reportedly took the plea after being drained of his savings, selling his house and facing the possible prosecution of his son, who served as his chief of staff. There was no GoFundMe movement for Flynn, who could still face jail.

In the end, it is not the creation of the GoFundMe page for McCabe that is concerning but its timing. Leading charity watchdogs demand full transparency and information so that “consumers or donors” are not “snookered.” If the public learns that McCabe’s wound was self-inflicted, or even criminal in character, do they get their money back? Not likely.

In the bogus “wounded warrior” case in New York, the FBI and Justice Department denounced efforts that “erode the trust and good will of those who want to contribute to legitimate” causes. McCabe might still prove to be a legitimate cause or he might not be. That is why a GoFundMe effort should follow, not precede, the report on his conduct.  What was missing was a little clarity before a lot of charity in the curious case of Andrew McCabe.

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

203 thoughts on “The Curious Case of The Andrew McCabe Legal Defense Fund”

  1. Congress must quash the coup d’etat, impeach the “deep state” en masse and return America to the

    MANIFEST TENOR of its Constitution.

  2. McCabe was born in ’68. He’s roughly 49/50 years old. He’s a well pedigreed lawyer (Duke undergrad, Washington U Law School). He was in private practice for a few years, but probably couldn’t hack the 100+ billable hour club fresh recruits must endure before making partner, so he got himself a an entitled government job with the FBI.

    Clearly he was able to kiss the right backsides to rise through the feckless FBI bureaucracy through multiple administrations and at a fairly rapid clip. This means he was bilking taxpayers at an SES salary since the mid-2000s. That’s a minimum of $216K per year, with 20+K bonuses thrown in for showing up to work.

    Now he wants to retire at 50 and asks for your help for his legal defense fund? Before I’d contribute, I’d ask: “Sir, how have you urinated all of your money away?”

    Methinks he should keep working like the rest of us schlubs.

    1. Keep on working like the richest 0.1% and their privileged offspring who fund the Republican Party?

        1. $400,000,000 on the midterms- Koch’s and, then there’s Uihlein’s spending.

          1. Capitalists use consumer profits to improve products and/or lower prices. That’s what you meant about the 50’s?
            Today, the money is spent to get politicians to give favored tax treatment to hedge fund managers- carried interest.

            1. Linda, did you happen to notice the change in the law regarding carried interest that was included in the Tax Reform Act (passed by only Republicans, BTW)?

              1. Pensions and Investments Online, March 19, 2018, “Carried Interest Lives On Despite Reform”- tinkering at the margins.

      1. The right to private property is in the U.S. Constitution as is the right to start an enterprise or get a job.

        Other people’s money is private property.

        All men are created equal…after creation, success is up to the individual.

        Constitutional government is severely limited and exists solely to facilitate the freedom of the individual.

        America is a restricted-vote republic by design – never were the “poor” intended to vote as it is knowable that they will “sell” their votes.

        America is not a covetocracy.

        Your motto, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, is of the Communist Manifesto.

        The private charity industry has been unconstitutionally nationalized as private property has been unconstitutionally confiscated.

        Central planning, redistribution of wealth and social engineering are unconstitutional.

      2. Sorros is a Republican ?
        Steyer is a Republican ?

        There are 22 people on Forbes list of Billionaires who make political contributions.
        13 donate predominantly to democrats.
        9 predominantly to republicans.

  3. Nice blog you have going JT, outright racists and fascists that if you dare to write anything different from their predetermined opinion, you will be attacked. So I will only write a quote from George Orwell, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”

    1. FishWings said, “Nice blog you have going JT, outright racists and fascists that if you dare to write anything different from their predetermined opinion, you will be attacked.”

      Yes! Turley operates a Sado-Masochism/Bondage/Dominance club for cracked-pot extremists. No doubt FishWings has seen this many times before L4D ever showed up here. But Turley has really gone too far with this one. Accusing McCabe of defrauding people with a legal defense fund. Analogizing McCabe to a stray animal. Insinuating that McCabe is somehow committing the imposture of a wounded warrior. That is vendetta. There is no civic virtue in it. It does not unite a divided nation. It is no antidote for a poisonous political environment. It is, instead, precisely what Turley denied that it was–vicious and unfair.

      1. “. But Turley has really gone too far with this one. Accusing McCabe of defrauding people with a legal defense fund. ”

        Did Turley accuse McCabe of defrauding people? That has a legal implication and is libelous if not true. On that issue, he said “McCabe might still prove to be a legitimate cause or he might not be. That is why a GoFundMe effort should follow, not precede, the report on his conduct.”

        Diane is not a truthful person. It appears she engages in libelous behavior.

        1. Did Allan accuse L4D of libeling Turley? That has a legal implication and is libelous if not true.

          Allan said, “Diane [L4D] is not a truthful person. It appears she engages in libelous behavior.”

          Once again, Allan steps in his own gumption trap. Allan uses the legal sense of the verb “to accuse” for the sake “accusing” L4D of libeling Turley in the ordinary, everday sense of the verb “to accuse.”

          Allan is, therefore, a self-proven equivocator.

          1. “Did Allan accuse L4D of libeling Turley?”

            Yes, and Diane can prove Allan wrong by quoting what Turley said. Unfortunately, Diane can’t find any such quote and therefore is not a truthful person.

    2. Outright Constitutional Americans.

      Read it. Start here: Article 2, Section 8, Clause 1 – Congress has ONLY the power to tax for GENERAL not INDIVIDUAL welfare. Your entire redistributionist welfare state is illegal; unconstitutional.

      Then go to the right to private property which precludes “Affirmative Action Privilege”, quotas, forced busing, Fair Housing and Non-Discrimination laws.

      Freedom and Self-Reliance.

      That’s what’s “outright” in America.

  4. I have no sympathy for someone not being able to retire at age 50. That’s a ridiculous waste of money by the government. If the government wants law enforcement officers to retire at 15 years younger than everyone else, that exception should be limited to real cops, not desk jockeys such as FBI and Inspector General Agents. Congress should take a serious look at LEO pensions, and how much they are costing the taxpayers. California is already bankrupted by the exceedingly generous LEO pensions, because the law enforcement unions essentially own the state legislature. The federal government doesn’t need to follow the same fiscally irresponsible road to ruin.

    1. The median retirement age for police officers is about 55, pretty near that for soldiers. At the local level, the vast majority of police are in uniform. I think about 10% of all police officers are federal and about 15% state. Could have that wrong, though.

      1. I suppose it would be difficult to separate active vs. non-active military and LEO positions, so they are all lumped together. Certainly an infantry soldier needs to be younger than someone who spends 20 years in the military as a paralegal, computer tech or cook. There is no reason for the latter to retire after only 20 years. Similarly, a cop who has to chase and wrestle gang-bangers to the ground is entirely different from someone sitting at a desk investigating federal financial or tax crimes. The federal LEOs piggy-backed on state LEO retirement models as a job perk, not because they really performed ohysically demanding jobs. They typically don’t really retire, but go on to positions in private security or law, while collecting a federal “retirement.” Some years ago, the Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the Criminal Division of DOJ sought to have themselves reclassified as GS-1811, law enforcement officers, so that they could get the same generous retirement benefits. It didn’t work, but there are some federal positions which really do require physical stamina but are not classified as LEO, such as Border Patrol Agents. I’m assuming their union isn’t making the right contributions to Congress, lol.

    2. McCabe practiced law before joining the FBI. He’s always been plainclothes and salaried. He should NEVER have been earning early-retirement credits.

      1. Every federal “Special Agent” is classified as a GS-1811, law enforcement officer, regardless of the type of work actually performed.

  5. Is the Go Fund Me money given to McCabe taxable as income or as a gift?

    1. It’s not income because it was not earned, as defined by the Internal Revene Code. It would be considered a gift, which is still taxable, but at much more favorable rates than income. I’m sure McCabe has a CPA to take care of the details.

        1. They are if they exceed a certain threshold. I think the threshold was 20 years ago about $10,000 in a calendar year. I’d wager it’s higher today.

          1. That is the threshold for the donor, not the recipient. You are allowed to gift $10,000 per year per donee and not incur gift tax. There is also a lifetime unified credit of $5,000,000 which can be used against lifetime gifts and estate transfers.
            People who RECEIVE gifts or inheritances do not pay income tax on the receipt. They get a stepped-up basis in an inheritance to the fair market value at the date of death, but take the donor’s basis in the case of a gift.

            1. IOW, it’s the giver who is subject to tax, not the recipient.

              1. In 2017, the amount that required Form 709 reporting was $14,000. But it triggered no tax event other than accumulated reporting to the amount max. which is actually approx. $500,000 more than the the $5 mil. I originally stated. Another words only the richest actually benefit from the law- surprise surprise.

                1. Nope. You’ve got it backwards. Only the “richest” end up paying the transfer tax (estate and gift transfers). Anyone who transfers less than the lifetime maximum pays no transfer tax.

                  1. No. There are approx. 250 mil. adults in the U.S. Median income is about $56,500, which is less than it was in 2000.
                    1,000,000 Americans have a net worth of $5 mil. or more. The tax code has been designed to benefit the wealthy. Their offspring are gifted huge sums of money, while they have done nothing to contribute to GDP, a situation also characteristic of the financial sector.

                    1. You appear to be severely math challenged. Your 1M Americans with the net worth of over $5M are the ones paying the estate and gift transfer taxes. Not the other 249 million Americans.
                      How is that a benefit for the wealthy?

                    2. Sierra,
                      You are ethically challenged. People making $56,500 aren’t leaving any inheritance for obvious reasons.

        2. Generally, the ‘giver’ pays the tax based on certain limits, but I wouldn’t be sure ‘go fund me’ sites lead to a tax-free environment when receiving the money. It appears that way superficially, but that isn’t a guarantee until the IRS has reviewed and settled (or litigated) the law.

    2. The Go Fund Me money is not taxable as income. It could be taxable as a gift. depending on the amount that McCabe was gifted, but those taxes, if applicable, would be paid by the donor of the gift, not the recipient, i.e. not by McCabe. In 2017, an individual could give $14,000 during that year to any other individual and that gift would be exempt from taxation. In 2018, the exclusion rises to $15,000 during the year.

      1. Ralph has the updated annual gift exclusion amounts for the donors. (I can remember when it was $3,000 per year per donee.)

  6. I am going to try and compete with some of the absurdities of the leftists on this blog that see crimes everywhere on the right. I’ll just reverse the trend. Quotes by McCarthy)

    “ Rosenstein assigned Mueller to conduct a counterintelligence investigation, which is not a sound basis for appointing a special counsel; the regulations require grounds for a criminal investigation”

    He should be dismissed from the government for not following the rules and perhaps be disbarred.

    “ Mueller’s jurisdiction was set forth in a classified memorandum dated August 2, 2017. That memo was filed just one week after a July 26 column in which I comprehensively laid out the deficiencies in Rosenstein’s appointment order “

    Maybe Rosenstein should be charged with a cover-up.

    1. “ Mueller’s jurisdiction was set forth in a classified memorandum dated August 2, 2017. That memo was filed just one week after a July 26 column in which I comprehensively laid out the deficiencies in Rosenstein’s appointment order “

      (1) I assume you’re referring to Andy McCarthy at the NR.

      (2) Any citation of jurisdiction coming AFTER appointment of a special counsel would, by definition, constitute “additional jurisdiction” per 28 CFR § 600.4(b).

      (3) The 28 CFR § 600.4(a) “original jurisdiction” was set out in Rosenstein’s appointment of Mueller as special counsel, and it is grossly deficient and failed to establish original jurisdiction as it did not contain the required “specific factual statement of the [criminal] matter to be investigated, having identified not a single crime that needed appointment of a special counsel investigation — collusion and/or Russian interference in the election being cited nowhere in the criminal code.

      (4) So in this instance, McCarthy would be in error (unless there is more concerning this issue in the article than you mentioned).

      McCarthy should have said that 28 CFR § 600.4(b) “additional jurisdiction” was set forth in secret memo (don’t know that it was “classified” — might simply have not been disclosed to the public) after Rosenstein failed to establish 28 CFR § 600.4(a) “original jurisdiction” at the time that he violated federal regulations by appointing a special counsel to conduct a counterintelligence investigation — a action contrary to law.

      1. There was a lot more in the article by McCarthy. I was merely acting like a leftist. “I am going to try and compete with some of the absurdities of the leftists on this blog that see crimes everywhere on the right. I’ll just reverse the trend. “

  7. First of all, McCabe is allegedly “accused” of lying by an un-named source, according to this piece. Who is the source? I guarantee it is a Republican. What, specifically, were the alleged “lies”, anyway? What are the implications of the alleged lies to the American people? Is it anywhere close in importance compared to the Russian interference with our elections and Flynn’s lies about his involvement?

    Are we supposed to feel sorry for “Lock Her Up” Flynn? Why? Why haven’t the Koch brothers come to his aid? He and van der Zwann either pleaded or were found guilty. Not so with McCabe.

    Secondly, JT claims that the timing of setting up the “Go Fund Me” was questionable because it came after McCabe was fired, but before any referral for criminal prosecution. JT: do you know what McCabe was told when he was fired by Sessions? Since we all know about the pledge of personal fealty the Dotard requires and how vindictive he is, anyone who got fired allegedly for “cause” in McCabe’s position would be stupid not to immediately lawyer up. D. C. lawyers are expensive. Firing was only the first step.

    McCabe did lose pension benefits: 7 years worth, because the firing was timed to prevent him from taking advantage of an early retirement benefit for members of law enforcement. The timing of the firing, a day or two before he qualified, was calculated to take away this benefit. Everyone knows this, and that is the story. More Trump vindictiveness.

    JT tries to make the entire process of McCabe’s firing sound apolitical and impartial. We all know that since Fatso invaded the White House that nothing in Washington is apolitical, impartial or even patriotic.

    1. He’s accused by the Inspector-General of the Department of Justice and the Office of Professional Responsibility, sources which have been named.

      1. And you’re suggesting that the IG, a political appointee, has no bias? Nor does the head of OPR, a DOJ executive who reports to Deputy IG Rod Rosenstein? Turley’s description of these folks as “career civil servants” who are supposedly as pure as Caesar’s wife doesn’t impress those of us who actually work in the civil service, where, if you want to move up, or even just get along, you follow orders.

        1. The current IG was appointed under the previous administration. The tenure of IG’s usually abides after an administration departs. When Reagan took office, there were a set of IG’s who had been appointed during the Eisenhower administration. BO was unusual in that he canned IG’s who displeased him, something his predecessors were shy about.

          1. There should be term limits. The IG in my agency has been there for more than 10 years, and has stayed in place despite several Congressional investigations regarding his use of time, travel funds, and why he has such an unusually high staff turnover. It seems that unless an IG is actually convicted of something, he can stay in place forever regardless of how lazy, incompetent or ineffectual.

            1. No, if he runs afoul of a lawfare artist like Barack Obama, he gets fired. IIRC, it was the IG of the Corporation for National and Community Service who had exposed some misuse of funds by an Obama crony.

        2. Inspector General Horowitz was appointed by Obama — so if being a political appointee is defined as having inherent bias, Horowitz’ bias would be in favor of democrats.

          The problem that’s causing democrats to freak out — a problem which they don’t mention publically — is that the Obama Administration interfered with IG Horowitz and prevented him from being able to investigate the DOJ National Security Division and/or FBI Counterintelligence Division when he wanted to.
          https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/23/obama-restricts-investigative-powers-inspectors-ge/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

          So it’s likely that IG Horowitz will come down very hard of the offenders that he was prevented from investigating while they were committing the offenses.

          If IG Horowitz had been allowed to investigate as requested — and as the law states he has full authority to investigate — the FBI contractors (including Fusion GPS) that were unlawfully given access to raw NSA intelligence would likely have been prevented from engaging in this unlawful conduct associated with the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign.

          The unlawful conduct that IG Horowitz would have been able to prevent was outlined in a highly-redacted unclassified Memorandum of the FISC (FISA Court) released a bit over a year ago in April, 2017.
          https://www.scribd.com/document/349454375/2016-Cert-FISC-Memo-Opin-Order-Apr-2017#fullscreen&from_embed

    2. “..nothing in Washington is apolitical, impartial, or even patriotic”.
      When did you come to that conclusion about the Mueller investigation?

    3. (1) “D. C. lawyers are expensive.” — McCabe IS a “D. C. lawyer.” He’s not, as yet, been charged with a crime, yet the lawyer needs to hire lawyers? I understand the concept of someone not wanting to represent themselves in litigation — but needing a lawyer for litigation that hasn’t even been filed is a new one on me, especially when the person that allegedly needs a lawyer IS a lawyer.

      I think Turley nailed it, by stating or implying that McCabe wants to get the “charity” before the public finds out about what McCabe and his accomplices have been accused of. It’s likely that people will feel far less charitable once the IG reveals what’s been going on in the DOJ and FBI.

      (2) “Is it anywhere close in importance compared to the Russian interference with our elections and Flynn’s lies about his involvement?”

      Other than your unsupported assertion, I’m aware of no accusations of Flynn being involved in “Russian interference with our elections.” Flynn is accused of lying about his discussion with the Russian Ambassador AFTER the election. And even there, the people who interviewed Flynn indicated that they didn’t think he lied. Nonetheless, it happened AFTER the election and therefore could not reasonably be construed as election interference.

    4. Natacha said, “Secondly, JT claims that the timing of setting up the “Go Fund Me” was questionable because it came after McCabe was fired, but before any referral for criminal prosecution.”

      Actually, what the vendettist, Turley, said was far worse. The vendettist, Turley, analogized McCabe’s legal defense fund to an indictment against “four “fraudsters” in New York who raised more than $125,000 through a bogus “wounded warrior” charity to benefit themselves rather than to help veterans.” The vendettist, Turley, is accusing McCabe of fraudulently raising money for his legal defense. The vendettist, Turley, then plays on the words “wounded warrior” versus “self-inflicted wound,” as though McCabe might as well be fraudulently wearing “The Purple Heart.” This is by far and away the lowest behavior that I have thus far read from the vendettist, Turley. Perhaps Natacha has seen worse.

      Since when does a law professor argue that a legal defense fund is a fraud? Had McCabe set up a legal defense fund for potential witnesses against McCabe, then that would be obstruction of justice. But it would not be fraud except in the sense of perpetrating a fraud on the court. In the ordinary sense of defrauding the people who donate to a legal defense fund, there’s no way that Turley could make a legal case against McCabe for fraud.

      Either Turley is pursuing the strategy of impeaching McCabe’s credibility as a witness against Trump, or Turley has gone around the bend into a desperate gambit to arrange a prisoner swap of McCabe for Flynn. Mueller will not agree to any such a prisoner swap. McCabe will just have to suffer until Mueller is through with his special counsel’s investigation.

      1. ” Turley, is accusing McCabe of fraudulently raising money for his legal defense. ”

        Why don’t you copy Turley’s accusation instead of libeling him?

        1. L4D said, “Turley, analogized McCabe’s legal defense fund to an indictment against “four ‘fraudsters’ in New York who raised more than $125,000 through a bogus “wounded warrior” charity to benefit themselves rather than to help veterans.”

          Allan said, “Why don’t you copy Turley’s accusation instead of libeling him?”

          Once again, either Allan did not read Turley’s original post for the thread or Allan didn’t understand what he read. Likewise, quotations marks appear to be lost on Allan.

        2. Turley wrote, “Most charities fund legitimate, desperately needed programs but often are harmed by an unscrupulous few. One recent campaign has attracted huge donations based on dubious claims – and it comes from within the Justice Department itself. The cause is Andrew McCabe, and both the timing and the pitch are strikingly premature.”

          Allan said, “Why don’t you copy Turley’s accusation instead of libeling him?”

          Allan has previously asked, “Did Turley accuse McCabe of defrauding people? That has a legal implication and is libelous if not true.”

          So you now have Turley’s words copied and pasted to read, Allan. Therefore, you can now answer your own question: Did Turley accuse McCabe of defrauding people? In the legal sense–no. McCabe faces no legal jeopardy from Turley. Turley has no legal authority to indict McCabe for fraud. However, in the ordinary everyday sense of the verb “to accuse,” Turley’s accusation of fraud against McCabe’s legal defense fund is implicit in the quotation from Turley cited above.

          Take note, Allan: L4D did not accuse Turley of libeling McCabe.

          1. Take note of Diane’s proof: “based on dubious claims … and both the timing and the pitch are strikingly premature.”

            But here is Diane’s accusation: ” Turley, is accusing McCabe of fraudulently raising money for his legal defense. ”

            It seems libel is so ingrained in Diane’s mindset that she can’t see it even when the comments are placed in close proximity. She uses a lot of words to hide her deceit.

            Turley further described his statements: “In the end, it is not the creation of the GoFundMe page for McCabe that is concerning but its timing. Leading charity watchdogs demand full transparency and information so that “consumers or donors” are not “snookered.” If the public learns that McCabe’s wound was self-inflicted, or even criminal in character, do they get their money back? Not likely.”

  8. Professor Turley expresses deep concern for the donors to McCabe’s “Go-Fund-Me”. But have those donors come forward to identify as ‘victims’? The professor makes no mention of how those donors feel. I suspect, however, that said donors are so-called ‘deep state’ types who sympathize with McCabe for political reasons. So they might never come forward to say they were ‘snookered’ by McCabe.

    The professor reminds us that Michael Flynn has taken a guilty plea for ‘a single false statement’ to investigators. Flynn forgot that he spoke with the Russian Ambassador in December of 2016 on the same day President Obama announced sanctions against Russia; a notable exchange to forget!

    Professor Turley would have us believe that Michael Flynn’s crime was no worse than Andrew McCabe’s false statements. But one could argue, persuasively, that Flynn took that plea because Robert Mueller could have built a far more serious case against him.

    After retiring from the military in 2014, Michael Flynn formed the Flynn Intel Group providing intelligence services for business and governments. Michael Flynn Junior was Dad’s partner in said firm. Flynn’s consulting firm took on Russian clients and Flynn himself became a guest of Vladimir Putin at a gala party honoring RT, the English language Russian propaganda broadcaster. Flynn was, in fact, paid $45,000 to speak at that reception.

    But it was Flynn’s work on behalf of the Turkish Government that may have been his real undoing. While serving as a consultant to the Trump campaign, Flynn was also consulting the Turkish government of President Erdogan. In that capacity, Flynn discussed, with Erdogan’s emissaries, a scheme for kidnapping an outspoken Turkish dissident living in the U.S. The latter was blamed by Erdogan for planning a coup against Erdogan’s government.

    In January of 2017, while he was the designated National Security Advisor, Flynn meddled on behalf of Turkey regarding a plan by the Obama administration to use American-trained Kurdish troops to take back the city Raqqa. Raqqa had been an ISIS stronghold with possible support by Turkey. And Turkey was vehemently opposed to having Kurdish troops liberate Raqqa. Flynn’s meddling on Turkey’s behalf actually led to a 6 month delay of that operation.

    Therefore when Professor Turley tells us that Michael Flynn’s crime was no worse than Andrew McCabe’s, he is greatly understating the true extent of Flynn’s activities. The truth is that Flynn was happy to take that plea.
    Because his double-dealings, on behalf of both Russian and Turkey, while serving Trump, were shocking by any standard. And it’s not clear that even Trump’s circle knew about Flynn’s Turkish work.

    One final note. Attorney General Sessions, the man who fired Andrew McCabe, actually lied to Congress at his confirmation hearings when stating ‘he’ had had no contact with Russians. Sessions had contacted the Russian embassy while serving as a consultant to Trump’s campaign. But Democrats have decided to let that matter go. Because they don’t want Trump appointing a ‘new’ Attorney General!

    1. AS an individual “Flynn was, in fact, paid $45,000 to speak at that reception.”

      As the husband of Hillary Clinton Secretary of State and as a former President Clinton was paid ~$500,000 and the foundation was provided millions by despots along with contributions to the Clinton Foundation that was not arm’s length.

      Speaking as an individual is not a crime.

      McCabe acted as second in command of the FBI and destroyed the idea that testimony of FBI agents was accepted at a higher level of proof in court than a normal voice. This damaged that law enforcement agency tremendously.

      Michael Flynn was never charged with anything else so we don’t know very much about the potential charges or whether or not the charges would hold water. Pure conjecture on your part. We have crimes that you wish to overlook while you focus on noncrimes.

      Sessions didn’t lie. Sessions didn’t remember a chance meeting (that occurs naturally for a man in his position) in the context of the question. You are making things up.

      If I were to accept your contentions and act according to your thinking process I would have to put Mueller in jail for former and perhaps present crimes.

      1. Flynn was serving as a Consultant to Turkey even ‘after’ Trump had named him National Security Advisor. That would seem to be a glaring conflict of interest. And again, it’s not entirely clear if even Trump knew the full extent of Flynn’s activities.

        One should note that Turkey just recently evicted Kurdish troops from Raqqa, an ISIS stronghold the Kurds had liberated. ISIS had held that city with the possible approval of Erdogan’s government.

        And finally it is highly disingenuous of you to suggest that Session’s ‘didn’t lie’ about his contacts with the Russian embassy. There is a tape of him being questioned by then Senator Al Franken about any contacts with the Russians. Sessions is asked repeatedly and repeatedly denies it. It that’s okay with you, don’t attack Andrew McCabe.

        1. And finally it is highly disingenuous of you to suggest that Session’s ‘didn’t lie’

          You’re projecting. And people are wise to you.

        2. There is a video of Sessions – this is it.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BpgHcanjCQ

          Franken’s question was quite general in nature not specific. It was nto even an allegation about Sessions.

          To the extent it was specific it refers to a CNN story on “communications” between russians and Trump surogates.

          Encountering Kislyak at a washington event is NOT communications – not without establishing that they intended to meet and passed information. It is just a casual encounter.

          Here is a 2nd longer encounter
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeUWZnTG5UM

          There is no crime of lying when questioning someone that Franken could be guilty of.
          Regardless, Sessions does a very good job of noting the Franken is misrepresenting Sessions remarks.

          Franken makes a huge deal of differing answers to DIFFERENT questions – fallaciously claiming that is “moving the goal posts”.

          1). Sessions corrected his orriginal testimony – on his own noting that during the 2015-2016 campaign he had encounter Kislyak on 2 occasions, that at the time the breifly encountered each other and exchanged pleasantries, Session was a Senator on the Armed Forces Committee, and that in that role he encounters foreign represenatatives all the time.

          2), The purported Kislyak intercepts have been debunked long ago.
          First they have not been confirmed.
          Second – no, Kislyak’s intercepts have not been confirmed to be reliable.
          Foriegn represenatives communicating on unsecure channels know they are being listened on an their communications are NOT reliable.

          Senator Franken engaged in defamation. Sessions encountered Franken a 3rd time at another hearing,
          and quite litterally tore him a new asshole. Because Franken was out of line.
          Had he made the same remarks outside the Senate of a private person – they would have been DEFAMATION.

          For the purposes of the claim Franken was making the communications between Sessions and Kislyak would have had to have been substanative – there is nothing but rumor to support that.

          Nor were they private – it was eventually established that Sessions said hello to Kislyak in the company of others.

          The purportes Mayflower hotel back room meeting has also been thoroughly debunked – it did not happen.

          We are now nearly 2 years into this investigation. Not only did the substantitive exchanges that Franken alleges NOT occur with Sessions – they did not occur with ANYONE.

          The Trump Jr. meeting was a fizzle. They expected dirt on Clinton and got garbage about adoption.

          Papadoulis wasted time communicating with a fake russian about Clinton’s basement server emails and never actually talked with anyone who was russian or even beleived to be in contact with Russians.

          Absolutely the Trump campaign wanted dirt of Clinton – even from Russia, just as the Clinton campaign wanted and got dirt on Trump from Russia.

          Absolutely the Trump campaign wanted Clinton’s basement server emails – especially from the russians, and there are several Trump surrogates who tried and failed to get those. None of which appear to have actually talked with real russians or people in contact with real russians.

          The investigation has revealed MORE communication between Clinton and Russia than Trump,
          and mostly revealed Trump failed.

          Franken’s claim that the Russians favored Trump has also been debunked.
          They sought to interfere, to the extent they favored anyone – it was Clinton, she got the Steele Dossier, Trump got nothing.

        3. “Flynn was serving as a Consultant to Turkey even ‘after’ Trump had named him National Security Advisor.”

          That may have been a good reason to fire him. However, McCabe lied at least four times. He abused his office. That is a potentially good reason to jail him.

          Your lack of understanding of what Senators do and the number of people they meet without thinking about it is incredible. The context of the question wouldn’t necessarily make any man in his position think of that meeting when answering the question. He corrected the record and nothing of note occurred.

          While no harm was caused to the United States by Sessions, McCabe’s lies have cost the FBI greatly. The testimony of agents will be more severely questioned because formerly when they spoke they were thought of as speaking only the truth.

          1. The moment Flynn was named National Security Advisor to Trump, he should have immediately disbanded his consulting group. Instead Flynn continued consulting while neglecting to register as a lobbyist for a foreign government. It appears Flynn took the best deal he could from Mueller.

            And furthermore, Allan, your last paragraph proclaiming that Sessions caused “no harm” while McCabe “cost the FBI greatly” is convoluted nonsense. I don’t how you can keep a straight face while posting such double-speak.

            1. I love the way you draw conclusions without adequate fact or proof. Purely ideological.

              Flynn was fired by the trump administration. I am not sure of the exact specifics of what he was doing so I cannot be sure if he violated any law though you assume he did. It appears that Podesta and loads of people neglected to register as lobbyists for foreign governments without registering. All I want is equal treatment for all. If we did that based on your rhetoric Hillary Clinton and perhaps Obama would be in jail.

              What harm did Sessions cause by not remembering his meeting with the Russian?
              McCabe lied 4 times and you think that won’t have a negative impact on FBI testimony?

              Explain yourself in the specific, question by question. We will likely hear silence on this issue from Peter because that is what has happened virtually everytime he has had to back up what he has said.

              1. When Sessions appeared at his confirmation hearing, Russian meddling had become a hot topic. Sessions might have known he’d be asked about contacts with Russia. Therefore to suggest that Sessions was innocently forgetful while judging McCabe in a much harsher light is an obvious double-standard.

                As I noted earlier, no Democrat at this point is going to make an issue out of Sessions lack of honesty. They know Trump would love to fire Sessions, so they’re letting the matter rest.

                With regards to my answering questions, allow me to point out that in college debate tournaments, participants aren’t allowed to ‘question’ their opponents. If questioning were allowed then everyone would try to use that gimmick to take control of the debate.

                If you want to rebut anything I have posted, you are free to do so. But you don’t question me and I won’t question you. Just make your argument and post. No one gets to play prosecutor to another commenter.

                1. “Sessions might have known he’d be asked about contacts with Russia. ”

                  …And he might not even have thought about it because it was usual to run into all sorts of people and on this occasion, there was no substantive discussion. The questioner has the duty to make the context clear. You sound like a Monday morning quarterback that knows very little.

                  “As I noted earlier, no Democrat at this point is going to make an issue out of Sessions lack of honesty.”

                  It demonstrates their duplicity both in Congress and in the media. Look at how they tolerated Holder.

                  “With regards to my answering questions, allow me to point out that in college debate tournaments, participants aren’t allowed to ‘question’ their opponents.”

                  As I predicted total silence to the question: “McCabe lied 4 times and you think that won’t have a negative impact on FBI testimony?” We all know what that means. You either don’t have the ability or you know that what I said is true.

                  You are not in a debate situation. You are on a blog that aside from total impropriety anything goes. You can even lie if you wish and that is a problem with your side of the aisle.

                  1. So Holder belongs in jail along with Hillary and Obama? Well then, Trump should appoint a Special Prosecutor to bring a case against all three. Let’s see how far Trump gets with that.

                    1. The question you refuse to answer is “McCabe lied 4 times and you think that won’t have a negative impact on FBI testimony?” I guess your ideology tells you to deny the truth. An ideology isn’t very good if it requires you to lie and deceive.

                      “So Holder belongs in jail along with Hillary and Obama?”

                      Try reading what I said again. Apparently, we have to be very careful with the accuracy of statements you make.

                    2. Thank you, Peter Hill, for correcting Allan. We can see at this blog that defenders of Russia pose as or, are linked to conservative Republicans. We know (1) Nunes shut down the House investigation prior to full review of Cambridge Analytica (Bannon and the Mercers) (2) Erik Prince (Blackwater) raised funds for House Russophile Rohrbacher and (3) the activities of Flynn, Manafort and Gates, were known to Trump, prior to him hiring them. True Americans who value the country’s principles will reject all Republican candidates who receive any funding from men like the Kochs.
                      Pence is the Kochs’ politician, Trump gave the Kochs the tax scam bill and deregulation that they wanted, and cabinet members are linked to the Kochs.

                    3. “Thank you, Peter Hill, for correcting Allan.”

                      It seems Linda that you can’t read any better than Peter Hill, but we already know that.

        4. The line of questioning wherein Sessions didn’t mention contacts with the Russian Ambassador had to do with Sessions’ actions as a member of the Trump campaign. The purpose of the questioning had nothing to do with Sessions’ actions as a member of the Senate. The answer(s) Sessions gave to Frankengroper were the same as he gave on a questionnaire related to security clearance, wherein the FBI instructed Sessions that in listing foreign contacts he need not list contacts related to his Senate duties.

          In trying to jump on Frankengroper’s bandwagon accusing Sessions of lying about contacts with Russians, Senator McCaskill LIED about her own meetings with Russians. The difference is that McCaskill was straight out lying, and doing it for the purpose of attempting to incriminate Sessions.

          Sessions’ statements have been adequately and reasonably explained. There is NO explanation for McCaskill’s lies attempting to incriminate Sessions.
          https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/02/politics/claire-mccaskill-jeff-sessions-russian-ambassador-meeting/index.html

          1. William, you refreshed my memory on what actually happened. I don’t think Peter is able to deal with the inconsistencies of the party he supports. I originally thought he would attempt to be above board, but I don’t think he can.

    2. I read Peter Hill’s insightful analysis and admired his restraint in the characterization of Turley.

      1. JT likes to feed his base, he knows that the echo chamber from the right will have 100-200 comments. I’m waiting for the bubble to bust, then what will JT do then…..

          1. If the comments from the right are bothersome, Fishwings and Hill could always ask JT or Darren to restrict comments only to the 15-20 frequent commenters from the left.

          2. An insult to the integrity of Turley. I believe Turley actually has sympathy with the left side of the aisle, but he seems like a civil libertarian that deviates from leftist dogma when civil liberties and the law is at stake.

            Obviously, you care little about the law and even less about civil liberties and that is demonstrated by the postings you make.

            I don’t know why you continuously insult Turley’s integrity the way you do when he generously permits you to post anything you wish on his blog.

            1. Turley’s censorship would counter his narrative as a proponent of free speech (playing out as an anachronistic substitution for democracy). Free speech is costly. Media depends on ad buys. Turley didn’t speak out against the elimination of net neutrality. He defends right wing speech, no matter how offensive but, ignored the arrest of a Louisiana teacher for her free speech. Turley carries the water for the right wing and Allan saying otherwise only confirms it.

              1. “Turley’s censorship would counter his narrative as a proponent of free speech”

                What censorship? He certainly doesn’t censor your comments. Your explanation informs us that you don’t even know what censorship means. I think you should be thrown off the blog for making such ridiculous statements, but I guess for fairness he keeps you as the blog clown.

    3. One final note. Attorney General Sessions, the man who fired Andrew McCabe, actually lied to Congress at his confirmation hearings when stating ‘he’ had had no contact with Russians.

      He’d crossed paths socially with the Russian ambassador and thought nothing of it.

      1. Nutchacha,..
        That exchange between Franken and Sessions was one of the sloppiest I’ve seen in a confirmation hearing.
        Maybe Chuck Hagel did as badly several years ago.
        There was a long, rambling statement/ question posed by Franken, then an even more screwed up answer from Sessions where he answered questions he wasn’t asked in the first place.
        I don’t know if he was on good personal terms in the Senate with Franken or not, but this wasn’t some casual chat they were having.
        Franken’s objectives were clear.
        In any case, it’s unlikely that Franken will be posing any more questions to Sessions.😉

    4. The strange thing is that, even after the flap about Sessions testimony at the confirmation hearing, that Pelosi and Sen. Claire McCaskil? also lied about not having contact with the Russian ambassador.
      And they weren’t even asked…they just volunteered the lie, then it was proved that they’d met with the ambassador.

    5. “Flynn forgot that he spoke with the Russian Ambassador in December of 2016 on the same day President Obama announced sanctions against Russia; a notable exchange to forget!”

      It would be, if what you wrote were true. Flynn did not deny speaking with the Russian Ambassador. He recalled it and acknowledged it — but he apparently forgot that they’d discussed the sanctions imposed by Obama. That, anyway, is what those who questioned Flynn said, as recounted by Comey under oath.

      You really should attempt to be more accurate with your posts — otherwise you run the risk of getting accused of being a lying fraud.

    6. “Flynn discussed, with Turkish emissaries, a scheme for kidnapping an,outspoken Turkish dissident living in the U.S.”
      I discussed this allegation t in some detail in a Feb. 27, 2018 JT comments section.
      I’ll summarize some of what I covered then:
      James Woolsey, former CIA Director and then a member of Trump’s transition team, attended part of the meeting where Flynn met with the Turks.
      Woolsey’s account of Flynn’s discussion re Gulen, the Turkish dissident, is based on his recollection of what he says he witnessed near the end of that meeting….the only portion of the meeting where he was present.
      Woolsey stated that it was difficult to know what had been discussed, given his late arrival at the meeting.
      In a CNN interview, Woolsey said “Was there a plan to seize him ( Gulen)? No.
      Reuters reported that Woolsey had tried to secure a $10,000,000 contract with the Turks in an effort to discredit Gulen.
      The Turks did not accept Woolsey’s sales pitch, but they did pay Flynn $600,000 for Flynn’s consulting work on their behalf; evidently, the Turks rejected Woolsey offer as way overpriced.
      The Turks and Flynn have denied any plot to kidnap Gulen. The sole source of that allegation is Woolsey’s account, and I don’t think, there’s any account of Flynn’s statements to Mueller’s team, or any indication that a “kidnapping plot” was ever part of potential charges that could be lodged against Flynn.
      I don’t know the full details of what evidence the Special Counsel had against Flynn, or what charges might have been dropped in the plea deal.
      If Flynn was negotiating with the Turks for the extradiction of Gulen back to Turkey, while a member of Trump’s transition team, that is probably illegal.
      Especially if he was an unregistered lobbyist for a foreign government at the time.
      More details of the charges against Flynn, and the plea deal, may come out at sentencing, or if Mueller’s final report is made public when the Special Counsel’s investigation is finished.
      But while Woolsey’s account of that meeting with the Turks may help support some of the allegations against Flynn, there’s nothing in Woolsey’s allegations that support the existence of a kidnapping plot.
      The $10,000,000 plan put forward by Woolsey to discredit Gulen, while Woolsey was a transition team member, may also have been illegal.
      But there’s no indication that any legal action against Woolsey by the Mueller team is likely.

  9. I am Andrew McCabe. I looked the other way when Gov. McAuliffe offered $700k to my wife so she could run for office while Gov. McAuliffe was under FBI investigation. I campaigned for my wife which is strictly forbidden by FBI standards. I didn’t recuse myself from overseeing the Clinton email investigation in spite of the screaming conflict with the funding for my wife’s campaign. Although I did decide to remove myself one week before the investigation concluded. I get points for that. I learned there were more emails that were on Anthony Weiner’s laptop a month before the election but chose not to disclose to my boss who then had to make a last minute declaration that these emails were duplicates to ones we had already investigated.

    I have broken enough rules that I have been confused while being interviewed by the IG of the DOJ. So that’s why I need money to defend myself because I am guil..errr innocent of my own transgressions.

    1. T rump was under investigation and he was elected president. He still is under investigation.

      1. Thought I might clarify things for you.

        “Investigation” refers to the careful search or examination with an intention to discover facts. Investigations do not imply guilt.

        A “charge” is a formal accusation made against the target of an investigation citing the specific violation(s) in the applicable legal code. Charges do not prove guilt.

        Charges quite frequently do NOT follow investigations and guilty verdicts are not the inevitable outcome of formal charges.

          1. If the Democrats had their way every American would be considered under investigation unless totally subservient to leftist aims. Don’t worry Ken you would not be included.

    2. Jared is under investigation and he is da chief negotiator in da Mideast. No clearance and no experience just married to the marmalade dictator’s daughter.

      1. Ken, I will never understand why you continue to demonstrate your lack of intelligent responses. But whatever turns you on

  10. A renowned Sociologist or Psychologist could gain “Sigmond Freud” status by writing a ground breaking report on “How 21st Century Tribalism is more powerful than the Rule of Law”. We have a great cast of characters since the year 2000. It would be a best-seller! Maybe even the Judicial Branch officials might read it and start “checking & balancing” the various tribes?

  11. McCabe is simply more sophisticated than Flynn. He knew he lied and was facing possible legal expenses, so he got out there early and had friends establish a legal fund while he was still a sympathetic character. Flynn could have done the same. McCabe also benefitted from the still-confusing issue of his pension. The Justice Dept took the highly unusual step of firing him on a Sunday night, and the media reported that he “lost” his pension. So now we’re being told that the pension is not lost, but rather delayed for 7 years. Which, if that is the case, the DOJ or FBI could have, and should have, clarified the matter to the public. They knew the media and public were being mislead, and one has to wonder why they didn’t clarify the matter. It suggests that top-level government officials allowed a false narrative to exist, in order to benefit their buddy McCabe.

  12. “Trump’s best buddy” in the House wants Mueller fired. Surprise, surprise, Matt Gaetz is a Koch politician.

    1. Surprise, surprise….you voted for HRC, the same person for whom voted the The Koch Bros you just criticized, the Klinton and Bush Krime Syndikats, George F. Will, mid east war monger in Chief Bill Kristol (son of a Russian Boleshevik), John Kasich, etc, etc.

      I remember not too many years ago when the DNC was against war. HRC’s alleged foreign policy success story in Libya: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/02/libya-intervention-nato-imperialism/

      1. What do you expect from Linda? Does anyone think she understands what she is talking about?

        1. Now and then the blog is hijacked by some whack job who blathers on and on about looney conspiracies or their own obsessions. Best to ignore him or her and eventually the nut will go away.

          1. Tin, Linda was here when I first came and hasn’t disappeared. She represents the loonies and there are lots of them. I have one looney in my own extended family and at a family dinner started yelling leftist chants at the table. I learned to put up with that relative so I can put up with Linda though I don’t have to be nice about it. That relative, however, was a lot smarter than Linda.

            1. Allan,…
              I had a similar experience with some relatives at Christmas dinner.
              As per the suggestions of a state legislator, I asked the guests to stand for the National Anthem prior to dinner.
              Then I found out that handing out MAGA hats after dinner, also a suggestion of the legislator, did nothing to calm the situation down.😉😃

      2. Two themes identified in Russian online activity (1) Hillary (Dems) for war and (2) Hillary for prison.

      3. With the Kochs’ VP, Mike Pence, their “libertarian” views, and their record of supporting Republican candidates overwhelmingly, if there are people who think they voted for Hillary, it could only reflect right wing propaganda.

  13. It’s quite simple. For those left-wing zealots in the “resistance movement”, the ends justify the means. “By any means necessary” is more than a rallying cry for those that oppose the President, it is a core principle.

    Lying, violating federal law, and preferencing personal ideology over the honor and integrity demanded of a public servant, particularly in the Justice Department, is commendable in some circles provided it serves the purpose of undermining those with whom they disagree.

    1. There it is again- the Russian/Conservative volleying back of the criticism that has been leveled at the right wing.
      The truth is in writing in the Weyrich training manual for conservatives. Weyrich was founder of the Koch-funded Heritage. ALEC and was the architect of the religious right. A prominent lesson from the manual is the ends justify the means.

      1. I don’t care who wrote it and from which group. The ends do NOT always justify the means. No one can legitimately deny that the Left, to include many in the media, have embraced the principle to an extent heretofore unseen in this country’s history. When people and groups adopt the phrase “by any means necessary” to justify their actions, there can be no doubt whatsoever that honor and integrity are expendable.

        I spent 36 years in a position of public service reporting directly to elected officials, both Democrats and Republican. I did not agree with the ideology of some but never let that interfere with my service and loyalty to them. After all, I was ultimately a servant of the people and the people elected them. Who was I to substitute my own judgement for the will of the people?

        1. Read the Weyrich training manual available online at Theocracy Watch… look at the $400 mil. that the 2 Koch brothers plan to spend on the midterms…look at the 1000 seats lost by the Dems in the past decade…look at the near bankruptcy of the the Dem party in the Presidential election, as detailed by Donna Brazille…then, continue regurgitating Fox and A.M. talk radio about the clout of “left wing zealots”.
          Those “zealots” are the ones attempting to get the American oligarchs to release their stranglehold on the economy, local, state and federal government, and on transmutation of the Christian religion.
          Identify exactly which population segment you think is the firewall against American oligarchy. Read Princeton Prof. Martin Gilens’s research about American oligarchy.

          1. Sounds like bird talk “Oligark, Oligark”. A nonproducer without much more understanding of economics, Linda, is telling producers how to produce.

            1. She’s sounding more and more unhinged and hysterical. Wonder what her end game is?

              1. She is like Obama. She only knows how to tear down things, not to build. She has no idea of values. She is totally ignorant of economics.

                Take note that she never suggests anything positive. Get rid of the oligarchs, she says, but just one of them, Walmart, employs over 2 million people. She should scare every thoughtful and intelligent American. Her success is Russia which is a failure. She probably promoted Venezuela years ago and look at it. Ask her to defend her ideology and she can’t all she can do is squawk “oligark, oligark” just like the parrot she is.

            2. The first thousand or so mentions of “the Kochs”, “the oligarchs”, “the Russians”, “the Mercers”, “Weyrich training manual”, the “top.1%”, etc. may not have won over many converts.
              A common mistake of those who hold and express fringe political views is that they think they are part of a “large movement”, and that endless repitition of the same slogans and talking points will turn the tide in their favor.
              That delusional fanaticism might be a bit interesting to observe, but soon the sheer boredomof hearing the same thing, ad nauseum, from these same clowns overwhelms any real interest in what they’re repeating.

              1. Cambridge Analytica makes a lot of money with canned PR that crosses national borders. The message that opposes the donor class in oligarchies, has no money behind it.

              2. Think of Linda as a news consolidator of far leftist loony viewpoints. Listen to her and one doesn’t have to spend much time reading leftist rants from the NYTimes and elsewhere.

              3. During the last election, Hillary received twice as much money as Trump from the oil industry — an industry synonymous with the Koch Brothers.
                http://fortune.com/2016/09/07/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-oil-donations/

                During the last election, Hillary received vastly more contributions from billionaires than did Trump.
                http://fortune.com/2016/09/26/billionaires-clinton-trump/

                During the last election, Hillary received more contributions from the big pharmaceutical companies that all republicans who ran in the primaries COMBINED.

                reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-pharmaceuticals/clinton-outpaces-rivals-in-drug-company-donations-idUSKCN0Z22F1

                During the last election, Hillary (and Bernie Sanders) received more that twice as much money in contributions from the defense industry as the top three republican candidates COMBINED who ran in the primaries.

                politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/2016-election-defense-military-industry-contractors-donations-money-contributions-presidential-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-republican-ted-cruz-213783

                These are only some of the FACTS that manage to avoid being cited in rants against Trump and/or republicans.

                1. William Bayer:

                  You might not have been previously aware, but this weblog is configured to only allow two hyperlinks per comment. I edited your comment to allow for this to be visible.

                  If you would like for the readers to see more than two links, this may be accomplished by using multiple comments of two links each.

                  1. Thank you very much for the explanation. I apologize if that information you provided was available and I failed to read it.

                    1. No apology needed but thank you nonetheless. It’s not a posted rule per se as there is no reference to this on the blog other than when it is mentioned to those who unwittingly encounter it. It is a setting in the administration pages of WordPress where the site owner can decide how many links to allow. Having excessive links is often a sign of spam which often can have dozens of links and it does tend to clutter the pages. Not that your four were unnecessary, but there is a workaround for actual persons to use.

                    2. Again I appreciate the explanation. I’ve been accused from time to time of having a somewhat remarkable memory. One judge got removed from a case I was on because he essentially accused me of having recorded a hearing that happened many months earlier, merely because I was able to quote what he’d previous said verbatim. That would be a serious violation — and he decided to make the accusation without considering the alternative explanation (the correct explanation), which was that I’d simply been paying attention to what he’d said. Anyway, I’m at that stage of life when my memory isn’t necessarily as good as it once was, so when it happens that I might have forgotten reading something, it causes me to wonder how well my brain is functioning.
                      Under those circumstances, it’s nice to know that I didn’t read the rule and forget having read it.
                      And I’m sorry if I’m sometimes a pain. I don’t mean to be, and will try to not respond when others are clearly baiting me. I confess that I have a very low tolerance for nonsense — so I’ll do my best not to contribute to the nonsense.
                      Have fun — or as the Japanese commander of the POW camp in Bridge on the River Kwai said, “Be happy in your work.”

                    3. Darren: While I said I’d try to behave myself and not respond to those who are here merely to bait people, I’d like to direct your attention to the conduct of Late4Dinner over the last 12 hours, wherein he began by posting a comment — not a reply which I would have received notification of — which is worded as a reply (I suppose figuring that I wouldn’t see it) — and where he progressively and continuously claimed I said things that I didn’t say (misrepresenting my statements) and began adding his usual nonsense intended to interject juvenile garbage into the discourse.
                      I would really like to know how this conduct corresponds with rules of civility, because it’s clear to me that civility and/or intelligent discourse has nothing to do with this person’s presence on the page.
                      I don’t know precisely what your function here is, but I gather that it includes making determination about what is or isn’t appropriate behavior.
                      If there is no standard concerning appropriate behavior at this cite, I’d like to know that as well, because I can take myself elsewhere, where there’s no pretense of civility rules, and respond to this sort of conduct with the sort of language that is appropriate when responding to human garbage such as Late4Dinner and a few others.

                    4. Above: In which Bayer jawbones the referee into calling a foul on “juvenile human garbage” occurring on a thread other than the one on which Bayer is jawboning the referee.

                2. Trump delivered the tax scam bill and deregulation to the Kochs. Immediately after, the Kochs gave a check to Paul Ryan’s campaign as a thank you. Pruitt, Trump’s appointee to the EPA, delivered for the oil industry.

                  Michael Moore supported Bernie Sanders (whose campaign was funded primarily with small dollar amounts) and, then when Hillary was given the Democratic nomination on a silver platter, Moore supported Hillary. His reasoning, “I can’t live without hope.”
                  The oligarchy is getting what they want. We will never know if it would have been different if Hillary was elected.

        2. The ec did the substituting since th peoples voicve and will was Sect Clinton by 2,.9MILLION more votes (and in senate by 91000 votes but gerrymandering caused them to still not get the seats they should have been given by virtue of vote count)
          I dont know who youre quoting ‘by any means necessary” I have not hard that and I havebeen to many rallies protests, etc.

      2. You voted for Koch’s candidate, HRC, while you criticize Koch. Such action defines hypocrisy.

        1. I’ve pointed that out in two comments this evening — both of which are “awaiting moderation.” The essential difference between my comments and yours is that I also included citations of/links to articles supporting what you wrote. I never realized that Fortune is considered subversive.

  14. JT or Darren,

    My comment is awaiting moderation. It does not have any no-no’s in it.

  15. This case, in some ways, reminds me of Sander’s donors and the DNC. They thought their money would go to support Sander’s campaingn. Instead the DNC took it for Hillary and they are now claiming in a court of law, that they have every right to do this.

    Blanche (kindness of strangers) McCabe has, once again, shown what kind of person he is. He should give back money to any person who asks for it, even if he is not legally required to do so. As it does appear that he gets to keep the money, a decent person would only use it if necessary and exactly for the purpose it was requested. He could donate the money to actually indigent people who need legal help, perhaps to the Innocence Fund?

    Mueller’s investigation is a process of hypocrisy. As we are effectively living under the rule of men, and no longer have the rule of law, hypocrisy will be utterly “normal” for our society. Yet that is one of the most destructive actions in any society.

    Hypocrisy lies all around us. Here is another horrific example:

    Just days after Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates each posed with the Saudi tyrant wearing big, warm smiles, a Saudi air strike on Yemen today kills 12 civilians, 7 of whom were children (via @sharifkouddous) https://t.co/cqej4o04bE— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) April 2, 2018

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    This type of thing will destroy our society.

  16. Consider the source of accusations. The Rep from Ohio is a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

  17. The oligarchs can fund the people and issues they want (Kochs- $400 mil. in the midterms, Bill Gates and the Waltons $1 bil each to destroy public education) and, the 99% can fund anyone and anything they d–n well please to fund, at anytime they d–n well please. That’s the conservative rule book until the GOP strengthens its plot to repress the American people.
    More bad news for conservatives- Wisconsin’s Supreme Court position went to a liberal judge by a huge margin.

    1. You and the Koch Bros. voted for HRC. You criticize Koch’s politics. Hypocrisy, much?

  18. Someone should start a gofundme page for Flynn, He needs it. McCabe is worth 11 million dollars!

  19. This is an apple and oranges comparison. Flynn was facing many more charges and made a deal to work with Mueler in exchange for facing only a single charge of lying. It seems that McCabe is accused of lying and only lying. I don’t condone McCabe lying, if he did, but comparing his behavior to that of Flynn is not right.

    1. No, betty, your hopes aside. See Andrew McCarthy’s treatment of the matter. Such agreements to turn state’s evidence incorporate language in the plea in which the conspiracy is delineated and the pleading defendant’s role specified. The conspiracy is established in the plea. Nothing like this occurred in Flynn’s case. He pleaded guilty to a process crime because it wasn’t worth it to pay the cost of defending himself. The process crime alleged was a McCabe special. Again, the FBI doesn’t record it’s interviews, so the contention that he lied to investigators has as it’s evidentiary base the agents post-hoc notes of a meeting. He’ll get nothing out of Flynn because there is nothing to be had.

          1. Flynn can be charged for his honorable service to this country during his entire career in the military. McCabe was totally dishonorable and therefore is very attractive to mutually dishonorable people.

        1. No, his lawyer wouldn’t have let him sign a plea agreement that didn’t cover all charges. He agreed to the one charge, and that wrapped it up.

Comments are closed.