Stuck In Denial? Media Struggles With The Fact That Trump Is Not A Target Of Mueller Investigation

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_cropped440px-Director_Robert_S._Mueller-_III-1Below is my column on The Hill newspaper on the significance (and coverage) of the Washington Post story that President Donald Trump is not a target of the Mueller investigation but only a subject of the investigation. None of this means that the risks for Trump in a sit down interview do not remain high. Even as a subject, he could be accused of false statements — a concern with a President known to go “off script” in meetings.
Here is the column:

In terminal medical cases, doctors often deal with patients who move through “stages” that begin with denial. These so-called Kübler-Ross stages can be a long road toward acceptance. A weird form of Kübler-Ross seems to have taken hold of the media. Rather than refusing to accept indicators of impending death, many journalists and analysts seem incapable of accepting signs that the Trump presidency could survive.

That painful process was more evident Tuesday night when the Washington Post reported that special counsel Robert Mueller told the White House last month that Trump was not considered a “target” but only a “subject” of the investigation. After a year of being assured that “bombshell” developments and “smoking gun” evidence was sealing the criminal case against Trump, the dissonance was too great for many who refuse to accept the obvious meaning of this disclosure.

The U.S. Attorney’s manual defines a “subject” as a “person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury’s investigation.” It is a designation that can change but it is also a meaningful description of the current status of an individual. Mueller at this time apparently does not believe Trump meets the definition of a target or a “person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant.” That would have been less notable when Mueller was appointed in 2017 than it is now, after more than a year, dozens of criminal counts, hundreds of thousands of documents, and a bevy of cooperating witnesses.

That Mueller does not believe there is “substantial evidence linking [Trump] to the commission of a crime” would seem to merit some, albeit grudging, recognition. However, there has been a disturbing lack of objectivity in the coverage of this investigation from the start. Throughout it, some of us have cautioned that the criminal case against Trump was far weaker than media suggested. Fired FBI Director James Comey himself told Congress that Trump was not a target of his investigation. Indeed, Trump was reportedly upset with Comey largely because Comey would not say that publicly.

When Trump fired Comey, I supported the call for a special counsel, and I still support Mueller in completing his investigation. However, the case of criminal conduct by Trump has not materially improved over the last year. Last October, Mueller brought the first indictments against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy, Richard Gates. Notably, none of the indictments were linked to the campaign, let alone Trump. When that obvious point was raised, we were told that it meant nothing and Mueller was likely holding back the really damaging indictments while pressuring Trump aides. Commentators continue to announce “bombshell” disclosures against Trump on a daily basis, with experts alleging clear cases for treason to obstruction to witness tampering and other crimes.

Then, in November, came the disclosure of plea agreements with former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos. However, these pleas were for making individual false statements to federal investigators. Neither the charges nor the narratives in the filings tied Trump or his campaign to any criminal act. Later indictments involving lawyer Alex van der Zwaan and internet operator Richard Pinedo involved a false statement and a single count of identity fraud, again unrelated to Trump or his campaign. Nevertheless, commentators insisted Mueller was just laying the groundwork for his major filing.

In February, Mueller handed down indictments of 13 Russian nationals and three Russian organizations for election-related crimes, from hacking to identity fraud. Not only did these charges not implicate Trump or his campaign, but the filing expressly stated that no one in the Trump campaign knowingly engaged Russians in these efforts. Now, Mueller reportedly has said he does not consider Trump a “target” of the criminal investigation. Looking at each of the prior filings, the disclosure would seem consistent with a lack of compelling evidence of a crime by Trump. Indeed, it would indicate Trump’s status has not changed from when Comey told Congress that Trump was not a target.

Still, some analysts immediately denied that Mueller’s disclosure was anything but bad news for Trump. On CNN, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin insisted that “being a ‘subject’ is a very serious thing” and a “very significant designation” because it is clear “the FBI is investigating the president.” Of course, the only lower designation in a criminal investigation would be “witness.” Moreover, it was confirmed last year that Trump was being investigated.


The obvious point is that, after months of investigating Trump, Mueller still does not have sufficient evidence to make him a “target.” True, a “subject” can become a “target” and a “target” can then become a “defendant,” but so can a “witness.” Clearly, Trump is a subject since he was the subject of the election itself and directly involved in the underlying matters under investigation. What is new is that Mueller confirmed Trump’s status has not changed.

Later, CNN analyst John Dean declared that an assurance Trump is not a target “does not mean a whole lot.” Dean’s rationale was that a president “cannot be indicted,” so Mueller would never have listed him as a target, regardless of the evidence. First and foremost, some of us believe a president can be indicted in office. While there is disagreement, including within the Justice Department and past independent counsels, the Supreme Court has never accepted such immunity from indictment.

More important, even if true, such immunity would not mean Mueller would declare that Trump is not a target. Rather, Trump would remain a target as an unindicted co-conspirator or simply an unindicted person pending impeachment. Once impeached, he still could be indicted. Thus, it would be both illogical and unethical for Mueller to say Trump is not a target when he was pursuing possible charges, either as an unindicted co-conspirator or a post-impeachment defendant.

CNN analyst Philip Mudd was not satisfied with the “soft” depictions of the Mueller disclosure and declared that it was devastating news that Mueller was now investigating Trump and that, if he were declared a subject, “I would wet my pants.” CNN analyst Ryan Lizza went even further, suggesting that this was all a sham and Mueller is playing “chess to get the president into an interview.” Of course, such a bait-and-switch would be unethical in making false representations to the president’s counsel if Trump is already considered a target.

This continued refusal to acknowledge positive developments for Trump is a disturbing pathology. Just because Trump is a subject of investigation does not mean he cannot become a target. Moreover, Mueller as expected has indicated he will prepare a report on his investigation. This still is a positive development for Trump. It shows that Trump’s status has not materially changed but neither has the status of much of the coverage. Many media commentators clearly are stuck on denial and are a long way from acceptance in dealing with the legal status of Donald Trump.

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

420 thoughts on “Stuck In Denial? Media Struggles With The Fact That Trump Is Not A Target Of Mueller Investigation”

  1. The left constantly smears the EPA and Pruitt because the left depends upon scared. It provides a new type of rhetorical burning cross to keep its members on its plantation. Here is a more realistic version of the EPA and Scot Pruitt.

    The New EPA And Why The Radical Left Is Losing It Steve Forbes

    In just over a year as EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt has worked with the president to roll back dozens of needless regulations that will save America’s manufacturing and energy sectors billions annually.

    Most recently the Pruitt EPA announced how his agency will take much more realistic view of how the automobile industry can work with government regulators to reduce vehicle emissions. Liberals and green activists immediately cried foul — making chicken little claims of how the sky will immediately fall.

    The truth is for many years EPA has issued regulations and mandates by bureaucrats who are completely ignorant of how real businesses and industry sectors operate or the compliance costs they already must endure. What’s even more appalling is how these bureaucrats blatantly ignored or distorted inconvenient facts in conjuring up their suffocating, anti- growth decrees.

    Shockingly, most government bureaucrats and liberal agency heads haven’t even tried to seek input from the very people operating in the industry sectors they regulate. Scott Pruitt is eliminating the “silo” mentality at EPA and will seek an honest discussion with the people who operate our factories, power plants and heavy industry to find realistic, workable ways to protect our environment while allowing American industry to grow.

    Another prime example of the need for decisive regulatory reform was the Obama-era EPA’s carbon reduction plan, which was supposed to slow global warming but would have produced results at best infinitesimally small that they could not have been measured. Trump and Pruitt’s actions to halt the Obama carbon plan saves the U.S. economy an estimated $33 billion in un-necessary costs.

    Pruitt correctly worked to put the brakes on a harmful plan that would have completely undermined American manufacturers and energy producers while giving foreign competitors another big advantage in the global marketplace.

    Pruitt has made the EPA a far more effective, efficient agency by eliminating many unnecessary, bureaucratic backlogs. Pruitt’s EPA has cut the amount of time it takes to review state water quality standards in half — from 120 days to 60 days. Pruitt’s EPA has already committed some $25 million in water infrastructure loans and has disbursed nearly $9 billion in state funding to improve water quality. Flint Michigan for example, has received $100 million for water infrastructure upgrades.

    And the notion that enforcement under Scott Pruitt’s EPA is lacking is just plain wrong. In fiscal 2017, EPA collected $1.6 billion in administrative and civil judicial penalties. That figure is higher than any of the previous ten years of EPA enforcement operations, excluding fiscal 2016.

    President Trump and Administrator Pruitt rightfully believe we can protect our environment without saddling American factories, manufacturing plants and energy operations with billions in unneeded regulatory costs while offering no way to measure any improvement to the environment or our quality of life.

    By halting burdensome, often duplicative regulations, Pruitt’s EPA can focus on measurable environmental protection, guided by peer-reviewed science without hurting consumers or Americans looking for skilled jobs in the energy or manufacturing sectors.

    Perhaps the most important change of all, Pruitt’s EPA is now operating under the proper rule of law and staying true to its mandate and defined authority by respecting facts rather than ideological fiction. The days of a rogue, agenda driven EPA are over. Pruitt is the right man for the job and it’s no wonder the radical left is screaming for his ouster.

    1. From the Center for Media and Democracy- “Pruitt Plot Thickens: Koch Industries Bought Stake in LNG Giant Cheniere”

      1. The problem is Linda, you make all sorts of claims that are disproven by the facts and by groups that are even on the left. Check out your specific claims about Koch and prison sentencing.

        You like to deal with loose generalities but when specifics are provided the picture looks a lot different. Reread the article and tell us what is not true. You can’t because soundbites don’t contain true information.

      2. Linda (catish catfish), Considering your employer does cruel things to hamsters, which apparently don’t dissuade you from earning an income while being on his payroll, you have no standing on matters of morality whatsoever. None. In fact, you can prove you do have one moral fiber in your body by rescuing the poor hamster from the orifices from your beloved boss

        You have to understand that you must take photos to prove you rescued the hamster.

        – The one and only Linda

    2. CMD’s article includes the following;
      Pruitt can be seen in a photo holding up a Cheniere logo hat, taken at a recent meeting in Morocco, a trip funded by taxpayers. CMD states that a North African nation was being encouraged to import liquified natural gas. “Cheniere has the only current operational export terminal for L.N.G. (The EPA does not regulate L.N.G.) The apartment Pruitt rented, at less than market value, in D.C. is owned by a lobbyist for Cheniere.” CMD also draws a connection to the Kochs’ purchase of Cheniere stock.

      1. I understand. You don’t like Pruitt the man and you believe his trip wasn’t appropriate. Whether he meets your standards as an individual isn’t the issue. The issue is what he has done at the EPA.

        Pruitt rolled “back dozens of needless regulations that will save America’s manufacturing and energy sectors billions annually…” That is the issue under discussion. That is what is helping our economy. That is what brings jobs and higher salaries to working folk.

        1. “Jobs and higher salaries”, the litany from the same people for 35 years. When industry saves money, the Kochs spend it on politics just like their Russian brethren oligarchs.
          And Allan, you don’t determine what discussion is on the table.

          1. Jobs and higher salaries are what happens when business people make good decisions and get rich in the process. We can wipe Walmart off the map and watch 2 million jobs disappear. How does that help humanity?

            No, I don’t determine what discussion is on the table and you are able to talk nonsense as long as you desire.

            It is obvious that you care more for your ideology than you do for peoples lives and standard of living. That is why you don’t answer the question: “Pruitt rolled “back dozens of needless regulations that will save America’s manufacturing and energy sectors billions annually…” That is the issue under discussion. That is what is helping our economy. That is what brings jobs and higher salaries to working folk.” What is wrong with what Pruitt did?

    3. Pat yourself on da back. You defended da dirty twosome – Pruitt and Pollution.

      1. Ken, you pollute the Internet, but some amount of pollution exists in a world where life exists. The fact is that the US air quality has continuously improved even under Pruitt. Stupidity in policy doesn’t reduce pollution it increases it.

        You seem to think like David B. and are unable to see both sides of a balance sheet. Congratulations to Pruitt who is able to see stupidy where it exists and move from stupid policy to smart policy. I know that both you and David B are upset because it ends the stupid policy created by stupid people.

  2. In this case, we have a definite crime with an arrest though others fled the country before they could be arrested.

    It likely led to one of the most serious thefts of House secrets and no members of the House are being held responsible for their total lack of responsibility.

    Real crimes tucked away and forgotten while we spend millions on made up charges that interfere with the ability of government to negotiate with foreign entities. Our economy and the potential of war doesn’t stop the false charges from the empty heads of the left.

    1. Right Wing Watch reported 12/7/2017 that Clarence Thomas’ wife presented awards to Sean Hannity, James O’Keefe and Tom Fitton (Judicial Watch) – “he is known by the company he keeps”.

      1. So? All three have provided significant truthful input into our democratic processes. You don’t like the positions these people take. You have a double standard and a totalitarian attitude.

        If Stalin were alive, you would be proud to give Stalin an award.

        I so happen to love Clarence Thomas. You especially hate him because is black and went off the DNC the plantation.

        1. Prior to SCOTUS, Thomas’ career advancement was through affirmative action. He closed the door to the opportunity for others once he saw the wallets and bigotry of the right wing. Today, he, like other people of color, would never be selected for Trump’s Whitehouse intern program.
          But, I get it, Allan. The goal is to destabilize the U.S. along racial fissures.

          1. You are making a lot of stupid claims. If you wish to blame affirmative action for Thomas, go ahead, but he is now a Supreme Court Justice and on the Court has demonstrated an understanding of the Constitution that gets in the way of your Stalinist ideas.

            Get real and admit it. You hate Justice Thomas because he is black and is no longer on the Democratic plantation. You hate every black who is prominent with a similar viewpoint and you probably feel that no black could get anywhere without affirmative action. Fortunately, such racist ideas that you carry do not exist. Your world requires second class citizens to motivate intellectually ill fed brains. There is little difference between many in the DNC and the KKK of yesteryear.

            1. The Constitution provides for a representative democracy not the oligarchy against which Lincoln warned.

              1. That is correct and there we have agreement, but to utilize that agreement you have to be able to understand the difference between ends and means and utilize an intellect that so far hasn’t been seen.

                The Supreme Court is not supposed to be activist. Activist, is not saying no. An activist does the job the legislature is supposed to do. An activist tries to fix laws instead of sending them back to Congress. Justice Roberts did that with the ACA. An amendment process exists in the Constitution to change what is written. Kelo was an activist decision by those on the left of the SC.

    2. Regular commenter, Autumn, also cites Judicial Watch. Wikipedia reports it has an annual budget of $35 mil., primarily from Schaife and John Olin Foundations (common funders of the right). The entry references the Mercer’s Breitbart (Bannon). Read the Wikipedia entry to learn about Judicial Watch’s reputation for accuracy.
      American Conservative, “The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.”

        1. Yes, I know, booted after he fell from grace. The first group that the right wing set adrift after the election was the no-money Neo-Nazi’s. But, there will courting again in Nov. On March 3, 2018, it was reported that Bannon was speaking to France’s National Front (Le Pen’s party). I’m curious which 0.1% er’s still have him on payroll (Mercer’s?)

      1. Olin and Scaife are relatively small foundations. Olin recognized the gradual shift to the left these foundations eventually underwent so he decided to create a lifespan for his own foundation. He died about 40 years ago. I don’t know how conservative his group is today since his successor died. In any event, both foundations are relatively small compared to some of the giants of the progressives.

        It’s hard to deny Judicial Watch’s reputation for accuracy since they utilize FOIA releases to show what people actually said and did (in their own words). You don’t like such transparency because it makes people you like, such as Hillary Clinton, look like criminals which she is.

          1. Judicial Watch pulls in $35,000,000 in contributions, sources not specified. The John M. Olin Foundation’s IRS 990 forms of late indicate the foundation is now dormant, so Judicial Watch is not getting financing from that quarter. The Sarah Scaife Foundation remains large and active, but they only gave $225,000 to Judicial Watch in 2015.

          2. ““small’- a $35 mil. annual budget.”

            Compare that with the Ford Foundation that has way over $10 Billion in assets.

            Or compare to the NYTimes release: “George Soros, the billionaire hedge fund manager, and a major Democratic donor, has given $18 billion to his Open Society Foundations, one of the largest transfers of wealth ever made by a private donor to a single foundation.”

            Your lack of understanding of what you say is amazing.

            1. $35,000,000 is one large pot but, a small portion of what the Kochs ($400,000,000 are spending on one midterm election), Waltons and Gates ($1 bil. each spending to privatize just one common good), Pete Peterson ($500,000,000 to destroy one program-Social Security), John Arnold and Pew spending to destroy pensions and conduct aerial community surveillance, Uihlein, Mercers, and the other 400 richest families in the U.S. spending to rob the 99%.
              If Soros has spent $18 bil. to reclaim democracy, God bless him. And, damn to hell the people you defend.

              1. he Kochs ($400,000,000 are spending on one midterm election)

                Koch Industries donated $11.4 million during the 2016 election cycle, less than 38 other donors.

                Numeracy. It’s great stuff.

                1. And, it bought them a V.P. who’s no longer welcome in Indiana after the citizens saw how Pence/Kochs govern.

                    1. “With Pence Gone, Fellow Republicans Undo His Work in Indiana (Indy Star 2/9/2017), “Mike Pence is Probably Not happy with This Poll (USA Today 9/20/2016), Trump Flirts with Unpopular Pence (Politico 7/12/2016)

                2. DDS – math is your friend. I think Pythagoras said that. Math is hard. Barbie said that. 😉

                3. The Russian oligarchs guaranteed a win for the Republican President in 2016. Like Russians, Charles and David Koch spend to influence votes in communities where they don’t live nor have businesses. An example of oligarchy, Koch spending to prevent funding for a city zoo. Shame on them and those who defend them.

                  1. “The Russian oligarchs guaranteed a win for the Republican President in 2016.”

                    Sounds like you are both a sore loser and haven’t kept up with the news.

                  2. The Russian oligarchs guaranteed a win for the Republican President in 2016.

                    Yes, a collection of a baker’s dozen internet trolls ‘guaranteed a win’ in a federal presidential election with a nine-digit population of voters.

                    The people who have to deal with you in meatworld must be shaking their damn heads all the time.

                    1. “DNC leaks courtesy of Assange.”

                      How about the stupid people that inhabit its ranks such as Podesta. What is his password? password. Very secure. How about Hillary’s insecure server for top secret information? How did all this stuff get on Anthony Weiner’s computer? How about Awan who wasn’t checked out by Debbie Wasserman Schultz and was used by how many Democratic legislators?

                      You should say ‘DNC leaks courtesy of DNC stupidity’.

              2. “If Soros has spent $18 bil. to reclaim democracy, God bless him.”

                Likely Soros is a sociopath and since you are so favorable to him perhaps you are one too. He openly states how working with the Nazis and stealing from Jews soon to be killed in the crematoriums was perhaps the happiest time in his life. I guess the two of you could sit together playing kill a Jew for hours. That is the type of person you are, not one pushing democratic values rather one pushing death and destruction through any means possible.

                Awful, disgusting and all recognizable Linda.

                1. Fred Koch making money in Russia while Stalin reigned terror?
                  Fast forward, GOP Bannon?

                  1. Linda, take note how quickly you want to separate yourself from the discussion of Soros who worked with the Nazi’s to steal the personal belongings of Jews and then kill them.

                    Take note how your policies are Stalinesque and that of the Koch’s are anti-Stalinesque.

                    You think if you repeat things enough they become true but they only show you to be a fool.

                    1. Conspiracy theories about George Soros found false- 4 News (Belfast 2/15/2018)
                      IMO, Soros should be cheered for filing defamation and libel suits in a U.S. Court against those who spread the fake conspiracy rumors against him.

                    2. Linda, your claim about conspiracy theories demonstrates that what you read and present to the blog is nothing but garbage and lies. I provided a short video. 60 minutes provided a full interview on video.

                      Tell 60 minutes that the interview on tape was fake. It’s Soros’s own words. They are very damning so I am not surprised that there was an attempt to remove all such videos from the net, but many of us know who Soros is and listened to 60 minutes as Soros said who he was. Soros worked with the Nazi’s to steal the personal belongings of Jews and then kill them. You can’t stand the interview of Soros saying these things along with this being the happiest time of his life. However, for a Stalin supporter like you that must have been music to your ears.

                    3. “you are an ignorant turd”

                      Woosty, you have a foul mouth and are a typical illiterate leftist that doesn’t think before responding. Instead of referring to the video’s of Soros speaking and instead of listening to the 60 minutes interview you run to a leftist site and are too mentally challenged to even realize that the topic was refined to a new topic. No, Soros was not in the army and did not function in the SS. He participated in stealing from Jews and likely flushing them out from hiding (though I am not sure if directly admitted on tape). Those Jews were then exterminated by the Nazi’s and his own words state his state of mind and happiness at the time. Jews that escaped the slaughter report this as well.

                      There is no way to convince fools like you that can’t even recognize what he did that is recorded in a 60-minute interview. Your ideology has convinced you to live a stupid life where the best retort you have is to use name calling.

                    4. Daily Caller, Infowars, Redacted Tonight,…none credible.
                      George Soros was born in 1930.

                    5. “Daily Caller, Infowars, Redacted Tonight,…none credible.
                      George Soros was born in 1930.”

                      The war didn’t end until 1945 and the murdering of Hungarian Jews came later in the war. Do you want to call CBS 60-minutes not credible with an audio-video interview?

                      You are a fool.

                    6. Paul’s link does not address the Soros facts, it disparages Snopes. 4 News (Belfast) refuted Alex Jones and Glenn Beck, providing evidence.

                    7. “Paul’s link does not address ”

                      The video’s of Soros from 60-Minutes do.

                    8. Those not prevented from internet searches can type in the Google box, in quotes, “Why the Conspiracy Theories about George Soros Don’t Stack Up”. 2/15/2018 is when the 4 News article from Belfast was written. It will pop right up in the search.

                    9. Linda – then you can pop it up, cut it out and paste it here.

                    10. “Those not prevented from internet searches can type”

                      Those people can just as easily watch the videos. Even on your own site, a portion of the video was shown and he was asked if he felt guilty and his answer was no.

              3. God bless massive amounts of money for political candidates and causes that one agrees with, and damn to hell the money that goes to candidates and causes that one opposes.

                1. My last comment was posted way out of sequence; it was in response to “Linda’s” April 7, 6:28 PM post where she blesses some money in politics, and damns some other money.

      2. Yup, I am glad Judicial watch is out there fighting against corruption. Sure they are conservatives but who cares? This should be a non partisan goal.

        Meanwhile the Liberals are busy covering up Obama’s record and smearing Sanders

    3. It is in Sessions hands brainiac. Maybe he ain’t commenting on da investigation.

      1. “It is in Sessions hands”

        Ken, are you unable to define “it”? Fitton was talking about more than just the AG. I know the video asked questions a problem for you since you are used to copying someone else’s answers than providing your own.

  3. At American Conservative on 11/17/2017, the question was posed, “Why are so many conservatives so eager to be lied to, participate in lies and to disbelieve the truth?” The author cites Timothy Snyder from, “On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons…”, “If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.” The author then predicts, ” The church’s whorish relationship to Conservatism, Inc. has brought judgement on ourselves.”
    The Kochs’ $400,000,000 on midterms, the religious right’s training from Weyrich and, the bedding down with Putin, provides examples for American Conservative’s POV. The conservative movement stands for deception to destroy democracy and to embolden and enrich oligarchs.

    1. Why would I care what Wick Allison’s collection of poseurs think?

  4. Summarizing media reports about the breath of Mueller’s investigation-
    (1) Deripaska (Russian oligarch) and Paul Manafort (a Russian escort is telling her story from Thailand, in which she describes the Trump link)
    (2) Khan (Russian oligarch), Rick Gates and van der Zwaan (what was the content of the documents the Dutch lawyer attempted to destroy?)
    (3) Dmitriev (Russian oligarch), Erik Prince, George Nader and UAE (Seychelles meeting)
    (4) Torshin (Russian oligarch) and NRA (the NRA spent 2-3 times the amount to elect Trump that it spent on the presidential election 4 years earlier)
    (5) Linkoil (Russian Co.), Kushner, Cambridge Analytica and Facebook

  5. L4D,…
    I guess your fondness for, and support of, “Ken” and the other village idiot is not too surprizing.
    When you characterize the potential that Mueller will not indict Trump as “Mueller’s demise”, that is not a preference for change at the polls.
    Your newfound statements about how elections, not indictments, are your preferred outcome came after you were called on your “Mueller’s demise” comment.
    Additionally, you have repeatedly constructed elaborate, complex, and hopeful scenarios in which Mueller could possibly get this or that charge, or set of indictments, against Trump.
    Mueller may or may not fulfill your dream scenario, but when you when you say “if” Manafort or “x” decides to flip on Trump and if Manafort ( or “x”) holds the key to nailing Trump, then predictions about “Mueller’s demise”— your characterization of a lack of evidence against Trump—-are wrong.
    Now, after going through tortuous, hopeful scenarios in which Mueller can nail Trump, you try to claim that you really desire change at the polls.
    That recent epiphany on your part does not wash, given what you’ve repeatedly posted in the past.
    And within that context, you have equated a lack of charges against Trump as “Mueller’s demise”.
    Better luck selling it to your two pet Village Idiots you are so fond of, you duplicitous hack.

      1. Could be….the yawn is indicative of the sedative effect of reading Linda’s same droning, boring posts.
        Reading about 10% of those posts keeps me up to speed, because it’s a safe bet that the other 90% will be the same.

      1. You gotta be careful swinging those things…
        Possibly it hit him on the head during a backswing; that would explain a lot.

        1. All it explains is why Gnash will always be Linda’s “secret” admirer.

      2. I had my hatchet out on some some T rumper on Twitter early this mornin. I read that 1 in 5 are now marchin. It started with da ladies in da pink hats. Now we got da anti NRA kids. Let’s keep on marchin and movin and turning out da vote. No more Speaker Ryan and leader Mitch da turtle.

      1. Enjoyed the pics, L4D. The contrast with the Russian commenter photos reflect the subtle cultural difference between the nations’ people.
        A few years ago, I attended a Russian ice skating performance held at a major American arena. Other than technical similarity, the narrative content and music starkly contrasted with American performances.
        It reminds of the observation that Russians think people who smile have mental deficits.

        1. I’m glad you liked the pics, Linda. I couldn’t help noticing that you had a rough day at the office yesterday. Did you click on the link to the yawning tiger?

          P. S. The Russians are reputed to be an intensely fatalistic people. The boatmen bent over like birch trees on the banks of The Volga. (Practically a funeral dirge in a minor key, of course).

          1. Linda had a Russian army of trolls in her yesterday but she is fearless. Keep Marvin even if it is only on a blast. We are winnin.

          2. I don’t always reply when I read the negative comments written about you, L4D, and Ken, but I’m always thinking that you reflect the America that can be. Your comments bring visibility to what is important. They adjust focus to the prerequisite circumstances for humanity.

              1. Check with your doctor, Squeeky….you may be allergic to saccharin.

                1. Tom Nash – I was surprised Squeeky did not have projectile vomiting. 😉

Comments are closed.