Bang, Bang, Boom: The Risks Of Firing Rod Rosenstein

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the danger of President Donald Trump firing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Reports still indicate that Trump is pushing to fire Rosenstein — a move that would seriously undermine both his political and legal position.

Here is the column:

There is an old military adage that, if you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. In the case of President Trump, he has a myriad of options but he seems to constantly reach for the same blunt tool. That much is obvious from the chatter in the White House that Trump is actively looking for someone to fire after the FBI raid on the office and hotel room of his personal attorney, Michael Cohen.

It is a recurring theme throughout the Russia investigation. Now, Steve Bannon, the man Trump has described as someone who “lost his mind,” is reportedly encouraging Trump to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, stop cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller, and bunker down for an open fight on executive privilege.

It is dangerous advice not only because it could be an unmitigated disaster for Trump, but he might actually do it. Bannon and others know which tool Trump prefers. Despite the catastrophic decision to fire FBI director James Comey, and thereby triggering Mueller’s appointment, various advisers are suggesting that this proven self-destructive tactic might improve with repetition. We have heard it before. Bang, bang, boom.If Trump is seriously considering firing Rosenstein, or even Mueller, this would be the longest, steepest learning curve in history. Like many, I am no fan of Comey, who I thought could have been legitimately fired when Trump took office and has, since being fired, acted in highly unprofessional ways. Indeed, Comey faces serious contradictions with his prior testimony and may have violated federal laws in his leaking of information to the media.

Moreover, I was opposed to the appointment of a special counsel for months because I failed to see the basis for a specific crime by Trump. That changed when Trump fired Comey after a series of meetings in which he purportedly pressured Comey on the Russia investigation. Reports indicate that the vast majority of top advisers opposed the firing, including Bannon. One exception was Jared Kushner, who supported the ruinous move. That was all Trump needed. Out came the hammer and bang, bang, boom.

I still do not see the criminal case against Trump on allegations like collusion. Had Trump left the investigation alone and allowed Comey to finish it, it likely would have been completed by now without a criminal charge for Trump or close associates. Instead, it has consumed his administration because this was never a nail problem. The idea of many is that Trump could fire Rosenstein and put someone in his place who would be hostile to Mueller and his investigation. While many have noted that Attorney General Jeff Sessions might also resign in protest, that could be an inducement rather than a deterrent for Trump.

The problem is that Trump would have succeeded in recreating Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” without the underlying crime. After a year, there is little direct evidence of a crime by Trump of any kind. However, what evidence has been cited on obstruction is largely due to Trump banging away at this investigation. It is like a guy who bolts every time a car alarm goes off. Police have a reason to pursue. With both houses now at risk of switching parties, Bannon and others are setting up Trump for an impeachment trial. While I still question the basis for either an indictment or impeachment, that will not matter if Trump hands his critics what they most desire: a direct act to curtail or end the Russia investigation.

I have previously written that I view the referral of the Cohen matter to the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York to be a threat to Trump because it could induce Trump to make a reckless move. Before the referral, Trump was in a good place legally. His status had not changed, and he was not a target of the investigation. He was listening to counsel and prepping for a sit-down with Mueller on four well-defined points. Now he appears unlikely to do so and could move aggressively into the open, when he should stand still under ample legal cover.

It is no accident that this turn of events is driven, again, by Cohen, the very personification of a blunt tool. Trump appears to like Cohen not for his undemonstrated legal talent but for his demonstrated loyalty. He also is someone who has a long history of threatening people and charging ahead without thinking of the consequences. His decision to activate the arbitration clause in the Stormy Daniels controversy is an example of taking a hammer to your client’s own head. The last place Trump needs to be is in court with a former porn star, litigating one of the worst-drafted nondisclosure agreements ever put to paper.

Now various political supporters in the media want more of the same. It will not work. First, Mueller still would have to be terminated for cause by the attorney general or his designate. If Trump tried to fire Mueller directly, Mueller could refuse to recognize the act under existing regulations and force a court fight. Second, even if the special counsel investigation ended, the Southern District investigation would continue against Cohen. Third, even if Trump combined firings with pardons, all of this evidence likely would be sought by a congressional impeachment committee and could trigger the reinstatement of the Independent Counsel Act.

It would be better to have prosecutors conclude that there was no obstruction or collusion under objective standards of the criminal code. If you force all of this into the impeachment process, members of Congress are allowed to reach their own conclusions on what constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor, including nebulous theories of obstruction. Without the investigation, they would be unburdened by a countervailing finding by the prosecutors.

In the movie, “Thor: Ragnarok,” the Norse god Thor is distraught because he cannot use his signature hammer and his incredulous father, Odin, asks, “What are you, Thor, god of hammers?” The same question could be raised with equal force to Trump. We did not make him “president of hammers.” He has more powerful and sophisticated tools available to him. Of course, Trump can listen to Bannon and others and just bang away, but he may build a criminal case against himself even though there was no original crime. Fire Rosenstein, fire Sessions, fire Mueller, and more nails will appear. In the end, his presidency could end to a familiar cadence of bang, bang, boom.

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

267 thoughts on “Bang, Bang, Boom: The Risks Of Firing Rod Rosenstein”

  1. “Despite the catastrophic decision to fire FBI director James Comey, and thereby triggering Mueller’s appointment,”

    Both sides of the aisle leveled all sorts of complaints about Comey suggesting that Comey did not belong at the head of the FBI. Is Turley suggesting that a liar, leaker and incompetent person (both right and left made that claim) remain at the head of the FBI?

    Turley even says: “Like many, I am no fan of Comey, …acted in highly unprofessional ways.

    “I still do not see the criminal case against Trump on allegations like collusion. Had Trump left the investigation alone and allowed Comey to finish it, it likely would have been completed by now without a criminal charge for Trump or close associates. ”

    The first thing one has to consider is what is the objective of all the garbage being thrown? The objective is to get rid of Trump so no matter which choice Trump takes at any juncture Trump faces the same problem due to the objective where any means legal or illegal will be used by his enemies to accomplish that objective.

    1. Turley writes these columns with the point of departure being the assumption that Mueller and Rosenstein are on the square. Of course, they aren’t, and have taken few pains to conceal that.

      1. Turley is an academic and I don’t know how much familiarity he has had dealing with dirt. I also believe he leans to the left so all of his opinions are based with a starting point believing, “Mueller and Rosenstein are on the square”, while Trump and the other side aren’t truthful. That creates a bias that I don’t think Turley can rid himself of. We also have to note that Turley is doing a lot of op-ed along with appearing on TV shows that demand a certain level of commitment to the left. If he were to deviate too much he likely would see a reduction in his appearances as he would gradually be replaced by someone else.

        1. What, no. Turley is the law school equivalent of Tyler Cowen, a conventional academic, but who is not interested in the usual shticks of higher education but not contrary enough to not care if people in the faculty rathskellar stop speaking to him. He’s a great addition for a PR minded faculty. They can claim, quite truthfully, that they have libertarianish faculty members without ever being challenged by those faculty members. Compare Cowen to Richard Epstein, who is much more outre. Eventually, all non-liberal faculty members will resemble Turley / Cowen.

          Keep in mind also that Republican opinion journalists, and especially the JD’s among them, are not Republican voters. Trump’s approval ratings among rank-and-file Republicans are similar to the median of George W. Bush’s. There isn’t much of a popular NeverTrump constituency. The implication of that is that much of the established Republican commentariat has little rapport with their readers (or presumptive readers). They’re now in the position most of them of collecting the rents from foundation patronage and endowment income or collecting salaries and syndication revenue from liberal outlets who actually despise Republican voters. See George Will (who is now frankly absurd), Jennifer Rubin, Kevin Williamson, Erick Erickson, Jonah Goldberg, John Podhoretz….)

    2. Allan: What if Barrack Obama had gone for a year denying the existence of ISIS? Can you imagine how strange that would have been? “Obama keeps labeling ISIS ‘fake news’ while his cabinet acknowledges..??”

      Obama could never have denied ISIS that long. After the first or second denial all of Washington would have come down on Obama. Even the most liberal newspapers would have concluded Obama was an ISIS sympathizer.

      Yet Trump spent his entire first year in office denying Russia meddled in our election. And all during that year Trump officials acknowledged the meddling. Mattis, Kelly, Tillerson, Haley and Masters were all on record as being concerned about the meddling. So the fact that Trump kept denying it was highly peculiar. We have never had a president dismiss a threat while all of Washington acknowledged it. In a normal America that doesn’t happen!

      Therefore when commenters like ‘you’, Allan, keep expressing dismay that the Russia Probe continues, it indicates that Trump supporters inhabit a certain void. A Twilight’s Zone where the peculiar is accepted as normal. And normal responses are perceived as peculiar.

      1. Yet Trump spent his entire first year in office denying Russia meddled in our election.

        Since the meddling was trivial and he knew nothing about it, of course he denied it. At this stage is still just prosecutors’ contentions in an indictment secured of Russian internet trolls, not established fact.

        1. Trump admits Russian Meddled in Election:
          – NEWSWEEK, JUNE 24, 2017
          Actually 5 months in office, not a full year.

      2. Peter, I don’t know what you are trying to prove with your analogy of how Obama perceived ISIS. ISIS metastasized and created an illegal state before Obama became aware. Now we face its cells all over the world and likely ISIS could have been shut down from the start. If a physician treated a cancer as casually as Obama treated ISIS the physician might have lost his license.

        There is a vast difference between a difference of opinion and stupidity. Trump permits different opinions something not generally seen in the Obama administration and that lack of a variety of opinion left us with a lot of stupid decisions based solely on a lock-step ideology of advisors.

        1. He installed Ben Rhodes as deputy national security adviser. That’s indicative of an essential unseriousness. His last CIA director is one seriously strange dude.

          1. His aim was fundamental change and he moved a lot nearer to that goal by creating supposedly impartial agencies into political entities such as the IRS and DOJ and moving this nation closer to an autocracy run by Linda’s oligarchs.

            1. No, he didn’t have any concrete aims. Obama is a performer, not a wonk. He has certain caste attitudes you’d expect from a person who has lived and worked where he has. It’s doubtful he has any critical engagement with his own commitments or anyone else’s, nor would he get it from the people around him. His usual response to opposition is petty spite. What you had with the Obama administration is the resultant of the vectors at work in the Democratic Party. They ‘weaponized’ the Department of Justice and the IRS because that’s normal behavior for them and they have no principles which would suggest that was uncrupulous. An earlier generation did, but George McGovern is dead, Nat Hentoff is dead, and Alan Dershowitz is 80 years old.

              1. “No, he didn’t have any concrete aims.”

                Sure he did. He was promoting an ideology that in my opinion is defunct. Whether he was lazy or not he created the environment for that ideology to grow. He wasn’t looking for a strong America or a strong American economy. He knew how to destroy but not to create. To a great extent, he succeeded, and the opposition to the direction he took was and continues to be weak.

                I’m glad you mentioned Nat Hentoff and Alan Dershowitz both of whom I disagreed with their ideology, but respected and agreed with much that what they said about civil liberties. They were and Alan still is honest brokers.

                1. No. He’s absolutely conventional in what he admits to. I think he does have some ugly concealed attitudes and has enough of a PR sense to not be public about them. You run down the list of consequential Democratic presidential candidates over the last generation – Bernie Sanders, H Clinton, John Edwards, Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Bill Bradley, Al Gore, B. Clinton, Tom Harkin, Bob Kerrey, Paul Tsongas, Jerry Brown, Jesse Jackson, Richard Gephardt, Paul Simon, Michael Dukakis, Gary Hart, Walter Mondale, Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter – and it’s hard to see any of them having William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn in their circle of friends. Other than Jimmy Carter, it’s hard to see any of them contributing to a fetschrift for Rashid Khalidi. They’d be chary of them for a variety of reasons: disgust, lack of interest, or a regard for appearances, but they’d stay away. In that respect, Obama is different.

                  1. One correction: Jesse Jackson might appear at an event with the three in question, but he’d not bother with Ayers / Dohrn beyond that, finding them a bore. Sanders might have had face time with Ayers / Dohrn in 1967, but by the time the two of them resurfaced, he was immersed in practical matters. Young Sanders was an oddball, not a fanatic.

                  2. Who one associates with and leans upon tells a lot about who that person is.

                    1. But, but . . . Just the other day, Allan and Ken Rogers complained most bitterly about “guilt by association” with respect to Trump and Felix Sater. Remember???

                    2. “Just the other day, Allan and Ken Rogers complained most bitterly about “guilt by association””

                      Diane, I remember. Who one associates with (and the circumstances) tells others a lot about the man, but it doesn’t demonstrate guilt or innocence. You seem to be rapidly developing more and more problems distinguishing between different concepts.

                    3. Again, Sater was an employee of a firm with which Trump had a joint venture and his nefarious doings were not public knowledge until several years after Trump met him, because his conviction was sealed as part of a plea deal.

                    4. Circumstances are important as well as I told Diane in a later reply. These guys don’t seem to understand relationships or business.

        2. Allan,…
          I think Obama WAS aware of the consequences of his way of “ending the war in Iraq”.
          He’d have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to miss it after ISIS took Fallujah in Jan. 2014, when he made the dismissive JV remark.
          And the events leading up to the fall of Fallujah.
          By the time that ISIS took control of a third of Iraq in the summer of 2014, it became impossible for him to continue the BS about dismissing the threat.
          Then he tried to walk back the “JV comparison” that he’d made in January.

          1. I agree, Tom. Obama wasn’t totally unaware. His motivations are something to focus on, but I think that will be done by historians and depending upon the freedom of this nation at the time those motivations will drastically vary. Obama did not promote a free society and rule of law.

            1. Allan, ..
              – I think that Obama convinced himself that we’d totally pull out of Iraq, and things will sort themselves out in Iraq.
              When it didn’t turn out that way, when it started to turn South, Obama seemed to convince himself that Iraq could get their act together.
              Even as events were proving him wrong, I think he just brushed it off as long as he could before being forced to send U.S. troops back in.

              1. Tom, Obama was an inexperienced President that was inexperienced in life as well. He could only destroy. Creation was beyond his ability. His book along with his career should have told everyone he was not fit to be President.

                Then again I listen to many of the arguments on this blog and realize how shallow people can be.

      3. “Yet Trump spent his entire first year in office denying Russia meddled in our election.”

        I still don’t know the meddling the Russians did that had a significant effect on the US that hasn’t been done for years. Can you provide something of significance? Do you think Obama didn’t meddle in foreign elections?

        If the Russians were so bad why didn’t Obama do something while he was President? ….Hmmm, it seems he did. Didn’t he permit Russia to take over the Crimea? Do you think Russian meddling in our elections was of greater significance than Russia taking over the Crimea? Apparently, to you, ISIS and Russian expansion aren’t important but the meddling that has been going on for decades has top-shelf significance.

      4. Peter Hill said, “Allan: What if Barrack Obama had gone for a year denying the existence of ISIS? Can you imagine how strange that would have been? “Obama keeps labeling ISIS ‘fake news’ while his cabinet acknowledges..??”

        Awesome work, Peter Hill.

        1. Obama did dismiss the threat from ISIS.
          And in the 2014 midterms, the Democrats paid a price for Obama’s foreign policy blunders.
          ObamaCare was not the only drag on the Democrats in 2014.
          Let’s leave aside, for the time being, the fiasco in Libya.
          Obama “ended the war in Iraq”, pulled out all U.S. troops and much of the diplomatic corps, by Dec. 2011.
          Things started to deteriorate shortly after that, with the further marginalization of the Sunnis by the Maliki government.
          By Jan. 2014, ISIS has captured Fallujah. ( This was a major city American forces had taken back from insurgents, twice, at great cost. So now ISIS takes it back again in 2014).
          At this point, Obama was asked in an interview about the growing threat of the rise of terrorism in Iraq, given the recent ISIS takeover of Fallujah.
          That’s when he made the comment about the “JV Team”, saying just because you put on a Lakers uniform it doesn’t make you Kobe Bryant.
          By the summer of 2014, ISIS was in control of a third of Iraq.
          Obama could get away with declaring the “end of the war in Iraq in his 2012 reelection campaign.
          While things were already deteriorating in Iraq ( and Lybia), the full consequences of his foreign policy mistakes were not as obvious in November 2012.
          Going forward about 14 months to Jan. 2014, there was definately a mess in Iraq.
          That’s when Obama made his “JV Team/ Kobe Bryant-Lakers” analogy, vastly understating the significance of the fall of Fallujah to ISIS.
          By the summer of 2014, it was pretty hard to keep up that myth.
          PolitiFact rated Obama’s subsequent denials of the meaning of what he said in Jan. 2014 as completely false.
          Obama tried, and failed, to convince people that he really wasn’t referring to ISIS in Jan. 2014 after ISIS took Fallujah.
          The effects of Obama’s total withdrawal from Iraq, and his failure to acknowledge an obvious and growing threat in Iraq ( and Lybia), were hard to miss by the time of the 2014 midterm elections.
          So his party was the one to pay the price for Obama’s foreign policy mistakes, and his understatements about the deterioration in Iraq and Lybia.

          1. Your memory is sound, Tom. Your argument, not so much. Here’s what Peter Hill actually wrote:

            “What if Barrack Obama had gone for a year denying the existence of ISIS? Can you imagine how strange that would have been? “Obama keeps labeling ISIS ‘fake news’ while his cabinet acknowledges..??”

            Obama did not deny the existence of ISIS. Obama did not label ISIS “fake news.” Obama’s cabinet did not acknowledge that ISIS was a greater threat than Obama’s dismissive statement about ISIS suggested at the time that Obama made that dismissive remark.

            Peter Hill’s argument was an analogy to Trump’s frequent comments contradicting the public statements of his own cabinet officers that Russia had, in fact, run an influence operation against the 2016 US election and that Russia had hacked the DNC and Podesta emails and leaked them through Wikileaks, D.C. Leaks and Guccifer 2.0.

            Nevertheless, you are correct that Obama did dismiss the threat from ISIS in 2014.

            1. Arguably, Obama only went 6 months ignoring a clear threat from ISIS.
              Technically, Obama did not “deny the existense of ISIS”, so if you are really, really determined to parse what he said, and when he said it, he vastly understated the threat.
              I know “what Peter Hill actually wrote”….that’s what I was responding to.

              1. It was hard to miss the meaning of Obama’s “JV Team” analogy in Jan. 2014.
                Especially in the context of the recent fall of Fallujah to ISIS.
                He was deliberately, and vastly, understating the threat from ISIS.
                OK, if you want to split hairs, he did not “deny the existence of ISIS”.

              2. Tom, an argument by analogy has two parts. You’ve successfully dealt with only one part of Peter Hill’s analogy–the part where Obama underestimates the threat from ISIS. You have yet to deal with the second part of Peter Hill’s analogy–the part where Trump denies that Russia hacked the DNC, leaked the emails to Wikileaks and meddled in the 2016 US election.

                Supposing that Obama’s underestimation of the threat that ISIS posed was a cause of alarm for Tom Nash, was Peter Hill really asking too much of Allan to imagine how much cause for alarm it might be that Trump denied the Russian hack, leak and election meddling operation all the way up until the day that Trump inevitably denied that he had ever denied it in the first place?

                  1. Don’t come back asking for “the third part of the analogy….no sense going around in the circles that you like to set up.

                1. “the part where Trump denies that Russia hacked the DNC, leaked the emails to Wikileaks and meddled in the 2016 US election.”

                  Tom, Diane just sent me her library list in an attempt to prove her point. Instead, she proved the point that she doesn’t know what she is talking about. I responded to the NYTimes issues point by point and the only thing to be garnered from that article is that the DNC doesn’t care about our national security and that Trump responded like a statesman.

        2. “Awesome work, Peter Hill.”

          Peter, congratulations. You got one vote from the demented community.

            1. Diane sent her usual library of comments:

              The first didn’t open. I would say that one to be the most honest and reflective of what Diane has to say, nothing.

              The second is the fact check of the left that is a spin machine.

              The third is a supposed news organization whose news says “Here are eight times President Trump has rejected or otherwise doubted that Moscow had a role in interfering with the 2016 presidential election.”

              The following are some of the comments:

              Trump Statement: “never said Russia did not meddle in the election, I said, “it may be Russia, or China or another country or group…”

              Self-explanatory even for leftists.

              1) “We believe it was the D.N.C. that did the ‘hacking’ as a way to distract from the many issues ”

              Trump doesn’t even mention Russia.

              2) “…I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China….”

              Trump is being honest and the NYTimes dishonest.

              3) “…she doesn’t know if it’s the Russians doing the hacking …”

              We still haven’t determined who did the “hacking”. The DNC refused federal officials investigation of the computer. That demonstrates the DNC cares very little about national security.

              4) The editor writes: “In an interview with Time magazine that December, Mr. Trump, then the president-elect, rejected the notion of Russian interference…”

              The writer is dishonest because she pulls statements out of context. The actual article in Time magazine places this statement within a paragraph or so of Trump’s point.

              “I believe that it could have been Russia and it could have been any one of many other people. Sources or even individuals.” That, by the way, is what a statesman would say when he doesn’t want to inflame issues where the fires are being fanned by leftists.

              I don’t think we need go any further in the article which has already been proven junk just like most of Diane’s comments.

          1. Allan, ..
            Somewhere above, buried in a marathon sentence, Late4 Dinner asked me if “Peter Hill was really asking too much of Allan” re the “cause for alarm” about Trump denying the Russian hack.
            Since she likes to tangle up exchanges by asking questions like if Peter was asking you too much, I’m going to check with several people to ask them if it’s too much for Late4Dinner to ask me to decide if it’s too much for Peter Hill to ask Allan …..well, you get the idea.😄😀
            On the specific issue of the hacking and Trump’s statements about it, the Jan. 11, 2017 PoliFact deals with the question of the Russian attempt to hack the RNC.
            Trump said at that point. ( Jan. 10th or 11th, 2017) “on the hacking, I think it was the Russians”.
            Now this PolitiFact is about the failed attempts of Russia to actually penetrate REPUBLICAN National Committee; about the same time, ( then)FBI Director Comey testified that the GOP was targeted,too.
            There were also hacking attempts on the systems of a number of states.
            After I get through getting input on the issue I covered in the first paragragh😏,
            I’ll try to dig more deeply into the hacking issue.
            E.G., I haven’t seen if the FBI was actually allowed to check the RNC and state systems for evidence of Russian hacking, or exactly how they came to that conclusion.
            Since the FBI was not given access to the DNC system, there was reliance on the private firm Crowdstrike’s conclusion that it was the Russian who hacked the DNC.
            Trump said different things at different times about the hacking.
            I’m not going to try to track down every statement that he made, but he made statements at times that “it could have been the Russians, it could have been the Chinese” etc.
            Since the Chinese hacked our FEC system, in 2013 I think, the reference to Chinese hacking was not that farfetched.
            As I remember, what people seized on was Trump’s earlier statements expressing skepticism that we knew for sure that it was the Russians.
            If 17 different intelligence agencies all came to that conclusion based on the on the findings of one private firm, that probably fed the doubts about how certain the intelligence community really was.
            That’s one reason why I’m trying to find out who did the investigations and how they reachex their conclusions about the GOP hacking attempts. (as an aside, some sources have reported that the Russians DID partially penetrate the RNC, but I don’t think any RNC material was ever included in a WikiLeaks dump.

  2. Here Professor Turley tells us what should be obvious to everyone: ‘Trump has only himself to blame for the entire Russia probe’. Trump’s rash instincts are likened to a hammer-bearing man responding to each conflict with blunt force. “Bang, bang, boom!”, the professor exclaims, summing up Trump’s instincts.

    Conservative readers of this blog should regard this particular column as Professor Turley’s sincerest attempt to warn them that Trump is unhinged. Trump completely lacks the temperament to serve as president. And sadly this failing, on Trump’s part, is going to create a constitutional crisis in the not-so-distant future.

    1. Be nice if you ever posted anything here that wasn’t either (1) witlessly prolix or (2) repulsively pompous or (3) both.

      1. Peter is practically perfect in every possible way. Nii might as well be a peck of pickled peppers.

        1. 💛💋💚❤💕
          -L4D is either consistently early or consistently late with her gushing Valentine’s Day greetings.
          Please remember that some are allergic to saccharine.😊😀😄

          1. Tom Nash – my wife is one of those who are allergic to saccharine. She checks the labelling on all the food we/she buy/s. It is not a pretty sight if she makes a mistake.

        2. “Peter is practically perfect in every possible way.”

          Diane, I don’t know about his perfection in all ways, but I won’t disagree on these points you seemed so anxious to agree with: “(1) witlessly prolix or (2) repulsively pompous or (3) both.”

        3. Diane – do you have any idea how large a peck is? Or how expensive a peck of pickled peppers would be?

          1. Paul C. Schulte,…
            – I think Squeeky may have missed my previous health warning about saccharine when she complained of nausea.😯

            1. Tom Nash – nauseous is not going to be the worst of her problems, poor baby. 🙁

              1. Paul C. Schulte,…
                – Did youwarn your wife about not reading Late4Dinner’-s saccharine posts?
                If Squeeky has an allegergy to saccharine, maybe she’s out of commission from L4D’s last gushing, mushy post.
                I haven’t seen her show up here for a while.

                1. Tom Nash – if Squeeky is working, she is very dedicated to what she is doing. She will not be online for several days.

                  1. Paul,..
                    OK…If I miss her when she comes back, make sure that she gets the “health warning” about the saccharine that can appear on this site.😊

  3. The IG report on the FISC should be done quickly so maybe it will have the evidence necessary to fire him.

    1. The entire Inspector General’s report is a bluff. The only thing the IG report claims that McCabe lacked candor about was the judgment that McCabe’s authorized leak to the WSJ was “in the public interest.” That is like the home plate umpire overruling the call the first base umpire made on a runner. Likewise, the IG’s bluff on the supposed FISA warrant abuse has already been successfully refuted by the Schiff memo. Which, of course, is why Turley dropped that subject like a hot potato.

      But, by all means, keep on bluffing even after the bluff had already been called, Schulteacher.

      1. The IG report has identified 4 separate occasions of lying by McCabe.

        The lying is just the tripwire. The man is generally unfit to hold a position of public trust. The question at hand is how many strata within the FBI do you have to clear out in order to restore some sense of impartiality and professionalism. Without a doubt, the Divisions are in even worse shape after the Holder / Lynch regime.

        Break up the Department of Justice and break up the FBI. We don’t need an omnibus federal police service, and we don’t need a verbose federal penal code, either.

  4. One of the lawyers I correspond with practices a mix of bankruptcy law and criminal law, not much else. His advice: Shut Up Shuttin’ Up. Retain competent counsel, and they will make the disclosures of fact that need to be made to the police. I cannot help but notice you’re an academic and that GoogleScholar pulls up 40-odd papers under your byline, of which those on criminal practice sum to zero. Yet, you keep writing as if talking to the prosecutor would be a good thing for Trump. Those of us of the lay persuasion might just get the idea that one advantage Trump has is that you are not his lawyer. (It’s not as if Mueller has been operating in good faith).

    1. Setting aside your criticism of Mueller, there is no doubt that, from a purely Legal standpoint, the optimal advice to Trump is to not say anything to Mueller. Trump is a subject of the investigation. There are multiple people who are cooperating with Mueller. And Trump’s own “attorney” is the target of an investigation. No sane defense attorney would advise Trump to talk.

      But the fact that Trump is POTUS creates other issues. Political issues. I don’t have experience dealing with political issues at that level. I do have experience in the criminal defense and tax areas. The optimal legal (not political) advice to be given to Trump by his own attorney is a no brainer: don’t talk to Mueller.

      1. Turley’s personal history in electoral politics and public relations is nil, so he’d be talking out of his rectum even if those considerations were his referent.

        1. Those of us of the lay persuasion might just get the idea that Turley’s political consideration in reference to Trump would be to avoid impeachment for the sake of seeking reelection to a second term of office.

          1. There’s no grounds for impeachment. It would be a political act and only a political act. Wouldn’t put it past the doofus wing in the Congressional Republican caucus to fall for it.

          2. Impeachment would not remove Trump from office. It would demonstrate the stupidity of those representatives that voted for it. There is nothing to impeach Trump for and the Senate won’t convict.

            The left is making a laughing stock of our Constitution and government.

            1. I get the impression Nutchacha thinks calling Rosie O’Donnell a fat pig counts as a high crime or misdemeanor.

              1. DSS – I have seen a YouTube video of Rosie dropping her slacks and mooning some sight-seers. She is a fat pig. 😉

  5. I am no fan of Comey, who I thought could have been legitimately fired when Trump took office and has, since being fired, acted in highly unprofessional ways. Indeed, Comey faces serious contradictions with his prior testimony and may have violated federal laws in his leaking of information to the media…Despite the catastrophic decision to fire FBI director James Comey, and thereby triggering Mueller’s appointment, various advisers are suggesting that this proven self-destructive tactic might improve with repetition.

    If Comey was deserving of being fired then his firing was deserved…period. What Turley is suggesting is Trump’s constitutional window of opportunity to fire Comey had closed. Waiting until he did played into the deep state’s strategy.

    Trump’s problem is not his constitutional authority to swing the hammer, it’s that his enemies are conducting their lawfare without such restrictions. This is deep state guerilla lawfare and Trump is limited to his constitutional hammer.

    1. Impeachment, trial in The Senate and possible removal and disqualification from office are also tools in the Constitutional kit bag. Let’s not call those hammers, though. What should we call them? Saws? Planes? A bit and brace? Where are the carpenters when you need them?

  6. Here we go again. Another aspect of your general line is the insistence that everyone play nice with the lawyers, even when the behavior of the lawyers is frankly gross. A restoration of democratic institutions is going to require that the legal profession be treated harshly by the larger society. You should get used to it.

    Trump will fire Rosenstein as he deserves to be fired. The question is just when. There is a right time to play your cards.

      1. Excerpted from the document to which INlegaleagle linked above:

        Lastly, we determined that as Deputy Director, McCabe was authorized to disclose the existence of the CF Investigation publicly if such a disclosure fell within the “public interest” exception in applicable FBI and DOJ policies generally prohibiting such a disclosure of an ongoing investigation. However, we concluded that McCabe’s decision to confirm the existence of the CF Investigation through an anonymously sourced quote, recounting the content of a phone call with a senior Department official in a manner designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership, was clearly not within the public interest exception. We therefore concluded that McCabe’s disclosure of the existence of an ongoing investigation in this manner violated the FBI’s and the Department’s media policy and constituted misconduct.

  7. Turley wrote, “The problem is that Trump would have succeeded in recreating Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” without the underlying crime. After a year, there is little direct evidence of a crime by Trump of any kind. However, what evidence has been cited on obstruction is largely due to Trump banging away at this investigation. It is like a guy who bolts every time a car alarm goes off. Police have a reason to pursue.”

    Yes. Why would Trump follow Nixon’s example “without the underlying crime”? Did you hear that? Was that a car alarm going off? But, but . . . “there is little direct evidence of a crime by Trump.” Yes. So why would Trump reenact the Saturday night massacre without “direct evidence of a crime by Trump”? There it is again. That’s definitely a car alarm going off.

    If Turley is determined to think like a lawyer, and if Trump is determined to reenact the Saturday night massacre, then . . . isn’t Trump determined to think like Nixon? But, but . . . Nixon was a lawyer, too. The last thing that anyone would ever say about Trump is that Trump is a lawyer, let alone that Trump thinks like a lawyer. So why would Trump be determined to think like Nixon? There has to be an answer. What do you think?

  8. Turley is a fool. Know the law but doesn’t understand the Deep State goes after Trump because Trump wants to systemantically reverse Globalist policies. Everything would be peachy keen if Trump hadn’t fired Comey or attempted to supervise the FBI. NONSENSE!

    1. Turley’s no fool but Comey surely would have worked behind the scenes to undermine Trump if allowed to keep the job. He had to go.

      1. He’s repeatedly said the firing of Comey was ‘disastrous’, but never specifies of what this disaster consists.

        1. The appointment of a special counsel. Turley has been reasonably clear on that point. You can even read a reiteration of that argument in Turley’s original post for this thread.

            1. Rosenstein did not hire himself. Trump hired Rosenstein. Who hired Sessions?

        2. Oh that is an easy one. The disaster is us having to read your posts on this subject.

              1. Nii is seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. And its a train wreck for Trump. Nii deserves better.

        3. Turley wrote, “Moreover, I was opposed to the appointment of a special counsel for months because I failed to see the basis for a specific crime by Trump. That changed when Trump fired Comey after a series of meetings in which he purportedly pressured Comey on the Russia investigation.”

  9. Rosenstein: He’s a dork. He’s a dork. He’s a dork all the way.
    From his first photo op to his last dying day.
    Send him to the cleaners and get his face off the web.
    He’s a jerk and a scoundrel and a fart from some crap head.

  10. Risk…Trump doesn’t see risk. He sees drama and protecting himself including starting a war to district the American people. He’d happily kill humans to distract from his mess. And the Republicans stand by smiling as he destroys our country.

    1. Loving the Svengali approach to diving intent for a lone missile attack to emphasize our opposition to chemical warfare against unarmed civilians. Hey maybe Trump got the British to stage the false flag opp as the Kremlin suggested. My Justice Holmes do you need to be investigated by Mueller, too?

  11. Turley wrote, “That changed when Trump fired Comey after a series of meetings in which he purportedly pressured Comey on the Russia investigation. Reports indicate that the vast majority of top advisers opposed the firing, including Bannon. One exception was Jared Kushner, who supported the ruinous move.”

    Oily crepe! Trump actually sought advise before firing Comey? Trump rejected the vast majority of the advise he sought? Jared Kushner’s minority advise was pivotal in Trump’s decision to fire Comey? I refuse to believe that Trump’s hostility to the special counsel’s investigation is all about Trump refusing to admit that Jared Kushner gave Trump a bum steer. Surely that’s just Turley trying to make people feel sorry for Trump. I refuse to do that, as well.

  12. How can a President be impeached for exercising powers over the Executive branch granted by the Constitution? Rothstein serves at the pleasure of the President. It’s not the other way around. Fire him now.

      1. Does Mespo’s question hammer out of love between his brothers and his sisters?

    1. David Benson – psychiatry is NOT your field. You do not play one on tv. You did not pretend to be one in college. We could say the same about you. You have Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. If you read your posts you will realize this if you have not already been diagnosed.

      1. Trump probably qualifies as neurotic–and possibly borderline psychotic. It looks like Trump’s toeing that line.

        1. “Trump probably qualifies as neurotic–and possibly borderline psychotic.”

          The inmate of the asylum is calling everyone else crazy. Strap her in and put her in a rubber room.

  13. Where is Christopher Wray? He said a few months ago that he wants to restore the integrity of the Bureau….well, now’s the time to stand up! Where are you?

    1. Wray has been a working lawyer for 25 years. About 1/3 of that was spent at the Department of Justice in Washington. From 2003 to 2005, Mueller was the FBI director and Comey, Rosenstein, and Wray all had high positions at the Justice Department’s main office across the street, though they had different ranks (Comey was in stratum X, Wray in X-1, and Rosenstein in X-2). It’s a reasonable wager that Comey and Wray saw a great deal of Mueller and Rosenstein did not, given the positions they had. However, Rosenstein had been on Mueller’s staff from 1990 to 1993. Wray has spent less of his career working for the Department of Justice than has Mueller, Comey, or Rosenstein (for whom time in practice spent working for the Department has amounted to 70%, 60%, and 95% respectively). It’s hard to keep their biographies straight because, past a certain age, their biographies are so similar. Mueller and Wray appear to have had a tonier upbringing than Rosenstein and Comey. Mueller had a stint in the military (which you’d expect of his cohort, of whom north of 40% entered the military; the other three all came of age at a time when military recruitment did not capture more than 10% or 12% of male age cohorts). Otherwise, they all went to fancy law schools consequent to having attended fancy colleges. Not one of them attended the state schools where he grew up.

      These guys are out of the same stable and (it’s a reasonable wager) are angling for the same things in this set of circumstances. One has to guess that the people running Trump’s patronage office are useless. A horrid problem under the previous administration was the ‘weaponizing’ of the Department of Justice. So, what do Trump’s people do? They stick a Justice Department lifer in a crucial gatekeeper position. Comey executes a series of moves which put another person in the stable in charge of investigating Trump ‘supervised’ by said Justice Department lifer. Trump fires Comey, then his staff come up with Wray as a replacement. I have no clue why Trump didn’t send the recommendation back to his staff with some marginalia which said: ‘career cop, please; not Mr. BigLaw from Atlanta”. Since 1974, 5 of the 7 FBI directors we’ve had (whose tenures have covered about 3/4 of that time period) have been lawyers and (IIRC) only one (Clarence Kelley) did not have a law degree on his vita.

      Wray’s played both sides in office, firing McCabe but also stonewalling Congress. It’s a reasonable wager he should be canned too.

  14. Sorry, Mr. Turley, but you have totally lost what little credibility you had when you failed to make any statement whatsoever about Mueller’s heinous attack on civil liberties. You know that Mueller pulled this grotesque stunt in an attempt to cover up for his complete failure to find any evidence of collusion with the Russians (which would be impossible in any case because there was no collusion). But you remained silent about Mueller’s legal abuses.

    You may still be permitted to make the rounds on MSNBC when they need some time to fill with some more leftist propaganda, but you are a complete pusillanimous joke compared to a REAL legal scholar, like Professor Alan Dershowitz:

    1. Turley rarely takes a stand on anything. It’s very annoying. I prefer to read the comments , rather than his writing.

      1. Cynthia

        Turley doesn’t NEED to take a stand on anything. HIS interests will always be protected because our country only has one (conservative)political party and it has two wings aka Democrats & Republicans.

        1. only has one (conservative)political party and it has two wings aka Democrats & Republicans.

          Kind of pathetic that you play semantic games and think you’re clever for it.

          1. billmcwilliams is fond of Eugene Debs. It’s one of the few sincere positions he has taken, thus far. Or not. It’s hard to get a handle on billmcwilliams.

    2. Yes, Dershowitz has really stepped up. He and Joe DiGenova. Especially Alan because he has taken an admirable step across the aisle. I like his calling out of the ACLU. Really great. At a time when the rule of law is on life support, our republic is severely wounded by all this corruption,, the prime time lawyers , such as Turley, should all be speaking out. …take a stand, for once, Turley!

      1. Admirable Dershowitz, no. Means justify a win at all costs. Epstein and O.J.

        1. You do it have to agree with Dershowitz’s political positions. However, his legal analysis is sound and compelling. Notably, other legal pundits, including Mr. Turley, do not offer any meaningful alternative view, showing the weakness of Dershowitz’s opposition here.

  15. Trump will fire Rosenstein and whoever else he believes he has to. because to do nothing is to simply wait for the truth to come out. He may believe, it may even be true that any Russian conspiracy stops below him. Not so with the financial crimes and all the Deutsche Bank records, taxes, Cohen records, and more all in the hands of people who know what they’re looking at. He even called Cohen on the phone to talk with another subject in the investigation. Who does that but a guilty person?

    He’ll fire them all despite all the possibilities because doing nothing produces a known result.

    1. Enigma, you may be right. But Turley’s advise to Trump is solid. Meanwhile, I still think it’s possible that Trump makes decisions on the basis of his Twitter scores for Likes, Follows and Retweets. Trump’s own supporters and defenders may be Trump’s worst enemy. Bannon’s hardly the only one egging Trump on.

      Is it possible to feel sorry for Trump? Ouch! I just bit my tongue. Sorry for that last question, Enigma.

      1. Late4Dinner, Turley’s advice seems to be based on the foolish notion that he’s an innocent man who has made several foolish decisions after the baseless investigation began. Not the far more likely scenario that he made a great number of foolish decisions, many of them illegal, that led to the investigation. His mob connections, money laundering, foreign bribes, failure to pay contractors, limited capacity for basic reading were well known before he ran for office. His faults include surrounding himself with pawns and sycophants who encourage his behavior instead of checking him.
        It is possible to feel sorry for Melania, even though she signed her own Faustian bargain. She didn’t imagine her life would be one of public ridicule. All that money and no joy.

        1. I know, Enigma. Technically speaking, I conceded only that you might be right, when I could’ve, and should’ve, simply agreed that you actually were right. The trouble is I want to stick with Mueller and Rosenstein. I’m not ready to say goodbye to them, yet.

          1. My guess is that Rosenstein will be gone within days, or maybe weeks.
            This will hopefully give time for L4D to get “ready to say goodbye”.

            1. If you knew what will happen after I say goodbye to Rosenstein, then you’d give me more time for you to get ready.

              1. You said that you “want to stick with” him.
                When Rosenstein goes, will you go too?😃

                1. So shortsighted, Ptom. When Rosenstein gets fired, Rosenstein joins me for a tag team right here on the Turley blawg. Won’t that be fun?

                  1. You’ll both be too busy giving interviews, setting up Go Fund Me accounts, writing books, etc. to spend time here on this blog.

                    1. Tom Nash – Ann Coulter says that Mueller is trying to get fired. He doesn’t have a case and this is the case of his career. If he doesn’t find something he dies. Better to be fired.

                    2. My gut tells me Ann Coulter has called it. Critics of Mueller have offered the hypothesis that he’s a vain man. Also, look who controls the narrative. Partisan Democrats still slam Kenneth Starr, who retreated to evangelical institutions after leaving the special prosecutor’s office. Lawrence Walsh remained handshake worthy (publishable in the New York Review) even though his investigation ended squalidly. Mueller would rather be Archibald Cox (or at least Walsh, whose apologias were treated with a straight face by reviewers).

                    3. Paul Caviler Schulte said, “Ann Coulter says that Mueller is trying to get fired.”

                      Ann Coulter wants Mueller to be fired. So Ann Coulter claims that Mueller also wants Mueller to be fired.

                      “I had to shoot the man. I could tell by the look in his eye he wanted me to shoot myself, instead. It was self defense, your Honor.”

                    4. Paul C. Schulte,..
                      -Political martyrdom does have its advantages.
                      Watch Comey,or McCabe play it to the hilt.
                      Add in book deals, GoFundMe accounts, self-promotion as a champion of “a higher loyalty”, and it can be a pretty nice package,

            1. I tried to post a picture of a nice big basket of fruit. But the blawg wouldn’t accept it. I need lessons, fast. Meanwhile, Enigma will just have to imagine a nice big basket of fruit.

    2. Trump will fire Rosenstein and whoever else he believes he has to. because to do nothing is to simply wait for the truth to come out.

      The investigation has been ongoing, with a dedicated two-digit full-time staff (not two cops running a half-dozen other investigations), since July of 2016. So far, the truth which has come out has consisted of a set of contentions about a set of Russian internet trolls, a series of harassment gestures, and an indictment of Manafort in re his business dealings with Ukrainian politicians prior to 2015. Eventually, Enigma, you’re going to discover that the Nigerian prince with the locked up Swiss accounts has been jerking your chain.

      1. Nutchacha, Robert Mueller isn’t going to share every finding with the public as he puts it all together. But the emerging puzzle presents a compelling picture. Manafort and Flynn are, without a doubt, intriguing men of mystery. And Cohen is, without a doubt, a “ham-fisted, pit bull of a lawyer”. Professor Turley has described Cohen in exactly those terms.

        Therefore your continuing efforts to present this probe as random and disconnected looks increasingly labored.

        1. It doesn’t present any picture at all, Peter Hill, except of a prosecutor scrounging for things with which to charge various actors.

          Again, he has 14 f/t lawyers working for him. This isn’t two detectives in Kansas City fitfully looking over a cold case. Look at the timeline of previous political scandals, Watergate and Whitewater among them. The key defendants were all under indictment within 22 months and crimes being investigated were explicable to the layman. McCabe / Rosenstein / Mueller have had 21 months and you have bupkis. No one can even say what the offense is.

          1. Nutchacha, where do you get “21 months” for this investigation?? Trump has only been president 15 months. And Mueller has only been Special Counsel for about 11 months. Your math eludes me here.

              1. “Investigating Donald Trump, FBI sees no clear link to Russia”.
                – From The New York Times, Oct.31, 2016

                This article mentions that “for much of the summer” the FBI was investigating links between the Trump campaign and Russia.
                People might forget that this issue, and these allegations, and the investigation, started around mid-2016.
                Also, people who were in the Trump campaign, like Manafort and Carter Page, had been under investigation since 2014.
                So at least 2 of the potential “links” from the Trump campaign to Russia had been investigated for “their” links to Russia even before the Trump campaign started.
                So ic the FBI onvestigation “officially” started in mid-2016, investigators already had some info on at least 2 of those in the campaign.

                  1. Nevertheless Robert Mueller has only been on the job for one year. Before that no Federal Attorney was coordinating the probe. That’s significant.

                    1. The “federal attorney’ ‘co-ordinating’ the probe was Andrew McCabe.

                    2. Peter, you continuously backtrack or say things that don’t exist. Why don’t you start from a less hyperbolic position where you have proof to demonstrate that what you say is meaningful?

                      The investigation by Mueller shouldn’t even have permitted since there is no crime he is looking into. You admit that is the case when you can’t answer the question ‘what crime is being investigated’? The surveillance and investigation have gone on for longer than Mueller has been around and has been a failure. That is why the parameters of a potentially reasonable investigation have been expanded and illegal and unprofessional activities have abounded.

                      This attitude of yours is destructive to the American legal system and the Bill of Rights.

                    3. Peter Hill,..
                      The DOJ/FBI have plenty of resources.
                      I think that the Obama DOJ would also have an,incentive to see this investigation along, so it doesn’t look to me that they were hamsrung in their investigation.
                      If there had been the need for an outside U.S. Attorney to get involved, I don’t think it’d take long for DOJ to coordinate with one of its c.100? U.S. attirneys.

                    4. Before Mueller the Russia Probe has no central leadership. Andrew McCabe was ‘not’ a full time Special Counsel. McCabe was overseeing many other cases. You guys are pretending this investigation is older than it is only for the purpose of dismissing it.

                    5. Nevertheless Robert Mueller has only been on the job for one year. Before that no Federal Attorney was coordinating the probe. That’s significant.

                      It allows for white whale hunts because ordinary prosecutors work multiple cases at a time. N.B., the Watergate matter was under investigation for 11 months before a special prosecutor was appointed. I’m sure it would surprise the defendants who were convicted or pled-out during those 11 months that nothing was being done.

            1. Peter Hill – there was a counter-intelligence investigation that Mueller piggy-backed onto. It had been running for some time.

              1. Paul, the counter-intelligence investigation determined Russian meddling. A significant point. But it wasn’t an official investigation of possible Trump ties. That part didn’t begin in earnest until Mueller opened his office. So this idea that the probe should have bagged Trump by now is a reverse rush to judgement. It rushes to judge Mueller by a timetable that really isn’t his.

                Furthermore one should note that Mueller ‘has’ brought indictments and extracted guilty pleas from at least a couple defendants. In other words, the case has seen multiple developments. And most significantly, Trump keeps squealing like a pig. No president since Nixon has acted guiltier.

                1. Either the OCT.31, 2016 New York Times story I referred to before is way off base, or the FBI was investigating Trump-Russia links since the summer of 2016.
                  I’ll repeat the NY Times headline: Investigating Donald Trump, FBI sees no clear link to Russia”.

                  1. Additionally, Christopher Steele had gone to the FBI with his allegations in the summer of 2016.

                  2. Tom, you’re saying a headline from a year and a half ago absolves Trump of any guilt? That’s it..?? The probe should close down because of a Times headline that far back? I don’t get that standard. And since when do Trumpers care about the New York Times?

                    If I was to post a N.Y. Times article casting doubts on Trump, every conservative on this thread would respond with comments like: “Well the N.Y. Times, they’re a biased source”. “They’re part of deep state”. “The Times is part of the Clinton machine!”.

                    Therefore to cling to a Times headline from that far back as though it can’t be contradicted now is ridiculous!

                    1. Peter Hill,..
                      There was a debate about the length of time that the investigation of Russian meddling, and Trump campaign “collusion with Russia.
                      That’s what I was addressing…it doesn’t have a damn thing to dovwith “absolving Trump of guilt”…my post was about the timeline, which has been debated in this section of rhe comments thread.

                    2. Yes, the NY Times headline aboutv”investigating Trump” was THAT FAR BACK
                      …that’s the point in referring to it, for those who keep insisting that thevinvestigation has only gone on for 11 months.

      2. Or… we will first see the report on the Obstruction of Justice issues (which might have to be updated when he fires more people) and Congress can begin to consider that. Then we’ll get to the money laundering and conspiracy portions. (Cohen’s trip to Prague which denied has now been confirmed). Somebody’s chain is being jerked with every tweet, not mine.

        1. The FBI director is an at-will employee and he’d told Trump that he wasn’t the subject or target of an investigation. Manufacturing an ‘obstruction of justice’ charge out of those materials will require some creative lawyering indeed. Better hope the judge and the prosecutor are shysters in cahoots with each other.

          You and ‘mo’ seem to put a great deal of stock in news stories like this:

          No clue why.

          1. I do rely somewhat on stories from credible news sources that have standards and require certain numbers of sources. That differs from opinion shows and I would give little credibility to much of the “news” from those sources whether I like the material or not.
            Much of the criticism of the “false Dossier” has been because of the alleged trip that Michael Cohen took to Prague to meet with Russians and hackers which he denied along with a picture of his passport.
            This story states that Michael Cohen did go to Prague at approximately that time. It does not prove that Cohen met with Russians but given the lengths Cohen made to deny the story, it becomes much more likely.
            So yes, I do believe the news reports that Michael Cohen went to Prague, you may choose to disbelieve everything in the news no matter how well documented which I guess is your right. It might be the only way to continue to support the clowns and liars surrounding the buffoon.

            1. I do rely somewhat on stories from credible news sources that have standards and require certain numbers of sources.


              P.S. I thought the story was that Mueller doesn’t leak.

                1. Either he leaked or he didn’t. If he didn’t, the story is bogus. You can say his subordinates leaked, but c’mon, there are 15 lawyers employed in that office and he knows all of them.

                  1. You’ll really have to be more specific. For any piece of information, there is a possible source other than Mueller’s team. The White House for example is a sieve, not the “Deep State” but the Trump appointees who are all playing Game of Thrones.

                    1. That means Mueller leaked it to the White House staff.

            2. “I do rely somewhat on stories from credible news sources that have standards and require certain numbers of sources.”

              That is why so many of the stories Enigma refers to are attributed to anonymous sources.

              Such reliance led to Enigma’s accusation of Trump racism based on proof that didn’t exist in a 90-year-old article that had nothing to do with Donald Trump.

                1. You’re standing by what Mme. Defarge? A contention that his father was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in 1927 because he was detained and let go proximate to a Klan event? And that this is of some significance now?

                  I realize that events tend to be magnified or reduced 1000x by the trick mirrors you use to view the world, but mightn’t you be subtler about it?

                  1. His father was arrested in a Klan riot vs police and he was represented by the same lawyer. The only reason it was brought up was because of Trump’s representation of Ted Cruz’s father which was what made it relevant.
                    Donald Trump gets rated on his own merit which he demonstrates regularly. What is not true is the Trump quote that it never happened and his father wasn’t there. Tell any lie and repeat it enough and people will either believe it or tire of arguing is his apparent goal.

                    1. He wasn’t charged with anything, not even disorderly conduct, which is a submisdemeanor ‘violation’ in New York law. You think maybe a 22 year old man subject to an impromptu arrest might just have taken a proffer of representation at the courthouse?

                    2. Your thesis is what? That Fred Trump’s 1927 arrest is of significance because he was trolling Ted Cruz? His jab at RB Cruz was baffling, but I’m not seeing how that makes his father’s brush with police of consequence now.

                    3. I was saying that Donald Trump had no business making “baffling” attacks on Cruz’s father when his own father’s far better-documented past was more susceptible to criticism. I was wondering how that particular pot was calling the kettle black. (Allan is scurrying now to make that a racial statement). It was of consequence then because of Trump’s suggestion that Papa Cruz was involved in the assassination of JFK,. It is of no consequence now except Allan keeps bringing up what he says I said to make some point that mostly points out his own fixation.

                    4. I didn’t have to scurry anywhere. You called Donald Trump a racist and cited an article to prove it. The article didn’t prove anything about Fred Trump and that was 90 years ago before Donald Trump was born. You have an unlimited number of race cards you are willing to play. It’s disgusting.

                    5. Keep dreaming Enigma. You have consistently lied on this blog. Your probably a nice guy, but when it comes to your ideology you will say anything to promote it and the belief in overwhelming racism.

                      I believe you actually promote it whether you realize it or not.

                    6. I have no need to lie when the truth will suffice. My opinions obviously differ from yours. You talk about race far more than I do, I wonder why?

                    7. “I have no need to lie when the truth will suffice.”

                      As I said Enigma, you lie.

                2. I won’t even bother to read what your WordPress article says. I saw what you said on this blog and you accused Trump of being racist based on something that happened to his father 90 years ago where his father was detained and let go. Some reports aren’t even sure it was Fred Trump and there was no report of him having anything to do with pro-KKK forces or anti-KKK forces. For all we know, he was out for a stroll.

                  Then you referred me to the news article of the day that had his name attached saying that was proof Fred Trump was a racist. I went to that article and the Washington Post article and neither was proof of anything though it did list people that were arrested and bail set. Fred Trump wasn’t among them and was released. That solid proof you said existed was a lie.

                  From that incident 90 years ago you stated Donald Trump, Fred Trump’s son, was a racist. What a bunch of phony accusations of racism to back up what you wish to believe about Donald Trump.That makes you one to stoke the flames of racism.

                  1. Well, in our time, ‘racist’ is now equivalent to ‘cooties’ in the elementary schools of my youth.

                  2. You are silly Allan, I don’t claim anywhere that Trump is a racist because his father was. The case against Donald goes back decades and is well documented in his housing discrimination, employment policies and public statements.

                    1. is well documented in his housing discrimination, employment policies and public statements.

                      He says, waving his hands.

                    2. You first and your primary argument was that Fred Trump was a racist because his father was and the proof was in the 1928 newspaper. A copy of the newspaper revealed no such thing.

                      Your secondary argument doesn’t hold water either and that was proven when the housing discrimination case had to be dropped for lack of proof. This was a ‘problem’ of all landlords, not just Trump. They were looking for racism based on averages, not based on reality. Trump hired women and blacks probably in much greater proportion than other developers.

                    3. You can’t even get your own argument straight. I’m sure you meant to say I said Donald was racist because was instead of “Fred Trump was a racist because his father was.” I on the other hand said neither, although I can make the case for both on their own merits.
                      You say the case (s) were “dropped for lack of proof” when in fact they were settled with requirements they make changes in their operation. The second Federal case was because they failed to live up to the terms of the first agreement. If you want to make the case they were no more racist than other New York developers, there might be some merit in that but that is a completely different argument than actual innocence. As for his “probable” hiring practices, show me a picture! In the meanwhile I’ll just look at the his administration.

                    4. Quite the contrary, you were quite adamant that Fred Trump was a racist and your proof was an NYTimes article of 1927 that proved nothing of the kind. Because you felt Donald Trump’s father was a racist you used the acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree type of analogy to convict Donald Trump of racism. We had long arguments about this and I quoted statements of yours several times. Until I read the NYTimes article and stated what it actually said you repeated yourself more than once. You were proven a liar then as you are being proven a liar now.

                      Your present claim is that there might be merit in the claim “they were no more racist than other New York developers” which indicates that you believe New York landlords might all be racist including the black landlords. You are a real nutcase. Landlords rent housing to make money. The government makes charges of racism when the numbers in a building deviate from the percentages of the population. People have a tendency to group together without racist ideas even though racism occurs.

                      The settlement made was a settlement because the government couldn’t prove their case and defendant, unlike the government, had to pay for its defense. They did what government usually does agree to follow the law.

                      Part of the racist claims of the time had to do with back activist leaders that pushed racism forward and pushed the government into making all sorts of nonexistent claims.

                      Not having a direct involvement with racism were NYC charges of garbage in the halls and outside the windows. Who does one think put the garbage there? It was almost as if NYC was claiming that landlords were collecting garbage in the suburbs and depositing it in their buildings in the city. The truth was that some renters are pigs.

                    5. Part of the racist claims had to do with testers trying to rent at Trump owned complexes and being rejected for their race. That “C” for Colored was the giveaway.

                    6. Take note, none of those forms came from Donald Trump whether or not they existed. Was that a common form used in all of the Trump properties? If it exists as stated the answer would be no. If the feds had good evidence against Trump they wouldn’t have settled. They wanted him badly.

                    7. Donald Trump was President of the company, he provided the forms and certainly knew of their existence after being busted the first time.
                      Your knowledge of when Fed’s settle is a quaint notion. They settle all the time to close cases, they’re bureaucrats. Perhaps a dangerous question to ask, but why would they want Trump so badly out of all the developers in NYC?

                    8. “Donald Trump was President of the company, he provided the forms”

                      That is not true. You are a liar.

                      You asked earlier why Trump was singled out. I will give the answer provided by the government

                      “Trump Management Inc., controls many thousands of rental units in the New York area and elsewhere, and its activities therefore have a major impact on housing opportunities. The company therefore occupies a position of leadership in the real estate community and can, by its example, influence the activities not only of its own agents and employees but also of many others.”

                      The settlement was with prejudice so no action could ever be taken against the Trumps again on any of these claims to the date of the settlement. The rest of the settlement essentially reiterates the fair housing law applicable to all landlords.

                      They probably could have gone after all the landlords with one claim or another, but chose to target one in particular. Just a few years earlier under Mayor Lindsay, the city was using similar strong-arm tactics citing and fining landlords for all sorts of defects to their property and other things. The city held rents down with rent control and many landlords lost money. Many stopped paying taxes. When the city applied more penalties I believe about 100,000 units were given up by the landlords without payment for their property. The city couldn’t manage and I think returned the units to the owners and got rid of a lot of fines and taxes.

                      NYC today is one of the most expensive cities to rent in. The building of rental properties in NYC nearly ceased because of these difficulties while conversions to condos and coops became more popular. The strong-arm tactics used by government hurt the middle class which is nearly extinct in Manhattan except for subsidized housing.

                      Enigma, you are a wealth of misinformation and lies.

                    9. You cited two statements and said, “That is not true.”
                      Donald Trump was the President of the Company at the time which is certainly true. That he is responsible for every form provided would equally be true.

                      You seem to suggest that Trump was the only one the Federal Government went after in NYC? I hardly suspect that is true. If they wanted to make an example of him, it might be because he had applicant’s forms marked “C” for colored and denied them based on their color.
                      That his settlement was with prejudice (not sure if you mean the first or the second settlement meant they couldn’t go after him again for offenses covered under the settlement but could for future offenses. Trump id it again after the first settlement which led to the second lawsuit and subsequent settlement.

                      No need to lie when the truth is sufficient.

                    10. Whether Donald Trump’s title was President of the company at the time I am not sure of, but on the issue of “he provided the forms” you are a liar.

                      On the other issue, I wrote, “You asked earlier why Trump was singled out.” The one word answer is “leadership”.

                      Whether they were the only one or not is not the issue. The complete answer to the question was in the consent decree previously provided to you. I will repeat the statement:

                      “Trump Management Inc., controls many thousands of rental units in the New York area and elsewhere, and its activities therefore have a major impact on housing opportunities. The company therefore occupies a position of leadership in the real estate community and can, by its example, influence the activities not only of its own agents and employees but also of many others.”

                      “That his settlement was with prejudice ”

                      That means government harassment stops the day of the signature and the issue of any prior claims is moot. They could charge the Trumps just like they could charge any other landlord after the signing date for new incidents. That is the law. The government didn’t need the contract to do that, but they needed to look like they accomplished something.

                      “No need to lie when the truth is sufficient.” That statement you made is true, but you seem to lie like a rug just to promote a warped ideology and play the race card.

                    11. Donald Trump was President at the time and is easily verifiable. You just didn’t make the effort.
                      In no universe except your own is the President of the company, not responsible for the processes his employees use in taking applications including how they mark their forms as part of the procedure.
                      It’s not playing “the race card” to cite one small facet of the man’s racist past (and present) since he attacks groups on a regular basis. Your need to attack me is your issue.

                    12. Enigma writes: “Donald Trump was President at the time and is easily verifiable. You just didn’t make the effort.”

                      I didn’t know if he was officially President or CEO or something else. I still am not sure because you don’t carefully check your facts. I’ll accept the title of President, and assume Fred Trump assumed another title (He had placed Donald Trump in charge). The consent decree surprisingly doesn’t contain their titles so I have purposely left their titles out of any discussion. However, you have divined, correctly or incorrectly, their exact official titles with that racism consumed mind of yours while I prefer to refer to the actual signed paperwork.

                      “In no universe except your own is the President of the company, not responsible”

                      I never said that. I just refused to adopt your warped mind’s use of words intended to say more than what was true. That is the name of your game. If in a game of chess your opponent picks white you accuse him of always wanting white instead of black so he must be a racist rather than white has the advantage.

                      Most people value highest their driver’s license or their credit card. Your most valuable card is the race card.

                    13. Because you don’t know a thing doesn’t make it a point of contention, it makes it something you don’t know. Google can be your friend!

                      Washington Post: “As Company President, Donald Trump Took An Interest In All Levels Of The Business.” According to Washington Post, “As company president, Donald Trump took an interest in all levels of the business, according to his own accounts. He often helped his father with management chores, including collecting rent, sometimes from unruly tenants.” [Washington Post, 1/23/16]

                    14. Enigma writes: “Because you don’t know a thing doesn’t make it a point of contention, it makes it something you don’t know. Google can be your friend!”

                      Google can be your friend if you want agreement absent proof.

                      I merely quote from the official state records rather than quotes from one leftist quoting to another in a gigantic circle just like the game telephone. In the game telephone by the time the whispers reach the end, there is nothing left recognizable of the original statement. That is what you mostly quote, the end garbled garbage.

                      There will be no black families living in facilities where they don’t have the income to pay the rent. Black families will be feared in expensive buildings because of activists that create the impression a black family can afford the rent when they can’t and then protest the building when the black family is evicted for failure to pay rent. Blame a lot of the problems in NYC on black activists like yourself who are determined not to improve the lives of black families ( a good thing ) but to enhance the need to pay the activist large sums of money and grant him power.

                      I don’t know what your final quote is trying to point out because it is a meaningless quote without a date. Originally, when Trump was in his twenties he did some of those things mentioned. What is wrong with collecting rent that is owed? That is your problem Enigma. You are looking for freebies whether monetary or other.

                    15. “BTW, have you yet acknowledged that Trump was the President of the company?”

                      I already answered that in the specific so I don’t know why you are asking the same question again. I don’t know the exact title he held at the time of signing the consent decree. He may very well have been President as I said earlier (or CEO, etc.), but the title was not listed on the consent decree and his father’s name I believe came first. I was surprised that the title wasn’t listed and that is what prevents me from being sure of what his legal title was at the time.

                      Not being sure of what you say doesn’t stop you from saying anything so I trust nothing you say. In fact, if lying helps your case, you will lie. I am not that type of person.

                    16. Part of the racist claims had to do with testers trying to rent at Trump owned complexes and being rejected for their race. That “C” for Colored was the giveaway.

                      Whether that tidbit is true or not (and, no, I take nothing you say at face value), you’ve got about 3 or 4 choices in core city real-estate rentals:

                      1. Stick to high rent districts

                      2. Stick to sections of town blacks avoid

                      3. Content yourself with racially ‘tipped’ buildings, and all that entails

                      4. Institute occupancy controls. Managers of public housing projects in New York discovered by 1984 or thereabouts that there were not a full spectrum of equilibria in the composition of housing projects. You could have projects which were 35% black or 95% black, but not much in between.


                      It was a solitary employee who told them he was instructed to code applications.

                      Has it occurred to you why the Trumps might take down social data on their applicants and make actuarial calculations about them? They’re in business. Outside of New York City, people in the real estate business will tell you you have to be cold with tenants or you lose money at it. If you’re not willing to evict a tearful single mother in arrears on her rent and call in Sheriff’s deputies to put her goods out on the lawn, you don’t belong in the business.

                      I’m told also, that effecting a foreclosure in New York state is much more challenging than in California.

                      They’re in New York City as it was in 1973. Rent control. Key money, sublets-of-sublets-of-sublets, Dickensian legal controversies over whose name was on the lease, and very challenging procedures to be gone through to evict troublesome tenants. The response is to screen your prospective tenants verrry carefully. And there is the source of your problem.

                    18. The ‘C’ for colored reference refers to the statement of a single employee.

                      And you and I both know that ‘discrimination; is not what’s illegal, as it’s practiced by public and private institutions with impunity. What actually is illegal is failure to be deferential to the preferred clientele of the appellate judiciary and the law professoriate. “Illegal” meaning a court will punish you for it.

                      The complex of regulation and case law made the Trump’s task well nigh impossible within the ‘law’, so I cannot blame them.

                    19. Why you keep repeating it was a single employee is beyond me? There are public statements by more than one employee that it is how they were trained.

                      Trump Employees Marked Applications Of Minorities With Codes And Allegedly Directed Blacks And Puerto Ricans Away From Buildings With Mostly White Tenants. According to Washington Post, “Federal investigators also gathered evidence. Trump employees had secretly marked the applications of minorities with codes, such as ‘No. 9’ and ‘C’ for ‘colored,’ according to government interview accounts filed in federal court. The employees allegedly directed blacks and Puerto Ricans away from buildings with mostly white tenants, and steered them toward properties that had many minorities, the government filings alleged.” [Washington Post, 1/23/16]

                      Washington Post: “Only 1 Percent Of Tenants At The Trump-Run Ocean Terrace Apartments Were Black, And That There Were No Black Tenants At Lincoln Shore Apartments.” According to Washington Post, “Other rental agents employed by the Trumps told the FBI that only 1 percent of tenants at the Trump-run Ocean Terrace Apartments were black, and that there were no black tenants at Lincoln Shore Apartments. Both were on Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn. However, minorities were steered to a different complex on Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn, Patio Gardens, which was 40 percent black, the government said. One black woman, for example, was turned away at a heavily white complex but told that she should ‘try to obtain an apartment at Patio Gardens,’ where ‘a black judge had recently become a tenant,’ according to government filings.” [Washington Post, 1/23/16]

                      Trump Employees Marked Applications Of Minority Prospective Renters With Special Codes Like “C” For “Colored”

                      Donald Trump, the man who regularly boasts about “never settling” lawsuits settled a 1973 suit brought by the Justice Department for racial discrimination at Trump properties. The suit was the result of undercover “testers” sent from organizations such as the Urban League to uncover housing discrimination. In one instance, a black woman seeking to rent in a Brooklyn complex was told nothing was available. Later, a white woman seeking similar accommodations was given her choice of two available units.

                      Such discrimination wasn’t accidental or the result of individual employees personal biases. Federal investigators found that Trump employees marked the applications of prospective minority tenants with racial codes–such as “No. 9” or “C” for “colored” applicants. Apparently Mr. Trump preferred to rent his properties to “Jews and Executives,” according to two former Trump employees.

                      “Donald Trump’s company embraced discriminatory practices while he was in the boardroom and his present rhetoric shows he wants to take the same attitude to the Oval Office,” said American Bridge 21st Century President Jessica Mackler.

                      Donald Trump’s explanation for these clear violations of the Fair Housing Act of 1969 is remarkably simple: he didn’t know what it was. Trump readily admitted that his company had done nothing to implement its provisions.

                      Trump later failed to disclose this case to New Jersey casino regulators when applying for his licenses; disclosure could have put his approval in jeopardy. The saga continued as Trump found himself back in court after being found in contempt of the consent decree which resulted from his settlement with the Justice Department.

                    20. Why you keep repeating it was a single employee is beyond me? There are public statements by more than one employee that it is how they were trained.

                      Because it was a single employee. Two other employees referred to codes, but not that code.

            3. enigma – you have unnamed sources saying he went to Prague, but that would require a leak from Mueller or FDNY. So, you have the actual passport and you have unnamed sources. Let me see, who am I going to believe? Hmmmmmmmmmmm????????

              1. Or the CIA or FBI members not on Mueller’s team, or Cohen’s friends, associates, or enemies, or another Trump associate. The list is long.
                He allegedly entered through Germany where a passport wasn’t required. If you ask who am I going to believe between Cohen or Trump vs a news source that has satisfied their lawyers they can run with the story. I’m pretty sure who to believe.
                Cohen hasn’t denied the claim either, except of course to Congress which would be perjury if he lied. His troubles sure are adding up. If only there were a way for him to get a, “Get out of Jail Card,” for flipping on someone? Of course, he says he’ll, “take a bullet” for Trump. We will see!

                1. He’s showed his passport to reporters and let them photograph it. He’s denied he had a second passport. So, yes, he has denied it, unless you fancy he traveled abroad without any identity documents.

                  1. I don’t dispute he showed his passport. The story asserts he entered through Germany where because of open borders it wasn’t required. If I don’t personally satisfy you of the validity of every story they must not be true.

                    1. No, traveling between countries in the Schengen Area requires no passport. He lives in New York. He has to travel to an EU country to enter the Schengen Area. New York is not within the Schengen Area. Only a selection of EU countries are in the Schengen Area. As soon as he stepped off his plane in Cologne or Frankfurt or Berlin, he’d have to show identity documents.

                    2. If Michael Cohen wanted to travel somewhere secretly, I’m betting he had the knowledge and the means to pull it off. Unless top Justice Department lawyers with the resources of the CIA and FBI decide to find out for themselves.

                2. enigma – they are going to have to prove he used another passport. Now, that is possible. My uncle carried two passports when he was the Paymaster for NATO. He had a NATO passport and a USA passport.

                  1. Paul – The story about Cohen traveling to Prague has been out there for over a year and only now are we hearing there is proof, and that Mueller has it. I was quite content to believe that not every detail included in the raw material that made up the dossier was true, only that Steele had gathered the information from sources. I’m even willing to believe there were no hookers peeing on each other.
                    It will likely come out in a report whether or not Cohen traveled to Prague any kind of way. While legally he would have required a second passport, we’re not exactly talking about sticklers for the law and his client does have private planes that travel internationally. I’m content to leave it at, we will see?

                    1. enigma – private plane or not, the story now is that he came in through Germany. However, Cohen says he was in L.A. with his kid. If he has pictures with Mickey, that takes the air out of this story, 😉

                    2. Unless he lived in L.A. for a couple months, a picture with his kid won’t mean much. I’m willing to wait and see. I wouldn’t bet on Cohen telling the truth if I were you!

                    3. The Dossier was basically a collection of raw data, not all vetted but things that Steele gathered from sources Steele had cultivated over about twenty years. He himself has said he believed about 70% of it to be true.
                      I have no doubt he “honestly” collected the information and passed it along without making up anything. His reputation with MI-6 was stellar and remains so despite attempts to destroy his integrity.
                      Much of the data has now been independently verified, it’s how we know about the proposed, Trump Tower Moscow deal when Trump was telling the public he wasn’t doing any Russia deals. It’s how we know about Jared’s meetings with bankers and Erik Prince in the Seychelles. It independently verified what the FBI already knew about George Papadopoulos and about Carter Page who the FBI already had in their sights.
                      Cohen, on the other hand, is telling us he spent $130,000 of his own mon., to help out a friend. Hmmm

              2. Courtesy of emptywheel (with thanks to Don De Drain):

                Update: I’ve come up with something that may be a plausible explanation of the new Cohen in Prague news: Buzzfeed hired Anthony Ferrante to conduct an investigation into the dossier claims, in hopes of corroborating enough of it to defeat the several lawsuits — including Cohen’s — against it. His team is precisely the kind of investigator that might be able to scan border crossings with sufficient attention to see Cohen traveling across one. Certainly, if they found anything they would also share with Mueller’s team.

                1. Diane – Buzzfeed is deparate, they are suing the DNC, now they have their own investigator? They screwed the pooch to begin with, they are not getting out of this one unless they manufacture evidence.

            1. From the article to which Peter Hill linked on the next page of this thread:

              President Trump’s longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen was the subject of a months-long criminal investigation before the FBI raided his home and office this week, according to court documents.

              Federal prosecutors made that disclosure on Friday in responding to a request by Cohen for a judge to restrict the government’s ability to review the evidence the FBI collected in those raids.

              Judge Kimba Wood shouldn’t agree, contended the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

        2. enigma – Trump cannot be successfully charged with obstruction for fulfilling his Constitutional duties.

            1. No, Richard Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal grand jury indictment for obstruction of justice. It required he be party to a scheme to persuade 7 employees and contractors of the Committee to Re-Elect the President to plead guilty and volunteer nothing while raising cash from various sources to pay off their families.

              You’re all contending he ‘obstructed justice’ by firing a federal official, an official who, in the course of the games he was playing with his superiors, told him he wasn’t the subject/target of an investigation. That’s just silly of you.

  16. I watched Gowdy and Nunes interviewed on Fox the other day. They stated, if Rosenstein did not give them the 2 documents used to get the Fiza Court warrant, they were going to impeach him and others. The next day the documents were given with a few names redacted. I think if Rosenstein significantly lacks in cooperation again, they should do Trump a HUGE favor and impeach him.

  17. There’s really no reason to fire Rosenstein. He is quite deserving of being fired, due to his total mishandling of the Mueller investigation.

    But Rosenstein participated in the Trump investigation and should also face an investigation into his actions, as McCabe has and Comey should be.

    But too many people have lost faith in the DOJ and FBI, so they probably won’t be facing the deserved wrath.

    1. The majority haven’t lost faith in law enforcement and judicial. Lying in your echo chamber doesn’t change the facts.

      1. If the majority haven’t lost their faith, it’s only because they’ve buried their heads in the sand.

Comments are closed.