Comey and McCabe Leap From The Moral High Ground Into The Trump Abyss

440px-Comey-FBI-PortraitAndrew_McCabe_official_photoBelow is my column in USA Today on the rapid demise of James Comey and Andrew McCabe, who have fulfilled the very stereotypes drawn by President Donald Trump.  Comey continues to spin the controversy over his book as fulfilling what he saw as a need for ethical leadership (i.e., Comey himself).  Comey acknowledged that he never asked Mueller if he should wait on the book.  Why? If you are so committed to the FBI and this investigation, why would you not ask about the possibly deleterious effects of a tell-all book (which discussed both public and nonpublic evidence).  Clearly the book was not helpful to the investigation, but that did not matter to Comey who saw the greater need as advancing himself as the personification of virtue and ethics — while cashing in on the first tell-all book from a former FBI Director.

Here is the column:

President Donald Trump has long shown the unique ability to bring out the worst in people. It is by design. Trump will name call, badger, and taunt until critics lose their professional or personal control. They fulfill the stereotypes and caricatures that Trump creates for them. It is a strange skill set that most of us would not want to cultivate but its success cannot be denied this week.

In one week, two of Trump’s most stalwart critics — James Comey and Andrew McCabe — took headers from what most people viewed as moral high ground. Both Comey and McCabe have launched public campaigns attacking their critics and cashing in with people who are willing to ignore clearly unprofessional conduct.McCabe and his GoFundMe windfall

Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe has long been a focus of Trump’s ire. His wife, Dr. Jill McCabe, received roughly $700,000 from a close Clinton ally and the state Democratic party in her campaign as a Democrat for the Virginia legislature. McCabe would later play a key role in the Clinton investigation and is mentioned in emails that are viewed as overtly hostile to Trump.

Trump’s attacks on McCabe were largely exaggerated and unsupported. The nexus between his wife’s campaign and the investigation is tenuous at best. However, equally tenuous is McCabe’s nexus between Trump and his own termination. McCabe was fired after an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Inspector General’s Office — both offices run by and staffed by career officials. Moreover, the investigation of McCabe began a week before Trump was sworn in. It preceded and had no connection to Mueller.

After his termination, McCabe immediately attacked the career staff as unfairly targeting him. His attacks became increasingly Trump-like as he described what the president loves to call “a witch hunt.” None of it made sense. Whatever was in the report motivated FBI Director Christopher Wray to push McCabe into an immediate terminal leave after reviewing the summary weeks ago. Furthermore, it was the career staff that recommended his termination — an unprecedented decision for a former acting FBI Director.

With the release of the report looming, McCabe quickly created a GoFundMe page that portrayed himself as a victim before the facts were released by the IG. He repeatedly increased the target goal and quickly raised over $500,000 from the hopelessly gullible. He then shut down the page just before the report was released. The report is now out and the career staff found that McCabe suffered a “lack of candor” (read: lied) not once but four times about leaking information to the media. Moreover, it concluded that he took the action not in the public’s interest but his own personal interest.

Now McCabe’s lawyer is threatening lawsuit in Michael Cohen-like blasts. His attorney declared that he is pursuing possible defamation lawsuits against “the president and senior members of the administration” for “wrongful termination, defamation, constitutional violations and more.” He added the Cohenesque taunt of “Thank you for providing even more material for the defamation suit we are actively considering filing against you and your colleagues. Stay tuned.” Most of us would rather not.

James Comey and the tell-all book

This week Comey became the first former FBI Director to write a tell-all book that is already raking in massive profits. It is not just the tenor but the timing of the book that is so controversial. Comey was in charge of a still ongoing investigation and is a cooperating witness in that investigation. Yet, he decided to rush a book to print to discuss both public and non-public evidence. He seemed to take a lesson from Trump who once said, “Remember, there’s no such thing as an unrealistic goal — just unrealistic time frames.” Waiting for the end of the investigation was simply unrealistic if you wanted to maximize book sales. It did not matter that such a book can only undermine an investigation (and Comey’s value as a witness).

A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership is a transparently self-serving and distorted account of Comey’s struggle with Trump, who is portrayed as a virtual soul-snatcher with a mob-boss demeanor. Yet, the book panders to the most petty elements to sell this story. Consider how he sets the scene for what he describes as a historic meeting:

“His face appeared slightly orange with bright white half-moons under his eyes where I assumed he placed small tanning goggles, and impressively coifed, bright blond hair, which upon close inspection looked to be all his … As he extended his hand, I made a mental note to check its size. It was smaller than mine, but did not seem unusually so.”

Comey goes on in the book and his interview this week with George Stephanopoulosto gratuitously question Trump’s marriage while declaring that there is evidence of obstruction by Trump. He further emphasized that it is “possible” that Trump engaged in a “golden shower” with Russian prostitutes in Moscow and that the Russians have compromising dirt on him. Comey has no evidence to support these claims. He indicates simply that it is “possible” — which predictably caused a sensation … and sales. Of course, it is also possible that Trump did in Jimmy Hoffa and runs a panda-skinning operation in the White House. For a former FBI director to engage in such speculation over salacious claims (in the midst of an investigation) is a new low even in a city plagued by sleazy tell-all books.

Comey has succeeded in proving Trump’s point. After facing bipartisan calls for his termination after discussing evidence against an unindicted person (Hillary Clinton), he is back doing the very same thing with Trump. On both occasions, he acted for his own interest not the public’s interest.

Since being fired, Comey has also been accused of removing memos that he prepared during the investigation against FBI rules. Four of the seven memos are considered classified and he gave four to a friend to leak the information to the media. Instead of giving the memos to investigators or Congress, Comey (the man tasked with finding leakers) became a leaker himself. He then followed Trump to Twitter where he first lurked under a pseudonym and then started tweeting out attacks to the delight of his followers.

Ironically, Trump may prove to be just the moral hazard that Comey describes. After all, both Comey and McCabe ultimately failed the moral hazard that they breathlessly recount in their public campaigns. They yielded to  temptation and will be richer as a result. The cost will fall not on them but on their colleagues and the FBI they used to lead.

Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, where he teaches constitutional and tort law. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley.

963 thoughts on “Comey and McCabe Leap From The Moral High Ground Into The Trump Abyss”

  1. Wow!

    You really want to be remembered for saying things like that ?

    Do you think that is the way to “win friends and influence people ?”

    Do you think that is likely to get your ideology taken more seriously ?

    1. As usual, a well written article that covers the salient points–both McCabe and Comey are throwing almost everybody (including each other) under the bus thus ceding the moral high ground…assuming they had the high ground in the first place. I suspect the upcoming IG report will clarify a lot of issues in this regard.

      My only point of disagreement is with the statement that “The nexus between his wife’s campaign and the investigation is tenuous at best”. This is an obvious potential conflict of interest that raises the appearance of impropriety. The fact the McCabe ultimately and belatedly recused himself only underscores the point. In fact, the only reason McCabe is in the position he’s in is because he didn’t recuse himself in the first place.

      The leaks McCabe made were specifically to counter the appearance of impropriety as the WSJ was about to publish an article that alleged that McCabe had directed that FBI agents from one of the Clinton investigations should “stand down”–this after the McCabe-McAuliffe connection had been disclosed. It’s actually quite incredible that McCabe was given supervisory responsibility and authority over any investigation involving the Clintons, let alone two.

      To draw a closer parallel and to contrast the two nexus cited, if Horowitz’s spouse had received similar campaign funding and support from a well-known and close Trump associate, the IG report would deservedly be largely discredited especially in the current hyperpartisan environment–even if Horowitz had done nothing inappropriate.

      In the end, the nexus between the investigation and McCabe’s wife is extremely relevant because of the appearance of impropriety and the FBI, particularly so, should never have put itself in such a conflicted position.

      1. marcus – I would posit that both Comey and McCabe started on moral quicksand and started sinking from there. 😉

    1. Amyd, I can’t help but copy what mespo said about this same article earlier:

      “Judge Nancy needs a better ghost writer and you need to understand the NYT has an agenda other than “all the news that’s fit to print.””

    2. Should Robert Mueller Be Investigated for Violating Civil Liberties?

      by Alan M. Dershowitz
      April 24, 2018 at 3:00 am
      Just as the first casualty of war is truth, so, too, the first casualty of hyper-partisan politics is civil liberties.

      Many traditional civil libertarians have allowed their strong anti-Trump sentiments to erase their long-standing commitment to neutral civil liberties. They are now so desperate to get Trump that they are prepared to compromise the most basic due process rights. They forget the lesson of history that such compromises made against one’s enemy are often used as precedents against one’s friends. As Robert Bolt put it in the play and movie A Man for all Seasons:

      Roper: So now you would give the Devil benefit of Law!

      Thomas Moore: Yes, what would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

      Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that?

      Thomas Moore: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

      But today’s fair weather civil libertarians are unwilling to give President Trump – who they regard as the devil — the “benefit of law” and civil liberties.

      Consider the issue of criticizing Robert Mueller, the Special counsel. Any criticism or even skepticism regarding Mueller’s history is seen as motivated by a desire to help Trump. Mueller was an Assistant US attorney in Boston, the head of its criminal division, the head of the criminal division in Main Justice and the Director of the FBI during the most scandalous miscarriage of justice in the modern history of the FBI. Four innocent people were framed by the FBI in order to protect mass murdering gangsters who were working as FBI informers while they were killing innocent people. An FBI agent, who is now in prison, was tipping off Whitey Bulger as to who might testify against him so that these individuals could be killed. He also tipped off Bulger allowing him to escape and remain on the lam for 16 years.

      What responsibility, if any, did Robert Mueller, who was in key positions of authority and capable of preventing these horrible miscarriages, have in this sordid incident? A former member of the parole board – a liberal Democrat who also served as mayor of Springfield, Massachusetts – swears that he saw a letter from Robert Mueller urging the denial of release for at least one of these wrongfully convicted defendants. When he went back to retrieve the letter, it was not in the file. This should surprise no one since Judge Mark Wolf (himself a former prosecutor), who conducted extensive hearings about this entire mess, made the following findings:

      “The files relating to the Wheeler murder, and the FBI’s handling of them, exemplify recurring irregularities with regard to the preparation, maintenance, and production in this case of documents damaging to Flemmi and Bulger. First, there appears to be a pattern of false statements placed in Flemmi’s informant file to divert attention from his possible crimes and/or FBI misconduct….

      Second, contrary to the FBI’s usual policy and practice, all but one of the reports containing Halloran’s allegations against Bulger and Flemmi were not indexed and placed in an investigative file referencing their names. Thus, those documents were not discoverable by a standard search of the FBI’s indices. Similar irregularities in indexing and, therefore, access occurred with regard to information that the FBI received concerning an extortion by Bulger of Hobart Willis and from Joseph Murray concerning the murder of Brian Halloran, among other things.

      Third, when documents damaging to the FBI were found by the Bureau, they were in some instances not produced to the defendants or the court at the time required by the court’s Orders.”[1]

      Judge Wolf also made a finding that directly references Mueller’s state of knowledge regarding the “history”:

      “The source also claimed to have information that Bulger and Pat Nee had murdered Halloran and Bucky Barrett. The source subsequently said that there was an eyewitness to the Halloran shooting who might come forward, and elaborated that: “there is a person named John, who claims he talked to Whitey and Nee as they sat in the car waiting for Halloran on Northern Avenue. He sits in a bar and talks about it. He saw the whole operation”. The source added that the person providing the information to the source “will be willing to talk to you (authorities) soon.” On February 3, 1988, Weld directed Keeney to have the information that he had received sent to the United States Attorney in Boston, Frank McNamara, and to the Strike Force Chief, O’Sullivan. Weld added that: “Both O’Sullivan and [Assistant United States Attorney] Bob Mueller are well aware of the history, and the information sounds good.”[2]

      It is not the beyond the realm of possibility therefore that Mueller wrote this letter, even if it is no longer in the files. If in fact Mueller wrote such a letter, without thoroughly investigating the circumstances, he surely bears some responsibility. Moreover, it is widely believed among Boston law enforcement observers that the FBI was not really looking for Whitey Bulger during the years that Mueller was its Director. It is believed that the FBI was fearful about what Bulger would disclose about his relationship with agents over the years. It took a member of the US Marshall’s office to find Bulger who was hiding in plain view in Santa Monica, California.

      Recently, a former federal judge, who used to be a civil libertarian, rushed to Mueller’s defense, declaring “without equivocation” that Mueller “had no involvement” in the massive miscarriage of justice. Her evidence is the lack of evidence in the files. But no civil libertarian should place such great trust in government files, especially in light of Judge Wolf’s findings. They should join my call for an objective investigation by the Inspector General of the Justice Department before they assure the public “without equivocation” that Mueller had absolutely “no involvement.” But these “Get Trump At Any Cost” partisans have rejected my call for an investigation, out of fear that it may turn up information that might tarnish the image of the Special Counsel who is investigating Trump. Instead they criticize those of us who point out that Mueller was “at the center” of the Justice Department and FBI, while this miscarriage of justice occurred. All civil libertarians should want the truth about this sordid episode — and Mueller’s possible role in it — regardless of its impact, if any, on the Trump investigation. Mueller too should welcome an objective investigation, which might eliminate any doubt about his role in this travesty. But too many former civil libertarians are prepared to sacrifice civil liberties and the quest for truth on the altar of “Get Trump.”

      This is all too typical of the about-face many civil libertarians have taken since Trump became president. I have previously written about the ACLU’s abdication of its traditional role in challenging governmental overreaching. For the new ACLU getting Trump trumps civil liberties.

      It is ironic to see many right-wingers being the ones to criticize overreach by law enforcement, while many left-wingers now defend such overreaching. Hypocrisy and selective outrage abounds, as neutral principles take a back seat. Conservatives used to say that “a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.” I would respond that “a liberal is a conservative who is being audited or whose kid was busted for pot.” Today a civil libertarian is a conservative whose candidate is being investigated, while a law-and-order type is a liberal who wants to see Trump charged or impeached.

      I am a liberal who voted against Trump but who insists that his civil liberties must be respected for all of our sake.

    1. There was an expectation that Tony Podesta was also going to be indicted for much the same reasons.
      But thus far that has not happened. Probably because the Podesta’s are part of the Clinton Posse

      1. “Richard Barris is deceptive here.”

        The essential point is “It wasn’t for work he did with Donald Trump.” You are being far more deceptive and duplicitous.

        What was your point?

      2. Peter Hill – Manafort is attacking the SC with a civil suit and has the money to fight a legal trial.

  2. Could the tornado that is Trump, be draining the swamp by his sheer maverick ways and position of elected power?
    I think so, even as he often appoints swampy officials, those who have always had their way to do what they have wanted without much official public criticism now face the Tasmanian Devil that is Donald Trump.
    So, not having much experience with that kind of public political pillory, as Turley says they entered into that arena as amateurs, and lowered themselves and any moral high ground they had left to try to duke it out Trump style.
    But where Trump is operationally careful to not actually DO anything morally or legally reprehensible, they have, and yet still try to retain the moral high ground, without success.
    But what they have done is successfully pander to a very large population of Trump haters who will gladly suck up and buy all things anti-Trump.
    And they enrich themselves handsomely in the process.
    At minimum Trump is flushing out the posers that presumed to be so high and mighty, but had even worse skeletons in their moral makeup.

  3. “President Donald Trump has long shown the unique ability to bring out the worst in people. It is by design.”

    Yep. And the low-intelligence people who staff this behemoth keep walking into it like lemmings. And we want government to make all the hard decisions for us? I know the lefties here will just hug their Communist Manfesto tighter, but it won’t help. Cult of personality and all that as well.

  4. The question about ethical leadership I have for Comey and McCabe: “When you first became aware of Russian special ops working to disrupt the 2016 US election (well before the DNC Convention), why did you not arrange a private meeting between the NYC Field Office and Trump to alert him to the typical methods Russian agents use to curry covert influence?”

    This would have been S.O.P. for any other candidate, and the FBI reached out immediately to the DNC about evidence of Russian hacking….Debbie Wasserman Schultz refused to meet or cooperate, placing her organization in an undefended position for months before she was forced to resign.

    The point is, if you look at how FBI Counter-Intelligence is set up to counter election interference, then a private FBI meeting with Trump and his lawyer McGann should have taken place in July 2016, and the tone should have been “let’s work together to keep Russian spies thwarted”. The FBI would have gotten cooperation to the extent they could keep a promise of private coaching — i.e., no leaks from the FBI.

    I believe Comey and McCabe’s biggest blunder was failing to reach out privately to the Trump campaign early in the process, the same way they had reached out to the DNC. Why?

    1. pbinca, good point but I don’t think Comey was trying to protect America. I think he and others were trying to protect their own self-interest.

    2. maybe because all the FBI honchos just assumed he would lose, and then, assumed he was getting help from Russia, so they were at liberty to treat him like a common crook instead of the CIC?

  5. The full court defense for the POTUS shines brightly on this site.

    “Comey who saw the greater need as advancing himself as the personification of virtue and ethics, while cashing in.”

    This has been Trump’s message his entire life and it didn’t seem to matter to those who voted him in.

    Why is it an issue now?

    1. D.C. Republicans are explained by Turley speaking at the Federalist Society (Sourcewatch).
      Those who don’t know that Republican patriotism begins and ends with enrichment of companies like Haliburton (headquartered overseas) and Erik’s Prince’s firm, are willfully blind and deaf.
      Those who don’t know that Republican religion begins and ends with patriarchal authoritarianism are willfully blind and deaf.
      Remaining Republicans are racists.

      1. Are you talking about the same republicans that tried harder to keep Trump from getting the nomination than they ever tried to defeat any democrat?

        PS: Democrats are the biggest racists on the planet.

      2. you Republicans are racist, patriarchal, and authoritarian. Nice try and complimenting them but I am not convinced.

        1. Mr Kurtz – I have been a registered Independent for some 40 years and for the last 20 years I have seen the Democratic Party become more authoritarian and racist. I have seen leaders of the Senate lying on the floor of Senate so they were protected by the Constitution, just to change an election. They misrepresent things the President has done or is doing or ignore them because it would make him look good. Now, I am not a big fan of the Republicans, but after what Hillary pulled in 2016, I cannot see myself voting for a Democrat for the next 20 years.

        2. you Republicans are racist, patriarchal, and authoritarian.

          You say that like it’s a bad thing.

      3. It is trivial to substitute the names of democrats and different companies and have atleast as true a statement.

        Power Corrupts.

        Government is power,

        The best you can hope for is less government with less power and less corruption.

    2. ““Comey who saw the greater need as advancing himself as the personification of virtue and ethics …” — “This has been Trump’s message his entire life …”

      I honestly didn’t follow Trump’s entire life (and I find it highly unlikely that you did, either), and never saw a single episode of his reality show, nor any of his beauty pageantry — but I’m reasonably familiar with his life over the last 2 or 3 years, and I’m drawing a complete blank when trying to recall even a single time that Trump ever advanced himself “as the personification of virtue and ethics.”

      Perhaps you’re thinking of the Pope — or maybe Mr. Rogers.

      Meanwhile, what Comey is doing — “cashing in” — comes as a revelation of his true purpose in office — not to be a public servant but to be a self servant. You might accuse Trump of that for a large portion of his life prior to entering office, but he wasn’t acting in the capacity of a “public servant” then. And unless you have a crystal ball, you can’t claim “cashing in” as his purpose IN office now.

      I seriously doubt that a 70-year-old billionaire would devote so many of the so-few years he has left, and take on the headaches and responsibilities and workload of being president, just for the purpose of “cashing in.”

      He was already rich and famous (and rumor is, had a pretty active sex life). To ascribe a motive of “cashing in” to Trump strikes me (and probably most Trump supporters) as being more than a little ridiculous — and that’s ridiculous with a heavy dose of hatred, envy, and pure DNC propaganda .

      1. Adam Smith first noted something very close to your observation about Trump.

        Even in the 18th century, it only took a relatively small amount of money – while far more than ordinary people earn, to live splendiforously.

        Smith notes that all the earnings of the extremely rich beyond that highest practical standard of living served the interests of OTHERS.

        The investment of Buffet creates businesses, products, and jobs.
        It creates NOTHING that Buffet will ever be able to use.
        99% of his “Profits” are re-invested – serving others.
        If his profits make profits – again, it does nto benefit Buffet.

        There is very little difference in the life style of someone with 100M and someone with 70B.

        The claim that Trump is president to Cash in is ludicrous.

        He will not notice the difference between living as a $10 billionaire and a $20Billionaire.

        Purportedly he does not like the WhiteHouse – it is slumming it compared to Maralago.

        Trump gets benefits from being president – power, prestige, historical remeberance.

        But getting richer is not among anything he likely desires.

        1. Agreed — but with Trump, I don’t think he was interested in power, prestige, or historical remembrance — at least not directly. It seems more likely that he just got fed up with watching the government make every mistake possible. That probably required the “power” of becoming president if Trump wanted to do something about it, but it seems a lot to me like maybe Trump was/is just trying to give something back to the country that made him so wealthy, famous, etc.
          And I reach that conclusion because of his age — so few years left. Even if he lives to be 100, he doesn’t have that many healthy years left — years in which he can truly enjoy the benefits of his enormous wealth. I think there must be some genuine motive — just the desire to get the job done — behind Trump’s desire to expend so much time and put up with so much aggravation as the trade-off for whatever reward motivates him.

          1. William, some people enjoy working. Trump enjoys building and rebuilding. Right now he is trying to rebuild America into a more successful nation following some horrendous leadership. If he gave up all these things occupying his life and became a homebody he would probably build a huge community on his living room floor with Lincoln Logs, gold plated of course.

            If you don’t know much about Trump read about him rebuilding the skating rink in Central Park. He earned nothing off of that but satisfaction and likely the approval of many New Yorker’s. Focus on how long it took for NYC to fail to rebuild it and how much NYC spent. Then look at how much time it took him to rebuild it and how much it cost. This, I believe is what interests Trump.

            I believe this success caused him the ire of at least one mayor of the city.

          2. Oh, I think Trump is absolutely about Ego.
            But yes, there is some public service.

            BTW public service becomes more appealing when you have done everything else.

            1. Personally, I think that most intelligent people realize that ego is a load of crap before they get to Trump’s age, so I lean more toward the public service theory. I don’t think Trump’s personality is representative of ego so much as it’s a remnant of his earlier days when ego war probably more important. You can change your values, but it doesn’t usually change the way your personality comes off to others.

    3. Trump has not wrapped himself in the same mantel of righteousnous that Comey has.

      When you claim to be an angel, you will be judged by the standard of angels.
      Comey falls far short.

      Trump does too – but he has never professed to be more than he is.

      Trump is a scallywag. He is not a hypocrit.

      1. “It made me mildly nauseous.”

        “I was feeling queesy.”

        “It made me want to cry.”

        – James Comey, former FBI Director

  6. The book people should plan to read is Rick Wilson’s “Everything Trump Touches Dies.” It will be published in August. His columns for The Daily Beast on Trump related matters are marvelous, informed, and hilarious and I imagine the book will be, too.

    1. A never Trumper who makes accusations about Trump supporters that are totally classless and base. If one wants to read mindless stupidity and waste a lot of time one might want to read this guy.

      Here are questions and answers provided by this overblown ego:

      “What do you think will happen if Trump gets the nomination? ”
      RW:”Say hello to Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer.”

      Is Chuck Schumer majority leader? No.

      “Was there ever a point when you thought Trump was really done for?”

      RW: “Early on, yes.”

      Trump is President. Wilson was acting like a clown when he answered.

      Rick Wilson makes his money by fanning flames and it doesn’t make a difference to him whose flames he fans. His audience are those that agree with him, not those looking for sophisticated journalism.

    2. Rick Wilson

      One of the army of krack kampaign konsultants that have made Mitch McConnell’s Republican Party the effective political force it is today.

      And now for another catch-all continuing resolution adding hundreds-of-billions of dollars to the public-sector debt.

  7. And then there’s this: “Judge Buys FBI’s Bogus Rationale For Hiding Leaked Comey Memos”

    Seems as though one might interpret that Judge Boasberg (another, like Judge Sullivan, who played a significant roll in Hillary’s email fiasco) has decided to withhold Comey”s “memos” from FOIA in order to preserve their evidentiary value for Mueller.

    An alternative interpretation, however, is that the part of the motive for Mueller’s ongoing Righteous (if not Holy) Inquisition is to prevent the public from seeing what Comey’s “memos” ACTUALLY say, compared with selective leaks and excerpts by The James Greatest-Show-On-Earth Comey Traveling Circus claim they say.

    Per either interpretation, we are being deprived of information necessary to decide for ourselves just how high was the Turley “moral high ground” upon which Comey stood before taking the Great Turley Leap into the Turley Abyss.

      1. Because carnival-barker Comey has been peddling his version of their contents to anyone who’ll listen. He even did this for the admitted purpose of getting a special counsel approved (a criminal act).
        If those memos constitute criminal evidence is of crimes committed by Comey and Mueller, but they are not on trial — yet.

      2. Why does Comey have the right to use that evidence in his book and on his book tour? The evidence is either open to the public or not.

        1. Agreed. For this ruling to even be partially legitimate, the judge would have had to issue an injunction against the release of Comey’s “book” and a gag order against its “author.”

          The judge should have also contacted Hollywood and asked if he could borrow the Men-in-Black memory-erasing mechanism, so that the public would forget the GARBAGE it’s already been fed from the garbage pail that Comey calls his “memos.”

          1. One thing we cannot forget in the talk about Comey’s memos. They are Comey’s memos written by Comey and he is not an honest broker and as we have seen he is self-serving. Therefore the memos will be self-serving as well but are useful when placed in the arena of solid evidence.

            1. OK, I lied in one of my other replies. I was sort of paying attention to what the judge said — or maybe it was what The Federalist writer said — about the court giving heavy weight to memos written contemporaneously with the events being described. But courts usually give contemporaneous journal entries, notes, or memos weight (meaning assumption of truthfulness and accuracy) because the expectation is that the memo-taker was recording something that happened without a motive to bend the facts — that the memo-taker had no particular notion of which contents of the memos might ultimately be relevant to what issue.

              In this case, Comey has already testified that he began taking his memos because he didn’t trust Trump. So the things he claims to have observed and recorded are all skewed by the fact that he was consciously looking for bases upon which to verify his rationale for not trusting Trump. This would lead, for instance, to omission of information that would be favorable to Trump.

              In short: The contemporaneously-written memos were generated under circumstances that negate ALL of the usual reasons that contemporaneously-written memos are usually given weight.

              And then there’s the fact that Comey testified that he’d told Trump that he, himself, was not under investigation — which was a lie, as proven by the fact that Comey himself was conducting his own investigation of Trump every time he spoke with Trump, and his memos are incontrovertible evidence that Comey lied to Trump, and then lied again under oath to Congress when he repeated that Trump was not under investigation.

              The memos are evidence against Comey, not against Trump.

        2. It is possible that the government does not want the Memo’s out because it is preparing to prosecute Comey.

          1. That demonstrates another potential crime since it appears he was permitted to take the Memo’s and talk about them in his book.

      3. A criminal investigation requires a crime.

        From start to end Mueller has been engaged in a counter intelligence investigation and used that as a basis to try to find crimes.

        That is unconstitutional.

        That is why the NSA can not just tell the FBI anything it finds on anyone – while looking for terrorists.

        We do not have an actual criminal investigation – there is no crime related reason to protect the memo’s.

        The real argument is in the event that someday we trip over a crime, that we want to prosecute we need to keep these memo’s secret because maybe they would be useful in prosecuting some future crime we cannot even identify.

        1. Well, actually — the memos ARE criminal evidence — not related to Mueller’s nonsense, but criminal evidence concerning Comey’s crimes of stealing them (they weren’t his property and he had no right to possess them after getting canned), then disclosing them, and engaging in that criminal conduct for the further unlawful purpose of influencing a DOJ decision about whether or not to appoint a special counsel — something Comey had no authority to do as a private citizen after getting canned.

          I’d say those are all pretty easy crimes to prosecute, especially since Comey confessed under oath to engaging to the conduct while testifying before Congress.

          So there ARE crimes, and the memos ARE criminal evidence. It’s just not evidence concerning Mueller’s investigation.

        2. @dhlii April 19, 2018 at 3:15 PM
          “A criminal investigation requires a crime.
          “From start to end Mueller has been engaged in a counter intelligence investigation and used that as a basis to try to find crimes.
          “That is unconstitutional.
          “That is why the NSA can not just tell the FBI anything it finds on anyone – while looking for terrorists.”

          Are you unfamiliar with the illicit NSA/law enforcement practice called “parallel construction”?

          It involves the NSA’s secretly sharing incriminating information with law enforcement agencies, who then go after the NSA-surveilled suspects by developing a parallel investigation, such as “happening” to be somewhere when the surveilled parties rendezvous or take delivery on a supply of marijuana, or whatever.

          Former NSA Technical Director William Binney explains it at the 5:00 mark in the video below:

    1. “to prevent the public from seeing what Comey’s “memos” ACTUALLY say,”

      The judge just said what you said a while back. He told the public to stop reading because after the first few sentences he drew his conclusion and felt the rest need not be read.

      1. Could be. Honestly, I stopped caring what the judge was saying when it became clear that his intent was that Comey’s self-serving, Mueller-serving excerpts will remain in the public domain as a sneaky substitute for “the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth.”

        1. There we agree. Either permit it all or permit none. We have been seeing a lot of judges behaving in a partisan manner. That is very dangerous because it leads to a distrust in the judiciary. When one considers making a third world nation into a democracy one faces a major problem in that the people do not trust the judiciary. In our case, we have a democracy (constitutional republic) and are creating distrust in the judiciary. We are reversing the process.

          1. Bottom line: The “evidence” that is being withheld (Comey’s memos) is more related to crimes concerning how the Inquisition got started than it is to whatever unspecified crimes Mueller thinks he’s investigating.

            1. I believe that to be so as well. There is so much nonsecret paperwork that is being withheld at the DOJ and FBI that I believe if it were all released at once it would cause too many Americans to totally lose faith in their government. We see that loss of faith when the people voted for a nonpolitician. Even some Bernie Sanders supporters voted for Trump. Even Alan Dershowitz has recently been supportive of Trump’s legal positions and Dershowitz has been an avowed leftist and supporter of Hillary. Even Truley has moved from a leftward position towards supporting Trump’s position though to me it seems Turley starts with the presumption of Trump guilt and works his way attempting to preserve civil liberties.

              1. To me, Dershowitz’ position concerning Trump is more tenable that Turley’s. If you read Turley’s statements — and this article is a perfect example — you can always see that they are tainted with a judgmental presumption of moral guilt and to some extent presumption of probable legal guilt. Turley’s “libertarian” tendencies only manifest themselves with a notion that Trump’s probable guilt must be proven.

                Dershowitiz (to my knowledge) doesn’t get into presumptions of moral guilt at all. That’s not an issue that concerns his analysis. He might take those issues into the voting booth with him, but he doesn’t subject readers or viewers to his notions about moral guilt because they have no proper place in legal analysis.

                And Dershowitz doesn’t display any evidence of presumption of legal guilt. He simply looks at the law from a standpoint that guilt must be proven. Turley takes that position also — that legal guilt must be proven — but when it comes to Trump, there’s always a palpable presumption of guilt related to the guilt that must be proven.

                To that extent, I think Turley is pretty far off base — taking way too big of a lead — and vulnerable to pitcher with a good pick-off move.

                1. “To me, Dershowitz’ position concerning Trump is more tenable that Turley’s. ”

                  Without question. I have followed Dershowitz for decades and though I am on the opposite political spectrum from him I always felt he was an honest broker and didn’t mince words. He is not one to be intimidated by public opinion or even those superior to him during his academic career.

                  “Dershowitiz (to my knowledge) doesn’t get into presumptions of moral guilt at all. ”

                  He doesn’t, but he has ideas as to what the law should mean and does his best to defend those ideas. I think he has a strong moral compass.

          2. The Judiciary is supposed to religiously confine themselves to the law as written – not as they want it to be, specifically to preserve the integrity that is an absolute requirement for trustworthy government.

            The left has politicized the judiciary – attempting to make it a means of accomplishing policy.

            Doing so makes judges indistinguishable from politicians.
            It brings the rule of man not law.

            This is the core of “originalism” and why it is not some competing means of judicial interpretation,
            But the only means to “the rule of law, not man”.

            The objective of the judicial process is not some ideologically correct outcome.
            It is the outcome consistent with the law as written and the constitution as written.

            Nothing else.

            If you beleive the outcome of THAT judicial process is wrong – you can change the law or the constitution.
            While every other scheme of judicial interpretation leaves the results to vary
            WITH THE PERSON not with the law.

            That means our entire government shifts radically with each shift in ideological control.
            With each shift in the PERSONS.

            It means we have the rule of man, not law.

            It means we are lawless.

            The constitution and the law are not and never will be perfect.
            I can list things that are wrong – though the greatest is that they no longer mean what they say – the rule of man not law.

            But if I disagree – I have the ability to try to change the law or constitution.

            I thought it was great that Justice Stevens said revise the constitution on gun control.

            I think he is wrong – meaning that we do not need gun control.

            But he is absolutely right that the only legitiamte means to change what the constitution says is to actually amend the constitution.

            1. “The left has politicized the judiciary – attempting to make it a means of accomplishing policy.”

              True, but we need to recognize a difference between courts judging men and the Supreme Court judging the law. Lower courts can look a bit more at justice for the individual citizen. The Supreme Court needs to focus entirely on the law and let Congress change the laws.

              “The constitution and the law are not and never will be perfect.”

              Perfect is the enemy of good.

              1. To be clear in the real world things rarely work out perfectly.

                The absence of perfection does not mean that we should deviate from principles willy nilly.

                The rule of Law not man – is not so much about judging men, It is not about weighing facts, it is not about assessing the credibility of witnesses.

                It is about apply the law. The rule of law most frequently occurs AFTER the facts have been determined and the credibility of witnesses has been measured.

                Once we have determined what be beleive to the requisite degree of certainty are the facts,
                THEN we apply the law.

                The Rule of law is supposed to mean that the outcome for a given fact set should not vary from judge to judge, from defendant to defendant.
                That is the ideal..

                Further the messy parts – assessing credibility and facts are most typically done at the bottom.
                The rule of law become increasingly important as one rises through the courts – because upper courts mostly do NOT weigh facts. They merely opine on whether the law was properly followed.

                Conformance to the rule of law is more consequential the close we get to the top of the legal pyramid.

                1. “The absence of perfection does not mean that we should deviate from principles willy nilly.”

                  No, it doesn’t and no one ever said it should.

                  But this is what I was talking about:

                  Dhlii“The left has politicized the judiciary – attempting to make it a means of accomplishing policy.”

                  Allan: “True, but we need to recognize a difference between courts judging men and the Supreme Court judging the law. Lower courts can look a bit more at justice for the individual citizen. The Supreme Court needs to focus entirely on the law and let Congress change the laws.”

  8. Turley says: “Trump’s attacks on McCabe were largely exaggerated and unsupported. ”

    Were they? Trump didn’t first run an investigation to gather all the facts so the only thing Turley should be accusing him of was that he wasn’t specific enough which was an impossibility earlier on. Trump was right on the wiretaps, but he lacked the techno knowledge to say exactly what happened. I’ll bet Turley made a negative comment about that as well. If he didn’t, then I applaud him.

    1. The electronic surveillance of a major candidate under phony FISA warrants is an atrocious violation of both civil liberties and the democratic process. It is the single largest ignored issue by the phony left. it gives the lie to the notion that we have free and fair elections in the first place, I’m afraid. And regular Americans outside the chattering beltway GET IT.

  9. “President Donald Trump has long shown the unique ability to bring out the worst in people.”

    The President is not bringing out the worst in people rather he is showing who these people really are. Isn’t it wonderful that we are now able to see through the facade and visualize these self-serving individuals who don’t give a hoot about the USA or anyone else?

  10. What has happened is that Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, and McCabe have been revealed to be bureaucratic gamesmen. The notion that Trump ‘brought out the worst’ in four men between the ages of 50 and 74 with which he had no antecedent connection is absurd. Be nice if we had some square shooters in senior positions within the Department of Justice, but we don’t. All four men are lawyers. Who trains our bloody lawyers?

    1. If you bring the worst out in someone – you are bringing out something that is there. Not something you created.

      I am sure there are decent people in government.
      But there is ZERO reason to PRESUME that because someone is in government they are decent.

      It is also unwise to presume the only forms of corruption are political affiliation.

  11. Right. It was Trump who paid for and promulgated the disgusting Steele “dossier.” It was Trump who, knowing the lack of any provenance for said dossier, used it to obtained FISA warrants, who then used the following investigation to get the Attorney General of the United States to recuse himself, to then set up a phony “independent” counsel to investigate a non crime of “collusion” and follow up with the fascist tactic of bringing process crime charges against several people close to the President, in order to “convince” them to “flip” against the same President.

    Right. This is all Donald J. Trump’s fault.

        1. You’re welcome, Peter Hill.

          P. S. I posted a link to the same opinion piece on the previous page of this thread. Between the two of us, we’ll have them coming and going.

          1. Diane – Mueller came on later and prevented them from getting out of prison, His crime is just as great. Keeping 4 innocent men in prison to protect Whitey Bulger.

      1. Not much of a catch – one civil trial does not reflect 4 decades of the activity of a crime family and its intertwinement with Mueller.

      2. What good work? What did the article prove? Only that a partisan hack can create a misleading story. The judge only sees those things in front of the court and may have no knowledge of who is directing the case. That is the best explanation to preserve the dignity of the judge.

    1. Peter Hill – Mueller was responsible for keeping them in jail even though they were innocent, all to protect Whitey.

        1. It doesn’t have to be. The one calling the shots can be totally unknown except to his underlings.

          However, it is amazing how easily you can blame Trump for things he wasn’t even responsible for.

    2. How quick you are Peter to call others liars without knowing all the facts yourself or even being able to distinguish potential error from lying. This is the judge’s opinion and after watching Kimba force the release of Cohen’s client list which is contrary to the rules of justice one cannot be sure that all our justices believe in the law. Kimba did that because of an argument raised by an attorney in the room who represented CNN and the NYTimes. Did Kimba permit those persons whose names were to be released to know in advance and be permitted to object? No. CNN and the NYTimes wanted it and she gave it.

      What did this judge say? Not enough to convince one that the judge is an honest broker. Did he have the same ethical spine as Judge Kimba Wood? The one thing we have learned is that we can no longer trust our justice department.

      I quote: “I can say without equivocation that Mr. Mueller, who worked in the United States attorney’s office in Boston from 1982 to 1988, including a brief stint as the acting head of the office, had no involvement in that case. He was never even mentioned.” One doesn’t have to be mentioned or even be perceived as ‘active’ for them to have an important effect on the outcome of the case.

      Acquaint yourself with the Howard Root Case. What happened to him is a result of bureaucracy and that can extend to politicians, DOJ, judges etc. It’s a bit long but would probably benefit you greatly in the long run.

      1. The Koch Bros have actually joined forces with civil libertarians in calling for reviews of obscure Federal laws that people often don’t know they’re even violating. But that doesn’t mean that Federal Attorneys are all bad apples. Just like one questionable police shooting shouldn’t reflect on every cop.

        Hannity and Limbaugh ‘are’ liars. Hannity wouldn’t even tell his views that Michael Cohen was his lawyer. That’s a major ethical lapse for a so-called journalist.

        1. “Hannity and Limbaugh ‘are’ liars. Hannity wouldn’t even tell his views that Michael Cohen was his lawyer. That’s a major ethical lapse for a so-called journalist.”

          Cohen was not Hannity’s lawyer and to date, nothing different has been demonstrated. Hannity knows Cohen and has even mentioned him on his radio talk show. I don’t know that Limbaugh ever met Cohen. But, CNN didn’t release the fact that it was their lawyer that pushed the judge to inappropriately have Hannity’s name revealed. How come you are not yelling at CNN? How about Stephanopoulos who is integrally connected with the Clintons not revealing his connections? How about all those reporters that have direct connections to the Clintons via their wives or children? Did your leftist news sources reveal the strong attachment of judge Kimba Wood to the Clintons? Of course not. You are disingenuous in your criticism of Hannity who had no legal connection to Cohen. That is why no one in their right mind can take you seriously.

          “But that doesn’t mean that Federal Attorneys are all bad apples.”

          They aren’t, but the bureaucracy is pushing otherwise good people to do bad things. We have to make that bureaucracy more transparent. I told you to listen to that video on Howard Root. He believes criminals should go to jail and he doesn’t blame prosecutors per se, rather he blames the system and is right on target. Obviously, instead of listening to the video you preferred reading the junk you are accustomed to. Put in some time and get educated.

          The video I listened to was almost one hour and that I believe was necessary to make all the points he wanted to make. Google Howard Root video.

        2. First, he’s not a news journalist. He’s an opinion journalist.
          Second, he currently has 8 lawyers. You try to make it sound like Cohen is his only lawyer. Typical.
          Third, who gives a f*ck?

      2. The Center for American Experiment that Allan is hawking is part of the Kochtopus via the Bradley Foundation. Information about Bradley can be found at the Center for Media and Democracy.

        1. I am sure the Center for American Experiment is a great organization and maybe I should be hawking it, but I am not. D. Smith puts words and phrases together without concern for accuracy. When D Smith finds this alias intolerable D. Smith will have a new alias but unfortunately, the brain will remain the same, virtually useless.

          1. Allan,
            I’m sure you’ve noticed when those like D. Smith have no legitimate counter-arguments they proceed to build a strawman to argue against. 🙂

        2. Does it matter where the truth comes from ?

          If Hitler said the sun will rise tomorow – would that make it false ?

          Facts are facts, logic is logic, reason is reason.

          Regardless of the source.

          Make an argument, This nonsense that something ultimately originated with someone you do not like is garbage.

          Just as an appeal to authority is fallacy, so is rejection because of disfavored source.

          Make and argument rather than explaining why you do not like a source.

          1. John, d smith is the old crazy Stalinist Linda. Expect her to pop up under a new name. If she doesn’t all on this blog of Turley’s will be better off.

    3. A primary lesson in the Weyrich training manual for conservatives is falsehoods are necessary i.e. essential.

      1. “A primary lesson in the Weyrich training manual for conservatives is falsehoods are necessary i.e. essential.”

        Alias’s are wonderful. One can change an alias at will but one can’t change the deviant behavior of the person behind the alias.

        1. “Freedom” is the Kochs’ bait. The switch is to serfs ruled by the political donor class that peddles “libertarianism”, while drafting state laws through ALEC.

          1. Interesting that “Allan’s” thumbnail changed.
            The “new” thumnail for the used by the person posting under his name is identical to the thumbnail of another commentator who makes similar comments.

            1. …And that commentator is the same idiot that posted yet with another name. Not a very bright person. I guess she is embarrassed by her prior postings so to save embarrassment she has changed her alias.

              I’ll repeat what I said to d smith and the phony Allan:

              “Alias’s are wonderful. One can change an alias at will but one can’t change the deviant behavior of the person behind the alias.”

          2. D. Smith who was formerly… everyone, guess who is now using my name because she is an idiot. New alias with the same worthless brain.

            1. Allan,…
              –“Kochtopus”, “Weyrich training manual”
              Not too hard to figure out who is posting under your name, and other names.

            2. I reconsidered, some might not know who the idiot is. Linda became d smith and now is using my name. Why doesn’t she use a more appropriate name…”Ima Idiot”

    4. The Judge is correct – Mueller did not appear in court in that particular case.

      That specific case is a tiny part of the Whitey Bulgar story.

    5. Lets ask who if anybody at fbi above the disgraced agents took any responsibility at all?

      Did they just “not know” what these guys were up to for many many years? Seems unlikely.

      The FBI office in Boston was aware of several MURDERS by its informant Whitey Bulger and actually conspired with him to commit at least one. That is on record. Oh, they will say it was just three rogue agents… as if three rogue FBI agents in one office was a small number! Wow. Three rogue agents in one office? Did the higher ups at FBI totally whitewashed itself of culpability for “colluding” with the the murderous crime boss Whitey Bulger in exchange for a few pathetic crumbs of information now and then? I dont know I am just wondering. the more I learn about it the more shocked i am.

      I don’t know if Mueller had any part. But considering that NO supervisors were prosecuted or publicly disciplined for that– its safe to say NOBODY took responsibility besides the ones who are locked up now, Rico, Connolly, Morris, oh wait, Morris is not in jail now, IS he? Considering that, if Muller failed to supervise can we stop kidding ourselves he had such a glorious career, prior to the current debacle?

  12. Well perceived Turley. Trump is a master of creating an environment where he prevails. He creates the sewer and being the biggest rat, prevails. Trump creates chaos and being the most chaotic, prevails. Trump creates the most ludicrous conditions and being the biggest buffoon, prevails. He drew Clinton from the boring issues during the campaign to play his game of superficiality and she came off poorly.

    The success of Trump’s tactics is that he has done this forever and that is what is expected of him. The Presidency is now a source of entertainment, rather than a place where one looks to for level headed but boring events. Trump designed the show and prevails as its creator and main character. Those that attempt to play him at his own game simply do not have the experience he has playing the slime ball; they come off transparent and pathetic. Trump makes them look pathetic; he makes America look pathetic.

    1. Isaac, I posted a link to an Andrew Sullivan article in reply to David B. Benson’s comment “Great Title” that elaborates on Turley’s reference to Sullivan’s coining of the term “The Trump Abyss.” The link is on the previous page. The article is out of date. But still worth reading.

    2. A small sample from the Andrew Sullivan article mentioned above:

      The discourse has been coarsened to sub-tabloid levels; the courts’ authority has been weakened by their own over-reach and Trump’s refusal to follow core Constitutional norms. The neutral institutions that might be capable of bringing the president to heel, such as the FBI, are now being trashed by their ultimate boss. The possibility of a shared truth, about which we can have differing opinions, has evaporated in a blizzard of web-fueled distraction and misdirection, aided and abetted by a president for whom reality is whatever he wants it to be at any given moment, and always susceptible to change. It turns out that Mark Zuckerberg’s real achievement will be the collapse of a rational public dialogue and the empowerment of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

      1. Wow, you folk are amazing. All Trump does is grease the sliding board, and the pitiful government folk jump right on it. If they had half the intelligence they possess, they wouldn’t have let themselves become circus acts. No backend half-baked arguments will change dumb decisions on their part. How these guys got above federal clearance for custodial duties it beyond me. It’s hard, but do try to open your eyes a little wider.

      2. Sorry, but your Sullvan excerpt demonstrates what is wrong with the left.

        More so that any recent president Trump IS following constitutional norms.

        He is following the law as it exists – not as he wishes it was.
        It was Obama and the left that sought creative new interpretations.

        The left rants about the EPA – well CO2 is NOT a pollutant as identified by the laws creating the EPA.
        If you do not like that – change the law.

        Water collecting between rows of corn after a rain storm is NOT the water that EPA was given jurisdiction over.
        Again change the law.

        Most of us might want illegal immigrants brought here as children to be able to remain.
        But that is not the law – so change it.

        Trump is NOT changing the law with the phone and pen.
        He is NOT changing actual law by executive order.

        He is also putting on the bench judges who like Gorsuch are going to say – “crime of violence” ought to mean what it says, not things that most of us would not call violent.
        If you do not like that CHANGE THE LAW.

        But do not come to the courts and say “times have changed, you should read the law differently”.

        It is the legislators job to change the law not the courts.

        What actual constitutional norms is Trump not following ?

        Further the FBI is neither actually neutral – nor ever intended to be.

        ALL powers of the executive branch are vested in the PRESIDENT.
        If you work for the executive – you work for the president.
        You are NOT neutral.

        It is the role of the courts and the congress to “reign in the president”
        Not the DOJ or FBI.

        I get really tired of this crap from the left – you think that saying something that sounds go to you, makes it into inherent truth. Bunk.

        If you do not like the way the constitution delegates power – change the constitution.

        If you want “neutral institutions” – change the constitution.

        It is this idiocy about “neutral institutions” that violates constitutional norms.

        Did the Obama DOJ actually investigate itself ?

        It is patently obvious to anyone who can fog glass that had the DOJ/FBI proceded against Clinton as they have against Trump – she would be in levenworth.

        Where do you get this “neutral institutions” garbage ?

        Yes the FBI is being trashed – when the last Republican was president – the left was trashing it.
        In fact when any republican was president the left was trashing it.

        The list of FBI F’ups is huge – even if you eliminate anything even remotely partisan.
        Ask Richard Jewell.

        The left seems to have no problems beleiving ordinary cops should young black men – because.
        Why do you magically beleive the FBI is near perfect ?

        Look lots of republicans are hypocritical on some of these issues too.

        So What ? Do two wrongs make a right ?

        Why should I want “shared truth” when the only times Republicans and Democrats agree involves screwing the rest of us.

        Sulivan is right that we have an exploding diversity of views and that is making reaching concensus with respect to government action much harder.

        But that is a GOOD thing – that is how our founders intended out government to work.

        And the vast diversity of oppinion is close to the norm of our founders than of our parents.

        And Trump is not empowered.
        Since getting elected much of what he has done is UNDO the unconstitutional excesses of his predecessor.

        More so that ever before we are returning to the actual norms of the past and our constitution.

        If you want government to act, you must dot your i’s cross your t’s follow the constitution – and that is very very hard.
        And that is how government was meant to be.

        1. Dhlii, Diane doesn’t want to hear the law. She wants the law to follow her dictates. She should respond line by line to your reply so that instead of hearing her junk we can actually hear her argument. She lacks that capability.

  13. One nit.

    Trump does NOT cause good people to behave badly.

    His manner EXPOSES the bad conduct of bad people.

    Turley nots that the McCabe investigation predates Trump’s presidency and was completely out of Trump’s influence or orbit.

    But misses that McCabe was NEVER a good person.

    McCabe engaged in petty vindictive self serving behavior long before Trump announced his candidacy.
    Long before he was tapped to lead some of the Clinton investigations.

    As a consequence of Trump’s attacks – we are also exploring the careers of the Comey, Mueller, ….
    we were told that these were “honorable men”, yet the more we learn the less impressive they are.
    Mueller and Comey – as well as others on the Mueller team have been together forever and associated with nearly every significant botched FBI investigation in the past 3+ decades.

  14. As a child we had a neighbor family decide to torment my family. My mother a survivor of Nazi occupied Holland was accused of being a Nazi. Forget the fact that she was a child during the war. They bullied anyone who were friends of my family, going as far as putting sugar in the gas tank of a friend of the family… and other vandalism. My mother told us never to comment, but to remain dignified. She said eventually people would recognize who was the victim and who was the tormentor. She also noted that if we engaged in the same name calling, we would stoop to their level. It took years but it eventually the torment ended. It left a mark on me, but it made me a much stronger person and importantly it made me always wait until all the facts were out before judging guilt or innocence. Just because someone calls you a name does not make it so.
    I had tremendous sympathy for Comey, coming to his defense a number of times. I understood that he was in a box created by Clinton’s poor decisions. He had told Congress the investigation was closed… how could he not reveal it… McCabe holding back the information on Weiner laptop really complicated Comey’s job immeasurably. I say I understood…. but I agree with Turley… he fell into the trap. He is just another pig in the mud… when it comes right down to it… no one will remember who started the fight…. they all are reduced in stature for getting into the mud. To be honest, I am not really sure what to make of him now. I will wait until more time passes, and the investigation is complete to decide. It is what my mother would have wanted.

Leave a Reply