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. Ivankinsman, I tried to give you a world tour of the foolishness of those trying to get Trump while only snaring McCabe and Comey along with a few others including the DNC and Hillary Clinton. Victor Davis Hanson is a respected historian. Here is what he has to say.

    Revolution and Worse to Come By Victor Davis Hanson

    When legal bloodhounds and baying critics fail to take out Trump, what’s next? The Resistance wants Trump’s head — on the chopping block.

    On the domestic and foreign fronts, the Trump administration has prompted economic growth and restored U.S. deterrence. Polls show increased consumer confidence, and in some, Trump himself has gained ground. Yet good news is bad news to the Resistance and its strange continued efforts to stop an elected president in a way it failed to do in the 2106 election.

    Indeed, the aim of the so-called Resistance to Donald J. Trump is ending Trump’s presidency by any means necessary before the 2020 election. Or, barring that, it seeks to so delegitimize him that he becomes presidentially impotent. It has been only 16 months since Trump took office and, in the spirit of revolutionary fervor, almost everything has been tried to derail him. Now we are entering uncharted territory — at a time when otherwise the country is improving and the legal exposure of Trump’s opponents increases daily.

    First came the failed lawsuits after the election alleging voting-machine tampering. Then there was the doomed celebrity effort to convince some state electors not to follow their constitutional duty and to deny Trump the presidency — a gambit that, had it worked, would have wrecked the Constitution. Then came the pathetic congressional boycott of the inauguration and the shrill nationwide protests against the president.

    Anti- and Never-Trump op-ed writers have long ago run out of superlatives. Trump is the worst, most, biggest — fill in the blank — in the history of the presidency, in the history of the world, worse even than Mao, Mussolini, Stalin, or Hitler.

    Next was the sad effort to introduce articles of impeachment. After that came weird attempts to cite Trump for violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution. That puerile con was followed by plans to declare him deranged and mentally unfit so that he could be removed under the 25th Amendment. From time to time, Obama holdovers in the DOJ, National Security Council, and FBI sought to leak information, or they refused to carry out presidential orders.

    As the Resistance goes from one ploy to the next, it ignores its string of failed prior efforts, forgetting everything and learning nothing. State nullification is no longer neo-Confederate but an any-means-necessary progressive tool. Suing the government weekly is proof of revolutionary fides, not a waste of California’s taxpayer dollars.

    Anti- and Never-Trump op-ed writers have long ago run out of superlatives. Trump is the worst, most, biggest — fill in the blank — in the history of the presidency, in the history of the world, worse even than Mao, Mussolini, Stalin, or Hitler. So if Trump is a Hitler who gassed 6 million or a Stalin who starved 20 million, then logically Trump deserves what exactly?

    The book industry is doing its part. Mythographer Michael Wolff’s hearsay Fire and Fury suggested that Trump was a dangerous child despised as much by his friends as by his enemies. As FBI director, James Comey leaked confidential memos, lied to Congress, misled a FISA court, admitted that he based his handling of the Clinton-email investigation on the assumption she’d win the presidency, misinformed the president about the status of his investigation. And the now-former director book-tours the country slamming Trump hourly on the assumption that he would certainly not be former, if only his prior obsequious efforts to appease Trump had saved his job. Comey is building perjury cases against himself daily with each new disclosure that belie past sworn testimonies, but that is apparently less scary to him than simply ignoring Trump.

    Robert Mueller and his “dream team” were long ago supposed to have discovered proof of Trump’s collusion with Russia. A year later, they have found nothing much to do with this mandate. Then the alternative scent was obstruction of justice. Then the chase took another detour to follow some sort of fraud or racketeering. Now the FBI is reduced to raiding Trump’s lawyer in an effort to root out the real story on Stormy Daniels. One wonders what might have happened had Michael Cohen panicked and destroyed 30,000 emails before Mueller seized his computers. No matter, Mueller’s legal army presses on, even as it leaves its own wounded on the battlefield, as resignations, reassignments, and retirements for improper conduct decimate the Obama-era FBI and DOJ hierarchies.

    Trump has left the intelligence community unhinged. John Brennan (“When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. . . . America will triumph over you”) and James Clapper (who called Trump a veritable traitor working for Putin) have both admitted to lying under oath to Congress in the past, and with their present invective, they have discredited the very notion of a Washington intelligence elite. At some point, Mueller’s zealotry will remind federal attorneys that equality under the law demands indictments of those with far greater legal exposure, regardless of the exalted status of Comey, Andrew McCabe, and — in the matter of lying under oath, leaking classified materials, and destroying evidence — John Brennan, James Clapper and Hillary Clinton.

    In addition, a media, found to be more than 90 percent negative in its coverage of the Trump administration, sought to delegitimize the president. Journalists declare that disinterested reporting is impossible in the age of Trump — and therefore believe that Stormy Daniels or James Comey’s Dudley Do-Right’s memos are a pathway to accomplish what they are beginning to concede Robert Mueller cannot.

    Everything from the NFL to late-night comedy shows have become Trump-hating venues. Almost every sort of smear from scatology to homophobia has been voiced by celebrities to turn Trump into a president deserving such abuse — and worse. Late-night television host Steven Colbert was reduced to incoherent and repellant venom: “You talk like a sign-language gorilla that got hit in the head. In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s c*** holster.” Actor Robert De Niro has become deranged and dreams of pounding on Trump’s face. But then so does former vice president Joe Biden, who on two occasions boasted that Trump is the sort of guy that a younger he-man Biden used to take outside the gym to give a whippin’ to.

    Each cycle of hysteria demands another, as the race to the bottom has descended into which celebrity or politician can discover the most provocative — or crude — Trump expletive. “S***” and “f***” are now the ordinary vocabulary of angry Democratic politicos and officeholders. Are we reaching a point in the so-far-failed Resistance where little is left except abject violence in the manner of the Roman or French Revolution? The problem for Trump’s pop-culture foes is not whether to imagine or advocate killing the president. That’s a given. They just need to agree on the means of doing so: decapitation (Kathy Griffin), incineration (David Crosby), stabbing (the Shakespeare in the Park troupe), shooting (Snoop Dogg), explosives (Madonna), old-fashion, Lincoln-style assassination (Johnny Depp), death by elevator (Kamala Harris), hanging (a CSU professor), or simple generic assassination (a Missouri state legislator).

    The Resistance and rabid anti-Trumpers have lost confidence in the constitutional framework of elections, and they’ve flouted the tradition by which the opposition allows the in-power party to present its case to the court of public opinion.

    Now the Democratic party — whose presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, hired Christopher Steele to find dirt on Trump with the aid of Russian sources to warp the 2016 election — is suing President Trump, alleging collusion with the Russians. If Clinton were called as a witness, what would she say under cross-examination — that she did not hire Steele, that he never purchased Russian dirt, or that there was no collusion effort to enlist foreign nationals such as British subject Christopher Steele and Russian propagandists to warp an American election?

    Insidiously and incrementally, we are in the process of normalizing violence against the elected president of the United States. If all this fails to delegitimize Trump, fails to destroy his health, or fails to lead to a 2018 midterm Democratic sweep and subsequent impeachment, expect even greater threats of violence. The Resistance and rabid anti-Trumpers have lost confidence in the constitutional framework of elections, and they’ve flouted the tradition by which the opposition allows the in-power party to present its case to the court of public opinion.

    Instead, like the French revolutionaries’ Committee on Public Safety, the unhinged anti-Trumpists assume that they have lost public opinion, given their venom and crudity, and are growing desperate as every legal and paralegal means of removing Trump is nearing exhaustion. Robert Mueller is the last chance, a sort of Watergate or Abu Ghraib that could gin up enough furor to drive down Trump’s poll favorability to the twenties and thereby reduce his person to a demonic force deserving of whatever it gets.

    After the prior era of hysteria, between 2005 and 2008, when books and docudramas staged the imagined assassination of George W. Bush, and celebrities like Michael Moore and activists such as Cindy Sheehan reduced Bush to the status of a war criminal, the Left in 2009 demanded a return to normal political discourse and comportment, with the election of Barack Obama. A newly contrite and apologetic America was abruptly worth believing in again. In 2009, the CIA and FBI suddenly were reinvented as hallowed agents of change.

    Bush careerists, including Clapper and Brennan, were now damning the very counterterrorism practices that they once helped put in place, while offering Obama-like politically correct sermons on the benign nature of Islamism. Surveillance and jailing were appropriate punishments for suspected Obama apostates (ask James Rosen or Nkoula Basseley Nakoula). The IRS was weaponized for use against Obama’s ideological opponents. Suggestions that the president was unfit or worse became near treasonous. Unity was the new patriotism. The assumption was that Obama had ushered in a half-century of progressive norms, not that he so alienated the country that he birthed Donald Trump.

    The danger to the country this time around is that the Left has so destroyed the old protocols of the opposition party that it will be hard to resurrect them when progressives return to power.

    We are entering revolutionary times. The law is no longer equally applied. The media are the ministry of truth. The Democratic party is a revolutionary force. And it is all getting scary.

  2. Sofia – if you have read my comments you will have learned that I don’t take orders. I do take requests. 😉

  3. All the bickering seems to completely ignore JT’s point. He asserts with some degree of credibility, that Trump had a way of getting his detractors to lose all sense of proportion. The question is not is he bad and they good.
    How many times have we seen Trump get peple to lse it? A few examples:
    Marco Rubio in the primaries.

    Chris Cuomo at CNN who cautioned Trump early in 2017, that everything cannot be a crisis and he should be more circumspect with his Tweets. The same Cuomo who has become increasingly shrill and unhinged to the point that it is painful to watch him.

    Cathy ( he broke me) Griffin

    Mad ( Impeach 45!) Maxine

    Former CIA director John Brennan, whose invective filled Tweets have become increasingly desperate and unprofessional.

    The point professor Turley makes is that Trump is adept at getting people to expose their worst side and in effect make his point for him.

    We can look down on Trump but the person to beat him will be the one who was able to maintain their composure.

    1. Conversely if Trump brings out the worst in you.

      That worst is in YOU.

      I do not care much for the easy integrity of those who have never faced a difficult choice.
      Who have never had to do the right thing even when that would be personally costly.

      If you behave as a bad person under pressure – that would be because you are a bad person.

  4. Comey and McCabe have much the same moral high ground as Clinton, Clinton or perhaps Warren trying to strong arm banks for campaign donations.

    1. Shame you couldn’t find a credible source. Not often the left makes the attempt and it’s a Bronx Cheer.

      1. Don’t shoot the messenger. Doesn’t matter if it is Fox, CNN, Breitbart, the BBC – this lawsuit is happening.

        1. ivankinsman – if the lawsuit is allowed to continue, it opens the DNC to interrogatories and depositions, which will probably be delivered with the answer to the complaint. This leaves the DNC very vulnerable, especially concerning the server.

            1. I see we are all in agreement. I’m waiting to open up DNC computers that should have been given to the FBI, but for an FBI that had become weaponized.

            2. This has been investigated for 2 years.

              There is no “if they have colluded with the russians” left.

              There are only 3 possibilities at this point.

              There was no “collusion”
              Mueller and his entire team is completely incompetent
              Mueller and his entire team are completely corrupt and bought off by Trump.

  5. I enjoyed Professor Turley’s review of Comey and McCabe’s falls from grace. However, he did not bring me over the bridge to where Trump made them do it. Perhaps it is because his children are older, and he is not farther removed from patiently explaining to kids that no one can make you say or do anything. Kids have to learn it is their own emotions that cause them to lash out. On the darker end of the spectrum, a battered wife does not make her husband beat her. Make him mad, yes, but make him harm her, no.

    They both had strong opinions about Trump, but much of their behavior predated him ever taking office. Comey et al changed the conclusion of “gross negligence” to “extremely careless” so that it would be less clear that Hillary Clinton should have been charged with a crime for mishandling classified information. His actions during the investigation warrant an investigation into himself. That’s not Trump’s fault. McCabe, as was stated, was also investigated prior to Trump taking office.

    When Trump has an affair, or makes a rude Tweet, that’s on him. His policy choices are on him. His appointee choices are on him. His job performance is on him. The economy will be tied to him. When someone who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution turns around and foreswears that oath, engaging in nefarious activity because their personal choice of candidate didn’t win, then that’s all on them.

    1. Your observations with respect to Children are wise.

      But your conclusions are not unique to child rearing.

      We are all responsible for our own actions.

      In the real world those of us who strive for honesty and integrity tend to get held to the highest standards.

      I have been in some incredibly stressful conflicts, attacked by purportedly respected people who were lying, cheating and stealing, while claiming their actions – though illegal and not justified by the facts were reasonable.

      This environment was a mine field for me. The slightest misstep. Losing patience and doing something wrong – but understandable would end everything for me. One mistake and you are no different – maybe worse than those arround you lying about everything.

      But people who actually have integrity maintain that integrity under pressure.

      The test of someone as a person is not how they manage ordinary life – but how they cope when everything is going wrong. When they are living in hell.

      I am not sure it is honest to say that Comey and McCabe failed under Pressure – their mistakes started before Trump went after them. But still they have failed, and they have no one else to blame.

      1. Well said. Your mettle truly is tested by fire. Hopefully you were able to navigate your own gauntlet intact.

        1. Still in the gauntlet unfortunately.

          But all I need to do is stick to principles and resist the often very tempting urge to do something stupid, and wait as the other parties increasingly demonstrate their dishonesty and continue to make increasingly larger mistakes.

          No matter what I get an incredible story out of this.

          Whatever does not kill be makes me stronger.

  6. More Breaking News: Rosenstein informs Trump he’s not a target of Mueller’s investigation.

    Of course that can change, and Rosenstein knows it, so it could be a trick and it also could be just Rosenstein trying to get out of some of the trouble he’s in, now that there’s a criminal referral against him.

    1. Breaking news- bad day for Trump- (1) Share Blue- Trump told Russia before he told Haley that sanctions wouldn’t be imposed (2) Bloomberg- Court filings show Trump’s DOJ suspected Manafort was the back channel to Russia

      1. Trump is free to talk to people in whatever order he wants.

        Suspicion is not fact.

        The DOJ is pretty corrupt and has not fared well in this.

        Thus far we have no legitimate source for the entire investigation.

        I really do not care if you suspect Pinocchio as the back channel.

        BTW Manaforte does not work – he was barely part of the campaign for a month.

    2. This isn’t news. It was reported a couple weeks ago that he was told he is a subject, but not a target. Trump is so stupid that he thinks this is a good thing.

      1. INlegaleagle – thanks for the memos. Unless there is something in the redacted portions, I did not read anything that would cause a SC.

      2. Took a nap, woke up around 12:30am, and thanks to you the memos were waiting for me. Thanks.
        So I’m looking through the memos while listening to people argue about them on TV. I’m gonna have to shut off the TV, because it’s information overload.

        I’d like to see Comey arrested the next time he opens his mouth on his “book tour,” because from this point on, it’s going to be a memo tour, not a book tour.

        I haven’t gotten to the point yet where I could surmise from the memos that there was no basis for Mueller per the memos, but it’s been clear since Mueller was appointed that there was no basis, simply because Comey testified that it was a counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation, and 28 CFR 600.1 unequivocally states that a special counsel can only be appointed to conduct a criminal investigation, and 28 CFR 600.4(a) requires a written statement specifying the criminal matter to be investigated in order to establish “original jurisdiction.”

        That was never done, so jurisdiction was never established (because it was a counterintelligence investigation). As a matter of law, there’s no basis for a special counsel.

        Rosenstein should be interrogated under a 100 watt bulb for 24 hours to get the truth out of him. Then he should be given the most luxurious suite available at Hotel GITMO. No “unlawful combatant” has ever caused the sort of damage to the USA that Rosenstein has inflicted.

    1. @Autumn April 19, 2018 at 6:04 PM
      “A Progressive’s POV on Comey – not to be confused with Hilbot Liberals…”

      Dore is usually spot-on in his sharply humorous critiques of the parasitical class, aka politicians, whether of the Democrat or Republican wing of the War Party, but this episode widely misses the mark.

      What makes him think that Colbert’s attitude toward Comey (assuming that Dore knows for sure what that is) reflects a common attitude among all the Comey-slamming Democrats he quotes?

      He seems to just assume, that if asked, they’d all be fulsomely praising Comey now, presumably because he’s knocking Trump now, instead of Hillary.

      Maybe they would be, or at least some of them might, but that’s an assumption on Dore’s part, not an observation, and therefore pretty thin comedic gruel.

  7. What kind of totally bogus, BS headline is “Comey and McCabe Leap From The Moral High Ground Into The Trump Abyss?” First, Comey and McCabe have NEVER been anywhere near any kind of “moral ground,” let alone “moral high ground.” Comey and McCabe have been what they’ve always been: VILE CORRUPT AND DANGEROUS GOVERNMENT DRONES.

    Furthermore, there is no “Trump Abyss” either. Trump is doing is best trying to run the government. The Deep State and its moles have been busy trying to destroy Trump’s presidency from within and without. The fact that Trump has come under craven and relentless attacks doesn’t make anything he’s doing an “abyss.”

    1. Yep — full agreement. Turley’s blind bias shines quite brightly in this piece. He can’t just observe that Comey and McCabe are the sort of people that prisons were built for — he just has to express his views of their moral turpitude in an intellectually corrupt fashion by using the occasion to take a cheap shot at Trump.

      Really disappointing, and totally uncalled for. More like something I’d expect from Don Lemon or Anderson Cooper.

    2. “What kind of totally bogus, BS headline is “Comey and McCabe Leap From The Moral High Ground Into The Trump Abyss?”

      That headline informs us of Turley’s mindset and you made it clear that one should focus on that headline to better understand where he is coming from.

    3. Trump is a depraved and despicable lying jerk.
      He will end up foing more harm to the Republican Party than any Democrat could have done in his wildest dreams. MAGA.

      1. wildbill99 – Hillary has done more damage to the Democrats than anyone could imagine. They are having problems fundraising.

          1. David, why don’t you offer proof instead of this type of baby statement. Never mind. Continue doing it. Every once in a while it is good to dream about being in kindergarten.

            1. Ah, the mighty Allan demands ‘proof.’

              Not for the first time — but let’s dissect this little meander of a thread.

              PCS states something – with no ‘proof,’ it is merely opinion — Allan jumps on the bandwagon forgetting that PCS never offers any ‘proof’ of anything he claims – and neither has Allan for some time now.

              So, David is supposedly shamed by offering no ‘proof’ of his short contribution. Yet, neither has PCS or Allan as the whole meander is opinion.

              PCS and Allan refuse to see that they are guilty of the charges they make upon others. PCS has done this since his first arrival – I had given Allan more hope, but he fails miserably time and again.

              Both PCS and Allan consider their opinion to be ‘proof,’ and denigrate anyone whose opinion differs from theirs due to the lack of ‘proof.’

              Sad souls, wasted waifs, really, buttressing their begotten opinion on the backs of their own feeble words, as if this will constitute fact.

              1. “Allan demands ‘proof.’”

                Yes WWAS intelligent people want proof before they libel another. I don’t place you in that category so I don’t expect proof of any type from you.

                “proof’ of anything he claims – and neither has Allan for some time now.”

                I know this may be a bit beyond your thinking ability, but sometimes one cannot prove a negative so we require the burden placed on the person that made the claim. But I see you recognize I provide proof and I have done it over and over again. That pisses you off because you don’t have the intellect to make your case stick. In fact, if there were proof available that you could use you still wouldn’t have the intellect to make your case stick.

            2. Allan — again and again — proves to be a gutter dweller despite his pretensions of lofty ideals.

              He makes no distinction between opinion of others and claims of fact — he demands proof for opinion, without offering his own for the same. The man is a fool with no sense of symmetry — PCS obviously has no sense at all — his quips are written for his own amusement and to beguile the feeble.

              1. WWAS – my quips are for the amusement of the people they are directed to. They are clearly not directed at you.

                1. Obviously, PCS; I’m so sorry to note your lack of substance while accusing another of the same.

                  Quite the burden you carry.

              2. “Allan — again and again — proves to be a gutter dweller despite his pretensions of lofty ideals.”

                WWAS, sometimes one has to get in the gutter and get their hands dirty dealing with persons of your persuasion, but at least I have a shower available after dealing with your type.

                One day you will learn the difference between opinion and proof. Opinion is fine, but an element of proof is generally necessary. I won’t charge you for the lesson since living your life in the gutter probably means you are indigent.

                1. Allen sez:

                  “One day you will learn the difference between opinion and proof.”

                  I pray the same for you, shill.

                  Read the small portion of this thread where I interjected — four words from David Benson — then a minor pile-on with PCS leading the way — which is truly hilarious.

                  But you get your balls back in order, make your own arguments — top/down — which is what you demand from everyone else, while you bark invectives buttressing a fool.

                  1. WWAS are you David Benson’s mother. If so maybe you should change his diaper. Anytime you want to comment on something substantial go ahead and stop with this nonsense. Substance leads to substance. Your type of cr-p only leads to more cr-p.

            3. David, why don’t you offer proof instead of this type of baby statement.

              Because David Benson engages only in peer-to-peer communication, and actually offering an argument would acknowledge you as a peer, which faculty never do. In any case, early-stage dementia’s a bi!ch.

              1. Are you saying David Benson is well into his second childhood so he has little control over his bodily functions?

        1. You’re right. Besides that, without Hillary there wouldn’t have been a Trump Presidency.

          She has a lot to atone for.

          Cordially, Bill

      2. “Trump is a depraved and despicable lying jerk.”

        To date, you haven’t proven that to be true. All you have done is libel without proof.

        The fact is he has done a great job and that is what really pisses you off.

        1. Todate it is the Left and the Comey’s and the McCabes, and … that are increasingly proven as liar’s particularly with respect to what matters.

          The end’s do not justify the means.
          IF you convince yourself that Trump is evil incarnate, and that you must abandon your own principles (presuming that you have any) in order to take him down, and the only apparent evil – is that within you.

          I do not know what Trump is. But I do know what he is not – justification for those who loath him to abandon whatever principles they might have.

          We were told that Comey and McCabe and Lynch and … are all honorable and decent people.

          While not evil incarnate, they do not look so decent now.

        2. Trump’s moral depravity has been on exhibit practically 24/7 for weeks now on the Stormy Daniels and friends news cycle. Where have you been? I’ll bet Melania has taken notice.

          1. Wildbill, let’s take what you say apart and see if you said anything.

            Your claim: “Trump’s moral depravity”

            Your proof: “has been on exhibit practically 24/7 for weeks now” This is just an additional claim without saying anything.

            ” on the Stormy Daniels and friends news cycle”. …And all you add here is a name of a potential singular sexual act that happened 10 years ago. No proof. Explain the depravity in such an occurrence (if it occurred). It looks like you are suggesting all men having extra-marital sex are depraved. Is that your claim?

            Then you ask me: “Where have you been? I’ll bet Melania has taken notice.” I seem to recognize that sex is a normal act. You sound like a person that believes sex is a sin or something like that.

            What is wrong with you?

      3. Thus far what is evident is the failings of those who sacrificed their own principles to try and destroy him.

        When you step up onto a moral soap box there are two things you should remember.

        You had better be absolutely perfectly right in what you are preaching. If Trump is your target – you can not be half right. Self Righteousness becomes evil when it is wrong even a little.

        You must stick tight to your own principles, because they are all that entitles you to stand on that moral soap box. You can not lie, cheat, conspire against those who you vilify for lying cheating and conspiring.

          1. Again wildbill you are throwing out names, but can’t seem to find proof. Are decency and depraved the same to you? Are you saying that men engaging in extra-marital sex have no decency and are depraved?

            Where did your parents go wrong when talking about sex?

            1. Is cheating on a spouse admirable conduct to you? Repeatably, and without any apparent remorse?

              I suspect our standards are quite a bit different.

              1. Wildbill, you want everyone to conform to what you think is appropriate. I believe that as long as no one is being hurt that everyone has a right to enjoy themselves the way they see fit. Melania was aware of Trump’s prior behavior and marriages. Trump was in consensual relationships. That is enough for me.

                The Catholic Church used to dictate to Americans that appropriate sex was only to procreate so doing things to prevent pregnancy was not admirable conduct. Your conduct, therefore, might not be considered admirable conduct. Stop trying to tell everyone else how they must act.

                1. One of the fundimentals of that “theoretical” ideology of mine that you knock about is that:

                  The morality that can be imposed by force – i.e. through government, is limited to:

                  Punishment of the initiation of force. (Criminal Law)
                  Punishment for failing to keep commitments. (Contracts/Civil law)
                  Punishment for actually harming others (Tort law).

                  That all positive duties to others, all other moral choices must be acheived through persuasion rather than force.

                  I beleive as an example that a baker is morally obligated to serve whoever can pay for his goods.

                  But he is NOT legally obligated. He has the right to refuse whoever he pleases,
                  and I have the right to boycott or protest.

                  I do not have the right to compel him to do what I believe is right.
                  Nor does anyone else.

                  I tend to strongly agree with those on the left with respect to what people SHOULD do.
                  But I part radically when the left seeks to convert SHOULD to LAW.

              2. “Is cheating on a spouse admirable conduct to you? Repeatably, and without any apparent remorse?”

                It is conduct that you punish with your vote, not with the law.

                1. Nobody said you punish it with the law, that’s your straw horse. It’s just one more good reason not to vote for Trump. Character counts.

                  1. “Nobody said you punish it with the law, that’s your straw horse. It’s just one more good reason not to vote for Trump. Character counts.”

                    I agree, I did not vote for Trump.

                    And yet, he won the election.
                    I did not vote for Obama and he won too.

                    I have to accept each as president and get my chance to vote again in 2020.

                    In the meantime. My judgement of Trump’s actions as president are specifically about his actions as president.

      1. Yep — and the GoFundMe stunt killed his shot at using a public defender. God forbid he should put his own license to practice law to use on his own behalf.

  8. Reblogged this on Roberts Thoughts 2 and commented:
    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.

    1. Oh my, Robert, Twitter Attacks!

      Sounds more like the modus operandi of our dim witted and depraved President.

      1. Wildbill in our last discussion you claimed that extra-marital sex was depravity. Gosh, I wonder how many of the male sex on this blog other than you aren’t depraved? Since you keep delving into self-righteous behavior I have to ask you for your definition of sex and if you find men looking at a woman depraved as well?

        Do you wish you were born female so you could be a nun?

  9. The O.B.I.T Monitoring System

    Oh you’ll find them all, you’re a zealous people. And they will demoralize you, break your spirits & create such rifts & tensions in your society that no one will be able to repair them.

Leave a Reply