Liar, Liar, DOJ On Fire? Comey and McCabe Offer Sharply Conflicting Accounts

440px-Comey-FBI-PortraitAndrew_McCabe_official_photoI previously wrote that President Donald Trump has the curious skill of bringing out the worst in his critics.  In the last two weeks, two of Trump’s greatest critics have not only faced their own investigations into leaks by the Inspector General (and McCabe is now the subject of a criminal referral for prosecution), they are increasingly at odds with one another. It is clear that either Comey or McCabe is offering a false account of leaks from the Justice Department.  With McCabe now promising defamation lawsuits and the possibility of a prosecution, this could get much worse before it gets better.

 

Comey has declared that McCabe is simply not telling the truth when he said that Comey knew of his leaking information to the media.  Indeed, he said that he ordered the investigation into finding the culprit.McCabe’s lawyer Michael Bromwich has insisted that people should not buy Comey’s “white knight” account and that he is offering a false narrative.In the meantime, McCabe is lashing out at this accusers, including the career officials of the Inspector General’s office who took the unprecedented step of calling for the former acting FBI Director to be fired. Bromwich says that McCabe will now sue the Trump administration for defamation and wrongful termination.  Good luck with that.  The Office of Professional Responsibility and the Inspector General’s office is composed of career officials who decided that McCabe should be fired. The IG found that McCabe leaked the information for his own personal interest and not the public interest.  That hardly seems like a compelling basis for either wrongful termination or defamation unless Bromwich knows some major fact that that is not public.

In the meantime, after raising over $500,000 on GoFundMe (a campaign that I criticized as being premature), Bromwich has announced that he is going back for more donations.  The last campaign ended just before the IG disclosed that McCabe lied not once but four times — and before Comey himself effectively called McCabe a liar.  Indeed, C0mey is invested in showing McCabe is a liar since he previously testified under oath that he never leaked or approved a leak as director.

Bromwich has morphed into Michael Cohen in throwing around threats, including President Trump, for “continuing slander.”  His client is a former public official and now a public figure under New York Times v. Sullivan. In that case, Justice William Brennan explained how the First Amendment was meant to give the free press “breathing space” to play its critical role in our democratic society. The result was not to bar lawsuits by politicians like Trump against the media but rather to require a higher showing of proof. He must prove that the media had “actual malice” where it had actual knowledge of the falsity of a statement or showed reckless disregard whether it was true or false.

That is a high standard for McCabe to shoulder. Moreover, a politician’s opinion of your service (like Trump’s) is generally not actionable unless it can be shown to be a false assertion of fact.

McCabe may be able to tap the thoroughly gullible for more money but he may find that discovery in litigation is the last place he wants to be with both Trump and Comey asserting opposing views of his conduct.

350 thoughts on “Liar, Liar, DOJ On Fire? Comey and McCabe Offer Sharply Conflicting Accounts”

  1. “McCabe may be able to tap the thoroughly gullible for more money but he may find that discovery in litigation is the last place he wants to be with both Trump and Comey asserting opposing views of his conduct.”

    I believe both Trump and Comey insist that McCabe is a liar.

  2. Liar, Liar… your pants are on fire!
    You live in France and have no buyer.
    You got married to the widow next door..
    She’s been married sieven times before..
    And every one as a TurleyDog…
    It wouldnt be a Willy or a Fred..

    etc

  3. How in the world could you Trump supporters dare to comment on the dishonesty of anyone on Earth with one of the most prolific liars in history occupying the White House?

    1. How on Earth, could you complain about Trump when the Democrats are filled with liars. Your “Well, I never . . ” schtick has grown old, and only mildly amusing.

    2. “How in the world could you Trump supporters dare to comment on the dishonesty of anyone on Earth with one of the most prolific liars in history occupying the White House?”

      Lots of us would prefer Trump shut up – but there are a long list of people that applies to.

      Conversely on matters of significance – Trump has proven more accurate than say CNN or Rachel Maddow. So the claim that he is one of the most prolific liars in history is farcical.

      What issue of substance has Trump lied about ?
      There is a long list of policy lies of Obama’s.

      Trump may not be the epitomy of verbal integrity, but he is tame compared to ordinary politicians.

      In fact on many issues where he purportedly lied – turns out he was correct.

        1. Again, what Trump said was that there were surviving photographs of RB Cruz and Oswald. That sounds silly. It’s also how normal range Kennedy Assassination conspiracy buffs talk. The high class ones stick to chuffering over ballistics.

            1. It isn’t racist and he didn’t peddle it ‘for a decade’ or any briefer period of time. He challenged Obama to make public his long-form birth certificate.

              1. Wildbill is a product of our education system where one is too accepting of what they are told and don’t bother to verify what they read.

                My kids used to ask ‘why can’t we…’ . My answer wasn’t always a direct answer. Sometimes the answer was to refer them to books so they could learn why. Children don’t like the struggle. Some adults have never learned to find the answers themselves.

                I Think that was good teaching. All my children are professionals and all have published expert advise for their profession and are considered the go-to people.

                  1. “Allen, you’re a birther?
                    I’m honestly surprised, I thought you were smarter than that.”

                    Wildbill, you have to be pretty stupid to say that since I have always said Obama was born in Hawaii and never believed the birther story. That I believe the birth certificate MAY have been altered (not was altered) and this may be (not is) due to a paternity issue is true. There is nothing wrong with having an open opinion.

                    I spelled things out so even you can understand my position.

                    1. “No one with half a brain around here is or used to be a birther, coincidence?”

                      I don’t think so. Who do you think was a birther. I am sure most people on the left and right thought about the possibility but that was reasonable at the time when his own book (jacket) said he was born elsewhere.

                    2. I believe that erroneous blurb was on promotional material prepared by the publisher for the book’s release, and that the editor of the material apologized for the mistake.

                    3. “I believe that erroneous blurb was on promotional material prepared by the publisher for the book’s release”

                      That may be true but one has to look for what led to that even being considered. After reading Obama’s book I was convinced he should not be President.

                    4. Not just who – but what do you think is a birther ?

                      Alot of people took interest in the oddities and evasions of Obama and his birth certificate

                      Just as alot of people fixate on Trump’s tax return.

                      And as has been repeatedly noted Obama in many ways brought this on himself.

                      People take an inordinate interest in Trump’s sex life – are they “sexer’s” ?

                      Do we presume they are all idiots ?

                      There is also a difference between having an interest and a fixation and finally drawing unsupportable conclusions.

                      I find the discussion of Trump’s sex life interesting. Even the allegations I think are false.
                      That does not mean I think I am entitled to know or that
                      I can jump from Trump probably slept with Daniels to he is a sec pervert who should be impeached.

                    5. I should add that I doubt it was altered because some of the leading proponents of such an alteration, after a careful appraisal, have good reasons to believe it to be original. As I said earlier the story is meaningless because he was born in Hawaii and the other contentions are not of anyone else’s business.

                    6. You are right that most anything else is not our business.

                      But it is self evident that we all find this fascinating and want to – even demand to know.

                      While we do not have a right to know – these people do not have a right to our support.

                      We can demand proof of all the facts of Obama’s birth – and he can say no,
                      and we can decide whether we will vote for him.

                      The same with regard to Trump’s sex life.

                      We are not entitled to know.
                      But they are not entitled to our vote.

                      Politicians must satisfy our curiosity sufficient to get elected.
                      They have a right to privacy – but not a right to be elected.

                      Like you I have asserted that some things are outside our right to know.

                      Atleast some of the time I have qualified that with something to the effect of you can demand information in return for your vote – but that demand is meaningless unless there is an actual possibility that you would vote for that person.

                      You can not actually demand to know things in the hope that what is revealed will change OTHER peoples votes.

            2. wildbill99 – let’s not forget that Hillary’s campaign (probably Podesta) started the birther story and had a picture.

              1. Yes, the Clinton campaign first broached the canard. But Trump grabbed it and ran with it.
                They should both be ashamed of themselves.

                1. Why should he be ashamed of himself? He challenged Obama to release his long-form certificate. (IIRC, Gov. Abercrombie also suggested publicly he do so). Just because the media was witless in its deference to Obama doesn’t mean normal human beings are required to be.

                2. Wildbill, do you mean to say that this type of conjecture is only permitted for the Clinton campaign and not for Trump? Trump didn’t even claim it to be true but he got Obama to release his birth certificate.

                  1. The level of certainty required by people who hate President Obama and unhinged frauds like Alex Jones will forever be impossible to meet.

                    1. “The level of certainty required by people who hate President Obama and unhinged frauds like Alex Jones will forever be impossible to meet.”

                      So ? That was not what I said.

                      It is just as impossible to demonstrate to the “Argh! Trump!” crowd the idiocy of their tin foil conspiracy theories.

                  2. If someone believes that President Obama was born in Kenya they aren’t ordinary they are profoundly stupid and you can’t fix that.

                    1. I honestly do not care where he was born.
                      I would amend the constitution
                      Nor do I care if he was muslim.

                      Even the games with the birth certificate I just find interesting.
                      Provide it, don’t, but why alter it ?

                      I prefer to identify people as stupid on an individual basis.

                      Broad aspersions of character were a major factor costing democrats the last election.
                      If you want that to continue – keep insulting people by the millions.

          1. “Again, what Trump said was that there were surviving photographs of RB Cruz and Oswald.That sounds silly.”

            No it sounds like an assertion fo a fact that can be verified.

            You are the one pretending that you know exactly what the meaning is.
            Much less what the facts are.

            You are the one jumping into space.

            1. No, it’s silly. Fifty years of factoid pushers hawking their apercus RB Cruz name has never mad it into their grab bag. R.B. Cruz has spent most of his life in Texas and Lee Harvey Oswald spent much of his abbreviated life there. The two men were about the same age and had an interest in events in Cuba. That about sums up what the two men had in common. And there’s no indication they ever met bar this dodgy photograph.

        2. After being personally attacked by Cruz and his father, and after they attacked his father, Trump asked why Rafael Cruz was in a photo with Lee Harvey Oswald days before the assassination.

          Turn about is fair play.

                1. Wildbill, That is your opinion, not fact. If it is later proven that it was Cruz’s father you would not be a liar even though you were wrong.

                    1. NII, Your presumption is wrong. Wildbill provided an opinion, not a fact.

                      I didn’t discuss whether or not Cruz’s father was in the frame.

                  1. So if I say that the picture is actually one of Donald Trump assisting Lee Harvey Oswald hand out fliers, that isn’t a lie because it’s an opinion?

                    1. Wildbill, it is all a matter of the words you use. Get Trump’s quote and we can analyze it together. This wasn’t a picture Trump took. This is a picture that existed and others talked about along with the fact that the man with Oswald looked like Cruz’s father. Look at how quickly you jumped on concluding Trump was involved with the golden showers. That was an intentional falsehood.

                      Both of these things IMO didn’t belong.

                    2. I said that the golden showers tale from the dossier actually happened? When? I have no idea whether it did or not and not enough imformation to have an opinion on it.
                      What I concievably might have said was that there was nothing in Trump’s character that would preclude such an event from taking place, but that is miles away from saying it happened.

                    3. I’m glad you think you didn’t say the golden showers was true. Your comment about Trump’s character that would not preclude such a thing from happening is wrong. I’ve watched you bash Trump without a reasonable basis, but now that that is behind us that is OK.

                    4. My answer wildbill wasn’t discussing Trump’s character in general just your assessment of your not seeing anything inconsistent with the golden showers and Trump. That is it. We all recognize his eccentricities and the fact that in public he can act like a jerk at times, however the reports I have seen and heard from people that know him say he is very gracious and polite in private.

                    5. Actually there is nothing we know about Trump that would suggest this episode is true.

                      You seem to think that any sexual appetite include all fetishes

                      Urolagnia is a specific fetish. There is zero evidence that Trump is into it, and a great deal of evidence he is not.

                      In fact Trump seems to be fairly tame sexually – meaning he has a large but not unusual appetite.

                      He is a meat and potatos man, not into exotic cuisine.

                      Further he is a well known germ-o-phobe.

                    6. An actual lie is a statement you KNOW is false.

                      It is not a statement that is false but that you beleive to be true.

                      It certainly not a statement without a known truth value.

            1. Do I beleive that Cruz was in a photo with Oswald shortly before the shooting ?
              That is the only allegation that was explicitly made.

              Everything else was implied – just as Cruz’s attack on Trump and his father that led to this were by implication.

              With respect to what I beleive about the Kennedy Assassination – there are a bazillion theories and rumours. Most have not been refuted. Most are unlikely and I do not “beleive them”
              But something is True.

              I do not need to beleive or disbelieve anything. Among other things we are not dealing with things that are binary. I can think the photo is troubling and want an explanation, without jumping to Crus was a co-conspirator. Or can beleive the photo is just coincidence.

              There is not a correct beleif.

            2. Wildbill, fair play can be pretty disgusting. An eye for an eye sounds like fair play. Cutting off an arm of a thief sounds like fair play to Muslims that believe in Sharia Law.

              Your idea of fair play is the news media can brutally attack Trump without knowing the facts while it is unfair for Trump to defend himself even though at a later time what Trump said was proven to be substantially correct.

    3. “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

      – Barry Soetoro

      I hate America, the American Founders, the American Constitution and patriotic Americans and I’m going to get rid of all of them.

      That was no lie.

      1. Crazy George, the whacky conspiracy gourmet.

        Here’s the lie:

        “I hate America, the American Founders, the American Constitution and patriotic Americans and I’m going to get rid of all of them.”

    4. Perhaps it is because Trump supporters take what he says seriously but not literally. We don’t see him as a liar. Lying is when you tell everyone “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” in order to take over nearly 20% of the American economy

      1. You don’t take what the buffoon says literally? Like when he was pushing his lying, racist Birther fantasy, he didn’t really mean it? It was some sort of metaphor?

        Really?

        1. wildbill99 – I bought Trump’s birther fantasy as much as I did Hillary’s birther fantasy, except she had a picture.

          1. I didn’t buy into them because I’m not into the habit of buying into ignorant racist lies.

            And I would bet that you didn’t either.

            1. Wildbill it is not an ignorant racist lie unless the person making the statement knows that what he is saying is not true.

              You called it a racist lie.

              You called it a lie because you are a bit fuzzy on what a lie actually is.
              You called it racist which was a lie because you attached the word racist on purpose without thinking whether or not racism was even involved in the statement made.

              1. The Birther nonsense is a lie because it is not true. I suppose you could absolve a believer in that nonsense of lying and credit it to sheer stupidity, that seems a valid point.
                The underlying racism of the Birther lie was to paint our first Black President as someone not connected to America, as alien, as “the other”. Sort of what Trump does when he puts forth the preposterous claim that Obama was hiding his birth certificate because it said he was Muslim.

                1. People believe all sorts of things if they want to. Golden showers and Obama not being born in the US are two good examples. However, there is a difference between conjecture and a statement of fact. There is also a difference in what people actually say and what you say they say. When you quoted Trump as lying earlier there were no lies to be found so I have to question your interpretations.

                2. You take something incredibly multi-facetted and you make it binary.

                  A person is who they are regardless of where they were born.

                  In the event Obama was actually born in Kenya that does not change who he is.
                  Nor does where he was born or what people think about where he was born make one racist.

                  The issue matters only because being born in america is a constitutional requirement for the president.

                  Further regardless of where Obama was born, he had absolutely nothing to do with that.

                  As to the facts – it is highly improbable that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii.

                  That said Obama has been as difficult about providing his birth certificate as Trump about providing his taxes – with the difference that the constitution does not dictate anything about your taxes as a qualification for president.

                  It is unlikely that Obama has been difficult without some cause. But that cause is not likely to be because he was not born in Hawaii, but more likely something like who was listed as his father.

                  Regardless credible experts have examined the Birth Certificate PDF provided by the Obama Whitehouse and concluded it was edited.

                  As to Obama’s connection to the US – he spent a significant part of his childhood growing up outside the US. You can argue about whether that is good or bad. But it is definitely true.

                  Pointing out facts does not make you racist.

                  I personally think Obama is a decent person – or I did until even more misconduct in his administration was exposed.

                  But he was a lousy president. That is not racism. It is an observation of fact.

                  If you continue to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of racism, you will continue to lose the argument and lose elections.

                  Even if it is actually true – if sufficient portion of voters are actually racist – then you are going to have to figure out how to deal with them to get what you want and win elections.
                  You will not get anyway calling them “hateful hating haters” That is not the way to “make freinds and influence people”

                1. You seem to be asking a lot of people whether or not they were birthers even though they have stated their opinions multiple times. Is that because you have trouble reading?

                  NII asked you what business it was of yours. I’d like to see the answer.

                  I was never a birther. I saw news articles of his birth in Hawaii newspapers. That convinced me along with a lot of other things that he was born where he said he was born.

                  1. No birthers here. Not anyone with half a brain, obviouslyGeorge and Ralph don’t clear that bar so they don’t count. It just confirms me in my opinion that to be a Birther (or a Truther for that matter) you have to be some kind of an idiot.

                  2. Like you I quickly came to the conclusion that Obama was highly likely born in Hawaii.

                    BUT I was fascinated by Obama’s game playing over the birth certificate – and as I noted I think the PDF of the long form birth certificate the white house provided is likely altered.

                    Again Obama created the controversy.

                    I do not think finding it interesting
                    Makes you stupid.

                    Also interesting is that sidney Blumenthal is the root of two incredibly persistant political smears.

                    Birtherism and Trump/Russia collusion.

              1. Dodgy? He was born in the Panama Canal Zone to American parents because his Naval Officer father was stationed there.

                That made him a natural born U.S. citizen without question.

        2. I don’t remember him lying. I remember him asking for clarification and a birth certificate which is a reasonable request.

          Why don’t you quote his words and let us see how accurate your term lying is. You seem to define things in your own fashion like the term deep state which I demonstrated had more than one meaning with the more common meaning not being used by you.

          1. “He doesn’t have a birth certificate, or if he does, there’s something on that certificate that is very bad for him. Now, somebody told me — and I have no idea if this is bad for him or not, but perhaps it would be — that where it says ‘religion,’ it might have ‘Muslim.’ And if you’re a Muslim, you don’t change your religion, by the way.”
            – March 30, 2011, on The Laura Ingraham Show

            “He didn’t know he was running for president, so he told the truth. The literary agent wrote down what he said … He said he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia … Now they’re saying it was a mistake. Just like his Kenyan grandmother said he was born in Kenya, and she pointed down the road to the hospital, and after people started screaming at her, she said, ‘Oh, I mean Hawaii.’ Give me a break.”
            – May 24, 2012, interview with The Daily Beast’s Lloyd Grove, responding to an erroneous report about Obama

            Well there’s two for you. Solid lies with some religious bigotry thrown in. Typical Trump.

            1. Wildbill,(accepting the statements as accurate) I don’t see a lie. I see questions that existed at the time for reasonable reasons based on Obama’s book (jacket included), school records etc. It turns out that Obama was born in Hawaii, but what his religion was at various times is uncertain. Prove to me that Trump is lying based on these statements. Do you understand what a lie is.

              If you said you heard Turley was not born in this country would that be considered a lie? Trump is basically repeating what others said and thought whether they were mistakes in Obama’s books or attempts to get Obama enrolled in a Muslim school.

            2. What part of Trump’s remarks are lies ?

              At the very best MAYBE at this point some have proven in accurate.

              A statement that was plausible based on the knowlede of the time than ultimately because false or less likely is not a lie.

        3. Hey shit for brains, Hillary started the birther stuff when it mattered, in 2007-2008. Trump joined in as a lark when it didn’t matter to him personally. Get a grip and stop being a troll loser. Life is too short.

  4. HAHAHA. Hannity, owner of shell companies and vulture capitalist, makes fortune off foreclosed homes after bashing Obama for the housing crisis.

    1. “HAHAHA. Hannity, owner of shell companies and vulture capitalist, makes fortune off foreclosed homes after bashing Obama for the housing crisis.”

      Amyd, this is the first time I heard this on this blog. Why don’t you provide the proof for your contentions? It appears you are developing a psychiatric profile for yourself.

      1. “Fox News’s Sean Hannity spent years slamming President Barack Obama and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the foreclosure rate, even as he profited off foreclosed homes and received subsidies from HUD.”

        Not illegal, but many consider it hypocritical and unseemly in light of Hannity’s past comments on HUD forecloses.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/hannity-blamed-obama-for-foreclosures-even-as-he-profited-off-foreclosures/2018/04/24/b92a6de0-47e2-11e8-8082-105a446d19b8_video.html?utm_term=.dbb8759bfa08

        1. How do they know he ‘received subsidies’ or that he ‘profited from foreclosures’ above and beyond the return you would get from any worthwhile economic transactions?

        2. Thank goodness for people that buy foreclosed homes. If no one bought them property values would decline. I’d slam Obama also for the foreclosure rate. He was President and wasn’t a very good one.

          1. I have no gripe with people who buy foreclosed properties. It’s not their fault that the previous owners failed to meet their obligations. They perform a useful social service by putting the properties back to there purpose of providing housing. I only posted the Post piece because the other commenter said he was unaware of the controversy.

    2. Not a fan of Hannity – but nothing you note is a crime.

      In fact nothing you note is even bad.

      No one with even a tiny amount of personal wealth would start a business that was not a corporation.

      There is no meaning to “shell corporation”. The fundimental purpose of all corporations is to divorce the owners of something from liability beyond their ownership. Doing so requires that they NOT participate in management, or that they are very very careful in their actions if they do.

      Buying anything that is for sale is a service. The more people who will buy something, the higher the price is. If Hanity is buying foreclosed properties, then he is trading his wealth for those properties – that helps banks, and owners to recover. If no one bought these, things would be worse, not better.

      As much as I would like to blame Obama for the housing crisis, the primary responsibility for that rests with the federal reserve, secondary responsibility with HUD/Fannie/Freddie/Congress/Clinton/Bush
      Though there was going to be a bubble no matter what. Those actions just determined Where.

      1. No, the primary responsibility is not with the Federal Reserve, except in the mind of Austro-cranks.

        1. “primary responsibility is not with the Federal Reserve”

          NII when you say that I assume you are talking about the housing crisis.

          1. That’s what the man said.

            The decoupling of housing prices and nominal incomes began in 1997 and ran on for about 9 years. It took about 2.5 years for prices to crash. The Federal Funds rate was abnormally low from the fall of 2002 to the fall of 2004 and that arguably contributed to an inflation of asset prices. There’s a small current of economists whose avocation is promoting an updated version of the gold standard called a ‘currency board’ and the notion that the Fed’s ‘disastrous policy of inflation-targeting’ was the cause of the boom and bust is quite attractive to them. Doesn’t mean it’s true.

            1. I agree with you. I think our housing policies before the crash were disastrous and the fixes were destructive and made things worse. I just wanted to make sure you weren’t extending your comment to the Great Depression. I assume your term Austro-cranks was aimed only at the cranks and not including the Austrian school.

              1. No, the Austrian school is a set of fringe economists.

                As for the housing bubble, well, it’s not as if mispricing of assets is an unknown phenomenon. You also had the ruin of the GSE’s which were notionally private companies but had incestuous relations with Democratic politicians. One milestone during the crisis was in 2003 when Freddie Mac slashed underwriting standards. In addition, efforts by Brooksley Born, then chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to flush out the market in OTC derivatives in 1998 were sabotaged by Clinton Administration officials (one of whom later offered his regrets). Ultimately, though, it was what commercial companies were willing to do to themselves. See Joseph Cassano’s Financial Products Unit at AIG, see Angelo Mozilo’s Countrywide, see Kerry Killinger’s Washington Mutual (which continued making subprime loans until 2007), see miscellaneous characters at Lehman.

                1. “No, the Austrian school is a set of fringe economists.”

                  I don’t’ think either Ludwig Von Mises or Hayek were fringe economists if you are meaning outside of realistic thought.

                  We probably mostly agree on the housing bubble and yes the Democrats played a large part.

                  1. Hayek was not. “Austrian” today refers to intellectual descendants of Murray Rothbard, and, yes, they are fringe.

                    1. Hayek, in fact, seems to be the only Austrian economist born in Austria. “Hayek was the best-known advocate of what is now called Austrian economics.” http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Hayek.html Apparently you don’t know Mises. He taught at NYU and was brilliant.

                      Murray Rothbard is a different story. Though some consider him an Austrian economist he has his own economics. He had heterodox views.

                    2. Generally the mount pelerin society defines late austrians.
                      Hayek, Mises and Friedman were founders, though Friedman is not an austrian. He is the founder of the chicago school.

                      Rothbard is only nominally tied to mount pelerin and it more properly understood as an anarcho-capitalist rather than an austrian.

                      Mises and Hayek are the penultimate Austrians.

                      The austrians are considered “heterodox”. They are merely one branch of modern classical economics – as opposed to socialist economics and keynesian economics.

                      Both Socialists and Keynessian – of all flavors are distinguished by the fact that their economics fails in practice.

                      Austrians most significant economic contribution is the assertion that you must start economic reasoning with humans and human behavior, that you can not reason directly from real world observations to economic principles – because the real world is far to complex.

                      Austrians and the chicago school share large portions of the same monetarist framework.
                      Which is important because it is that framework that predicted the 70’s keynesian failure, as well as the cure that Volker implimented. It is that framework – rather than the Keynesian or classical framework that Bernanke stayed close enough to to avoid a depression in 2009. It is that framework that predicted bot the great depression and great recession.

                      That Framework is the common monetarist core share by Mises, Hayek and Friedman.

                      When I state the truism that standard of living rises when more value is produced with less human effort
                      I am stating that OBVIOUS foundation. Grasp that value is what we produce, and that its measure is what we chose it to be, and you can determine everything important about money from that.

                      A recession can only occur because we produce less value. Either we produce less, or we value what we produce less. In the Great Recession over time we increased the value we placed on housing. At some point we came to the realization that we had significantly overvalued housing. From that moment forward recession was inevitable. The wealth of the nation suddenly dropped by 11T – because we adjusted the value we gave to homes, and that loss meant that absolutely everything that was intrinsic to the value of housing alst declined in value precipitously. That means mortgages, MBS’s, CDO’s, CDS’s
                      all “securities” tied to the value of a house.

                      Much of this is either completely or significantly incorporated into modern economics.

                    3. Apparently you don’t know Mises. He taught at NYU and was brilliant.

                      Austrian promoters slap his name on their small think tank.

                      A range of characters apply the term ‘Austrian’ to themselves. Abroad within that nexus (though not universally subscribed to) is a denial of the validity of empirical testing of economic propositions, a denial of the validity of conventional modes of theoretical formulation within microeconomics, a mess of discourse which pretends to be derived from philosophy of science, peddling disaster scenarios (see what Peter Boettke was saying to general audiences seven years ago), voodoo economic history, and policy nostrums which have generated honest-to-god disasters in select loci. Here’s a partial critique:

                      http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

                      Personally, I wouldn’t invest much time in it. I suppose rummaging through it would be an intellectual exercise for those interested.

                    4. NII, you believe everything is black and white when a lot of things are mostly grey.

                      I will quote from your own assistant professor’s viewpoint: “My equation of Austrian economics with Mises and Rothbard rather than F.A. Hayek is bound to be controversial.”

                      You do know what the word controversial means, right? Controversial. When you make a statement of fact to be backed up by one assistant professor who states things are controversial that takes your statement of fact and places it into a statement of controversy.

                    5. “is a denial of the validity of empirical testing of economic propositions, a denial of the validity of conventional modes of theoretical formulation within microeconomics, a mess of discourse which pretends to be derived from philosophy of science”

                      A highly inaccurate and inflamitory misrepresentation.

                      I would suggest reading Hayek’s nobel valedictory
                      The pretense of knowledge.
                      https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html

                      Though Paul Romer had a recent technical economics paper that using Mathematics asserted the same thing.

                      The gist of which is that for any complex system modeled by complex equations with multiple coefficents.
                      The mathematics is sufficiently flexible that you can take any economic theory and by adjusting the coeficients unrelated to the theory perfectly model the past – appearing to prove your theory.

                      What Romer proved was that core of Austrian economics – it actually predates austrians,
                      essentially that you can not reason from math and data on a complex system to theory and principle.
                      That the process only works ONE WAY. You must reason from an understanding of human behavior and logic to economic principles – and then you can test those principles with mathematics and data.

                      You can disagree with that claim – though it is pretty solid, but your disagreement does not make it meritless.

                      Further Romer is a Neo Keynesian – not an Austrian

                      So rather than claiming that Austrians are weirdo’s that beleive this thing that no one else does,
                      You might consider the fact that you have misrepresented than “thing” and that Austrians did not conceive it, and are far from alone in accepting it.

                      Caplan’s critique is pretty good, but quite different from your misrepresentation.
                      I would note that Caplan’s critique boils down to:

                      There is not much difference between neoclassical economics and austrian economics.

                      I think that is a pretty good critique, one at odds with your characterization.

                  2. The “housing” part of the housing bubble was the consequence of bad policies driven by government.

                    The bubble was the consequence of the Fed’s loose monetary policy.
                    There was going to be a bubble somewhere and it was going to burst disasterously.

                    Though it would be very hard to find a worse place for a bubble than housing.

                    A bubble in a durable asset that is the “security” for myriads of “securities” – like mortgages and MBS’s and … is going to cause the worst damage when it bursts.

                    Not only does the value of the asset tank – but as we saw the value of anything secured by that asset must also tank. Basically the harm is multiplied

                    1. The bubble was the consequence of the Fed’s loose monetary policy.

                      It was a neat trick of Dr. Greenspan to begin inflating a bubble in 1997 by monetary policy followed from the fall of 2002 to the fall of 2004.

                    2. “It was a neat trick of Dr. Greenspan to begin inflating a bubble in 1997 by monetary policy followed from the fall of 2002 to the fall of 2004.”

                      I would suggest reading John B. Taylor on this – yes the guy or created the Taylor Rule.

                      Taylor demonstrates that Greenspan started to deviate from the Taylor rule in the late 90’s.

                      You can agree or disagree, but all other arguments equal, I think I am going with the guy whose Rule provided the fix to stagflation and the longest sustained period of strong economic growth in US history.

                      We deviated from the rule and things went to hell.

                      I will however agree that between 2002 and 2004 the opertunity existed to burst the bubble with FAR less harm.

                2. It it crystal clear that you are clueless about Austrian economics.

                  Though I would note that Austrian economics is NOT central to any of the arguments I have made.
                  Friedman works equally well on the monetarist economics.
                  And Coase works fine for the rest.

                  Friedman, Coase, Lucas, Barro, …. and myriads of Nobel’s and leading non-keynesians of the past century are for the most part NOT austrian, yet they differ little if at all from much of what I am saying.

                3. I do not disagree – atleast not significantly with most of the rest of the observations in your post.

                  Our fundimental disagreement is that you confuse effect for cause.

                  All the things you note happened, and they were bad. But all were the consequences of easy money.

                  When money is tight – the reward/risk ration of investments must be very very positive.
                  Either the reward must be high or the risk must be low.

                  The more freely money flows the lower the reward/risk ration necesscary to receive investment will be.

                  Absolutely trillions of dollars were invested at high risk and low reward in housing.

                  That investment was driven by TWO factors
                  there was more money available than better quality investments could absorb.
                  Government polices encouraged investment in housing – even where the risk was high and the reward low.

                  Absolutely those in the industry – countrywide, Fannie, Freddie, ….
                  lobbied hard and successfully for those government policies.

                  But if money had been tighter – it would not have mattered.

                  I have heard credible estimates that a 1% increase in the interest rates of sub prime mortgages would have completely averted the housing bubble.

                  Even small errors over long periods compound to disaster.

                  Only government can move everyone in the same direction for long periods

              2. Hayek predicted the start of the great depression to within a month a few years in advance.

                He did so based on seeing very similar things to what preceded the great recession.

                In the great depression – we had both a housing bubble and a factory bubble.

        2. Hayek won the nobel prize for his work on Banks and money – essentially the stuff you are calling crankery.

          But to address your delusion this is strictly Austrian – Freidman’s nobel was for very similar work regarding the origens of the Great Depression.

          Friedman’s most famous aphorism is that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomena”

          And that is precisely what we are talking about.

          When the Fed gets monetary policy wrong there is inflation. When that inflation concentrates in one area of the economy – that is a bubble – and bubbles will always burst.
          When that bubble is in a durable asset – such as housing there will be strong resistance to market clearing as the bubble bursts, and the consequence will be a recession.
          The dot.com bubble bursting did not cause a recession.
          But the housing bubble bursting did.

          Between Friedman and Hayek you have two of the 4 greatest economist of the past 100 years.
          You can add Coase to that list and now 3 of the 4 greatest economists in the past 100 years are classical liberals or one sort or another.

          Further all the above is, it the application of the law of supply and demand to money and banking.

          All economics – including keynes and marx accept the laws of supply and demand.

          So no this is not “Austro-Cranks”. This is ordinary economics.
          What it is NOT is the vodoo economics of the left.

          Finally, Bernanke’s quite successfull efforts to navigate the fallout and avoid transforming a recession into a depression were openly and heavily informed by the work of Friedman.

          That would be the Freidman who won a nobel for demonstrating that the Great Depression was caused by exactly the same monetary errors as the great recession – Central Banks keeping money easy for too long.

          I would strongly suggest you learn something about economics before spewing uninformed garbage.

          There are several good condensed versions of Adam Smith’s WON – the book that started it all.

          Ronald Coase’s how china became capitalist is not only an excellent post mao history of china but a good and easy to understand primer on economics.
          Hazlit’s economics in one lesson is available on line for free and is reasonably accessible.

          The entire works of Bastitat was excellent humerous and readable and not very long.

          1. You have a grab bag of notions in your head. Some are right, most are wrong. Running your mouth and striking stupid poses does not make the wrong notions correct.

            1. “You have a grab bag of notions in your head. Some are right, most are wrong. Running your mouth and striking stupid poses does not make the wrong notions correct.”

              There is little that I am saying – particularly about economics that is much more than expressing those like Hayek, or Friedman, or Coase, or Barro, or Lucas, or Acemoglu or any number of other nobel winners – or Adam Smith or … in my own words.

              My expressions are not some disjoint grab bag, they are actually a integrated system that is essentially the most modern version of the same classical liberal economics that Adam Smith expressed.

              I have some formulaic ways of expressing certain principles that are my own unique wording.
              But the principles frequently go back to Smith.

              Regardless – if you think I am wrong about something – argue it.

              Insulting me or the argument is not argument, it is fallacy.

                1. NII, I think John makes a lot of good points though I disagree with some. Telling him he is confused doesn’t make it so. I’ll give one simple example. You say Hayek and Mises aren’t considered Austrian economists when they are. You disparage Rothbard who has a lot of ideas that do not conform with either Hayek or Mises so perhaps he is the heterodox economist. John was also right in separating Friedman (U. of Chicago) from Hayek and Mises though they have more in common with Friedman than Rothbard does with Mises.

                  1. This is subjective but if I were to create spectrum

                    Barro, Coase, Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Rothbard.

                    With canonical Austrian lying between Hayek and Mises.

                    Each of these has something important to contribute.

                    I do not think anyone calles Friedman Austrian – even though he was a founding member of the Mont Pelerin Society.

                    At the same time everyone one of these would be described as the economic heirs of classical liberalism.

                    I am personally more familiar with those from Hayek left. Rothbard is most strongly associated with AnCap’s while I do not thing that Barro calls himself Libertarian.

                    Further they all had their own personal contributions
                    Friedman, Hayek and I beleive Rothbard did critical thinking on banking and money.
                    The rest did not as an example.

                2. “No, you’re confused.’
                  Assertion without evidence, and Ad Hominem rather that argument.

                  What have I expressed that you think is confused that is not a paraphrase of one of the great economists ?

    3. So what you are saying is that Hannity is part of the club? Wouldn’t surprise me. That’s why the only Fox guy Independents tune into on ocassion is Tucker Carlson.

      1. What ‘club’?

        You mean someone forecloses on a property, no one should buy it? Have you thought through the implications of that?

        1. I think the housing crisis at the turn of the century would have been far less severe had politics not extended the bottom out period. Had investors seen a real bottom earlier they would have (foreclosed) bought the properties and prevented a further spiral downward that included loses for people that had invested in a wise fashion. Condos got killed in Florida because the speculators stopped paying their condo fees and that increased the maintenance of others and reduced their condo value. They fell and that caused a spiral of defaults where the condo values turned upside down.

          It is Autumn’s economics that destroyed many hard-working families.

          1. Prices collapsed over a period of about 30 months. Not sure why you think it should have happened more quickly.

            1. I was not discussing the timing per se rather that investors look for a bottom and that bottom was delayed in a multiplicity of ways and thereby became deeper than it would have become if the situation was managed better.

                1. One example: banks didn’t foreclose on a lot of condo properties in Florida while those owning the property didn’t pay the fees that dragged everyone else with them and started a domino effect.

                  1. Again, the Case-Shiller Index reached the bottom around about March 2009. You’re referring to foreclosure procedures, which are undertaken according to procedures in state law.

                    1. Martin Feldstein had a suggestion early on in the collapse and I think he was correct. The government added a bunch of things that never attacked the underlying problem quickly which was what was needed and my guess is that lengthened the decline. No one thing is totally responsible for the lack of a quicker bottom, but the market in Florida, perhaps the worst hit, fell far lower than it should have and that caused many Floridians to lose property that under reasonable circumstances they never would have lost.

                    2. I should have added that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are federal or if you prefer quasi-federal.

                    3. No, they were private companies, but companies with an incestuous relationship with the Democratic Party. Exhibits A and B, Franklin Raines and Herb Moses.

              1. The depression of 1921 was rapid, deep, and short, with a rapid recovery.

                Obviously we would all prefer that recessions never occured, that if they did they were short, and that if they did they were shallow.

                Regardless, the “bottom” is determined by the amount of false value the market must purge.

                Delaying the bottom does not change where it is at.
                It just increases the area under the curve – essentially the amount of pain.

                Even Keynes ultimately grasped that you could not spend your way out of an economic downturn,
                that politicians could neither act rapidly enough, efficiently enough nor target the correct portions of the market for stimulus.

                The economy does not magically recover because you spend more.
                You must get value for what you spend.
                You must also spend such that those specific parts of the economy needing assistance are aided and not anything else. Otherwise you create new bubbles, or you harm other parts of the market by moving needed resources.

                The massive spending on highways – first took far longer than was required to have any benefit, and second removed resources from productive parts of the economy and directed them to roads.
                IT did NOT put those people who were out of work back to work.
                Moving already productive people from one part of the economy to another is harmful not beneficial.

                1. “Regardless, the “bottom” is determined by the amount of false value the market must purge.”

                  It is also determined by perception. Often markets fall well below their value and often markets climb well above their value. (That is how I made a lot of money)

                  “Delaying the bottom does not change where it is at.”

                  Of course, it does. Delaying lets more people fall into the hole and that causes the bottom to fall further. That was sharply seen in the condo market in Florida where a lot of people would not have gone under had the bottom not been delayed.

                  1. “It is also determined by perception. Often markets fall well below their value and often markets climb well above their value. (That is how I made a lot of money)”

                    Value is subjective.

                    “Of course, it does. Delaying lets more people fall into the hole and that causes the bottom to fall further. That was sharply seen in the condo market in Florida where a lot of people would not have gone under had the bottom not been delayed.”

                    My remark was an over generalization.
                    At the same time while your analysis is potentially correct, the opposite is equally likely, and because the market is unbeleiveably complex there is alittle of both with an uncertain net outcome.

                    I am more concerned about a different effect of delay.

                    Stretching things out increased the area under the curve – the misery if you will.

                    Short and deep is likely far better for all that long and shallow.

                    1. Allan: “It is also determined by perception.”

                      John: “Value is subjective.”

                      The statements are not different.

                      “My remark was an over generalization.”

                      I was referring to what actually happened as opposed to theory.

                    2. I noted before that every reply is not disagreement.

                      The subjective theory of value was conceived in the late 19th century by the Austrians, Utilitarians, and Neoclasical schools.

                      What people do politically
                      and what people do that works are both reality not theory, even when they conflict.

                    3. “I noted before that every reply is not disagreement.”

                      I understand that, but you are assuming others know when the reply is agreement instead of disagreement.

                    4. I am presuming that people can read and do not automatically raise their hackles.

                      Though you and I have significant stylistic differences as well as differences in emphasis,
                      we are in pretty close agreement on most things.

                      Quite often my response to a post of yours is merely to emphasize something in your post that is more significant to me than you – even though we agree.

                      More rarely I disagree, though usually about minor points or details.

                      At the same time I have actually posted agreement with even some of the left wing nuts posting her – when they rarely – often accidentally say something correct.

                    5. “I am presuming that people can read and do not automatically raise their hackles.”

                      I can read but as you know words and phrases can have a multiplicity of meanings even when hackles aren’t raised.

          2. I would differ on details but not on your theme.

            One of the reasons that the dot com bubble bursting did not result in a recession while the housing bubble did, is that the tech bubble was in highly liquid assets held mostly be investors who took their losses quickly and moved on.

            Bubbles in durable assets – particularly those held by ordinary people are the most harmful.

            The complexity of our legal system with respect to foreclosure is on net significantly harmful.

            It is important that possession of an asset can only be changed on compelling proof of a failure by the borrower.

            But given that standard can be met time is of the essence.
            Neither the lender nor the borrowers interests are served by an extended expensive process.

            Foreclosure is an extremely expensive and harmful process whose only value is barring lenders from making errors. All the rest of the cost is waste.

            1. A burst bubble in homes affects the spending patterns of homeowners and all people who have wealth tied up in their homes. It is much more serious than a tech bubble and more painful to the working class.

              The focus should have been on jobs and to stabilize the housing market so the downward spiral would stop earlier before so many people were dragged down.

              1. “A burst bubble in homes affects the spending patterns of homeowners and all people who have wealth tied up in their homes. It is much more serious than a tech bubble and more painful to the working class.”

                All true, and still only part of the negative effects.

                “The focus should have been on jobs and to stabilize the housing market so the downward spiral would stop earlier before so many people were dragged down.”

                The record of government jobs programs is absolutley horrid. Many studies have found that government jobs programs actually make people LESS employable.

                The only positive thing government can do for the housing market – is get out of it.

                Once the bubble was created there was no stopping its collapse.
                There was 11T in false value in the market. Until that 11T was cleared there will be problems.
                Recovery starts when the market has cleared the error.

                1. Jobs: Private or jobs the government was going to do in the near future mostly infrastructure such as bridges, roads, and the grid.

                  “can do for the housing market – is get out of it.”

                  That is true, but the government created this mess for many people that lost their homes and weren’t speculating. I thought Martin Feldstein at the time was thinking on the right track.

                  “Until that 11T was cleared ”

                  I don’t have the exact amount, but the market in some areas fell way below real value and that pulled a lot of people with it.

    4. The pure ignorance in this post is confirming to those of us with an IQ over 50, it does not do what you think it might do.

  5. Why have prosecutions not been instituted against, among others, Ms. Paige, Messrs. McCabe, Comey, Brennan, Clapper and Strozck?

    Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare they have become the tools of corrupt interests, which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.

    Theodore Roosevelt

    The Modern Trinity
    Oligarchy, Monopoly, kleptocracy

    Once the Oligarchy is above the law, the Republic is already dead.

    Restore the Rule Of Law
    Restore the Constitution
    Reclaim the Republic

    dennis hanna

  6. Whatever, according to a TNYT article today, Earth Day Sunday, James Comney is a remarkably well read man. Would that commenters here were even a tithe so…

    1. George Bush was a remarkably well read man.

      I have not read the TNYT article but I would be shocked if Comey is half so well read as I.
      There are several other commentors here that are atleast as well read.

      I am not impressed by Comey. I do not think it is possible to read and understand the most significant works of the world and remain a statist, or a progressive.

      You and I have jousted over climate before – you keep trying to sell some “climate historian”
      You might want to read the Actual IPCC AR5 sections – the ones written by and for scientists, not the garbage faux summary for policy makers.

  7. almost 2 years of investigations, tremdous presure on Trump and his surogates, and though there are some pleas to avoid being bankrupted, no one has turned on Trump or anyone else.

    Meanwhile before the first criminal referal the Clinton lackeys have all formed a circular firing squad.

    Manafort has more principles than Comey, McCabe or Lynch.
    When Manafort looks good next to you – then you are really scum.

    1. Flynn hasn’t copped a plea and agreed to cooperate with the investigation? Nor Rick Gates? Or Papadopoulos? If Cohen flips and spills his guts, will that not count either?

      I guess if you don’t count the Trump associates currently cooperating, then no Trump associates are currently cooperating….

      Cordially, Bill

      1. wildbill99 – Manafort is making a solid attack on the SC and the release of the Comey memos is really going to help his case.

      2. The Flynn plea is stalled, Judge Sullivan ordered that the Prosecutor provide Flynn EVERYTHING.
        It is rumoured that Flynn is considering walking back the plea because of Prosecutorial misconduct.
        If so he has a very strong claim. McCabe’s involvement and McCabe’s reputation for vengence would be damning.

        Judge Sulivan has a very low tolerance for Prosecutorial misconduct.

        What of Gates – Manafort – the least appealing of all, it waging a war of anhiliation against the SC,
        and doing increasingly well.

        I have no idea what Gates and Papadoulis “cooperation” means.

        You presume that they actually have something to tell.

        The same with Cohen.

        One of the problems with the entire Trump Russia narative is that if as is near certain it did not happen, there is no “flipping”, cooperation means telling Mueller everything – but everything is nothing.

        Meanwhile Comey, McCabe and Lynch are in a circular firing squad.
        They are already ratting each other out.

        They are behaving exactly as you would expect guilty conspirators to do.

        You have had almost 2 years to come up with something.

        The further this investigation goes the more evidence their is of criminal political corruption on the part of the Clinton campaign and the Obama DOJ/FBI.

        We now KNOW that there were no sources in the IC used in the FISA Warrant. The Five Eyes Committee(FVEY) has confirmed that they provided no intelligence regarding Trump Russia – and that is the only legitimate external means to obtain intelligence on US citizens.
        It is now apparant that the Downer Papadoulis story is like the Steele Dossier – a political product that was brought to the FBI from the State Department – not the IC, and that it came from Blumenthal and HFA.

        In short the basis for this investigation was entirely manufactured by Trump’s political opponent, and fed to the FBI.

        You have no credible Basis for the start of the investigation.
        You have found nothing but process violations and tangents since then.

        HOWEVER criminal political corruption of State/DOJ/FBI have been exposed – and the evidence of that is growing.

        When investigations lead nowhere – there is usually a reason – there is nowhere to go.
        When they keep expanding into more fertile areas, when those invovled start pointing fingers at each others – that strongly suggests there is substance and important things we do not yet know.

      3. Wildbill, Many people have in their kitchens peanut butter, jelly, and white bread. That, however, doesn’t mean that all these people have peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. When someone says they do because the components exist it means they have drawn conclusions beyond normal reality. That is what you are doing and that demonstrates a lack of logical thinking.

  8. I’ll bet a nickel, judging by their actions the left is meaning the progressive liberal socialist left is crying like a rat eating onions. wait until they find out rats like onions and they no longer have that excuse. Squeaky wasn’t that you that tipped me off on the rats and onions fallacy?

  9. Everyone should try to find some thing to look at the bright side of life. I have found such a thing.

    Do you realize that Mr. Turley has not written anything on this blog that relates to Stormy Daniels in the last 11 stories? This is a phenomenal run for Mr. Turley. There was a period when a day couldn’t pass without some discussion of Stormy Daniels did this, or Stormy Daniels did that, and the legal implications of Stormy Daniels are continuing to mount and to have dire consequences, and so on, and so forth.

    Considering that Mr. Turley has been obsessed with Stormy Daniels and has managed to work her in virtually every story he published from one to next, to go through such an astonishing dry spell in 11 straight stories demonstrates that there is possibility that Mr. Turley might actually develop and grow.

    Sure, Mr. Turley might succumb to his obsession in the next week, yield to his addictive personality, and fall of the wagon with yet another Stormy Daniels story, or even be compelled to write a brief string of them in a cathartic binge. But I see genuine development here and signs of real emotional growth and maturity.

    Who knows, in time, we may actually see Mr. Turley publish a genuinely thoughtful and objective story with real legal insights in which his inherent anti-Trump stance and his passionate obsession with Stormy Daniels is but a faint and fleeting odor in the distance, if present at all? Let us wish Mr. Turley well on his road to emotional growth and maturity.

    1. The Professor reminds me of my old Amereican History , Civics and Problems teacher who doubled in Speech and Debate. plus coached basketball. He delighted in putting out controversial subjects for reports due bang the next day written or oral. Sometimes extemperaneous two minute speech assignments and always managed to assign the subject to those with contrary viewpoints.

      I’ve noticed that in a lot of his initial subjects. Some complain and come up with not much and some come up with genuine sourced material and then there are the drones….

      Finally we have those that spend a great deal of time defending the right to be drones.

      The Daniels episode was and is an assignment in ethics, values, morals, which demand a basic personal belief system and that requires a philosophy.

      I would cheerfully like to know, not who but the percentage of pass and fails to see if it matches my summation. Pass being independent sourced thinking and reasoning versus flat out fail… regurgitation of the current ‘party line.’ Be that party secular, religious, political, or the old standby… it was good enough for paw and grandpaw ii’s good enouugh for me version.

    2. I agree, Ralph Wiggums, I too have grown weary of tales of Trump’s depravity.

      Everyone takes it for granted now, even his erstwhile defenders, so why must we be constantly be regaled with tales of Trump’s moral decay and fundamental indecency?

      OK, Donald’s a dirtbag, give it a rest.

      1. As depravity goes Trump is pretty tame.

        He is not Harvey Weinstein. He is not Bill Clinton, He is not Bill Cosby, He is not Joe Biden, He is not Al Franken. He is not Roy Moore – who he should have stayed away from.

        Trump has talked openly of infidelity and consensual sex.
        There is plenty of evidence that he acts as he has talked.

        There are no credible claims that he uses force.

        1. I agree with you about Bill Clinton and Harvey Swinestein, and you can toss in Clinton and Trump’s mutual friend Jeffery Epstein as well. But because there are folks walking the streets more depraved than Trump doesn’t make me like Trump any better.

          1. I have not asked you to like Trump – I do not.

            Only to weigh his presidency – not his character bases on his acts not his words.

            I would presonally prefer all presidents to have good character.

            Tht is rarely if ever our choice.

  10. Obama is conducting a coup d’etat in America employing “holdover” forces of his appointed “deep state”

    and ordering the execution of his commanded objective of overthrowing the Constitution and the nation of

    America:

    “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”

    1. What is the significance of the 29th of April? Another vote on a continued play pretend budget? Perhaps the announcement of what reparatgions and tax increases and tax raises will cost should one side suceed in it’s 100 plus year revolution against our Constitutional Republic in favor some form of the foreign ideology known as socialism?. Perhaps something else? One never knows… Howdy Doody’s Birthday?

    2. George, you’re becoming further unmoored from reality with every comment. Go find us another amusing conspiracy theory to add a little humor to this blog.

      1. wildbill99 – didn’t the DNC file suit over a conspiracy this week? Hillary has always had her right-wing conspiracy.

  11. I’m not really surprised how many people in the US love authoritarianism. Many choose to practice that type of religion. And many chose that type of president in 2016. And some are themselves authoritarian in their work and relationships. And they’ll love being in a dictatorship run by Trump. Sad for the country, though, and for the world that once respected us much of the time.

    1. Why don’t you describe some actions or any action that Pres. Trump has taken to make you opine that he’s a dictator?

      1. I and others have already done that over and over and it makes no difference to Trump cultists who adore their master. All you had to do was watch him over the past 18 months with a shred of insight. Good luck.

        1. In other words, Mike Peterman, she can’t answer your question.
          She can diagnose Trump as unhinged and as a dictator just because “she knows” by watching him “with a shred of insight” (that she lacks), without getting into specifics.

          1. So true Mr. Nash. When you can’t answer a question with an intelligent response, it exposes the lack of thinking and we’re only left with emotion.

          2. Not just me. People who are experts in authoritarian regimes. [I know Trumpets hate experts]. Or mental health experts [same].

            And yes I can answer the question and have done it a number of times on this site.

            1. Then you should be able to cite these “experts”.

              Though I would ask why you need an “expert” to determine something such as whether a president is “authoritarian”. It is not rocket science.

              If the determination of whether someone is “authoritarian” is so difficult that only an elite set of experts can manage it – then we should dispense with voting, as ordinary people could not possibly manage to elect their own leaders.

              The “experts” that have performed mental health assessments of Trump – are no longer accredited, amoung other reasons because it is unethical to assess the mental health of someone without conducting an indepth in person interview.

              In other words your “experts” are quacks and charletons.

              It is always possible to find someone that can cliam to be expert and assert whatever it is that you beleive.
              That does not make them either experts or correct.

              Most of us Judge Trump by his real world conduct.

              I could care less about his verbal war with the media – they deserve each other, and Trump is merely the harbringer of the death of traditional media.

              I care alot about his actions as president.

              Please name an authoritarian ACT that Trump has done ?
              An instance where he has ACTED beyond his constitutional powers ?
              I can name a dozen instances That Pres. Obama did.
              I can not name one with regard to Trump.

              I do not agree with Trump on many things.
              But thus far he has not exceeded his authority as president.
              He is the penultimate anti-authoritarian.

        2. AmyD, I doubt anyone would claim that Pres. Trump doesn’t use questionable words from time to time. But people should be measured on their actions. I am not aware of any actions taken by Pres. Trump that would be remotely considered dictatorial.

          But feel free to argue your case. I’m all ears….

          1. Comrade Amy has gone running back to it’s programmer as we all called for something the macine tool parts of The Collective are not allowed … no matter how much three in one oil.

            NOTE This is and my colleagues commnents are not Ad Hominem. That requires a human presence and there is not proof of that so we’ll leave Amy with this…. Ad Machina.

        3. amyd, why is it that when this question about what you think makes Trump a dictator is asked virtually every time we get the same answer “I and others have already done that over and over”? Apparently, none of us have seen that answer and that makes you sound like a fool.

          Since according to you the answer has been repeated over and over again it should be easy for you to copy those answers or repeat them.

          We all know the truth. You don’t have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. You want to sound intelligent, but your nonresponse tells us otherwise.

          1. Well, two of us already responded on this particular thread so if you haven’t seen it, that’s not my fault. And I and others have done it on other threads.

            1. Amy, humor me and pony up a few authoritarian things he’s done, please.

              I get amused when media types freely scream and name call the President, yet complain about their freedoms being attacked. Hint, if he was authoritarian, the press would not be free to criticize.

            2. amyd, I took a quick look at all your postings and all I could see were claims, no proof. The following is representative of the best you have to offer: “He was an authoritarian business man “. That demonstrates a lack of perspective and despite your claim of being a psychiatric nurse that dispells any evidence that you are rational on this subject.

              Of course, I could have missed your proof or the proof of the other person so you can quote the evidence or demonstrate the proof right here. Let’s not play the delusional psych patient games where the patient claims all sorts of things that aren’t true.

    2. amyd….
      – The last time that I checked, the mid-term Congressional elections were still scheduled to,be held in November.
      And there have been no plans to cancel the 2020 election.
      And there is a large percentage of the population clearly against Trump who freely express their opposition.
      But keep spouting off about “.. a dictatorship run by Trump” as if it were true.
      Some are bound to give you extra points for useless hyperbole.

    3. Many did but we defeated them anyway. Dumped Obeyme and the progressive socialist dictatorship of the proletariatand began working our way back to independent thinking citzens in a representative constitutional republic. But speaking of moral values and standards. The left isn’t allowed to have any, thinking is banned and only jackbooted obedience to The Party in the form of The Collective has ever been noted. No matter how stupid it sounds. Thanks for reminding us why we formed the counter revolution in 2016 and took the largest voting block share leaving both GOP and the Socialist Progressive Liberals playing stupid in the street during rush hour traffic….or something.

    4. Trump is loud and obnoxious – but he has followed the constitution, he has rescinded EO’s that were outside the powers of the president,

      He has acted just about as anti-authoritarian as you could possibly be.

      Obama is eloquent and soft spoken, but as president he did what he pleased the law or constitution be damned. That is authoritarian.

      You seem to beleive the ends justify the means, and that authoritarian is anything that interferes with your desired ends.

        1. John Say and Olly,
          ..
          – but..but..”the experts say” 😊😄he’s leading us into a dictatorship, and that he’s unbalanced.
          amyd/ Nurse Ratched appears to be one of those experts in diagnosing Trump.

          1. Tom,
            They are experts in authoritarianism in the same way a spoiled child sees their parents. They have no idea what the role is supposed to do, but yet they know mean when they see it. This is why Fishwings, amyd and the others warn of this evolving dictator named Donald Trump, yet they cannot identify anything he’s actually done that would meet the dictator criteria other than his mean tweets. The other thing they’ve not understood is conservatives won’t allow Trump to be the dictator they fear any more than we stood by when Obama had his reign.

  12. Rod Rosenstein abused the power of government against the People by deliberately and fraudulently

    initiating a false “malicious prosecution” – appointing a special counselor to conduct an investigation of a

    person not a crime.

    1. Amen. After reading the Comey memos, WHAT did Mr. Rosenstein read that told him, ‘yep, we need to appoint my friend Bob Mueller to get to the bottom of this’.

      Bottom of what, Rod?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.