Report: Columbia Professor Used By Comey For Leak Was Actually A Special Government Employee With The FBI

440px-Comey-FBI-PortraitWe have been discussing the investigation by the Inspector General of the Justice Department into the leaking of FBI memos by former Director James Comey.  I have previously explained why there are serious questions concerning Comey’s conduct.  Now there is an interesting development after Fox News confirmed that the law professor used by Comey for his leak was in fact a “special government employee” (SGE) for Comey’s FBI.  That status of Columbia Professor Daniel Richman raised new concerns

Richman, confirmed  “I did indeed have SGE status with the Bureau (for no pay).”

However, that means that Comey not only removed FBI memos (including some classified memos) but he used a Justice Department employee to leak the material to the media.  I have previously discussed my view that Comey had acted unprofessionally and possibly unlawfully.  However, that misconduct is magnified if if used another DOJ employee to carry out the violation.

Regulations define a SGE as:

Special Government employee means those executive branch officers or employees specified in 18 U.S.C. 202(a). A special Government employee is retained, designated, appointed, or employed to perform temporary duties either on a full-time or intermittent basis, with or without compensation, for a period not to exceed 130 days during any consecutive 365-day period.

Not only did Comey not mention that he used a Justice Department lawyer to leak to the press, but Richman’s status did not appear to be known to the media.  His name came up in a text message from FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page on Nov. 2, 2016: “Jesus. Another article pushed by nyt on this. Richman is a friend of Comey and [former FBI general counsel James] baker.”

This is a reference to the Nov. 1, 2016 story headlined, “FBI’s Email Disclosure Broke a Pattern Followed Even This Summer,” that quotes Richman on Comey’s reopening of the the Clinton email case before the election.  Richman is not referenced as a SGE, though it is unclear when this status was discussed or granted.

It is already problematic that Comey was tasked with finding leakers and then became a leaker himself. If he also used a SGE that he reportedly brought into the Bureau, the IG investigators could look at the added impropriety of the means used for the leak.

275 thoughts on “Report: Columbia Professor Used By Comey For Leak Was Actually A Special Government Employee With The FBI”

  1. Meanwhile, HRC continues doing what she does best – sucking money from the gullible Dems…

    Walker Bragman
    ‏ @WalkerBragman
    1d1 day ago

    Hillary Clinton opted to sell her email list, voter data, and software tools to the DNC, which she knew was strapped for cash and struggling to rebuild. She assigned the payments—which will continue through October—to her dark money group, Onward Together.

    The Democratic Party Is Paying Millions for Hillary Clinton’s Email List, FEC Documents Show

    https://theintercept.com/2018/04/25/hillary-clinton-email-dnc-democratic-party/

        1. John,

          ‘I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.’

          William F. Buckley Jr.

          1. I did not put hillary there – she did so herself.

            Steele Dossier – Hillary.
            Shearer Dossier – Hillary
            Downer story outside official channels and walked through State – Hillary.

            Dig almost anywhere and damned if Hillary does not come up.

      1. Not a Trumpster. A GD Independent who takes great delight in exposing the frauds at the DNC and their queen.

  2. I hope the IG nails Comey and he gets to try out the system from the end of it that he served up to all the alleged perps over the years. It would be really delicious for people railroaded by the feds to watch the fed in chief take a fall. That would put some teeth into equal protection. Right now some animals are more equal than others.

  3. Hooray for Fox for investigative journalism.

    Tucker Carlson has been on a roll lately – even Progressive Indies watch his show

    1. No, Honey, they only watch the show to laugh at the absurdity of him and the other Trumpsters at Fox.

      1. Do you watch Rachel Madcow and laugh at the absurdity of her and the other rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Trumpers at MSNBC?

    1. “TRUMP ADMITS THAT COHEN PAID-OFF STORMY DANIELS”
      Wow! Trump says something that is totally completely public record.

      Daniels contracted with Cohen to keep silent about Trump in return for 130K, and agree to a $1M liquidated damages clause if she violated that agreement.

      All perfectly legal – whether Trump was or was not part of it.

      “TRUMP CLAIMS THAT COHEN ‘BARELY REPRESENTED’ :HIM”
      Have no idea whether that is true

      “SAID CLAIM COULD NULLIFY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE ANGLE”

      False. the public representations of the US ADA SDNYC are that the investigation into Cohen is an investigation of Cohen’s actions outside of his representation of clients.
      There is no priviledge there.

      However the FBI/DOJ seized alot of Cohen’s papers that are priviledged.
      Cohen’s actions outside the representation of clients is not and never was priviledged and by definition can not lead to Trump.
      Cohen’s communications in the representation of clients are priviledged no matter homw small that representation is.

      Logic is not your forte

      1. No, John. The party to the non-disclosure was Trump, using a pseudonym. Cohen was not the party. I read all of the documents, including the letter attachment to the actual contract that identified the parties’ true identities. Did you? If you did, you’d realize that Trump was the actual other party. If Cohen’s actions are illegal, even if they were in the course of “representing” Trump, then there is no privilege.

        1. “No, John. The party to the non-disclosure was Trump, using a pseudonym. Cohen was not the party. I read all of the documents, including the letter attachment to the actual contract that identified the parties’ true identities. Did you? If you did, you’d realize that Trump was the actual other party.”
          Then you can not read.

          While this does not actually matter. You are still wrong.

          If Joe agrees to give Jane 130K to agree not to disclose anything about Bob, with the proviso that if she does she owes Joe $2M.

          Who are the parties to the contract ?
          Answer Joe and Jane.
          Bob has no rights at all.
          Bob can not even seek to enforce the contract.
          Bob does not even have to know about the contract.

          Substitute Joe=Cohen, Jane=Stormy, Bob= Trump
          Nothing changes.

          “If Cohen’s actions are illegal, even if they were in the course of “representing” Trump, then there is no privilege.”

          Nothing associated with the NDA is illegal.

          If Stones were Eagles, then potatos are from mars.

          When you start an implication with a contradiction the remainder of the argument is irrelevant.

          Cohen’s actions were legal.
          Thus far there is no evidence he represented Trump.
          That would be why there is no privilidege.

          In the event that Cohen actually was representing trump and Trump was an actual party.

          The NDA would be legal and binding, and cohen would have priviledge with Trump.

    2. Critical all-caps news item:

      President Trump retained an attorney and entered into a contract.

      Dang!

      President Trump violated laws by having his attorney conclude an NDA to make President Trump look better during a campaign.

      President Trump violated laws by getting a haircut to make President Trump look better during a campaign.

      President Trump violated laws by purchasing a suit to make President Trump look better during a campaign.

      You’re a genius!

      1. OK, George, pay attention: Cohen said he borrowed $130K to pay off a porn star with whom Trump had sexual relations he wanted to keep quiet. This was for the purpose of helping him maintain support of the gullible conservatives and evangelicals who might take issue with a presidential candidate engaging in extra-marital sexual relations with a porn star. The $130K is viewed as a campaign contribution, because the purpose of the expenditure was to assist a candidate to win an election. As such, it was required to be reported to the Federal Election Commission. Failure to report this contribution is a violation of federal law.

        1. “OK, George, pay attention: Cohen said he borrowed $130K to pay off a porn star with whom Trump had sexual relations he wanted to keep quiet.”

          “This was for the purpose of helping him maintain support of the gullible conservatives and evangelicals who might take issue with a presidential candidate engaging in extra-marital sexual relations with a porn star.”
          And here you go off the rails – the motive for a legal act it irrelevant – it is also speculation.
          You are claiming to be able to read minds.

          “The $130K is viewed as a campaign contribution, because the purpose of the expenditure was to assist a candidate to win an election. As such, it was required to be reported to the Federal Election Commission. Failure to report this contribution is a violation of federal law.”

          Nope, that is neither how the law works nor constitutional.

          First this issue was dealt with in the Edwards campaign – and it failed – with far larger sums and the money coming directly from campaign coffers.

          For all you know this was Cohen buying a lottery ticket.
          He bet 130K that Daniels could not keep quiet about Trump and that when she failed he would receive $2M in liquidated damages.

          In the unlikely event that you succeed in stretching campaign finance laws this far – then they are constitutionally over broad.

          This is a very common error of the left.

          Stretching a law sof war it criminalizes everything.

          Say I have a political discussion with my neighbor, and I persuade them to vote for Clinton – is that an illegal campaign contribution ?

          John Oliver mocked Trump relentlessly during the campaign – is that an illegal campaign contribution and foreign influence in an election ?

          Hillary received dirt on Trump from Russians – is that an illegal campaign contribution ? Is that foriegn interferance ? Is that a long list of other crimes ?

          1. What are you smoking? There is no dispute that Cohen paid $130K to Stormy Daniels. Trump admitted this, and told reporters to ask Cohen why. Today he admitted that Cohen was representing him in this endeavor. There is no dispute that the purpose for the payment was hush money to aid the campaign of Trump. There is no dispute that the payoff was made to prevent Daniels from going public with her information about sexual relations with Trump. Before disputing these premises, read the documents. That’s what they say. The documents even mention pregnancy. Cohen wasn’t buying a lottery ticket. This payoff was an in-kind donation, required to be reported as a campaign contribution. I’m not aware that anyone, except you, disputes the purpose for the payoff nor the person on whose behalf the payoff was made.

            1. “What are you smoking? There is no dispute that Cohen paid $130K to Stormy Daniels.”
              Correct, and not a crime.

              “Trump admitted this, and told reporters to ask Cohen why.”
              Not actually an admission.

              “Today he admitted that Cohen was representing him in this endeavor.”
              Source ?

              “There is no dispute that the purpose for the payment was hush money to aid the campaign of Trump.”
              Of course there is. As well as being irrelevant.

              A purportedly bad motive does not make a legal act into a crime.

              “There is no dispute that the payoff was made to prevent Daniels from going public with her information about sexual relations with Trump.”
              The purpose of ALL NDA’s is to preclude someone from speaking.

              “Before disputing these premises, read the documents.”

              Our disagreement on the “facts” is minor and inconsequential.

              The disagreement is your leaps of law and faith.

              You have no actual evidence of motive – you are merely guessing.
              It does not matter that you think the motive was obvious.

              Bad motives STILL do not make legal acts into crimes.

              “That’s what they say. The documents even mention pregnancy.”
              Who said anything about pregnancy ?

              “Cohen wasn’t buying a lottery ticket.”
              If Daniels spoke out – Cohen gets $2M. Sounds like winning the lottery to me.

              “This payoff was an in-kind donation,”
              Neither a payoff, nor an inkind donation.

              Just a badly written NDA

              “required to be reported as a campaign contribution. I’m not aware that anyone, except you, disputes the purpose for the payoff nor the person on whose behalf the payoff was made.”
              Your lack of awareness does not create truth.

              You keep fixating on words about motives intentions – what was going on inside the heads of others.

              We are allowed to speculate based on things like “who benefits” – they cause us to look more carefully one place than another. But ultimately we must find evidence to support the speculation. As well as evidence of an actual crime.

              There are a spate of political corruption cases recently – including menendez, that bascially take the legs out of your argument – as well as a huge insider trading case in NYC.

              The gist of which is overly broad interpretations of indirect benefits as financial exchanges do not pass constitutional muster.

              But you can tell this much more easily by applying your own standard to the other party
              If Trump obstructed Justice – so did Obama.
              If this is an in kind political contribution – then Hillary is going to spend a long long time locked up.

              1. “Today he admitted that Cohen was representing him in this endeavor.”
                Source ?

                “President Trump acknowledged on Thursday that his longtime attorney Michael Cohen had “represented” him in what he called the “crazy” deal in which Cohen paid $130,000 to buy the silence of a porn actress just before the 2016 election.

                Trump’s comments in an interview with Fox & Friends were the first time he has conceded his connection to Cohen’s deal with Stormy Daniels, who says she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, after Trump’s marriage and the birth of his youngest son.

                Previously, Trump denied any relationship with Daniels and told reporters he wasn’t aware that Cohen paid Daniels.”

                https://www.npr.org/2018/04/26/605986443/trump-acknowledges-michael-cohen-represented-him-in-stormy-daniels-payment

                1. I do not beleive that Trump is being forth coming with respect to this.

                  I do not care much as it is none of my business.

                  Even Daniels version does not claim any misconduct on Trump’s part – or alteast none that is anyone’s business but Melanie.

                  All that said – you are still reading far more into things than is there.
                  You may be right – but you presume you are right without even the slightest consideration that there are numerous possibilities.

                  Trump admitted that Cohen represented him in the Daniels matter,
                  and that the money did not come from the campaign.

                  He did not actually admit to knowing anything beyond that.

                  My opinion regarding what is likely true, is not the same as fact.

                  Even if Trump is being less than fully open, that does not mean that everything you or I guess is true – is.

                  Beyond that – the matter remains none of my business – or yours.

                  Nor do I understand the left’s fixation on this.

                  Bill Cosby just got convicted of Rape – he admitted essentially to Rape in a deposition, and yet after getting convicted is comparing himself to Emitt Till ? there is no crime here. If everything Daniels is saying is true, there is relatively tame consensual sex. This does not reach the conduct of Bill Clinton.
                  This does not reach the Conduct of Joe Biden, this does not reach the conduct of Al Franken.

                  I have spent decades watching democrats engage in conduct much worse than this will little consequence.

                  I am guessing what is bothering you is that the sexual conduct card has in the past ALWAYS worked against republicans, and it is not working against Trump.

                  Maybe that is because the Republican base is tired of the double standard.
                  Trump never pretended to be faithful. While that bothers me – atleast he has been generally honest about it.

                  Why is it you are so fixated on something you could care less about if it was a democrat ?

                  1. “Why is it you are so fixated on something you could care less about if it was a democrat ?”

                    Why do you constantly assert things about me which are untrue?

                    1. “Why do you constantly assert things about me which are untrue?”

                      I would be very happy for you to demonstrate that I was in error.

                      Show me where you have held people to the same standards regarding of where they fit into the political spectrum of the moment ?

                    2. See, that’s the problem. You make accusations without any basis and then expect me to correct them.
                      That’s not the way it should work.

                    3. “See, that’s the problem. You make accusations without any basis and then expect me to correct them.”

                      It is self evident that you do not apply the same standards consistently.
                      It is more than an accusation.

                      You are prepared to impeach Trump because he is frequently inaccurate over minor details.
                      There was no demand to impeach Trump over large bald faced lies.
                      There is no demand from you that those who swore to a court that unverified claims had been verified and found reliable be held accountable.
                      There is no demand from you that those who lied under oath be held accountable.

                      In the cosmic scheme of things Trump’s words are far less consequential.

                      With regard to actions – though I would greatly prefer we follow the actual law, rather than stretch it to accomplish the purpose – of removing Trump, atleast if you stretch the law that badly you should recognize that you have made obvious criminals out of Hillary and Obama.

                      I am not interested in any discussion of Trump obstructing justice from someone who will not prosecute Obama for publicly declaring Clinton innocent at the start of the Clinton investigation. How is that different from Trump telling Comey that Flynn is a good person ?

                      I am not interested in a discussion of Trump foreign collusion from someone unwilling to prosecute Clinton for colluding with The Ukraines, Downer, Steele numerous Russians.

                      If you are unwilling to be consistent – then you are just a lawless hypocrite.

                      “That’s not the way it should work.”

                      That is correct – we are supposed to apply the law narrowly and consistently.
                      You are unwilling to do that.
                      That is not the way it should work.

                      That is the rule of man, not law. It is lawless.

                      I have a great deal of respect for those people who apply their principles consistently regardless of who is in office.

                      I quite often do not agree with Glenn Greenwald or Alan Derschowitz.
                      But the use the same standards for republicans and democrats.

                      That is integrity.

                      You are not entitled to my respect, you are not entitled to be presumed to have integrity.

                      I know that it is disconcerting for many particularly on the left to grasp that lots of things have to be earned. That respect and integrity are not entitlements.
                      Show us that you have integrity.

                    4. Integrity means not making up things out of whole cloth. For the record I am not “of the left” I am a #NeverTrump Conservative. Nor have I ever advocated that Trump be impeached. Boorishness and loutishness are not impeachable offenses, nor have I yet seen anything that approaches that standard in regards to Trump.

                      Feel free to make up all the lies you want about me, it’s a free country, but please don’t tell me about your “integrity”.

                    5. “Integrity means not making up things out of whole cloth. For the record I am not “of the left” I am a #NeverTrump Conservative. ”
                      What have I made up about you ?

                      “Feel free to make up all the lies you want about me, it’s a free country, but please don’t tell me about your “integrity”.”

                      I have not “told” you about “my” integrity.
                      I did not even directly reference yours.
                      I provided you with a reasonable standard for measuring integrity with respect to current conditions.

                      My own remarks speak for themselves – feel free to demonstrate where I have held different people to different standards for the same behavior.

                      While your at it, evaluate your own.

                      I share your disdain for certain aspects of Trump’s conduct, and did not vote for him.

                      But I am judging him by the same standard I have Obama and Clinton, and his failures increasingly seem small.

                    6. “Say, you are a liar, and worse, an incredibly long winded and boring liar.”

                      When you impugn someone else’s integrity, you bet your own against theirs.
                      With the burden of proof lying with you.

                    7. “You have no integrity to be impugned, that puts me at an unfair disadvantage.”

                      If you do not wish to be accused of being a lefty
                      it might be wise to not adhere to the same tactics.

                      Ad Hominem is not argument.

                    8. “I called you out as a liar. That is fact not an ad hominem”

                      Nope.

                      In fact it would be ad hominem even if true,
                      But it is both false and ad hominem.

                      You have provided no evidence. so it is not even an argument.

                    9. “You are prepared to impeach Trump because he is frequently inaccurate over minor details.”

                    10. “You are prepared to impeach Trump because he is frequently inaccurate over minor details.”

                      I am presuming that is supposed to mean you are NOT.

                      That provides some criteria to evaluate you.

                    11. wildbill99 – unless you can prove he is a liar, just calling him on really is an ad hominem.

                    12. Bill says he is a never Trump conservative,
                      But he repeats arguments that are heard almost exclusively from Lefties. ‘
                      And thinks that implying that people who beleive the things those on the left beleive are closet lefties is a lie.

                      But we have this problem all over the place.

                      The public rhetoric is so laced with “hateful, hating, hater, lying, liar”
                      that the words have lost their meaning. So it is unsurprising that people do not know what a lie is.

                      Requesting a warrant that requires you to swear that the information you provide is reliable, when you have not checked it – that is a lie.

                      Saying that you have not done something you have done and know you have done – that is a lie.
                      Doing so under oath – that is a big lie.

                      Saying under oath that you have never leaked when you clearly have – that is a lie.

                      Getting the dates wrong for the last email you received when interviewed by the FBI – not a lie.
                      Forgetting that a person you talked to on the phone a few weeks ago briefly mentioned some issue that you declined to talk about – not a lie.

                      Saying that the NYT says you were wiretapped, when the headline on an NYT article says you were wiretapped – not a lie.

                      Saying that a meeting in which you hoped to get Dirt on Clinton, but only got an earful about Russian adoptions – was about Russian adoptions – not a lie. Not even if you talked to Daddy about how to spin it best.

                      I would not be betting my life savings on the accuracy of relatively unimportant remarks by Trump,
                      but his tendency to imprecision in his remarks in not lying.

                      “You can keep your doctor if you want” – that would be a lie.

                      “Benghazi was a spontaneous protest over an internet video” – lie.

                      Giving different reasons at different times – all of which are good reasons, for firing someone – not a lie.

            2. Natacha – there is some question among lawyers as to whether it is an in-kind donation to the campaign or not. However, Hillary’s payment to the lawyers and Fusion GPS was never properly reported.

        2. NUTCHACHA,

          Has any entity ever paid a scintilla of attention to you with the obvious exception of the welfare, food stamp, quota, WIC, HAMP, HARP, Obamacare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and affirmative action departments? That’s like saying any organization or individual pays attention to Maxine “Sista Psycho” Waters.

  4. DOES TURLEY’S CONCERN FOR LEAKING EXTEND TO DEVIN NUNES..??

    Once again the professor is focused like a laser on James Comey’s propensity to leak. But as I pointed out Tuesday, House Intelligence Chairman Deven was actually the first to engage in selected leaks in a wild effort to support Trump’s contention that Obama ‘wiretapped Trump Tower’.

    The shenanigans attempted by Nunes, while Comey was still FBI Director, may have convinced Comey that Trump had created an ‘anything goes atmosphere’. And Professor Turley is on record as saying Trump brings out the worst in everyone.

    1. You do not seem to grasp the difference between congress and the executive branch.

      Responsibility for oversight of the executive belongs to congress.
      Congress is entitled to know what ever it wishes from the executive.

      Congress then has its own completely independent authority to determine what it will make public and what it will not.

      Put simply Congress can legitimately expose anything that the executive branch is doing.
      That is a part of its job.

      Comey as an example may not publicly speak about an ongoing investigation.
      Not only is he barred from doing so as an FBI agent, but also as a former FBI agent, termination does not end the obligation.

      Congress conversely may publicly reveal anything they have come to know, and they are entitled to know anything of the executive they want.

      Congress can as an example (and has) reveal information that completely tanks an investigation.

      BTW Nunes was cleared by the house ethics committee.

      1. Cleared by other Republicans.

        When Devin Nunes went to the White House for his dramatic press conference on 3/21/17, those Classified Intercepts he bandied about were not for public viewing. What more, the Nunes Memo, released earlier this year, was a series of selectively edited talking points.

        If it’s okay for Nunes to engage that kind of trickery, then Comey’s leaks are also acceptable.

        1. “When Devin Nunes went to the White House for his dramatic press conference on 3/21/17, those Classified Intercepts he bandied about were not for public viewing.”

          Congress has the independent power to make classified material public.

          Whatever “bandying about” is, it is not diseminating.

          Further are you saying that the fact that the Obama administration was illegally spying on americans is a classified matter that can not be exposed ?

          Essentially you would be saying that the executive can do whatever they want – by making it classified.

          “What more, the Nunes Memo, released earlier this year, was a series of selectively edited talking points.”
          Ultimately – despite Spin the Schiff memo confirmed the Nunes memo.

          Of course it was “edited” it condensed 1,000,000 pages of documents to a 3 page unclassifed summary.

          What conclusion of the Nunes memo are you saying was wrong ?

          We are now finding 3 basis that were used for the FISA Warrant.
          1) the Steele dossier – the unverified product of the opposing political campaign
          2). The Clinton surogate Downer story about Papadoulis that was walked through Clintonistas at State to the FBI, and NEVER went through the IC.
          3). The Shearer Dossier – also a product of the Clinton campaign – produced before the Steele Dossier, Used by Steele in producing the Steele Dossier, but walked through state to the FBI AFTER the Steele dossier – because everyone knew it came from Blumenthal and no one would touch it without the Steele.

          So EVERYTHING at the start of this ties to Clinton, everything to Blumenthal – you know the birther guy, and most everything to Fusion GPS. Further all of it is cross contaminated and none of it is verified.

          Finally FVEY has confirmed that no intelligence regarding Trump Russia came through them.
          That means there is no legitimate intelligence source for any of this.

          “If it’s okay for Nunes to engage that kind of trickery, then Comey’s leaks are also acceptable.”

          Actually it is quite different. Comey is law enforcement – he is investigating people, and for myriads of reasons those investigations must be confidential. It is unethical and illegal to reveal information regarding an investigation – because it violates the rights of the person being investigated.

          Nunes is involved in government oversight. That is a PUBLIC function. The bar against disculuse is much much more narrow. Further Congress can actually disclose information to the detriment of an investigation, if congress feels that information is in the public interests.

          The FISA warrants for Carter Page are the perfect example.

          It has taken over a year for congress to merely be able to view an unredacted copy.
          Yet many legal scholars have noted that even if making the entire warrant public complicated an investigation, or compromised methods and sources, that the best interests of the country are still likely served by the release of the memo unredacted.

          1. Nunes never consulted the other members of the House Intelligence Committee before his press conference. Therefore his actions were blatantly partisan. As a House Committee Chairman Nunes had a responsibility to maintain some appearance of impartiality.

            If Obama was ‘illegally spying on Americans’, why hasn’t he been prosecuted? No mainstream source has ever confirmed that Obama ordered illegal spying. No Republican House Committee has ever been launched to investigate ‘illegal spying by Obama. Regarding Carter Page, he is, by all reports, a highly dubious character. Page’s appearance last year before Congress won him no friends. By all accounts he came across as neurotic at best.

            Michael Steele didn’t need anyone else’s dossier to compile his research. Steel’s research was used by the FBI and State Department during the Bush years. Steele was never considered a partisan for purposes of U.S. politics. British citizens in England don’t really care about American culture wars. They have their ‘own’ politics.

            1. If Obama was ‘illegally spying on Americans’, why hasn’t he been prosecuted?

              For the same reason trees falling in the forest don’t make a noise.

              1. It’s amazing how Republicans control all three branches of government, yet Democrats are still secretly running everything from behind the scenes. How is it that Republicans are that completely helpless??

                1. It’s not so amazing when you stop seeing the controlling political class as either Republicans and Democrats and instead see them for what they are…Progressives.

                  1. Trump appointees Sessions, Rosenstein and Wray run the DOJ and the FBI. They are all Republicans.

                    Only an idiot would call Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III a “Progressive”.

                    1. Only an idiot would call Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III a “Progressive”

                      Perhaps, but you’d have to make room for the idiot who believes Sessions is controlling anything. .

                    2. I know, The “Deep State”.
                      Presumably being run by the Illuminati and the Masons.

              2. OLLY – trees falling in the forest don’t make noise ONLY if nothing is there to hear it. 😉 I spent two days bedeviling my high school physics teacher over this very point. I am not sure that even now I believe it. 😉

                1. trees falling in the forest don’t make noise ONLY if nothing is there to hear it.

                  Which makes my point to Peter. He has deaf to all the trees falling around him.

            2. “Nunes never consulted the other members of the House Intelligence Committee before his press conference. ”

              So ?

              “Therefore his actions were blatantly partisan.” non sequitur.

              “As a House Committee Chairman Nunes had a responsibility to maintain some appearance of impartiality.”
              Another not sequitur.

              Two people are in a room – one is an independent, the other a communist.
              Are we required to give equal time to each viewpoint ? Are we required not to be biased against communism ?

              What if the two people are an ordinary person and a peodophile ?

              The objective it to find the truth. Sometimes the truth is partial to one side or another.
              Further we do not expect or want both sides to a debate to moderate their arguments to defer to the other – to demonstrate impartiality. We want them to argue their point as vigorously as possible so that we can choose.

              Nunes and Schiff have been arguing their respective positions for more than a year.

              I have read both memos – The Schiff memo fundimentally confirms the Nunes memo. Aside from bad spin in the Schiff memo they are not that different.

              I have heard both repeatedly argue their case.
              Nunes promised evidence to support his assertions – and he has delivered.
              Schiff made the same promises – still waiting.

              This is how ideas are tested. If you have a divergent view – express it.
              But you are not entitled to equal time, equal consideration.
              You have to prevail on the quality of your argument.
              Not warped nonsense about impartiality or fairness.

              The objective is to find the truth not find the middle ground.

              1. House Committees aren’t supposed to work this way. The Chairman and Co-Chairman aren’t supposed to be issuing dueling memos. This was a first in recent history. And Nunes was the first to go.

                No Pundit that I know of believes that Nunes memo advanced the case for Trump. The Nunes memo was widely regarded as a dud! It’s entire purpose was to feed a closed-loop narrative encompassing Trump and right-wing media.

                1. “House Committees aren’t supposed to work this way. The Chairman and Co-Chairman aren’t supposed to be issuing dueling memos. This was a first in recent history. And Nunes was the first to go.”

                  Actually it is extremely common. But lets say it isn’t – then there is just a majority memo.

                  “No Pundit that I know of believes that Nunes memo advanced the case for Trump.”
                  Thus far you have not demonstrated any credibility on anything.
                  I am trying to recall where but there was an absolutely incredible article on Nunes published in the past month that details his entire life.

                  Contra the left Nunes is not a Trump supporter – but he is very angry about what he sees going on in the IC. He has been the first HPSCI committee chair in a long time that was not connected to the IC.
                  And he is the first that has not practically rubber stamped them.

                  Nunes is not particularly interested in Trump. He is very interested in the malfeasance of the IC.

                  “The Nunes memo was widely regarded as a dud! It’s entire purpose was to feed a closed-loop narrative encompassing Trump and right-wing media.”
                  Keep drinking the Kool-aide.

            3. “If Obama was ‘illegally spying on Americans’, why hasn’t he been prosecuted? No mainstream source has ever confirmed that Obama ordered illegal spying. No Republican House Committee has ever been launched to investigate ‘illegal spying by Obama.”

              I can give you a long list of crimes by Obama and others that have not be prosecuted.

              Trump has not been prosecuted for the crimes you allege either.

              The difference is there is growing evidence of the misconduct of the obama administration,
              What there is regarding Trump grows weaker by the day.

              “Regarding Carter Page, he is, by all reports, a highly dubious character. Page’s appearance last year before Congress won him no friends. By all accounts he came across as neurotic at best.”

              Page has a wikipedia page – I suggest reading it.
              He is a naval academy Grad, a naval intelligence officer.
              In the past he was approached by Russians and he immediately contacted the FBI.
              He is pretty much the opposite of a “dubious character”.

              More so than anyone else in this Saga he has asserted from start to finish he is being defamed.
              And he has testified under oath repeatedly.

              In a world were the FBI agents doing the investigation are now being accused and probably prosecuted for lying under other NO ONE is talking about prosecuting Carter Page for lying.

              This is your idea of a dubious person ?

              What does that make Comey and McCabe ? Satan ?

              1. John, why on earth did you encourage me to read Carter Page’s Wikipedia bio?? It greatly supports my contention that Page is highly dubious. Consider the following paragraph:

                “In 1998, Page joined the Eurasia Group, a strategy consulting firm, but left three months later. In 2017, Eurasia Group president Ian Bremmer recalled on his Twitter feed that Page’s strong pro-Russian stance was “not a good fit” for the firm and that Page was its “most wackadoodle” alumnus.[19] Stephen Sestanovich later described Page’s foreign-policy views as having “an edgy Putinist resentment” and a sympathy to Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s criticisms of the United States.[2] Over time, Page became increasingly critical of United States foreign policy toward Russia, and more supportive of Putin, with a United States official describing Page as “a brazen apologist for anything Moscow did”.[4] Page is frequently quoted by Russian state television, where he is presented as a “famous American economist”.[3] In 2013, Russian intelligence operatives attempted to recruit Page, and one described him as enthusiastic about business opportunities in Russia but an “idiot”.[2][20] News accounts in 2017 indicated that because of these ties to Russia, Page had been the subject of a warrant pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 2014, at least two years earlier than was indicated in the stories concerning his role in the 2016 Presidential campaign of Donald Trump.[21][22]”

                1. Being “pro-russia” is not the same as being a scurilous spy.

                  BTW you completely missed the part where when the Russians tried to recruit him in 2013 – he went to the FBI.

                  The “FISA warrant” is the absolutely infamous steele dossier based peice of garbage that the FBI/DOJ swore out that is facially invalid and possibly criminal.

                  Regardless,

                  Aparently you missed things like
                  United States Naval Academy (BS), Distinguished Graduate Navy’s Trident Scholar
                  a researcher for the House Armed Services Committee
                  an intelligence officer for a United Nations peacekeeping mission.
                  Georgetown University (MA),National Security Studies
                  New York University (MBA),
                  University of London (PhD)

                  But lets start at the top – US Naval Academy Graduate.
                  How many graduates of the naval academy do you know of that were russian spies ?

                  How many people that graduated in the top 10% of the naval academy do you know that are wackadoodle ?
                  John McCain graduated in the bottom 0.5% of his class.

                  1. From an academic standpoint the Naval Academy is on par with the best universities. But even the best universities produce occasional wackadoodles (and some are liberals, too).

                    1. “From an academic standpoint the Naval Academy is on par with the best universities. But even the best universities produce occasional wackadoodles (and some are liberals, too).”

                      The proportion of “wackadoodles” in the top 10% are tiny.
                      To my knowledge the naval academy has never produced a russian spy.
                      I guess a masters at Georgetown is not all that impressive either ?

                      Regardless, the part you seem unable to grasp is that there is a vast difference between being policy friendly to Russia and being a russian spy.

                      Or are we going back to assuming everyone on the left is a communist spy ?

            4. “Michael Steele didn’t need anyone else’s dossier to compile his research.”
              Absolutely false. Steele was not a witness to a single thing in his dossier.
              Further we now know – from Simpson’s testimony and from other sources that a significant portion of the Steele Dossier was just the Shearer Dossier under Steele’s name.

              “Steel’s research was used by the FBI and State Department during the Bush years. Steele was never considered a partisan for purposes of U.S. politics.”
              Correct and meaningless. It is not Steele’s credibility that is at issue. It is that of his primary sources.
              And we no little to nothing of those.

              If you come into a police station and say “I heard John Doe, say that he heard somebody else in a bar, tell another person that they heard that Jane Smith had killed her boyfriend”.

              If you are a judge or a minister or someone with an incredible reputation for integrity,
              that still will not get a warrant. The only credibility that matters is that of the person actually claiming to know that Jane Smith killed her boyfriend. Absent establishing that unknown persons credibility you do not get a warrant.

              “British citizens in England don’t really care about American culture wars. They have their ‘own’ politics.”
              Interesting standard. So I guess we should deprive americans the right to vote and allow brits to decide the US presidency – as they are impartial.

              But then I thought the left beleived that money contaminates everything.

              So the fact that Steele was paid to dig up dirt on trump in your world view leaves him completely impartial ?

              We know have atleast 3 sources for the FISA Warrants and the investigation.
              Every one runs through the clinton campaign.

              We have now confirmed through FVEY that there is no legitimate foreign intelligence regarding Trump/Russia collusion – again the only sources are through the Clinton campaign.

              Clapper and Brennan (nor Schiff) have never produced actual evidence.

              The left is now almost two years into selling us all the false hope that the shoe is about to drop.

              1. Americans dependent on right-wing media view every issue through the prism of right-wing media. Therefore they assume that everyone reasons from that same perspective. But, as I said, Christopher Steele wouldn’t be thinking in those terms. He’s not a laid-off factory worker somewhere in Ohio.

                Any American corporation, think tank or political candidate can buy Steele’s research. And many have. Steele was never known as catering to ‘only’ American Democrats.

                1. It is irelevant how Steele would be thinking.

                  Steele is not a source. His credibility is only a marginal issue.

                  What matters is the credibility of the primary sources, and we do not even know who those are.
                  Steele does not know who those are.
                  The FBI does not know who those are.

                  That is the definition of unkown reliability.

                  1. Trump’s credibility is far more questionable than Christopher Steele’s. This week Bloomberg News presented flight records to prove that Trump ‘was’ in Moscow the night of the so-called “Pee Party” Bloomberg discovered that Trump’s private jet took off from Moscow at 4 am. Which means Trump has plenty of time to host said party earlier that night. Trump has since admitted he left at that time.

                    Then this morning Trump admitted to “Fox & Friends” that he ‘did’ know Stormy Daniels. This after denying for weeks there ever was an affair. Trump went on to tell “Fox & Friends” that lawyer Michael Cohen “barely represents him!”. But records suggest that Trump was Cohen’s only client! Though Sean Hannity was more than likely a client as well.

                    Just before the raid on Cohen’s office, Trump distinctly referred to Cohen as “my lawyer” during an informal press conference on Air Force One. Does Trump think there’s no video record of him saying that?

                    Trump has no credibility. According to fact checkers, Trump has uttered more false statements per week than any President in recent history. No other President comes close to Trump regarding false statements. Therefore to suggest that Christopher Steele’s credibility is the ‘real issue’ turns logic upside-down.

                    1. “Trump’s credibility is far more questionable than Christopher Steele’s.”
                      Again Steele’s credibility is almost totally irrelevant.
                      Only that of his primary sources matter.
                      Nor it credibility a contests – either the sources were known to the FBI to be credible at the time – given that they are still not known that would be impossible, or the warrant was issued without sufficient probable cause based on false swearing by the FBI and DOJ.

                      “This week Bloomberg News presented flight records to prove that Trump ‘was’ in Moscow the night of the so-called “Pee Party” Bloomberg discovered that Trump’s private jet took off from Moscow at 4 am. Which means Trump has plenty of time to host said party earlier that night. Trump has since admitted he left at that time.”

                      We get this garbage all the time. Trump has not denied being in Russia for HIS paegent.
                      I would be shocked if there are not pictures.

                      The only question EVER have been what hotel room he slept in.
                      His body guard has confirmed that some oligarch offer hookers, but Trumps security people declined, and Trump was never aware of the offer.

                      “Then this morning Trump admitted to “Fox & Friends” that he ‘did’ know Stormy Daniels.”
                      “This after denying for weeks there ever was an affair.”
                      Source
                      ” Trump went on to tell “Fox & Friends” that lawyer Michael Cohen “barely represents him!”. But records suggest that Trump was Cohen’s only client! Though Sean Hannity was more than likely a client as well.”
                      Those do not conflict.

                      “Just before the raid on Cohen’s office, Trump distinctly referred to Cohen as “my lawyer” during an informal press conference on Air Force One. Does Trump think there’s no video record of him saying that?”
                      Again you think there is a conflict.
                      Minimal is not the same as none.

                      “Trump has no credibility. According to fact checkers, Trump has uttered more false statements per week than any President in recent history. No other President comes close to Trump regarding false statements.”
                      Given how abysmally bad the fact checkers are I would wear that as a badge of honor.

                      I beleive RCP is now doing a fact checking the fact checkers and they are all doing notoriously bad.

                      “Therefore to suggest that Christopher Steele’s credibility is the ‘real issue’ turns logic upside-down.”

                      Aparently you can not read.

                      How many ways and times do I have to say “Steele’s credibility is IRRELEVANT”.

                      Steele is NOT a primary source.
                      There is no commutative property of credibility.
                      The veracity of the probable cause for a warrant is based SOLELY on the credibility of the primary sources. Steele is not a primary source.

                      Further the lack fo credibility of the target is ALSO completely irrelevant.

                      You can not get a warrant to spy on someone because they lie alot.

    2. You mean he alerted us that the Obama administration did massive unmasking of American citizens?

      While that may have been information that the previous administration considered ‘top secret’, it is his job to perform oversight.

      So your statement is invalid.

          1. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.

            But, but that doesn’t prove President Obama ordered it. After all, it’s common knowledge that President Obama orchestrates only good government behavior, and learns of the bad only when it is reported by the media.

            1. “That doesn’t say “Illegal Wiretapped Data”. And if you’re fond of quoting The New York Times, let’s see that whole article.”

              Google is your friend.

              Regardless you have only two choices – NYT headlines do not match their stories – or they do.
              In the former NYT is a cheap tabloid, in the latter – you were flat out wrong.

              BTW this is not the first NYT wiretap story. It is just the first I found.

                1. You went to snopes – they had the same image I did.
                  And they linked the article.

                  But to answer your question – in this specific instance – after they published the story claiming Trump was lying about being wiretapped, and after Trump pointed out that he reads the NYT and knows better, they went back and changed the headline.

                  But things do not disappear on the internet.

                  1. John Say: “they went back and changed the headline.”

                    Canard Alert!

                    “My Error: The New York Times Did Not Change Its Headline – There Were Two Headlines from the Start
                    By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

                    I owe the New York Times an apology, and am extending it in this post. It corrects my column from earlier today, which I have asked National Review to withdraw. I accused the Times of altering the headline of an important report (pertinent to the so-called FISAgate controversy) in order to revise history in light of a shifting political narrative. I was wrong. The Times did not change the headline. Instead, the report has always had two different headlines — one in the print version of the paper and one in the version that appears on the Times’ website.”

                    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/mccarthy-error-apologize-nyt-headline-not-changed/

                    1. “There Were Two Headlines from the Start”

                      That is the defense you want to go with ?
                      Really ?

                      You do understand that makes NYT LESS credible ?

                    2. You’re welcome, Peter.
                      Trust me I’m not a fan, but Andrew McCarthy deserves some kudos here for being a big enough man to admit when he made a mistake. Here’s a tip of the hat to Mr, McCarthy.😉

                    3. I like McCarthy and his analysis has been amoung the best throughout all of this.

                      I am glad that he has the integrity to correct himself when he is wrong.

                      But his apology is itself error.

                      Based on the actual facts the only thing he is wrong about is the timing of the “change”.
                      Which is a reasonable and trivial mistake.

                      You are still trying to argue that two differently capitioned verions of the same article suddenly appear concurrently, and that one was not “changed” to create the other.

                      That is not outside the realm of possibility. But it is laughably outside plausibilty.

                      If you are going to pick nits on others, expect to get the same in return.

                      We are fighting over an incredibly tiny distinction – but one in which you are wrong.

                      Further the “bigger” argument – is over an incredibly tiny issue – which is why you are wrong there too.

                      It was reasonable for Trump to tweet based on the NYT headline that he was wiretapped.
                      The NYT, WaPo Snopes, the left and you calling the tweet a lie, is arguing that truth is determined not merely by incredible litteralism – but Biased litteralism.

                      You do not understand that only sells to the faithful.
                      To most of us it makes you look like a liar.

                    4. Bill, John,

                      I read The Times daily. It’s a first rate paper. But news stories and issues are constantly evolving in response to new developments.

                      So anyone can find an old story, from a respected paper, supporting a view that is currently outdated. And the further back you go, the more out-dated stories are. That’s the nature of news. It may not be the case with this story John posted. I’m just mentioning it as a general note.

                      One should also note The New York Times is not always friendly to liberal points of view. Sometimes they surprise liberals with stories that discredit favorite talking points. And again, this may not apply to the story John posted, but it’s a general note.

                      The New York Times is really more balanced than conservatives believe.

                    5. The root of the argument is about a narrow point – did Trump have a basis from an NYT article to beleive he was being Wiretapped.

                      He has been repeatedly accused of lying for that claim – including by WaPo and NYT.

                      That claim of lying is politically biased garbage.
                      The NYT headline is real, and any reasonable read say Trump is being wiretapped.

                      That should have been the end of the debate.
                      But Bill was compelled to go into the snopes garbage and the two different headlines nonsense, as well as some other bogus attempts to prove what is clearly unprovable.
                      The question is not was Trump wiretapped – we actually now know that atleast indirectly he was.
                      But whether they headline would allow Trump to credibly say that he was Wiretapped.
                      All Bill’s details do not matter. Tiny details in the body of the story do not matter.
                      The fact that there were multiple headlines does nto matter. What really occured does nto matter.

                      All that matters is was Trump lying – and to be lying it would have to be UNREASONABLE to beleive from the headline that he was being Wiretapped.

                      With respect to your other assertions – Much ot NYT has nothing to do with politics.

                      Further periodically NYT actually runs a well sourced article that contradicts the hopes or fears of the left.

                      I quite often use NYT articles to attempt to persuade leftists they are full of crap.

                      That said the modern NYT political reporting is marginally superior to infowars or brietbart.

                      Vast numbers of stories claiming multiple reliable unnamed sources have been completely off base,
                      In fact NYT has run a story about the same subject – 3 times, with 3 sets of unnamed credible sources with 3 different conflicting claims.

                      What should be self evident is that either alot of NYT credible sources are made up. Ir they are not credible.

                      As the adage goes – fool me once – shame on you. Fool me twice – shame on me.

                      NYT will run any garbage that conforms to the breathless hopes of the left, if they can get anyone to act as a source for it – no matter how credulous it is

                      That is the behavior of a tabloid, not the “paper of record”.

                      Personally I do not care. The NYT can become the infowars of the political left if it wants.

                      and frankly I think that the role of NYT and WaPo and the like is rapidly diminishing.

                      We have myriads of sources today.

                      We live in a world of vast amounts of information – which is good, but that information is also bent all over by massive biases.

                      We can no longer rely on the institutional press as they have become politically corrupt.

                      We must learn to think critically.

                      My recomendation to all – is get the majority of your news from those who you like the least.
                      You are already pre-programmed to trust those you like the most.
                      The only way you will know you are wrong about something is when those you do not like make a claim that you accept.

                      He Who Knows Only His Own Side Of The Case Knows Little Of That. — John Stuart Mill

                    6. Peter, I too am a longtime reader and fan of the Grey Lady, although their editorial views and mine are often at odds. The charge that they changed their headline presumably in order to hide what they previously said is a canard, and a well documented canard at that.

                      Have a great weekend, Bill

              1. I love these fact check sites.

                Here is all the evidence that proves this claim is true,
                but “argh! Trump!” overcomes all actual evidence so it is false.

                1. No, John. You hold on to your canards and false narratives because you so dearly wish to believe them.

                  1. “No, John. You hold on to your canards and false narratives because you so dearly wish to believe them.”

                    So many fallacies.

                    You really think that you are omniscient and know that is going on in my head ?

                    Your response was to my remark that fact check sites are notoriously biased.

                    Frankly I think the fact check sites are LESS credible and more biased than the media as a whole.

                    There was a left journalist who noted that the media takes Trump litterally but not seriously, but his supporters take him seriously but not litterally.

                    One of the most common “fact checks” is that something is “litterally true” but because the fact checkers are onmisicient and know what was really in the minds of the authors, it is false because the implied non-literally message they were purportedly trying to send was false.

                    Essentially the dog whistle argument.

                    I love the dog whistles argument.
                    A dog whistle is a message to the dog that only the dog can hear.

                    Purportedly much of what conservaties communicate is dog whistles.

                    But in the real world it appears that only progressives actually hear the messages that conservatives purportedly try to send only to their base.

                    If progresives can hear it – it is not a dog whistle.
                    If conservatives don’t – it is not a dog whistle.

                    Grow up, get a clue. Quit trying to pretend you know what is going on inside other peoples heads.

                    Judge people by their actions – not your idiotic presumptions about what is in their heads.

                    I did not vote for Trump. I am unlikely to vote for him in 2020.

                    If as is highly unlikely the democrats can find an actual reasonable candidate. I will vote for them.

                    I do not like Trump, I am not a Trump supporter.

                    At the same time I am not so stupid as to beleive that Trump is the devil incarnate.

                    He is not wrong about everything.
                    In fact he is less wrong overall than your average progressive.

                    I find much of what he says annoying and try not to listen.
                    But I also find the left MSM whining, annoying and highly biased and error prone.

                    Trump and the MSM deserve each other.

                    “supporting” Trump when he is right, or when as you are now, he is being accused of being a liar over biased interpretation of tiny details that are meaningless to ordinary people.

                    Think about it, your argument here is that Trump is a liar.
                    Not because he was not wiretapped – he was.
                    But because he said the NYT said he was Wiretapped, and you “feel” that is not true,
                    because your personal definition of wiretapp, and your personal read of the article does nto exactly match the meaning of his 128 char tweet ?

                    And you wonder why people who do not like Trump sometime support him ?

              2. Autumn, Stupid people have sworn off it if that’s what you mean.
                It too often confuted their delusions.

            1. Like I said before – either you can go with NYT lies in their headlines and is just a tabloid, or
              that you were flat out wrong.

              Yes, the Trump people latched on to this – of course they did.

              Is your mainstream media standard now – any story in the NYT that trump likes is really just right wing propoganda ?

              Regardless Snopes is engaged in the typical incredibly left wing nut parsing of most of the fact check sites.

              This is not the only time NYT reported that Trump was wiretapped.
              Nor is the NYT the only mainstream media that reported it.
              WaPo did too.
              And CNN reported that Manafort was tapped.

              We ALL now know that Carter Page was Tapped.
              Given that the left thinks Page is the conduit to russia – doesn’t that mean that the Trump campaign was tapped ?

              1. John Say – on a FISA warrant you are allowed to double hop. The person the original person talks to can all be tapped and everybody they talk to. Hop one, Hop two.

                1. Sounds like the FISA warrant is similar in scope to Facebook’s sharing protocol. Maybe it’s time to read the fine print on the FISA user agreement. 🙁

          2. The NY Times itself called Trump out for misstating the findings in that Times article.

            “Fact Check: Trump’s Day of Falsehoods and Misleading Claims

            Mr. Trump cited news reports as evidence for his wiretapping claims.

            “I’ve been reading about things. I read I think it was a Jan. 20 article in The New York Times — they were talking about wiretapping.”
            This is misleading. The Times article Mr. Trump referred to did use the word “wiretap” but it did not assert that Mr. Obama had ordered surveillance of Mr. Trump, nor did it even mention Mr. Obama. Rather, the story referred to intercepted information collected overseas.
            The headline in print read, “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides.” And the word appeared twice in the text of the article: “intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House” and “If Mr. Sessions is confirmed, he will for a time be the only person in the government authorized to seek foreign intelligence wiretaps on American soil.””

            https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/politics/fact-check-trumps-day-of-falsehoods-and-misleading-
            claims.html

            In other words, that article didn’t say what you claim it does.

            1. I find your analysis amazing.

              Whatever the circumstances you can either get incredibly litteral with one or both sources to achieve the outcome you want or even deal with one side litterally and the other side broadly.

              Trump’s remarks are reasonable given the NYT article.
              Most people gather that.

              As we have learned more – we now know they were also true – the trump campaign was wiretapped.
              Of course wiretapping today is different from the past. No one littlerally had a headset on Trump’s phone lines.

              Most of us also grasp that “obama” does nto have to mean Obama personally.
              Obama referes to the actions of his entire administration – just as Trump gets the heat for any misconduct in the current administration.

              Regardless, if you are going to be this narrow and litteral in your arguments – your should expect that I will demand incredible precision from you in the future. I expect your remarks to be as precise and litteral as you expect TRumps.
              And I will expect you to give my arguments all the broad lattitude you do the NYT

              That sounds reasonable to me. Or are you just a hypocrit ?

              1. Sorry that I blew up your narrative, but perhaps in the future you should research your material more thoroughly. Mistakes like the “changed headline” canard could easily have been avoided with just the slightest of efforts on your own part.

                1. So after your argument fails – you declare victory and go home ?

                  The distinction between the headline was changed and there were two headlines is not only meaningless,

                  But if we are going to get as incredibly litteral as you seem intent on being,

                  Then “there were two headlines” – means the headline was changed.

                  The article did not appear with both headlines in both places, ergo it was “Changed”.

                  Sorry that I blew up your narrative, but perhaps in the future you should research your material more thoroughly. Mistakes like the “there were two headlines” canard could easily have been avoided with just the slightest of efforts on your own part.

                  I would not recomend tactics that you are not prepared to have used against you.

                  I personally consider your response to be a demonstration of lack of integrity.
                  Word play rather than an argument of substance, and I am surprised that McCarthy bought it.
                  Two different headlines means the headline was changed.

                  It is possible the reasons for the change was honest.
                  But claiming those who trusted you meant what you said with one made an error lacks integrity.

                  “Oh I changed my mind” or “Oh I said different things in different places and you caught it”
                  is a lousy argument – and offering it reaks of lack of integrity.

                  But then NYT has become a tabloid for the left.

                  1. There were two headlines, as Andrew McCarthy said, because one was in the print edition, and one was in the website edition. Nothing was changed and you are obviously wrong.
                    If you had integrity you would just admit you were wrong.

                    1. Logic is clearly not your forte.

                      If you have two permutations of something,
                      they only means by which you can not have “change” is if both sprung forth fully formed from independent sources.

                      That is highly unlikely .

                      Returning to the real world the headline was CHANGED from one version to the other.

                      Further you are not only wrong, but you are wrong about a point ludicrously tangent to the actual argument.

                      The actual question is:

                      Trump read “Trump wiretapped” in a NYT headline – it does not matter which one.

                      Trump Tweeted “NYT say Trump Wiretapped”

                      Your, Wapo, NYT, and snopes subsequent claim is Trump lied.

                      That is ludicrous. That meets no accepted understanding of the meaning of “lie”
                      and if it did we would all be in prison.

                      Trump’s 128 char tweet was not a precise match against all the facts of a complete NYT article.

                      But it meets what most reasonable people would gall the gist.

                      Further though we can not credit Trump with omniscience.

                      We subsequently learned that the FBI was tapping Trump surogates, and that by the FISA 2 hop rules that means they were almost certainly wiretapping Trump.

                      “If you had integrity you would just admit you were wrong.”

                    2. Apparently, John, you don’t know how headlines are generated in a newsroom.
                      First of all the writers of the article do not generally write the headlines. That is the task of a headline editor.
                      When the same article is published both in a print edition and an online site it is probable that two different headlines were generated by two different headline editors. There was no one original headline that was subsequently changed, but two headlines seperately originated neither of which was changed.

                      Are you following?

                      Andrew McCarthy apparently knew this, that is why he, a person of integrity, apologized,

        1. Maybe you didn’t find it interesting that President Elect Trump moved all his operations out of Trump Tower a day after getting a visit from Adm. Mike Rogers.

          It was just a coincidence that PE Trump just wanted fresh air.

          And I would never claim that Pres. Obama gave a direct order. But it happened due to the FISA warrant.

          1. A direct order from Obama would not be necessary (see, e.g. Lois Lerner)

            “Won’t someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?”

  5. This will be a popcorn-worthy discovery process.

    the DNC has just opened itself up to civil discovery by the defendants, who can now compel the production of documents and other physical things, and take the depositions of DNC officials, employees, associates, candidates, operatives, and others. In short, the DNC has just invited the defendants to peruse its most deeply held secrets.

    http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/26/trump-conspiracy-lawsuit-democrats-sicced-equivalent-special-counsel/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=d7fa490c3d-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-d7fa490c3d-79248369

    1. Oh the irony. Trump has been criticized by lefties for his frivolous lawsuits and when Trump gets hit with frivolous lawsuits (i.e. Storm-Ass Daniels NDA & DNC) – lefty media goes silent as that type of frivolity is aligned with their not-so-subtle agenda to undermine the president.

      1. It would appear that the Clinton’s and DNC haven’t yet moved passed step 2 in the grieving process. The discovery process should help them along in that regard, but by then, they will certainly learn of the First and Second Law of Holes.

        More popcorn please!

    1. Why else so much attention and repetition?

      Beginning to think is a good thing. The answer to your question might be as simple as, JT is disgusted by his chosen profession used as a weapon that is destroying the foundation of our nation.

  6. William F. Buckley Jr. — ‘I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.’

  7. Hmmm. Columbia Law Professor pal of Comey is anointed an “SGE” in order to permit Comey to share classified information with him. I guess this is Comey’s work around for manipulating the public narrative. We’re seeing his obvious obsession with his own and his bureau’s portrayal in the media. Could it be that this was a relationship Comey cobbled together just to manipulate the media narrative? If so, then perhaps Comey and his pal are the Russian agents everyone has been looking for. Let’s subpoena the professor’s communications and find out just what he was doing in the period leading up to the last presidential election.

  8. James Comey, was, is and will always remain, a man of integrity.
    The Orange One, doesn’t even understand the meaning, of the word.

    Wish, J.T. would zero in on someone else. It’s starting to look like he has an ax to grind with Comey.
    Both great men, in my opinion. Don’t get too bogged down in trying to destroy Comey.
    He’s not the big danger to the U.S. The one with the tan and the white eyes, IS.!

    1. Guinness:

      “James Comey, was, is and will always remain, a man of integrity.
      The Orange One, doesn’t even understand the meaning, of the word.”
      *********************
      The facts and law be damned! Behold Trump Derangement Syndrome and the cult of personality.

              1. So it is fair to infer you have never opined on the charachter of Bill or Hillary Clinton, Anthony Weiner, Dennis Haestert, ARod or Presidebt Obama?

                1. What is with your ilk that you need to malign people by the color of their skin? The content of his character is worth scrutiny, but even that is not as significant as what that content has exposed among the political class. This is lawfare and President Trump is an unconventional weapon. 😉

                    1. You want us to judge Trump by the content of his character?

                      The content of his character is absolutely important; as it is for anyone in a position of public trust. His character however does not necessarily equal his fidelity to the position. This chapter in our history will reflect an electorate ignorant of that distinction. If they only look for character, then the savvy public servant will give them a respectable character; constitutional governance, not a guarantee. Think Federalist 51.

              1. What’s not to love……

                Donald Trump is President

                Kanye is tweeting conservative ideas

                Mitt Romney lost his Caucus to someone we have never heard of….

                Roseanne has the top show on TV

                And it’s only April

          1. Mark,

            Has JT ever discussed remedial measures that should be taken in light of exposure of the corruption being uncovered at the DOJ and FBI?

            Does evidence of an intentionally thrown investigation against HRC necessitate a re-investigation?

            Would such a showing of abuse of process and obstruction of justice negate a statute of limitations defense by defendants being re-investigated?

            Wouldn’t you agree that the only remaining “neutral and detached” investigatory and proprietorial organization capable of cleaning things up is the JAG? Ultimately, the offense is complex fraud; fraudulent acts between individuals who share special bonds of trust. Something mankind has considered since the dawn of time, the time of Dante, and the time of Arnold/Andre as Treason.

            Thoughts?

    2. My Goodness a Guinness

      “Just as every cop is a criminal” — R.Stones “Sympathy for The Devil”

    3. Wish, J.T. would zero in on someone else. It’s starting to look like he has an ax to grind with Comey.
      Both great men, in my opinion. Don’t get too bogged down in trying to destroy Comey.

      You would be wishing that JT compromise his own integrity to ignore unlawful activity. If you had any integrity, you’d welcome the bright light of the law to shine equally on anyone violating the public trust. And given that bright light is shining on the very institutions we’re supposed to rely on for equal justice, it is more light, not less that is necessary.

    4. James Comey is a self serving self righteous idiot, who does not grasp that when you step onto the moral soap box – you better be sure of the morality of your own actions.

      It is increasingly clear – as most anyone who listens to James Comey, that James Comey’s moral compass is James Comey.

      Comey lied to the president repeatedly – but that is ok. Then he makes a fortune claiming the president is one of the biggest liars he has ever know – when there are at most two minor discrepancies between Comey’s versions of their conversations and Trump’s.

      Further as we learn more and more its is Comey’s FBI that is entangled in the moral morrass.

      According to Comey, AG Lynch is compromised and therefore DOJ must distance itself from the Clinton investigation, while at the same time Comey is fighting the appointment of an SC to investigate Clinton.

      An SC is the lawful remedy when DOJ is conflicted.
      The FBI director opperating as a maverick is NOT
      Comey keeps telling us he is all about the rule of law.
      That would be whatever law is made up by Comey at the moment.

      Comey claims it was OK to “leak” his memo’s to the press – because at the time he leaked them he was a private citizen – that is NOT the standard. He was an FBI agent when he wrote them. They were government not personal property.
      Comey makes a big deal of the fact that he was an original classifcation authority – and he deemed they were not classified. Failing to grasp that makes his problems WORSE not better.
      An ordinary government actor can presume that a document not marked classified is not classified.
      A classification authority can not presume that their own work is not classified.
      But it gets worse, Comey claims that the memos did not cover anything that could not be released.

      But that is self evidently false. The openly admitted purpose of the leak was to get a special councel appointed. In other words the leak was about the investigation – and the public release of information about an FBI investigation is extremely restricted – and Comey knows this, he is on record commenting about Lynch’s demand that he refer to the Clinton email investigation as a “matter” rather than an investigation, and noting that the FBI is not supposed to disguss ongoing investigations AT ALL.

      With respect to Comey’s purportedly now different ethical standards as a private citizen – Comey might what to look into the former government officials who have been convicted of mishandling information AFTER they left government.

      If you are ethically, morally, or legally barred from revealing something as an FBI agent, you remain barred when you leave. Quitting or being fired is not a loophole in ethics or law.

      The Left which was excoriating Comey in Nov. 2016 has set him up as some guru on ethics and morality.

      You can remove Trump from the equation – you can deal purely with Comey’s handling of the Clinton investigation – Comey’s own remarks make it crystal clear that Comey thinks ethics and morality are incredibly important. But that he also thinks that ethics and morality are whatever James Comey decides they are at the moment.

      Comey has made clear that he gave serious consideration to the impact notifying congress that the email investigation was re-opening would have on the election.

      That is the textbook example of what NOT to do.

      The rule of law means that notifying congress was either absolutely required – regardless of the effect on the election, or absolutely prohibited. There is no middle ground and weighing the effect on the election – no matter how you factored it means you are ethically clueless.
      That your ethics are situational – that your concept of ethics is not tied to any principles.

    5. JT not trying to destroy Comey – the liar is doing a great job all on his own. He and his pals have totally destroyed any trust people had in the FBI by trying to manipulate the election and cover up Clinton crimes.

    6. Guinness,..
      -Let’s say that Comey is ” man of integrity”.
      Do you think that he exercised good judgement in July 2016 when he took it upon himself to announce not only the results of the Hillary email investigation, but also made the call on whether there was a criminal violation?
      That’s like a chief of police laying out the evidence found in a press conference, then bypassing the DA’s office in making and announcing the decision on whether to prosecute.
      Also, do you think that Comey exercised good judgement in announcing that the FBI was reopening the Hillary email investigation 12 days before the election?
      Comey and some others probably agree that Comey is a “man of integrity” and “morally fit”.
      I’ve mentioned before here that a common complaint about Comey is that he views himself as THE moral arbitrator in all issues.
      That Comey characteristic resulted in an FBI Director interjecting himself and his agency into a political firestorm TWICE, when it could have and should have been avoided.
      I won’t try to distinguish “integrity” from ” self-rightousness”…..I suppose they could co-exist.
      That combination can also create problems.

      1. ‘Let’s say that Comey is ” man of integrity”.”

        Lets not. Comey is self righteous. He thinks he has integrity, but it is self evident from his interveiws, his conduct and his book, that he actually has no principles.

        He thinks that integrity is looking at each individual situation and making a choice as to how to proceed.
        He seems to think that if he does not act based on some intention that he recognizes as biased or wrong that he is acting with integrity.

        The consequence is that he often makes bad choices. He often makes conflicting choices. He often makes choices literally based on the wrong reasons – not even recognizing that they are wrong.

  9. Martyr Saint James does not disclose to president-elect the funding source of salacious dossier (HRC campaign), and does not disclose to congress that the “friend” he leaked FBI memos to is technically a DOJ employee. Pattern of self-serving significant omissions of relevant facts by book-peddler/mean girl Comey.

    1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

      Trump, Cohen’s premier client, has previously taunted people who plead the Fifth Amendment.

      “The mob takes the Fifth,” Trump said in 2016, referencing several people who pleaded the Fifth Amendment during an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email servers during her time as secretary of state.

      Trump asked at the time: “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”

    2. Excerpted from the article linked above:

      President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen said he will assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in connection with a lawsuit filed by adult-film star Stormy Daniels.

      In a filing in a California federal court on Wednesday, Cohen said he decided to invoke his constitutional right after the FBI raided his properties two weeks ago. The FBI reportedly launched an investigation into Cohen for possible bank fraud, wire fraud, and violations of election law.

  10. Professor Turley, you are continuously judgmental without having been in the heat of the battle yourself. Do you have a quota number of posts per day? It’s beginning to look that way. Red wolf, really? I think you should read or re-read “A Man for All Seasons” and then come back to us with your thoughts from your high moral perch.

    1. “Professor Turley, you are continuously judgmental without having been in the heat of the battle yourself”
      ~+~
      Spoken like a true poseur.

  11. A leak can be held to be in the public interest if it reveals unethical behaviour by someone in power, as here.

    Comey needed to expose Trump’s unethical behaviour ( and lies ), regardless of any personal cost to himself, he did the right thing, we should applaud it.

    1. And what was the unethical behavior in his memos? And why was it necessary to leak them to the media instead of turning them over to a favorite Congress person?

      1. At the risk of being repetitive, I’ll merely mention one of the multitude of ethical shortcomings of the day glo bozo; the President of the United States is not owed personal loyalty or fealty by anyone in the FBI. To ask for such is more akin to some sleazy conman or wannabe mob boss.

        this is to “I just ignore all that stuff because at least he’s white and make fun of smart people” mikey

          1. Our President, other elected officials and unelected bureaucrats demonstrate quite effectively what our country is about. They (the political class) are the product of our culture. And we were warned:

            “It is . . . [the citizens] choice, and depends upon their conduct, whether they will be respectable and prosperous, or contemptible and miserable as a Nation. This is the time of their political probation; this is the moment when the eyes of the World are turned upon them.” – George Washington 1783

            “Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature … If the next centennial does not find us a great nation…it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.” – James Garfield 1877

            “When those who are governed do too little, those who govern can – and often will – do too much.” – Ronald Reagan 1971

          1. I suggest you remain fixated on the Pravda Faux News babble. Nothing that anyone else says will penetrate the noise between your ears. Sadly for you and others like you, here in the real worlds, “facts” are objective and are what rational people use to make decisions in their day-to-day affairs. I imagine you’ll be outraged, outraged I tell you, when the real world facts yet again collide with your version of reality.

            this is to “I have a ‘Hannity was here’ tattoo across my lower back” mikey

            1. here in the real worlds, “facts” are objective and are what rational people use to make decisions in their day-to-day affairs.

              I believe Mike was asking you to provide those facts. Isn’t that what you claim rational people use to make decisions? Instead you provided irrational excuses to dodge the question.

              when the real world facts yet again collide with your version of reality. When? If they don’t yet exist, then how rational is your reality?

              1. Olly,..
                -Off topic, but do you now owe me 2 beers😉 on our bet whether Cosby would go to trial?
                Sincd he went to trial twice, does that double the payoff for me?😊

                  1. Paul C. Schulte,..
                    I’m not sure…I’ll need to consult with my lawyer to see😉.
                    The news of Cosby’s conviction reminded me of the bet with Olly many months ago…I think Olly bet that Cosby would negotiate a plea deal, and not go to trial.
                    My bet was that Cosby would fight the charges at trial…I don’t think I can “double-dip” bevause he had two trials, so I’ll probably have to settle for the single beer that we bet.
                    But I’ll check with my lawyer 😉 to see if I can extract two beers on a technicality.

                  1. Olly,..
                    sad outcome, but probably the correct verdict.
                    I’ll try to check the archives for the exchange were we made the bet…I’d guees it fof about two years ago.
                    No, I won’t involve a laywer….this is something I may have to resolve in small claims court😄😀 if and when I track down the “evidence” that we made the bet.😉

                    1. Paul C. Schulte,..
                      – She’d be my last choice for a judge.
                      A hospice worker was at an elderly woman’s home….judge Judy came on the TV, and the c.90 year old woman said “what a bitch!”😄😀

              2. Refer to the “noise” portion of my response. I don’t try to convince flat-earthers of anything either. Anyone who has tuned into any news show, magazine or newspaper within the last year-and-a-half is well aware of the buffoonish antics of the day glo bozo. As I know that mikey has tuned into Pravda, he is fully cognizant of the outrageous and pitiful conduct of our buffoon-in-chief. If you are “not sure” what the antics of the day glo bozo consist of, I refer you to the conduct of any of our past presidents as your guide. Or, you could refer to the newpaper story I posted in this section regarding the comparison between the life, conduct, manner and bearing of the day glo bozo in contrast to that of war hero H.W. Bush (41).

                this is to “now enlightened” olly

                1. To the ‘yet to become enlightened’ Mark, I’m fine with your inability to actually provide relevant facts. Your MO is more towards hyperbole and insults anyway. Having to provide facts would put your rep on the line and blow your cover. 🤣

                  1. As you wish. I post here for my entertainment, not to “educate” the “don’t-wanna-be-taught” gullible rubes and dupes. I provided enough direction that anyone truly motivated to do so would be more-than-able to ascertain the factual underpinnings of my post, since I posted an entire news story regarding same in this very comment section–one which you even apparently commented on.

                    this is to “I’ll just act like I don’t understand any answer that I don’t like” olly

                  2. Olly,…
                    My apologies….the bet was with “Don de Drain”, made January 1, 2016.
                    The JT column was “The Cosby charges; when silence speaks loudly”, dated Dec. 31, 2015.
                    Maybe because you both seem to live in So. California, I confused you with Don de Drain ( who hasn’t seemed to post lately).
                    Anyway, sorry for the error, and I won’t take any more time derailing this thread with this side issue.
                    I’ll save it for when I see a “Don de Drain “comment posted again.😊

                2. Do you really wish to use the conduct of our past presidents as your reference ?

                  H.W. Bush (41) is a war hero, and a decent person – but he was not a particularly good president.
                  Clinton is a sleazeball. Mostly he was a good president.

                  I wish that our presidents were both decent people and good presidents

                  But it has rarely worked that way.

            2. The memos are now in the public view. So what exactly in these Comey memos can be tied to unethical behavior.

              The greater question is how Mr. Rosenstein decided a Special Counsel should be appointed based on these memos.

              The FBI was still undergoing its investigation so what was the need for the SC? I haven’t read a good explanation yet, but I’m always willing to listen.

              1. There was no alleged crime.

                And to this day there remains no available evidence that does not go through the Clinton Campaign.
                While we now have 3 sources – not just Steele. Every one of them goes THROUGH the clinton campaign.

                Most even involve Blumenthal.

        1. Marky Mark Mark – I can assure you that no one he makes fun of is that smart. You sure aren’t.

        2. “I’ll merely mention one of the multitude of ethical shortcomings of the day glo bozo; the President of the United States is not owed personal loyalty or fealty by anyone in the FBI. To ask for such is more akin to some sleazy conman or wannabe mob boss.”

          Actually yes, he is. All the power of the executive is vested in the president.
          If you serve in the executive, you serve at the pleasure of the president.
          You are answerable to him.
          If you can not live with that – quit.

          You are absolutely free to #resist or whatever you want from the outside.

          The checks on the president are the courts and the congress – not the FBI.

          There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about the independence of the FBI.

          In fact there is absolutely nothing in the constitution about any federal police power.
          Because there is none.

          But the Comey Memo’s do a beautiful job of demonstrating the justification of Trump’s request.

          As Comey himself made clear Trump felt like he was being threatened with Blackmail by the FBI in their previous meeting. A fear that is historically justified by the past history of the FBI.

          It is quite reasonable under those circumstances to expect the President to raise the issue of loyalty.

          What is also self evident from the Comey memo’s is that even though Comey calls Trump a prolific liar – Comey’s memo’s confirm almost everything that Trump has said about their meetings.

          Conversely Comey’s memos also confirm that Comey was repeatedly and admittedly lying to the president.

          Lying to the president seems to me like something someone “disloyal” does.

          1. Untrue, but I’m sure you already know that, down deep inside. The FBI is an law-enforcement organization, not some tinpot dictator’s praetorian guard, or the goon squad of some wannabe mafioso. While the day glo bozo does appoint its director and has some strategic say, he does not control its day-to-day operations, and most assuredly doesn’t control who it investigates on suspicion of criminal behavior. Nice try, though. I’m sure you even mouth the Pravda Faux News talking points with accuracy and fervor.

            this is to “Hannity is my truth whisperer” johnnie

            1. “Untrue, but I’m sure you already know that, down deep inside. The FBI is an law-enforcement organization, not some tinpot dictator’s praetorian guard, or the goon squad of some wannabe mafioso. While the day glo bozo does appoint its director and has some strategic say, he does not control its day-to-day operations, and most assuredly doesn’t control who it investigates on suspicion of criminal behavior. Nice try, though. I’m sure you even mouth the Pravda Faux News talking points with accuracy and fervor.”

              What the FBI is, is irrelevant.

              No the president does nto control the day to day operations of any part of the exectutive.
              No President, CEO, or manager does.

              But they all have the power and authority to do so.

              The constitution vests ALL executive power int he president.
              This is not some ideological view. It is how the constitution is written.
              It is also how pretty much every other executive in the world and pretty much every business or corporation works.

              Further, if you had paid the slightest attentions – myriads of scholars, including Derschowitz haw provided inumerable past examples where almost every president has dictated what will be investigated and prosecuted or what will not.

              If you do not like that – change the constitution.

              Further there is actually only one legitimate constitutional means to investigate the president.
              Congress must do it.
              Constitutionally it is their job.

              “this is to “Hannity is my truth whisperer” johnnie”

              I have never watched Hanities show in my life.

              I have almost certainly seen less clips of Hannity than you.
              I do not watch Fox either. In fact I see very little of talking head TV,
              and that mostly from clips on some blog.
              I am more likely to see clips from CNN or MSNBC than Fox.

              If Hannity has said something I have also said – I wouldn’t know.

              Maybe he is following me.

      1. Meanwhile, Cohen is pleading the Fifth, dropping the nickel, in the Stormy Daniels civil case.
        What does Trump think of that?
        “The mob takes the Fifth,” Trump said at one campaign rally in September 2017. “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”
        Of course, the orange hypocrite himself once pleaded the Fifth…
        “The president, however, pleaded the Fifth during his divorce from his first wife Ivana Trump in 1990 to avoid answering questions about adultery.”
        Too funny…
        http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/384937-trump-comments-on-fifth-amendment-resurfaced-after-cohen-filing

        1. wildbill99 – better than the enormous memory failures Hillary has suffered throughout her life while testifying.

          1. Translation: “I can’t defend Trump on this so let’s change the subject to the Clintons and/or President Obama.”
            BTW Paul, being a #NeverTrumper means you don’t have to defend Democrats.

            Have a great day.

                1. wildbill99 – I think Trump will win in 2020 if he decides to run again, so being a #NeverTrump is an exercise in futility. However, Hillary is like a bad penny, she just keeps reappearing. So, until she goes quietly into retirement or jail, whichever comes first, I will have to remain a #NeverHillary.

                  1. Haha. More fun; I think you could bet that, but I don’t think you will.

                    this is to “I often just throw stuff out there for sh*ts and grins” paulie

                    1. Marky Mark Mark – Rasmussen has him at 51% approval if he can stay above 45% and the economy is solid, he will be hard to beat. Those are just historical facts.

                  2. I don’t see Trump winning in 2020 unless the Democrats self destruct by nominating as awful a candidate as they did in 2016. I wouldn’t bet against Trump not finishing out this term, especially if there’s a Democratic House and/or Senate after the midterms.

                2. wildbill,

                  If running for President in 2016 was a competition to date my children, I would agree to that. I wouldn’t want either candidate anywhere near my children, but for two very different reasons:

                  1. Since Trump had never served in any government position, I had no idea whether he would honor the oath and respect the separation of powers. I had only his character to go by and that made me more concerned, not less. If he dated my daughter he would not be let out of my sight.

                  2. Clinton on the other hand has a record of public service. I would never even consider or recommend her to date anyone on the planet, let alone my own. I consider her a serial predator that should be locked up. But since we really had to choose between the two, Trump was the easy choice.

                  Now he’s got a bit of a public service record; what issues do you have with what he has done, outside of his flawed character?

                  1. What Trump has done right, IMHO:
                    Gorsuch nomination and almost all the other Federal Judgeships.
                    What Trump has done wrong, IMHO:
                    Everything else.

                    1. What Trump has done wrong, IMHO:
                      Everything else.

                      His nominations were within his constitutional authority. Time will tell what the choices will look like. As far as everything else; by wrong, are you saying he’s exceeded his authority? Violated his oath? Or is it you believe he is wrong because you don’t agree with those choices?

                    2. “His nominations were within his constitutional authority. ” No shit Captain Obvious, and I stated that I approved of them. Nor did I say he exceeded his authority in any other action, only that I disapproved of them.
                      you have an active imagination, I’ll say that for you.

                    3. Active imagination? More like an active curiosity to know what the opposition to President Trump is based on. I appreciate you providing that clarity.

                    1. Clinton had an abysmally bad record of public service.

                      I consider her a serial predator that should be locked up.

                      Thank you John, that was my point.

                    2. Italy was a big mess before Mussolini. He did quite a bit to straighten out the incompetent and corrupt public service in Italy. You might study what Italians had to say about him before the debacle of he war. And it’s hard to blame the war on Mussolini. Mussolini is one of the most underrated politicians of the 20th century.

        2. The issue in the Ivana divorce was his assault of her, which she attested to, under oath, before he bought her off. Seems he had scalp reduction surgery to limit the size of the bald spot on top of his head. Seems also that he was afraid of taking too many narcotic pain killers because his brother Fred died of alcoholism, and he believed he had a vulnerability to substance abuse. Seems also that the surgery was far more painful than he expected, and that he felt Ivana wasn’t sympathetic enough to his complaints of pain. She testified that he beat her up and pulled out hanks of her hair and asked her whether it hurt or not.

          1. Nutchacha fancies plaintiffs in divorce suits with sharky lawyers always and everywhere unmask the truth in all its pristine glory.

          2. oh my Nutchacha. HRC never divorced Bill despite his documented dalliances because she rode on his coattails. Effin’ loser who would put up with that!

  12. Sure sounds like Mr. Comey had garnered a fellow conspirator in leaking government information to the media.

    Now they can both be charged with crimes. If we have equal justice from the DOJ.

    1. Every time I need a good laugh I replay Mike Flynn’s “Lock Her Up” moment from the Republican Convention. The vicissitudes of life are often very amusing….

      1. WB99 – yes that was amusing indeed. But funnier still was the DNC convention with all the folks chanting “hell no DNC we won’t vote for Hil-a-ry”

Leave a Reply