Giuliani and the “Zero” Defense

225px-rudy_giulianiBelow is my column in USA Today on the disastrous interviews given by Rudy Giuliani where he made a series of damaging statements on the Stormy Daniels scandal and other matters related to President Donald Trump.  He has since walked back his remarks and President Trump has said that Giuliani needs to “get his facts straight” and said that people had to “learn before you speak. It’s a lot easier.”   Giuliani seemed to contradict himself in the same interview and tripped more wires for potential criminal and ethical violations. Giuliani who emphasized that “zero” money for Daniels came from the campaign seemed to fundamentally miscomprehend the law which is designed precisely to catch contributions coming from outside the campaign reporting system.  While doing little for the defense, it did create new questions about the failure to report the loan, the use of payments disguised as fees, and the obvious conflict with Cohen’s own recollection and statement — a point that Cohen himself made to the media.

Here is the column:

One day after President Trump added a major league lawyer to his lineup in the form of Emmett Flood, the Trump legal team returned to playing T-ball on television. Rudy Giuliani sat down with both Fox News host Sean Hannity and the Fox and Friends crew, and added incomprehensible moments to an increasingly incomprehensible defense.

First came Hannity, who asked Giuliani about Russians giving dirt on Trump to the investigator Christopher Steele, paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Giuliani’s response will now enter the Hall of Fame of the greatest non sequiturs in history. Giuliani immediately started talking about Stormy Daniels and said, “Sorry, I’m giving you a fact now that you don’t know.”

He then proceeded to directly contradict the past denials by both the president and Trump lawyer Michael Cohen that Trump had no knowledge of the $130,000 paid to the porn star. It was clearly a planned moment where the Trump team would start the awkward process of tacking away from the president’s denials and toward defensible legal ground.

Trump’s past blanket denials were consistent with Cohen’s past insistence that he received no reimbursement for the Daniels’ payments, and that the president had no knowledge of the agreement or the payments. The problem is that the denials were manifestly implausible and increasingly in conflict with developing facts.

The defense team likely saw a painful change in Trump’s account as inevitable and decided that it was time to take the hit. Indeed, the team might have concluded that changing the president’s factual account is unlikely to come at a political cost. The White House may have been encouraged by a new NBC News poll that shows 76% of Republicans still believe Trump tells the truth “all or most of the time.” The White House may feel that Trump’s base is virtually immune from glaring contradictions by the president.

Giuliani asserted Thursday on Fox and Friends that the payment of hush money just before the election “wasn’t for the campaign” — reflecting a clear calculus that the logically implausible can still be legally defensible. Thus, if the money is claimed to be, as suggested by Giuliani, an effort “to save their marriage,” it makes the motivation personal rather than political.

However, this change in the narrative then changed immediately when Giuliani corrected himself to say, “Not their marriage as much as their reputation.”

If it is about reputation, it brings the matter back toward the campaign.

It remains to be seen whether Trump’s team has found a better legal footing. Giuliani describes the money as being “funneled” through Cohen in the form of attorney fees — a practice that would seem at best deceptive and at worse potentially criminal or unethical in some respects. It is like saying you did not rob the bank, you only embezzled through a banker.

According to Giuliani, a monthly retainer for attorney fees was used to pay hush money and the president “did know” of the general arrangement. Giuliani also suggested that virtually the entirety of the retainer fees were for this purpose, but that Cohen was given “retainer of $35,000 when he was doing no work for the president.” Giuliani said it was meant to pay Cohen back “with a little profit and a little margin for paying taxes.”

However, it was being claimed as fee payments — a subterfuge that could only be used to shield the payments. It would also mean that, whatever attorney-client privilege claims Cohen is maintaining in New York after the FBI raid, Cohen is now the only person claiming a substantive attorney-client relationship with Trump. He has been reduced to little more than a “funnel.”

In removing the glaring conflicts with some prior facts, Giuliani’s new account conflicts with a new set of facts. Giuliani insists that the president did not know about the “details” until 10 days ago. That would be April 23. Conveniently, that was weeks after the president on Air Force 1 expressly denied any knowledge of the payment to Cohen.

However, it would also mean that these details were unknown months after the explosion of this scandal and weeks after he sat down for a high-visibility dinner with Cohen.

Even if the president succeeds in moving to a new position, Cohen does not have the same flexibility. He is stuck in the same place that he was 48 hours ago, but now he is alone. Cohen has repeatedly stated that there was no reimbursement for his payments to Daniels: “Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with (Daniels), and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly.”

There is now a growing chasm between Trump and Cohen. The obvious problem for Trump is that if Cohen gets lonely enough, he could find a new friend in Mueller.

The upshot is that the team can still face a campaign-finance allegation after leaving the most dangerous potential witness in an isolated and estranged position. It also means there was a conscious effort to pay Cohen for hush money paid to a porn star days before an election. That is not a material improvement.

After tweeting again this morning, the president made his way to a prayer breakfast. Hopefully, that is not the final option left to him by his legal team. Prayer can be redemptive but, in both life and litigation, “God helps those who help themselves.” None of this is helpful.

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

154 thoughts on “Giuliani and the “Zero” Defense”

  1. When most Americans just want this national embarrassment to stop from this indefensible unqualified man-child, now we have to listen to his court jester Rudy G. The level of incompetence is just staggering to any thinking person. Trump’s moral failing and complete disregard for even basic human decency is beyond anything this country has ever seen before and cannot be tolerated. And you got to believe that most Americans are holding their breath hoping that something really bad was to happen, what kind of leaders do we have that are up to the task? Real Republicans, Democrats, and Independents are counting the days to see if we have a Russian agent or mole in this White House, and that should scare anybody who really does love this country.

    1. I saw that too. Certain readers of this blog would be unsettled. The professor’s prognosis for Trump is not all that positive.

      1. And certain readers will be happy as long as Clinton remains out. I’m one of them.


    After a few days of contemplating this matter, I am more than half-convinced Giuliani was deliberately sabotaging Trump. Some people get even through passive-aggressive means and that could be the real dynamic here. Giuliani may harbor deeply bitter feelings because Trump never appointed him to a cabinet position. One could almost forgive Giuliani for being so vindictive. Giuliani was one the first prominent Republicans to champion Trump’s campaign. ..Why didn’t Trump reciprocate..?


    If Stormy Daniels was the only scandal Trump faced at the moment, the public would be generally indifferent; especially with the economy being robust as it is. Instead Stormy Daniels is merely a sub-plot in a presidency beset by so many controversies even the best-informed have trouble keeping track.

    Professor Turley grimly offers this note with regards to Trump supporters, “The White House may feel that Trump’s base is virtually immune from glaring contradictions by the president”.

    The professor knows from comments on this thread that Trump supporters will steadfastly dismiss each and every controversy by shrieking, “What about Hillary??!” Ironically this response validates Hillary. Her description of Trump supporters as a ‘basket of deplorables’ was perfectly astute.

    1. That was my initial impulse as well. I mean, with “friends” like this, who needs enemies?

  3. Thus far Trump has fed those Americans who, regardless of whether something is intelligent or not, practical or not, destructive or productive, true or a lie; favor the ugly American braggadocio over common sense. The main argument of Trump followers is that his incessant lying, shameful behavior, and overwhelming buffoonery is acceptable because he is making America great again and ‘getting stuff done’. This is a strong position, if it were true. Trump has tweaked the momentum of which he had nothing to do. The unemployment rate was falling long before he arrived on the scene. North Korea was strangling under sanctions put in places over decades. Just as the Soviet Union was disintegrating from within and the alt right accord all the praise to Reagan for its dismantling, the alt right will accord all the praise to Trump for any benefits that come out of North Korea’s acquiescence, if it comes at all. A soldier that recently defected was found to have intestinal parasites and other ailments that are directly attributable to malnourishment, that which the majority of North Koreans endure; or nothing to do with Trump.

    In reality, Trump can, through lying, exaggeration, or due to momentary bumps, take credit for what may be there, might happen, or simply through lies. The alt right drinks it all in and ignores reality. America is unravelling decades of environmental gains. Goals that would have made America greater are being abandoned, such as mpg goals for cars, pollution control levels, and incentives for alternative or clean energy. All this backsliding is for the benefit of the mega rich as it creates no new future industry but represents the last gasps of robber baron filching of the planet’s resources.

    American industry has diminished, not because of unfair trade practices but because of global focus from the oligarchs resulting in jobs going overseas. Germany enjoys a higher standard of living that the US by a long way; higher average wages, better public education, better health care, and more stable employment. All this is a result of government, labor, and the private sector cooperating to balance the effects of free enterprise. There are plenty of millionaires and billionaires in Germany, along with a vastly higher standard of living.

    Under Trump America has sunk well into the past to place the average American further from a better standard of living and further distanced from the increasing wealth of the very few at the top, the shareholders and the oligarchs. There is no wealthy person anywhere that got that wealth all by its self. Workers had to work and consumers have to consume. America’s most recent mega tragedy is the placement of the worst of the worst of oligarchs into the White House. There is what Trump says, most of it being lies and contradictions, and what he has done and is doing. Compare carefully what he has done and for whom and then applaud. Thus far, Trump followers have yet to move past the jargon and lies. The sooner we get rid of this evil, the better. Vote out, overwhelmingly, the Republicans and Trump. Send a message that America needs to move forward, not backward.

    1. Shall be done. There shall be cries of “Obama Coup” or “What about Hillary” but rest assured, the wingnut wackjobs will have been issued the talking points to go along with the historical repudiation of the day glo bozo and the obscenity represented by his presence in the people’s Whitehouse. As with most wackjob tomfoolery, is will fade into nothingness in the manner of all factually-deficient accusations.

      this is to isaac

  4. This blog really exposes those only interested in partisan politics. The evidence for collusion to rig an election and illegal campaign finance contributions through money laundering is laying right there on the table. And because it doesn’t point to Trump, nothing to see here move along. This is not an effort at justice, this is lawfare.

  5. There is no legal consequence for lying to, or misleading the press. If Mueller were to ever question Trump, Rudy or anyone else about inconsistent statements to the press, the obvious reply should be a big shrug, followed by, “that was political spin.” Rudy is a grandstander and seemingly runs his mouth without thinking, sort of like his boss. But in the end, their statements to the press may have political consequences, but no legal impact.

  6. Rudy, who was once a great man, has now gone the way of Newt and others who have compromised their integrity, all to get a pat on the back from the Orange Oaf. !! At least Newt got a job for his wife at the Vatican,
    for compromising his integrity. Wonder what Rudy gets.?
    Rudy is too old and not as sharp as he used to be. He needs to RUN…from loyalty to the LIAR IN CHIEF…..
    before the Liar, runs from him….

    1. You’re right about Rudy, he’s lost his fastball. Once more Trump screws himself by his choice of henchmen.

      1. WillBill,…
        – Rudy made his name as a prosecutor.
        To be fair, maybe he just forgot which side he was on when he came on board of Trump’s legal team.😄

        1. He’s had an extensive run of years in private practice as well, though I’m not sure criminal defense law has been part of his book.

  7. Simple rule for lawyers to follow: keep your mouth shut; litigate your case in the courtroom, not in the media. It is hard to believe that so many veteran attorneys, including one who was the former U.S. Attorney for the S.D. of N.Y., cannot follow that elementary rule.

    1. The legal maneuvering is only part of the story here. This is lawfare, and public relations is as much a part of it as what goes on in the courtroom.

      N.B., Prof. Turley is an academic with no experience in politics and none he admits to in day-to-day law practice.

      1. I agree, but the political/media machinations should not be conducted by the attorneys. Get someone else to give the talking points.

          1. Guiliani seems to need more practice.
            His PR talking points / interviews did not go well.
            They are still trying to untangle and reconcile what Trump has said with what Guiliani said.

          2. You can’t prove that by what he is doing or, rather, saying.

        1. Vince, Guliani needs to run his talking points past Trump’s real lawyers before Guliani goes to the press with them. The media strategy and the legal strategy need to be coordinated and the legal team should be in charge of the media team.

  8. From The Chicago Sun Times by way of The Associated Press:

    WASHINGTON — Investigators working for special counsel Robert Mueller have interviewed one of President Donald Trump’s closest friends and confidants, California real estate investor Tom Barrack, The Associated Press has learned.

    Barrack was interviewed as part of the federal investigation of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election, according to three people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

    One of the people who spoke to AP said the questioning focused entirely on two officials from Trump’s campaign who have been indicted by Mueller: Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and Manafort’s onetime deputy, Rick Gates. Gates agreed to plead guilty to federal conspiracy and false-statement charges in February and began cooperating with investigators.

    A second person with knowledge of the Barrack interview said the questioning was broader, including financial matters about the campaign, the transition and Trump’s inauguration in January 2017.

    1. Team Trump is leaking like a sieve. Why? Well, clearly the Trump Team has a media strategy. But where is Team Trump’s legal strategy? I don’t think they have one. But they need to get one–ASAP.

      1. Turley wrote, “The upshot is that the team can still face a campaign-finance allegation after leaving the most dangerous potential witness in an isolated and estranged position. It also means there was a conscious effort to pay Cohen for hush money paid to a porn star days before an election. That is not a material improvement.”

        I’ve seen this before in the movie “Stripes,” starring Bill Murray. It’s called “razzle dazzle.” But will it work on he who will not be deterred, Robert Swan Mueller The Third??? Stay tuned.

          1. Thanks Al. Your reference is more on topic than “Stripes”.

      2. If their media strategy is any indication of the effectiveness of their legal strategy perhaps they’re better off without one and let the chips fall where they may.


    “9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB”
    The official U.S. Government & Media 9/11 story is that 2 NYC towers were brought down by 2 airplanes.
    This is a total LIE !
    In the following video 2959 Architects and Engineers prove the U.S. Government & Media are Lying about 9/11.
    The U.S. Government & Media are complicit in the murders of 9/11.
    Christopher Bollyn: If the government and media are lying to us about 9/11, it means they are controlled by the same people who carried out 9/11.
    Our enemy does not want you to know about the 3rd building, WTC 7. It was not hit by a plane.
    This issue exposes the wide and deep corruption of the governments, courts and media..

    1. This is entirely false. I am a co-author on a peer reviewed paper about why the towers fell. The twin towers were never designed to withstand having an airliner impact.

      1. David, of course you’re right but this guy is an obvious nutjob.

        Have a great day.

      2. David BB

        You might be right, but if so, it’s irrelevant since no planes struck either tower.

        1. Take your Aricept and quit bugging the staff. They have real work to do.

          1. WILL bill –

            Trump knows about 9/11. Have some Kool Aid.

            1. Who’s nuttier, the Birthers or the Truthers?
              A toss up in my book.

        2. Haha. Very rich. But what about the grassy knoll guy?

          this is to “I’ve been rectally-examined by aliens in my sleep” billy

      3. @David B. Benson May 6, 2018 at 7:45 AM
        “This is entirely false. I am a co-author on a peer reviewed paper about why the towers fell. The twin towers were never designed to withstand having an airliner impact.”

        Will you please provide a link to your paper? I ask because your statement completely contradicts what the World Trade Center’s actual design engineers have said:

        “Towers’ Design Parameters

        “Twin Towers’ Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th’s[Emphasis added]

        “Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.

        “Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the World Trade Center.

        Does your paper also address the question of how the planes’ impacts could pulverize the Twin Towers’ concrete into microscopic dust and how they could result in the lateral ejection of massive steel beams for over 500 feet?

        “Steel Beams

        “During the destructions of the twin Towers, massive steel beams, weighing 4 – 20 tons or more, were ejected horizontally as much as 520 feet. Their motion can be examined as for projectiles. [Emphasis added]

        “How does expelled air propel these beams with such force? In the official story of 9/11, the only other force available is that of gravity acting vertically downward. A theory that buckling steel columns were severed and ejected with a spring action, a very unlikely occurrence, is not supported by the uniform debris fields and lack of observed rotation of steel beams seen in mid flight on videos.

        “Extensive debris fields with ejected steel columns and sections of aluminum cladding surrounded the demolished towers on all sides for hundreds of feet. A very large proportion of the steel was projected outward. Only explosive force can explain the debris fields. [Emphasis added]

        “The official account of 9/11 dismisses this indisputable evidence by entirely ignoring it. The controlled demolition theory, on the other hand, readily explains this evidence. In a controlled demolition of a building, charges are placed so as to break the structure into pieces of manageable size for easy removal by truck.

        “Thus, the steel columns were broken and ejected by explosive force. This evidence alone is quite enough to disprove the official account of 9/11.” [Emphasis added]

        I look forward to reading your paper, David.

        1. “It’s difficult to pinpoint a precise moment when the popularity of the 9/11 conspiracy theory peaked, though it was probably sometime in 2006. In tracking its decline, however, three dates stand out: July 22, 2004, when the 9/11 Commission released its final report; Feb. 3, 2005, when Popular Mechanics published its 5,500-word article dismantling the movement’s claims; and Aug. 21, 2008, when the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued the final portion of a $16 million study investigating the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers and a third World Trade Center skyscraper that was not hit by a plane.

          Facts alone are insufficient to destroy a conspiracy theory, of course, and in many ways a theory’s appeal has more to do with the receptiveness of its audience than the accuracy of its details. The popularity of the 9/11 conspiracy theory would continue to ebb and flow after each of these reports. But their responses to these challenges show how followers of the 9/11 conspiracy theory changed their emphases and arguments—or, more often, did not—when presented with new information.”

          The take away line…

          “Facts alone are insufficient to destroy a conspiracy theory, of course, and in many ways a theory’s appeal has more to do with the receptiveness of its audience than the accuracy of its details.”

          I find it surprising that Mr. Turley’s blog should be such a magnet for nut cases. Birthers, Truthers, people who believe the crap spewed by Alex Jones.

          “Is a puzzlement.”

          1. @wildbill99 May 6, 2018 at 2:01 PM
            “The take away line…
            “ ‘Facts alone are insufficient to destroy a conspiracy theory, of course, and in many ways a theory’s appeal has more to do with the receptiveness of its audience than the accuracy of its details.’ ”

            Bill, aren’t you living proof of the assertion above?

            You are a strikingly receptive audience who seems to have swallowed hook, line, and sinker the 9/11 Commission’s conspiracy theory that 19 Arabs who could barely fly Piper Cubs conspired to hijack and fly Boeing jetliners around inside the US for almost an hour, defeating the most sophisticated air defense system on the planet, and who then unerringly crashed two of those planes into the Twin Towers, pulverizing them into microscopic dust, and then, for good measure, reduced into its own footprint a third steel and concrete skyscraper, Building 7, without so much as touching it.

            Do you think your receptivity to that conspicuously implausible conspiracy theory is attributable to its coming from a government commission?

            1. That theory is implausible only to the benighted souls who find more comfort in blaming the US government for 9-11.
              It’s particularly popular still in the Mideast, among the uneducated and gullible. Here, luckily, it’s no more that an amusing footnote to the tragedy.

              1. @wildbill99 May 6, 2018 at 7:42 PM
                “That theory is implausible only to the benighted souls who find more comfort in blaming the US government for 9-11.

                “It’s particularly popular still in the Mideast, among the uneducated and gullible. Here, luckily, it’s no more that an amusing footnote to the tragedy.”

                In addition to your being living proof that “facts alone are insufficient to destroy a conspiracy theory,” you’re also a poster child for Twain’s observation that “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

                Is it just scientific facts that cause you cognitive dissonance, or are these testimonial facts also problematic for you?

                Do you think that many of the 9/11 Commissioners, themselves, are “benighted souls”? Are their complaints “an amusing footnote to the tragedy”? The veracity of the quotations below of their complaints are easily found in multiple sources:

                “The 9/11 Commission Didn’t Believe the Government … So Why Should We?

                “9/11 Commissioners Admit They Never Got the Full Story

                “The 9/11 Commissioners publicly expressed anger at cover ups and obstructions of justice by the government into a real 9/11 investigation:

                 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says, ‘I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right,’ that the commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue

                 The 9/11 Commission chair said the Commission was ‘set up to fail’

                 The Commission’s co-chair said that the CIA (and likely the White House) ‘obstructed our investigation’

                 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that ‘There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what is outlined in our version…we didn’t have access….’

                 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said, ‘We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting.’

                 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: ‘It is a national scandal; This investigation is now compromised; and ‘One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up.’ When asked in 2009 if he thought there should be another 9/11 commission, Cleland responded: ‘There should be about fifteen 9/11 commissions’

                 The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry said, ‘At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.’ He also said, ‘I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.’

                “No wonder the Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11 – Bob Graham – and 9/11 Commissioner and former Senator Bob Kerrey are calling for either a ‘PERMANENT 9/11 commission or a new 9/11 investigation’ to get to the bottom of it.”

                And for the evidence that the Bush Administration’s star 9/11 witness was certifiably insane and had no connection whatsoever to Al-Qaeda, see:


                  1. @wildbill99 May 7, 2018 at 10:13 PM

                    “Washingtons Not impressed.”

                    Really? That’s strange, as Washington speaks very highly of you. 🙂

                    Did you fact check the 9/11 Commissioners’ quotations, Bill, or were you afraid that doing so might compromise your determination to remain duped by the official, albeit risible, 9/11 conspiracy theory?

                    On the bright side, it’s good that you can now acknowledge that people do conspire to commit crimes, but the quality of your theorizing about conspiracies is, to put it charitably, less than stellar.

                    1. Ken, you sound like a reasonable guy aside from the wing nuttery of your 9-11 fantasies.
                      We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on that.

        2. You are an idiot who will believe anything. The design counted on the mullions to support a portion of DL.

          1. YNOT, is DL dead load? Also, aren’t mullions the seperators in between window panes?

            P.S. I’m getting bored waiting for Mueller to finishing mulling.

            1. @YNOT May 7, 2018 at 3:36 PM
              “This was for conspiracy idiotken Rogers.”

              You drastically mistake me, YNOT. I am criticizing the Cheney Administration’s ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy theory, not endorsing it, as endorsing it would be, as you suggest, rather “idiotic.”

            2. YNOT said, “This was for conspiracy idiot Ken Rogers.”

              Yes. I know. But it’s not every day that you read someone use the word “mullions” correctly in a sentence. Conspiracy idiots like Ken Rogers should sit up and take notice of YNOT’s capabilities. L4D does. They can do it, too.

              P. S. It was no part of my intention to imply that DL might stand for DinnerLate. Lots of people claim that L4D is dead load. But I figured that YNOT was just being squeamish about using that term in the given context.

        1. PLEASE tell us you are a believer in the 9-1-1 conspiracy.

          this is to “black helicopters unrolled my newspaper on my front lawn” georgie

    2. If 9 / 11 was indeed a dastardly inside-plot, then Guiliani was certainly involved.. along with 5,000 others! The only question is, “What authority continues holding this plot together after 17 years??”

      No serious architect or engineer belongs to that ‘organization’. It’s just a video production company catering to people who define their politics in terms of conspiracies; not unlike Trump supporters.

      1. who define their politics in terms of conspiracies; not unlike Trump supporters.

        Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, and Peter Sztrok actually were conspiring.

        1. More than half the country had deep reservations about candidate Trump. And the fact that so many congressional Republicans are retiring this years illustrates that those reservations continue on a very wide scale. Therefore, to single out the above as ‘proof of a conspiracy’ ignores the resistance to Trump within his own party.

        2. Do not three major political assassinations in one decade (using the same MO including use of a “patsy”) prove a conspiracy – JFK, RFK and MLK?

          The real questions is: Why do these apologists ignore the facts? Are they paid, do they otherwise obtain financial gain or is their an ideological allegiance?

          Who would not build a structure, which stood something approaching 2,000 feet in the air, to withstand an accidental impact of an airliner? Murphy’s Law says an airliner will hit a building.

        3. You say Trump supporters say, “Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, and Peter Sztrok actually were conspiring”. Trump supporters say that because there is an a DOJ IG proving it!

          Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, and Peter Sztrok were an elite team at the DOJ. They have a history due to thousands of Strzok and Page texts. The IG (Horowitz) might say those text messages tell the team’s story (timeline, motives, and actions). Some Trump supporters might call it conspiring. Not matter the word the DOJ IG took serious steps against these DOJ employees.

          Three (3) DOJ IG investigations mandating reports to Congress in a year is historically unprecedented. Why? Reports to Congress mean that significant abuses of DOJ legal procedure were involved. These are the best law enforcement people in the US system.

          The referral of McCabe means at-least one case was considered criminal. What is the probability of the same team members being involved in all three IG investigation reports?

          Worse? Why would nine of these same senior DOJ staff be removed from their positions during the course of these investigations? Removal without cause is impossible at the DOJ because senior DOJ staff have significant legal protections. Conspiracy or a coincidence?

      2. @Peter Hill May 6, 2018 at 10:54 AM
        “If 9 / 11 was indeed a dastardly inside-plot, then Guiliani was certainly involved.. along with 5,000 others! The only question is, “What authority continues holding this plot together [sic] after 17 years??”

        “No serious architect or engineer belongs to that ‘organization’. It’s just a video production company catering to people who define their politics in terms of conspiracies; not unlike Trump supporters.”

        I don’t know what qualifies in your mind as being “serious,” but as far as I’m concerned, 2,987 architects and engineers with a combined total of 25,000 years of professional experience is a passably serious organization.

        As to Guiliani’s role in 9/11, an important part of it appears to have been participating in the destruction of evidence at the World Trade Center crime scene:

        “On April 11, 2018, AE911Truth added a new piece to our library of technical articles titled, ‘Documenting the Destruction of Physical Evidence at the World Trade Center’

        “The purpose of publishing the article on that date was to provide well-sourced information supporting the claim that New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s role in destroying the WTC evidence was ‘well-documented’ — a claim we made in an accompanying news article, ‘Lawyers and Victims’ Families File Petition for Federal Grand Jury Investigation,’ on the same day.

        “The larger reason for publishing the technical article was to clarify exactly who was responsible for destroying the WTC steel. The destruction of this evidence is widely known in the 9/11 Truth movement, but many are unaware of who actually carried it out. For example, some mistakenly believe the evidence was destroyed by FEMA, the government agency that conducted the first investigation.”

  10. So far he’s doing a great job on his primary mission. six more years under either him or Pence and the regressive progressive liberals will cease to exist along with their Dino and Rino factions.

    1. BFD. We didn’t hire Trump to be a goody two shoes or worse act like a Democrat with zero morals, valuesd and standards. We hired him to destroy the left. So far it’s working just fine and now we have a good chance to reinstate our Representative Constitutional Republic. Take it anyway you want. The left wing porigressively regressive liberal socialists are the main target and that includes DINOs and their right wing RINOs

      1. We got the zero morals, values and standards part anyway.

      2. Good luck then in the mid-terms where the GOP is going to lose seats so I don’t think the Donald will destroy the left. And now he is a proven liar it looks even less likely ref. The ‘public trust’ factor.

        1. Lose seats? They’ll be lucky to keep the Senate, despite having a huge advantage in the electoral map and seats at risk. The House? The record number of Republican incumbents not running for reelection is a harbinger of things to come.

          Trump is killing the Republican Party.

          1. Thanks for the ass-pull. It’s been an education.

            Rothenberg & Gonzales current assessments suggest the Democrats will gain 9 seats in the House and lose 1 or 2 in the Senate.

            1. “House Outlook

              Republicans have a 240-195 majority. Democrats need a net gain of 23 seats for a majority. Most likely outcome: Democratic gains in the teens to a more dramatic electoral wave.”


              House Ratings Changes: Democrats’ Open Seat Opportunities
              by Nathan L. Gonzales May 4, 2018 · 2:29 PM EDT

              “It’s dangerous to extrapolate too much from any single special election, but the trend is clear across nearly all of the special elections over the past year: Democrats are over-performing…”


              1. Look down the whole list of contests. There are very few where they are actually predicting a party change and a somewhat larger number where odds are even for a party change.

                1. That doesn’t jive with Gonzales’s overall view of the House mid terms election, namely “Democratic gains in the teens to a more dramatic electoral wave.”

                  How do you explain the discrepancy?

          2. Well given the unpopularity of this POTUS among some sections is American society a Republican President and Demo-led Senate and House of Rep the best order of the day. Looking forward to Trump’s increased ranting and raving against his Democratic opposition. The only issue I support him on is his strong stance on immigration.

            1. Truth be told I support him on immigration and judicial appointments.

              Even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn or two.

  11. Basically Trumped lied on Air Force One and now his legal team are trying to cover this up. It is only a matter of time before this obfuscation comes to an end as the media keeps on digging and digging. Will Trump apologise to the Ametican public for lying – I think It is highly unlikely. But now the floating voter is more certain of his lack of ethical behaviour.

    1. So? He’s doing a fine job of destroying the left in detail the rest is ho hum BFD. Saves a lot of trouble among them giving the job to those whose Constitutional Oath demands it, the US Military and keeps the main part of the population unhindered and safe. Ballots Not Bullets is always the better choice a lesson lost on the War Mongers of the left. So some of the left are crying foul because suddenly they are in harms way? BFD. So what?

    1. thank you for being one of the few to provides sites, cites, sources and facts.

      1. “Judge Ellis has high expectations from counsel on both sides of any issue,” said Timothy Belevetz, a former prosecutor in the Eastern District now with the firm Holland & Knight. “His interactions with counsel in the courtroom do not necessarily reflect where he’ll end up coming out, because he’s a thoughtful judge who takes into account and carefully analyzes what’s presented to him. But in the meantime, he probes counsel and does so thoroughly.”

        1. Most tellingly, though, Judge Ellis raised the specter of using The Classified Information Procedures Act during Manafort’s trial which is currently set to begin on June 10th, 2018, in EDVA. The OSC would prefer to avoid CIPA in order to preserve ongoing investigations. Manafort’s lawyers should also want to avoid CIPA for the more practical reason that CIPA could deprive Manafort of an adequate defense. The OSC has two weeks to show Judge Ellis the redacted portions of Rosenstein’s August 2nd, Memorandum, so that Judge Ellis can decide whether or not to invoke CIPA. It reads to me as though Judge Ellis is ready for Manafort to go to trial.

          1. It reads to me as though Judge Ellis is ready for Manafort to go to trial.

            You’re whistling past the graveyard.

            1. I read the whole transcript. Judge Ellis gave it but good to both Dreeben and Downing. And he threatened the both of them with CIPA to boot. What part did you read? The part that Trump quoted?

  12. I suppose the Daily Tatler can use this. Juicy enough.

  13. Giuliani and Trump have played leftist fools like a violin. While the Leftist fools are obsessing and mentally maturbating over Stormy Daniels (when not performing the physical variety), Trump is scoring victory after victory on his domestic and international agendas.

    1. Well, he has shown to ‘Merica’s friends, allies and adversaries that our solemn vows, threats and treaties don’t mean anything more than the shrieking of a carnival barker. So I guess if you’re the President of Russia or China–or a supporter of those persons–the early returns on the antics of the day glo bozo have to be “we got what we paid for.”

      this is to “acting stupid is really a smart play” ralphie

  14. Was it Rep. Jim Jordan (R) who just said he’s “never heard the President lie?” Many here will follow that same line no matter what the facts are. Sarah Huckabee Sanders has been reduced to saying she gave out the “best information she had at the time.” Please let them keep on with the line that the man who went raw with a porn star is, “trying to protect his family!”

    If he would lie like a rug about this, why would anyone believe he wouldn’t lie about Russia? He already did at least once in dictating the letter about the Trump Tower meeting or was that his physical. Nevermind, it was both! If I had to defend this clown I’d have given up long ago.

    1. LMAO to hear a left wing extremist prattle about ‘facts’

      1. From The Cambridge Online Dictionary:

        Fact [noun]: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information.

        1. When the facts get in the way of their opinions they call it fake news.

      2. Michael, you are always right there to discredit my thoughts or logic, yet you never offer any countering facts of your own. Everything you choose not to believe is “leftist” and therefore not credible. Try arguing facts, you’ll find they either exist or they don’t.

    2. Enigma

      Jim Jordan is obviously lying. The More Wars for Israel crowd don’t care about Trump’s lies. They just care about destroying the nation’s safety net, privatizing more prisons, destroying public schools, and cutting taxes for the rich.

    1. No doubt Obama or maybe Clinton or maybe both and the DNC.

      1. From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

        Definition of moron:

        1 dated, now offensive : a person affected with mild mental retardation

        2 : a very stupid person ·They were acting like a bunch of morons.

  15. Say little and do much… a proverb our president and all his satraps must learn and adhere to !!! DMD

Comments are closed.