No, Giuliani Did Not Implicate Trump In Obstruction of Justice In Comey Comments

225px-rudy_giulianiBelow is my column in the Hill newspaper on the widespread criticism of former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s interviews as implication his client, President Donald Trump, in the crime of obstruction of justice.  Giuliani noted that Trump fired James Comey in part due to his refusal to state publicly that Trump was not a target. While I have been highly critical of Giuliani’s performance, the defense raised by Giuliani was neither new nor a basis for a criminal charge.


Attorney Rudolph Giuliani’s Fox New interview Wednesday night on President Trump’s new position on the payment of hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels has set off a public fervor. Much of the criticism is well-based. Giuliani’s portrayal of the FBI agents who raided the office of Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, as “stormtroopers” was outrageous, particularly since he once headed the office directing the search. His new explanation for the president on the Stormy Daniels scandal was conflicted and convoluted.

Much of the coverage was also directed at Giuliani’s explanation for Trump firing former FBI director James Comey. Giuliani said Trump was upset that Comey would not state publicly that Trump was not a target of the Russian election interference investigation. The media pounced on the statements as conflicting with Trump’s past position and even as being proof of obstruction.

It is not. Indeed, it may be the only aspect of Giuliani’s interview that was beneficial to Trump. In his interview by Fox’s Sean Hannity, Giuliani said Trump “fired Comey because Comey would not, among other things, say that he wasn’t a target of the investigation. He’s entitled to that. Hillary Clinton got that, and he couldn’t get that. So he fired him, and he said, ‘I’m free of this guy.’”

The response was immediate and ecstatic. University of Michigan Professor Barbara McQuade, a former prosecutor, said that Giuliani “may just be building the case against [Trump]. Even demanding that Comey make a public statement that Trump is not under investigation would itself potentially be obstruction of justice.” Likewise, New York Magazine observed “many pundits were quick to note that firing Comey because he wouldn’t say what Trump wanted about the Russia investigation, sounds like the very definition of obstruction of justice.”

If so, it is a definition not found in the criminal code. For over a year, I have written about the considerable obstacles facing a charge of obstruction against Trump and questioned why the media was ignoring this very obvious defense. Trump had grounds for terminating Comey independent from any effort to shutdown the investigation. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein called for Comey to be fired for “serious mistakes” and cited a long list of former attorneys general, judges and leading prosecutors who believed Comey “violated his obligation to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the traditions of the [Justice] Department and the FBI.” These professionals viewed that Comey “violated long-standing Justice Department policies and tradition.”

Rosenstein added that, despite the wide range of opinions condemning his actions, Comey “refused to admit his errors.” More importantly, Trump himself referred repeatedly to Comey’s refusal to publicly state what he was privately telling Congress, which is that Trump was not a target. Trump was consistent in his conversations with Comey and other officials. He could not understand why Comey would tell Congress that he was not a target yet not inform the public. He was particularly sensitive over the refusal since Comey had publicly cleared Clinton.

Experts like McQuade insist that demanding a public statement is “interfering in the investigation” and, thus, obstruction. There is no case supporting such a criminal charge to my knowledge. Moreover, Comey was revealing this information to Congress and others. Trump viewed Comey as biased, as evidenced by his failure to state publicly what he was telling Trump and others in private. Finally, and most importantly, he was not asking Comey to lie in making such information public but only to state what he already told people outside of the FBI.

Of course, Trump was also consistently wrong in raising this issue with Comey and other high-ranking officials. His statement to NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt that he was thinking of the FBI investigation when he fired Comey, and would have done so without the recommendation of Rosenstein, is damaging. His alleged statement to the Russians the next day that firing Comey “took pressure off” him was equally damaging. He has largely built a case against himself with these ill-considered and improper inquiries.

However, Comey admitted that Trump agreed with him that the Russian investigation should be allowed to reach its own conclusion and, putting his rhetoric aside, the president has not taken any actions to scuttle the investigation. Various accounts suggest that Trump could not understand why he had to put up with coverage about being a target of the investigation when Comey and others knew that he was not.

In his congressional testimony, Comey said that “on March the 30th, and I think again on, I think on April 11th as well, I told him we’re not investigating him personally. That was true.” Comey recounted Trump’s repeated requests for a public statement to that effect. Trump also reportedly urged Daniel Coats, the director of national intelligence, and Michael Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, to publicly state that there was no evidence of collusion during the 2016 election. Trump’s motivation, along with his ham-handed means, could easily be viewed as having a political rather than obstructive purpose. Past presidents have pressured subordinates to make public some information to the advantage of themselves or their administrations.

For more than a year, I have repeatedly asked why commentators have ignored this obvious defense based on Trump’s own words, as recounted by his own critics. If Trump fired Comey because he viewed him as biased in refusing to publicly state his current status, it would not be obstructive to the investigation itself. This defense not only fits with Trump’s own comments, it fits with his character. Trump is obsessed with his public persona and the notion that he did not win the election fair and square. While some may view that as criminally egotistical, it is not in fact technically criminal.

Trump also is accused of seeking to pressure Comey to drop the investigation of Michael Flynn, but that also could be defended on the simple grounds of empathy for a loyal friend. The problem with the coverage is that the media fails to recognize that criminal allegations often rest on one possible narrative to the exclusion of equally, if not stronger, narratives. That is not how a credible criminal case is built. If there is a viable defense, based on not just Trump but witnesses, it should generate more than reasonable doubt over the criminal allegation.

None of this means that Trump is not facing serious threats or that Giuliani did not make things worse with his attacks on the prosecutors, FBI agents and others. Moreover, this defense can still be challenged by other evidence. However, Giuliani was not the first to raise this defense. Trump was. This is just the first time that some in the media acknowledged it.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

165 thoughts on “No, Giuliani Did Not Implicate Trump In Obstruction of Justice In Comey Comments”



    In the Iran operation, as in its operation for Weinstein, Black Cube focussed much of its work on reporters and other media figures, sometimes using agents who posed as journalists. The company compiled a list of more than thirty reporters who it believed were in touch with Obama Administration officials, annotated with instructions about how to seek negative information. Transcripts produced by Black Cube reveal that the firm secretly recorded a conversation between one of its agents and Trita Parsi, a Swedish-Iranian author. The conversation, which began as a general discussion of Iran policy, quickly devolved into questions about Rhodes, Kahl, and whether they had personally profited off of the Iran policy. “I’ve had the first part of the conversation five hundred times,” Parsi recalled, of his conversation with the agent, who claimed to be a reporter. “But then he started asking about personal financial interests, and that was more unusual. He was pushing very, very hard.”

    The Observer reported that aides of President Trump had hired Black Cube to run the operation in order to undermine the Iran deal, allegations that Black Cube denies. “The idea was that people acting for Trump would discredit those who were pivotal in selling the deal, making it easier to pull out of it,” a source told the Observer. One of the sources familiar with the effort told me that it was, in fact, part of Black Cube’s work for a private-sector client pursuing commercial interests related to sanctions on Iran. (A Trump Administration spokesperson declined to comment to the Observer on the allegations.)

    Edited from: “Israeli Operatives Who Aided Harvey Weinstein Collected Information On Obama Officials”

    Currently running in THE NEW YORKER based on reports from THE LONDON OBSERVER

    1. I have similar sources also anonymous that tell me that the President acted in the interest of the United States when he tried to find out which criminals of the Obama administration might have extended their criminality into the Iran deal.

      A lot of cash was flying around and ending up in Iran. It seems criminal activity was taking place and we all know some of the administration’s bank accounts rose tremendously during his administration.

      1. It’s complicated.

        1. Neolibtoids likely using BS (as is their M.O.) to preserve Iran Deal. Doesn’t mean it’s a bad deal necessarily, to me. Iran’s in compliance.
        2. Ending it just impacts EU trade. They’re getting tired of being bullied by Uncle Sam. Unilateral revocation would end trust in USA’s word on deals.
        3. Iran has announced termination of use of USD. That’s the issue. Iraq, Libya. Rinse / Repeat.
        4. Iran & Syria are Israeli problem. Hence Netanyahu’s interference here. His latest “proof” is total BS.
        5. Huge oil/gas resources discovered in Syria & offshore. Israel has “Greater Israel” Oded Yinon plan.
        6. Pipeline wars. Israel, NATO, Qata, Saudi, Turkey all planned, armed & financed the destruction of Syria.
        7. Kerry/others likely have some secret deals that would go poof if Deal is gone.
        8. Add to the mix… 10s of millions of stupid NeoLibtoid American zombies….er, I meant voters. You have the icing on the cake.

        2002: Netanyahu promotes Iraq War for 2+ hours

        Kerry admits they helped Syrian #Isis 2 rise because they legally couldn’t fight in #Syria themselves

        “Over the next seven years, as both Joe Biden and John Kerry negotiated sensitive and high-stakes deals with foreign governments, Rosemont entities [controlled by their sons] secured a series of exclusive deals often with those same foreign governments.”
        SECRET EMPIRES: Biden, Kerry Sons’ Firm Struck Billion-Dollar Deal with Chinese Govt Days After VP Visit

        1. The Iran deal was not a treaty and did little if anything to Prevent Iran from developing nuclear missiles. Obama overstepped his bounds and Congress permitted it. Money was transferred that likely was illegal and the formal papers were never completely signed by both sides. When the supposed deal runs out Iran can go nuclear.

          Iran has threatened the US and Israel. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism. It has not abided by the agreement.

          Israel has a right to defend itself and the information Israel provided to the US is evaluated by the US not Israel and the decision of the US is made by the US not Israel. Israel is a sovereign nation and is entitled to its security. The US has all sorts of security arrangements over the world that some people don’t like, but that is their opinion.

          I don’t know where you get the idea that Netanyahu is interfering. He is the head of state and of course, communicates with US diplomats and the President advocating for his nation like every head of state is supposed to do. Obama actually interfered with Israeli politics. As far as Europe goes there is a lot of anti-Semitism that exists and I don’t find their opinion of much value. Trump will do what is good for the US and not any other country.

          1. Iran may not be a western style democracy. But neither is Saudi Arabia. In fact, Saudis have funded more terrorists than Iran. ISIS, Al Qaeda and The Taliban have all been recipients of Saudi money. Therefore this idea that Iran is somehow our arch-enemy is misinformed. Israel and Saudi Arabia consider Iran an arch-enemy. But we don’t have to let them dictate foreign policy.

            1. I said: “Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism.” which is true except you chose to change the statement to something different. You chose a statement that you repeat here “Saudis have funded more terrorists than Iran.” That is in the past tense and over a long history and is different than a state sponsor of terrorism. Perhaps your media hasn’t explained that difference to you yet.

              Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism. It supports Hamas and Hezbollah with missiles along with supporting terrorism in other nations including Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Today, though I don’t consider them a friend, Saudi Arabia is an ally possibly changing its ways something that has yet to be seen. Of course, while you abhor the agreed upon terrorism provided with Saudi money you don’t seem to be concerned with Wahhabi mosques or the Muslim Brotherhood that teach hatred of the west with the ultimate goal being the destruction of western values. That is something your ideology forgets all about.

              Israel doesn’t dictate our foreign policy though we have a tendency to lend more support to democracies that aren’t threatening to annihilate us. You are grossly misinformed.

  2. I like how Judge Ellis asked whether was Rosenstein is recused. Seemingly out of the blue, but a direct message to Rosenstein. Ellis wants to look at the revised scope letter and see whether Rosenstein goofed up and specified obstruction as a topic of investigation. Personally, I doubt it’s specified in the scope letter, and all this talk about obstruction is a waste of time.

    1. Don’t know how it will play out. But I read comments from a number of lawyers who argued cases in his courtroom. And they said he does this a lot – goes hard after the government lawyers and then ultimately rules in their favor.

  3. Giuliani could not implicate because there was no foundational crime. But what Mueller, Rosenstein, Wray and the rest of the Obama Gang have done is becoming clearer every day. Uh oh! U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III sharply questioned whether Mueller exceeded his authority wielding “unfettered power” and Mueller responds to “discovery requests” by the indicted Russians of Concord Management. Will Mueller refuse and redact as Christopher Wray and Rod Rosenstein have? Wouldn’t we all love to see the DOJ/FBI/Mueller unredacted docs? One set shows the FBI believed Gen. Flynn was not lying. Oops!

    Oh, this web is getting tangleder and tangleder!

    “But the motion revealed that lawyers for Concord Management made a series of discovery requests seeking records, including statements and electronic surveillance of the company’s executives and employees, from Mueller’s investigation.”

    – The Hill

    1. How do you know there is no foundational crime? Are you on Mueller’s team?

      1. A presidential campaign including opposition research and approaching two years of formal investigation?

        How long would you like, counselor?

        Are you serious or comedic?

        1. Quite serious. When the investigation is over, then you’ll know whether or not there were foundational crimes. But not before.


    Ten states and the District of Columbia are already in a compact to pool their electoral votes and pledge them to the popular-vote winner. With Connecticut added, the compact’s voting power would rise to 172 — fewer than 100 electoral votes away from the 270-vote majority that decides the presidential contest.

    Connecticut’s Senate gave final approval to the bill over the weekend, using a 21-14 vote to send the legislation to Gov. Dannel Malloy — who responded by saying, “I applaud the General Assembly for passing this commonsense legislation.”

    The bill adopts an interstate compact that’s officially called “The Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote.”

    The agreement won’t kick in unless it’s backed by enough states and other voting areas to claim a majority of Electoral College votes.

    In addition to Connecticut, the other jurisdictions in the pact are: California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state, along with Washington, D.C.

    “If the Electoral College is abolished, the compact terminates,” according to the Connecticut legislation.

    Edited from: “Connecticut Ok’s Bill Pledging Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Winner”

    Today’s NPR

    1. It’s interesting to think the Electoral College might never stiff us with a loser again.

      1. The loser was the entitled candidate who didn’t visit swing states.

        EC ensures everyone’s interests are valued.

        1. EC ensures everyone’s interests are valued.

          It doesn’t, but it remains the tabulation convention in effect. In the absence of the conventions incorporated into the electoral college, we’d require federal administration of elections. That’d be fun.

          1. Clinton didn’t visit swing states. She didn’t address their interests. She didn’t get their vote.

            1. Trump won a “majority of votes” in each of the 50 state elections, per the Constitution.

              Anti-American, socialists-cum-communists have forced “inharmonious” foreigners by the multiple millions into California and New York as election fraud and tampering, providing themselves wins in those states. They have succeeded in damaging America as dutiful anti-Colonialists and anti-Americans.

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

              – Son-of-an-Anticolonialist/anti-American Barry Soetoro

              The election reform America needs is the repulsion of the foreign invasion and the repatriation of the “discordant intermixture.”

              “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

              – Alexander Hamilton

      2. This author is a fraud and a liar. His posts must obtain no further attention in the future.

        The winner of the last election won legally by winning a majority of votes in 50 state elections as is required by the U.S. Constitution. Even the loser, Hillary Clinton, could not stop the legal and legitimate winner’s occupation of the office of the President of the United States of America.

        By contrast, Obama will never be eligible as his father was a foreign citizen of a foreign country forever precluding Obama’s status from being that of not simply a “citizen” but the superior “natural born citizen.”

        1. Tinfoil sale down to the piggly-wiggly. And what about those black helicopters?

          this is to “see how I’ve folded this hat” georgie

          1. Priceless:


            March 7, 2018 at 8:29 PM
            “Character matters. ”

            Get over it, Mark. Your parents bought a condo when they should have bought a condom.

        2. George, Trump DIDN’T win the majority of votes in 50 state elections. Hillary won 2.8 million more votes. 2.8 million translates into a 2% Popular Vote lead. No candidate in history ever won the Popular Vote by 2% and lost the Electoral College. The outcomes of the last election was a FREAK.

          1. “The outcomes of the last election was a FREAK.” and Peter HIll is a crybaby.

            Who knows, maybe Clintons extra votes were illegal votes. Maybe Trump won the popular vote based on legally placed votes, maybe not. We have an electoral college that decides who won the election. Crybabies, however, try to change things after the fact so they win all the time. I think crybabies should be banished from normal society, but like the electoral college, the law is the law.

          2. Tilden won the popular vote by 3% in 1876, but Hayes won the electoral vote and was elected President.
            So there was “a candidate in history” that lost the popular vote by more than 2%.
            John Kerry lost the popular vote by about 3 million in 2004; with a small shift in the Ohio totals, he would have won the Electoral College vote.

            1. It happened in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016.

            2. Thanks for correcting me, Tom. You had to reach back 140 years to the most controversial election ever. But yes, Tilden won by 3% of the Popular Vote and still lost. Interesting to note.

          3. Hillary didn’t win a majority either, Peter. Neither did Al Gore in 2000, nor did Bilge in 1996, nor did Bilge in 1992.

            1. On this you’re right, Nuchacha. Both Hillary and Trump won roughly 27% of the total electorate. Therefore I realize that even if Hillary had gotten the White House, her approval numbers might not be much higher than Trump’s. The results, however, might have been slightly more satisfying.

              1. Peter BS-for-Brains Hill, there was this fellow named ‘Gary Johnson’. Perhaps you’ve heard of him.

                1. One can’t assume Johnson voters would have gone for Trump. And similarly, one can’t assume that Stein voters would have gone for Hillary. The truth is that many people from both parties just stayed home.

                  1. If Johnson voters voted for Trump and Stein voters voted for Hillary Trump would have had a higher popular vote than Hillary even though a lot of illegal votes went towards Hillary.

                    The truth is if Hillary could only have spent the same amount of money as Trump she would have lost big time.

                    The truth is Hillary was a lousy candidate that only a corrupt party could nominate.

                    1. Allan, your “illegal vote” claim is stupid racist nonsense. That nonsense has been thoroughly debunked many, many times. But some old farts never got the message.

                    2. Peter writes: “Allan, your “illegal vote” claim is stupid racist nonsense. ”

                      The only racist here is you. Your mind reeks of racism. You think an “illegal vote” has to be a vote by an illegal alien. There is something very wrong with that type of mind and you should seek help.

                      An illegal vote can be more than one vote by a white male.

                      Keep up your rhetoric Peter it has already confused you to the maximum.

                      AS far as things that have been debunked by the left, most of them are merely spin pieces that have convinced the intellectually challenged and laughed at in private by those that know how to twist the news.

                  2. Allan, show me one article, from a mainstream media source, that says illegal votes swayed the 2016 election. To my knowledge no credible study ever determined that. One should note that Trump’s Voter Fraud Commission disbanded prematurely having gotten no cooperation from the states. Even deeply red states wanted nothing to do with it.

                    1. Peter Hill – LA has more registered voters than people eligible to vote. This is a major voter fraud problem. States like AZ require voter ID which is helpful and they clean their rolls every ten years.

                    2. There have been plenty of articles written about illegal voting. No one has been able to tabulate them and many Democrats have done their best to prevent such tabulation. I want the votes of all voters to count. Stop trying to prevent illegal voting from happening. You don’t want to because you don’t care about fair elections and can’t even admit that Trump won the Presidential election according to the rules set out in the Constitution.

                      Pew Charitable Trust estimates approximately 24 million voter registrations are not valid or significantly inaccurate. Over 2 million voters are registered to vote in more than one state. Those invalid registrations open the door to the potential of 24 million invalid votes.

                      This is indirect proof (plus incidents of voter fraud that was caught) that indicates voter fraud potentially can be influencing who wins and who loses in elections.

                    3. Paul, I live in L.A. I never heard of that. I doubt if there’s any truth to it. The Secretary Of State knows how many voters are in each district. Both Republicans and Democrats keep track of those stats. It’s not something no one pays attention to.

                      Allan, you have nothing to but vague hear-say. Nothing.

                    4. Peter Hill – Judicial Watch has filed suit over this. They keep an eye on this.

                    5. “Allan, you have nothing to but vague hear-say. Nothing.”

                      Peter H. so you think the report by the Pew Charitable trust is a nothing? That is par for the course.You also are telling Paul that you live in LA and he doesn’t know what he is talking about. “LA has more registered voters than people eligible to vote.” Unfortunately for your veracity and knowledge base what Paul said was in the LA Times.

                      Peter, it seems you know very little about the world around you and perhaps even less of what is happening in your backyard. I think you need to post less and read more.

                    6. Allan – in Peter’s defense I would not read the LA Times either. 😉

                    7. “Allan – in Peter’s defense I would not read the LA Times either. 😉”

                      Not much of a defense since it has been written elsewhere. Unfortunately, Peter subscribes to predigested leftist periodicals where he lives in LA so he is seldom exposed to real news where he has to think for himself. Always remember if you are very bad you go to hell, just bad you go to purgatory and if you are a bit better you go to LA.

                    8. Lawsuits are filed all the time; and often for purposes of harassment. The courts have yet to hear Judicial Watch’s suit.

                      One should note that California has a Republican Party . Are they not keeping track of voters?? Of course they are! I haven’t heard any California Republican leaders complaining about this issue. Judicial Watch is not based in California.

                      One should also not that California is the biggest state by far with 40 million people. So any numbers you see regarding California are going to be big. That doesn’t mean ‘out of control’.


                    9. Peter Hill refers Paul to Snopes. Peter doesn’t even read what sends people to. The left wing hit piece Snopes agrees with Paul.

                      From Snopes:
                      “Estimates of voter rolls in the counties of some states, including California, tally more registered voters than eligible adults.”

                    10. Proper elections administration isn’t that difficult.

                      1. Scan local obituaries and have each county send a list of death certificates issued to the board of elections .

                      2. Drop people from the roll if they haven’t voted in a quadrennial cycle.

                      3. Have the Secretary of State build a register of people who’ve received felony convictions, and have local board cross-reference this register and purge voter rolls accordingly.

                      4. Cross reference voter rolls with the address list of those filing state income tax returns and send out post cards to voters when a discrepancy is discovered, asking that they resolve it (and dropping them from the roll if they do no respond).

                      5. Place a question about citizenship on voter registration forms and state tax returns, notifying the subject that false answers will be treated as the equivalent of perjury.

                      6. Schedule primaries 70 days before general elections and mail out postal ballots within 10 days of the primary. Should there be a contest tied up in court, send out a supplementary general election ballot when that’s resolved.

                      7. Limit postal ballots to serving military, military spouses stationed with said spouse, federal employees stationed abroad and sp4uses residing with them, college students, and shut-ins. Require a xerographic copy of a picture ID be returned with the ballot unless the voter’s a shut-in. Allow a standing order for such ballots, but require it be renewed at least quadrennially.

                      8. Place all postal ballots on arrival in lock boxes which require multiple keys to open. Have one key in the possession of Democratic elections commissioners and one key in the possession of Republican commissioners. Open the boxes under judicial supervision after the last mail delivery on election day and begin counting them.

                      9. Place all postal ballots which arrive after election day in a dedicated lockbox. Each day, open the box under judicial supervision and place each ballot in a return envelope to the voter in question, with a note of regret that the ballot arrived too late to be validly cast.

                      10. Require those voting in person to display a picture ID and sign a general register.

                      11. Have multiple desks at polling stations, having the voter sigh in at each desk of interest to him, receive a ballot or ballot set and cast it with dedicated equipment at the desk. You have one desk for ballot propositions, one for judicial contests, one for local contests, one for state contests &c.

                      12. Require all ballots cast at the scene be hard copy, filled out in black pen, run through optical scanners on point or after the polls close. Require these be preserved in special lockboxes kept at the scene and shipped to storage for a term of 9 months.

                      13. Make ordinal balloting the order of the day.

                      14. Establish a sensible electoral calendar and portfolio of elected offices, to reduce the number of contests running simultaneously.

                    11. NII, that is a superb list. It sounds as if you have had experience in the field. Unfortunately, those that like to cheat will find problems with your solutions. Names in some areas aren’t removed from the registered list even when they are told year after year. I don’t understand why when one registers to vote there isn’t a signature given to remove one’s old voter registration. I have considered all of your suggestions except the one where a name is removed after four years of non-voting. I am sure there will be loud complaints from the ‘cheaters’ because they depend on confusion and ignorant voters.

      3. “It’s interesting to think the Electoral College might never stiff us with a loser again.”

        It must be tough making a deal with someone of your ilk because it seems you are always trying to change the deal when suddenly it favors someone else. I wouldn’t want to do business with that type of guy.

    2. Democrats really don’t like Democracy.

      A normal person would want their state to promote local consensus.

      1. The American Founders did not like democracy. They established a restricted-vote republic not a one man, one vote democrazy. The “poor” would “sell” their votes and women were very busy and well represented by the votes of their husbands (entitled to vote).

        “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship.”

        ― Alexander Fraser Tytler

        The Greeks, 350 BC, enabled 10% of the population to vote or otherwise participate in their “democracy.”

        The vote in America has been completely corrupted; the nation invaded.

  5. Comey’s job wasn’t to try to make Trump look good. His refusal to be used as a PR tool was not a valid grounds for firing him. That statement would be true if Comey were nothing more than a janitor, but he was the head of the FBI, the nation’s top cop. The FBI was looking into Russian meddling in the election. Firing the head of the FBI sends a message. It was intended to stop Comey personally from digging into Trump’s ties with Russians, but also to intimidate everyone else at the FBI into backing off. Then, to cover up this agenda, the lies start, only Trump admits the truth to Lester Holt, to Russians in front of the media, and then Giuliani ices the cake, admitting to the truth of the reason in his role as Trump’s counsel. Comey was fired to try to stop or at least impede the FBI from investigating Trump. Eventually, Mueller will uncover the truth, so we’ll know what Trump was so desperately trying to hide, and it’s likely that obstruction of justice will be proven. At this point, neither Jon nor the rest of us knows the whole picture, what Trump is trying so desperately to hide, but Trump created this problem for himself without anyone’s help.

    1. And speaking of something to hide, Mr. Nunes is simply desperate. INteresting that he backed away from Rosenstein and is now going after Sessions. Perhaps he doesn’t know what to do with Rosenstein’s courage in calling out
      the attempts by Nunes et al to try and extort the DOJ. RR appears quite at peace with the possibility of being
      fired. Whereas, Sessions, despite his abominable treatment by DT for the past year, is still wishy washy about whether he wants to side with Trump or side with the law. So I guess Nunes and the other loonies in the House see him as a better and weaker target.

      1. Mr. Nunes is simply desperate.

        Keep whistling past that graveyard. Whistle harder when Judge Ellis gets a copy of the unredacted ‘scope memo’.

        1. Yup. I just hope he’ll keep it under lock and key cause Nunes et al will be desperate to get it and Fed Ex it to the WH to help them continue to obstruct justice.

          1. There is no obstruction. Thanks for the wish-cast. Always an education.

            1. Oh, gosh, another one who is regularly briefed by the Mueller team!!

              1. And, again, I point out: mickey mouse process crimes, Russian internet trolls (a set of cases they weren’t preparing to try), and a mess of charges against Paul Manafort that they’ve yet to prove were within the scope of their mandate and some of which are over a decade old. Previous independent counsels and special prosecutors had a hat full of cases like this, but they were usually on the back burner unless someone was turning state’s evidence, which these people aren’t. The Whitewater investigation took 19 months to secure indictments of its 3 principal defendants, the Iran-Contra investigation took 17 months in re its four principal defendants, and the Watergate Investigation took 21 months in re it’s 3d and last set of consequential defendants. McCabe and the Mueller have been on the hamster wheel for 21 months and have turned up bupkis.

                By all means, keep hoping. Maybe you’ll get lucky with Michael Cohen’s taxi medallions.

    2. Comey was playing games with the president and deserved dismissal. We now know what McCabe’s cabal was up to under Comey’s supervision. And, of course, the FBI director is an at-will employee. And, of course, we know there was know underlying crime being investigated.

      1. Comey knew mafia tactics when he saw them.

        And, of course, you have no idea what were the underlying crimes. But it’s a good trumpet talking point.

        1. There are no underlying crimes Chuck. If there were, Mueller’s crew wouldn’t be schlonging people on process crimes, securing indictments of Russian internet trolls, dusting off 12 year old tax charges, &c.

          1. Hmmm, you do realize the the investigation is ongoing, right? You do realize investigations like this start at the bottom and move up to the top, right? You did read the article about how Trump, the self-named king of debt, suddenly started paying for real estate in cash about 12 years ago, close to half a billion $$$? You do know what quid pro quo means, eh??

            1. The John Doe investigations in Wisconsin were ongoing. Even included some Bobby Mueller specials like early morning no-knock raids on volunteer Republican activists.

              You do know what quid pro quo means, eh??

              You do know what ‘flight of fancy’ means, don’t you? Keep working on it. Maybe you can get a 3d rate piece of spy fiction out of the Trump-Putin 10 Year Plan.

  6. Anybody that casts their lots with Trump has been burned and will be burned. Rudy G is playing the part right now, the fact Trump has Rudy as his lawyer should tell his supporters that they are being played. The fact that he cannot even get a real lawyer should be a warning shot across the bow. The question is, how far can he play this con out any more than what already has gone on. This is our nation, not some silly ass TV show, but Trump is going to make you watch all the way, to see who the biggest chump is…..and the chump is us.

    1. snip

      “Recently, new evidence emerged in the case of Paul Manafort. Mueller’s team admitted that his investigation found no incriminating evidence of contacts by Manafort with any Russians. And all press reports over the past two years about such contacts are fictional and based on “anonymous sources.”
      – – –

      that won’t be covered by MSM

      1. When your source is a website run by the guy wearing a mustache disguise at the latest tinfoil-hat convention, you might want to expand your sources of information. Or, you could carpool with georgie down to the tinfoil sale at piggly-wiggly.

        this is to “they’re all in on it, I tellya” jonnie

        1. Marky Mark Mark – I don’t believe I have ever seen you cite a source. Your office not equipped with the internet? You not subscribed to Lexis-Nexis? Or are you sharing office space someplace? You repeat yourself often so I suspect you do that with your clients and in court (assuming you get to court). Basically, you run on automatic. No original thought.

    1. Chuck, Trump was nominated by virtue of his status as a “brilliant businessman”. You see ‘businessmen know how to get things done’. So don’t come around here telling us about all the debt Trump piled on. That confuses people. See, it makes them think that big tax cut was just Trump piling on more debt.

      1. They really fell hard into that pile of dung.

        Wonder if the phrase money funneling will replace money laundering. The former is catchy.

      1. The issue is that he borrowed money for decades, as did his dad. And then quite suddenly started paying hundreds of millions in cash for properties. Can smell that stink halfway across the country.

        1. No, I cannot, and neither can you. No clue why you have a complaint about re-invested earnings.

          1. I think envy and a lack of business sense dominates this mindset.

  7. Informative article, as usual. However, I believe a better choice of words would be “a public furor” rather than”a public fervor.”

  8. For all practical purposes, Cohen was not Trump’s lawyer. He was his fixer.

    For all practical purposes, Giuliani is not Trump’s lawyer. He is his PR agent and his only job is to discredit Muller investigation.

    But if they pretend to be Trump’s lawyers, they can claim attorney client privilege.

    1. If they were smart they would follow in steps of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton: Lie, deny, obfuscate, etc. And make tons of money selling uranium to Russia and selling access to Bill’s peepee

      1. You have no idea what the uranium story is about, do you?? I know trumpets are allergic to facts, but you could at least try a little.

      2. No, Martha. Fox News is wrong. Hillary never owned any uranium, she didn’t sign off on any uranium deal, but a total of 8 agencies did, she never made any money from selling uranium she didn’t own, and no one ever sold “access” to Bill’s genitalia.

        The big issue is the pivot: nothing HRC, Bill or anyone else ever did or didn’t do excuses Trump. Stop pivoting to point blame to some Democrat every time there is a Trump scandal. That’s Kellyanne’s job.

    2. his only job is to discredit Muller investigation.

      He’s had plenty of help from Mueller himself and his minions My personal favorite thus far was telling Judge Ellis in Alexandria Va that the document delineating the commission to the special counsel’s office was ‘classified;

      1. That was Michael Dreeben refusing Judge Ellis’ request for an unredacted copy of the commissioning document.

  9. It’s just plain silly to believe firing Comey was intended to obstruct justice. The reasoning is clear; President Trump was never going to be able to fire away the investigation. It has proceeded because of the firing. In fact Comey’s actions, along with his subordinates, have proven their intent to obstruct justice, not President Trump. If actual justice were the goal, then at some point they will need to stop ignoring the mountain of evidence already discovered implicating the Clinton’s, the DNC, the Obama IC/DOJ, and very likely the Awan brothers.

    1. Please post more of this type of material please. I’m deeply interested in this “Trilateral Commission” thing; who actually blew up the Twin Towers; and whether Mr. Rogers was on the grassy knoll.

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

      1. “Marky Mark NPD”

        Narcissistic personality disorder — one of several types of personality disorders — is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that’s vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

        A narcissistic personality disorder causes problems in many areas of life, such as relationships, work, school or financial affairs. People with narcissistic personality disorder may be generally unhappy and disappointed when they’re not given the special favors or admiration they believe they deserve. They may find their relationships unfulfilling, and others may not enjoy being around them.

        Treatment for narcissistic personality disorder centers around talk therapy (psychotherapy).

        Signs and symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder and the severity of symptoms vary. People with the disorder can:

        Have an exaggerated sense of self-importance
        Have a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admiration
        Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
        Exaggerate achievements and talents
        Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
        Believe they are superior and can only associate with equally special people
        Monopolize conversations and belittle or look down on people they perceive as inferior
        Expect special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations
        Take advantage of others to get what they want
        Have an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
        Be envious of others and believe others envy them
        Behave in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious
        Insist on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or office

        At the same time, people with narcissistic personality disorder have trouble handling anything they perceive as criticism, and they can:

        Become impatient or angry when they don’t receive special treatment
        Have significant interpersonal problems and easily feel slighted
        React with rage or contempt and try to belittle the other person to make themselves appear superior
        Have difficulty regulating emotions and behavior
        Experience major problems dealing with stress and adapting to change
        Feel depressed and moody because they fall short of perfection
        Have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, vulnerability and humiliation

        ***When to see a doctor***

        People with narcissistic personality disorder may not want to think that anything could be wrong, so they may be unlikely to seek treatment. If they do seek treatment, it’s more likely to be for symptoms of depression, drug or alcohol use, or another mental health problem. But perceived insults to self-esteem may make it difficult to accept and follow through with treatment.

        If you recognize aspects of your personality that are common to narcissistic personality disorder or you’re feeling overwhelmed by sadness, consider reaching out to a trusted doctor or mental health provider. Getting the right treatment can help make your life more rewarding and enjoyable.

        *** Emphasis

      2. This sort of response from you Mark is your tell that you have no reasonable argument against the comment. Perhaps you feel the need like Annie/Inga to just log posts. I really don’t care. But if you believe that nonsense qualifies as clever, well that ship sailed months ago.

  10. M.A.

    Anyone that disagrees with right wing ideology is a “subjectivist”.

  11. You can’t charge a POTUS for exercising his Constitutional prerogatives like firing the FBI Director regardless of his motives. The Constitution doesn’t limit his power based on his intentions.

    1. While the Constitution may not, federal criminal statutory provisions do.

    2. Can they appoint a special counsel without an attorney general, without a crime and without probable cause?

      Can they appoint a special counsel to investigate a person not a crime?

      Is collusion a crime?

      Is theoretical collusion a federal crime or counter-intelligence?

      The whole thing smells of corruption – corruption which is being hidden by ubiquitous redaction.

  12. My understanding of Comey’s remarks to the “ Liar in chief” is….that ….AT THIS TIME…..he was not
    under investigation.
    I am pretty sure, that could change and probably DID.

    1. “No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.”
      Abraham Lincoln

      Trump has provided five differing versions of why he fired James Comey.

      “You can see why Giuliani worries that Trump will contradict himself in a sit-down with Mueller. We’re now talking about five incompatible accounts: the termination letter, the attached memo, the interview with Holt, the tweets, and Trump’s comments to reporters.

      The more you look at these accounts, the more chaos you find. The termination letter attributes Comey’s firing to the memo, but the memo doesn’t say Comey should be fired. In fact, a week after he wrote the memo, Rosenstein told Congress that it wasn’t “a survey of FBI morale or performance” or “a statement of reasons to justify a for-cause termination.” That contradicts both the termination letter and what Trump said about FBI morale in his interview with Holt.”

      James Saletan

      Guiliani may be a hapless defender of Trump, but what attorney in the nation could cogently reconcile this President’s blizzard of lies?

        1. Jennifer: that’s pivoting. Bill’s issues have nothing to do with Trump and his lying.

      1. “No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.”

        – Abraham Lincoln

        Oh my! I could not agree more and a greater truth has not been spoken.

        To wit,

        “Crazy Abe” Lincoln seven years before the imposition of his psychotically unconstitutional “Reign of Terror,”

        “If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” After acknowledging that this plan’s “sudden execution is impossible,” he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”

        1. A Confederate sympathizer as well as a nut?
          Crazy George reveals another aspect of his lunacy!

      2. The reasons for firing Comey are irrelevant. There are SCORES of reasons to have fired the vile scoundrel. In any event, Rosenstein wrote the recommendation to fire Comey. So Mueller should be investigating Rosenstein if he has a problem with Comey getting fired.

        1. It’s Trump’s pathological lying about it 🤥, not the firing itself that’s the point here.

          1. Wildbill, are you a mind reader? What pathological lying are you talking about or was the smiley face supposed to tell us you were joking? I am sure we all can think of a lot of good reasons Trump should have fired Comey while Trump might have a few more himself.

  13. Turley wrote, “Trump also is accused of seeking to pressure Comey to drop the investigation of Michael Flynn, but that also could be defended on the simple grounds of empathy for a loyal friend.”

    That’s only true if Trump did not task Flynn with providing sanctions relief to Russia in exchange for election assistance from Russia. IOW, if Mueller can make a case for the underlying crime of conspiracy to commit election fraud and receive an illegal, foreign, in-kind, campaign contribution from Russia’s hack-and-leak operation, then the obstruction of justice charge will come along for the ride. After all, the FBI’s investigation of Flynn, in particular, may have made the provision of sanctions relief to Russia far more difficult than may have been anticipated. At some point along the way the exact date of which I cannot remember, public statements from the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of The House put Trump on notice that he ought not even to think about sanctions relief for Russia. But the Russia sanctions were not added to the Iran sanctions bill until . . . O Bother. I can’t remember that date either. Anyway, the point of firing Comey on May 9th, 2017 (?), may have been to give sanctions relief to Russia one last chance. So somebody else is going to have to remember the dates that I’ve forgotten in order to refute my hypothesis. Oh! Boy! Won’t that be fun for somebody.

    1. On July 28, [2017] Congress passed the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, and the bill was presented to President Trump. President Trump signed the bill on the morning of August 2, 2017.

        1. On Feb. 13, 2017, Trump fired Flynn, after leaks reveal that Flynn did in fact talk about sanctions with the Russian ambassador.

          On Feb. 14, Comey goes to the Oval Office for a counterterrorism meeting, and Trump asks him to stick around afterward for a one-on-one meeting.

          “When the door by the grandfather clock closed, and we were alone, the president began by saying, ‘I want to talk about Mike Flynn,’ ” Comey testified in June. “He then said, ‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.’ ”

          Comey agrees Flynn is a “good guy” but says he will not agree to let it go.

            1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

              Mr. Vekselberg also attended a December 2015 dinner in Russia where Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser, was also among the guests and sat beside Mr. Putin. The dinner was hosted by RT, the English-language television news network financed by the Kremlin.

              Another potential area of interest for Mr. Mueller is Mr. Vekselberg’s business in Cyprus, the Mediterranean nation considered a magnet for Russian money. Mr. Vekselberg has controlled a company that has been the largest single shareholder in the Bank of Cyprus. Around the same time that Mr. Vekselberg was investing in the bank, Mr. Trump’s future commerce secretary, Wilbur L. Ross, was its vice chairman.

              1. In a Boston Globe report, Flynn is caught violating the Logan Act…again. Let the outrage begin!

                Oh wait, it was John Kerry. Shhh, don’t tell anyone.

                the Boston Globe dropped a news bombshell over the weekend that former secretary of state John Kerry has engaged in shadow diplomacy, aiming to salvage the Iran nuclear deal Obama’s presidential administration brokered.


            2. Dear Ms. Late, “There you go again.” You scour the world wide web looking for lefty articles to soothe yourself and then you re-post here like some lefty version of news consolidator Matt Drudge. Then like Rachel “Mad Cow” Maddows you don’t get to the point (not to mention being devoid of original thought). Plus we all know you are doing this as a cheap therapy session for you to deal with your supressed and closeted attraction to bad bay Donald Trump. Good day Ma’am.

    2. Thank you for this additional information. I have to say that Mr. Turley, who I’ve followed for years, popped my bubble of hot air & brought me down to earth. I prefer facts, truth, & law over hyperbole any day of the week.

    3. @Late4Dinner May 7, 2018 at 5:11 AM
      ” IOW, if Mueller can make a case for the underlying crime of conspiracy to commit election fraud and receive an illegal, foreign, in-kind, campaign contribution from Russia’s hack-and-leak operation, then the obstruction of justice charge will come along for the ride.”

      You write, “Russia’s hack-and-leak operation” as though that were an established fact, rather than just the solicited opinion, the so-called ICA (Intelligence Community Assessment), of a small number of hand-picked members of the intelligence community.

      “And even that small, biased sample of IC analysts felt obliged to append the disclaimer, “Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.”

      Moreover, as the former NSA Technical Director, William Binney, has pointed out, the NSA could readily determine the source of any such hack, and as it hasn’t, it’s additional, if not dispositive, evidence that the DNC emails were leaked, not hacked.

      For a detailed analysis of the often repeated, but never substantiated, claim that Russia hacked the DNC server, see this excellent essay at Truthdig:

      Assessing or Guessing

      “But at least the appendix offered up some ‘evidence’ — as silly as those examples might have been. The main body of the report amounted to one ‘assessment’ after another with no verifiable evidence included, at least in the unclassified version that the American people were allowed to see. [Emphasis added]

      “The report also contained a warning about how unreliable these ‘assessments’ could be: ‘Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.’

      “In other words, ‘assessing’ in intelligence terms often equates with ‘guessing’ — and if the guessers are hand-picked by political appointees — it shouldn’t be surprising that they would come up with an ‘assessment’ that would please their bosses, in this case, President Obama and his appointees at CIA, NSA, FBI and ODNI.” [Emphasis added]


    Professor Turley’s column contains this paragraph:

    “Trump’s statement to NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt that he was thinking of the FBI investigation when he fired Comey, and would have done so without the recommendation of Rosenstein, is damaging. Trump’s alleged statement to the Russians the next day that firing Comey “took pressure off” him was equally damaging. He has largely built a case against himself with these ill-considered and improper inquiries”.

    Here we have it from Professor Turley, the Russia Probe is not some deep state conspiracy. Instead it came about because a president with no experience in office failed to understand proper protocol. Presidents can’t order FBI Directors to clear them of wrongdoing when no official investigation has even begun.

    Then, after dismissing Comey, Trump receives the Russian Ambassador and tells him he fired that “nut job”. What’s more, Trump utters this while news cameras roll. How terrible that looked! It seemed like Trump was apologizing to a hostile power. Assuring them our intelligence services wouldn’t be hassling Russia. In that one moment alone Trump seemed to confirm everyone’s worst suspicions.

    1. PH, did you fail to read this part: “However, Comey admitted that Trump agreed with him that the Russian investigation should be allowed to reach its own conclusion and, putting his rhetoric aside, the president has not taken any actions to scuttle the investigation.”

      Then you claim: “Instead it came about because a president with no experience in office failed to understand proper protocol. Presidents can’t order FBI Directors to clear them of wrongdoing when no official investigation has even begun.”

      Then how do you explain the FBI starting an investigation the summer of 2016? And Mr. Comey telling Pres. Trump about the salacious portion of the dossier in their 1st meeting?

      1. Mike, Trump is all over the map with regards to statements on Russia. Even if he agreed to “let the investigation reach it’s own conclusion”, he fired Comey shortly afterward.

        With regards to ‘when’ the investigation began, it wasn’t focused on Trump until Mueller was appointed. So Trump was ordering Comey to clear him in advance of pending developments. That’s a breach of protocol.

        1. PH, but even after firing Mr. Comey, he didn’t order the investigation stopped. Or there’s certainly no record of him saying it.

          And while the FBI investigation didn’t focus on candidate Trump to begin with, by the first meeting with Mr. Comey it certainly had.

          1. Nothing makes a difference to Peter Hill. He wants to find Trump guilty so he repeats only those sentences or portions of sentences that might lead to the erroneous conclusion he desires. He could change his mind tomorrow and will completely disregard his prior thoughts without any concern for his image of rationality.

            PH even believes in thought crimes and knows what is in the mind of other people. That is ludicrous but that is how PH makes his decisions. They are hollow and meaningless.

          2. Trump can’t “order the investigation stopped”. Nevertheless, he did everything possible to try to bully and intimidate those in charge from backing off. It’s backfiring. He doesn’t get to police himself, regardless of whether he has the power to fire an agency head. If his skirts were clean, he’d have nothing to worry about, but his skirts aren’t clean. What’s he trying so hard to get stopped?

            1. So since you missed this when I posted earlier, here it is again: “However, Comey admitted that Trump agreed with him that the Russian investigation should be allowed to reach its own conclusion and, putting his rhetoric aside, the president has not taken any actions to scuttle the investigation.”

              Yep, sure sounds like obstruction only to TDS sufferers.

  15. Yes, as all the commenters below, there is not even a hint of obstruction. The FBI, Congressional and now the Mueller investigations have never been interrupted. Reportedly, all interview requests were granted to Mr. Mueller and over a million documents have been submitted.

    Just another case of TDS. One would think the affliction would subside after awhile, but apparently this may turn into a full out incurable disease.

    1. “a million documents”? I practice law, and can tell you this is one of the oldest defense tricks in the book. Paper your opponent with endless reams of crap, off the point, irrelevant, innocuous material, but hide the specific incriminating stuff that was requested without actually admitting that you didn’t produce it. Bury the facts in reams of objections on every conceivable grounds. Then, when hauled before the judge, whine about how you produced “millions of pages of documents”, so it looks like you were cooperative. Of course, none of the documents has much, if any relevance, but there were lots of pages. This is like purchasing medication. They put your 20 or 30 little pills in blister packs, so it looks like you got a lot of stuff for the money, instead of a little tiny pile of pills that wouldn’t even fill the lid of a small prescription bottle. Smoke and mirrors.

      1. Okay, you don’t believe the numbers. Skepticism always runs high. Have you seen a story where anyone on Team Trump has not cooperated with Mr. Mueller’s investigation? Have you seen a story where there’s been a refusal of passing along documents?

        Because if there was, we would have certainly heard about it.

        So because you can’t refute the claim, now you want to pick at the number that’s been quoted many times. Oy.

  16. Since it is his Constitutional prerogative, I do not think any obstruction charge would stick.

    1. Obstruction of what, a crime that didn’t occur? Is that even possible? If there is no crime, there is no probable cause, there is no special counsel and there is no obstruction.

    2. Haha. Thanks for your learned opinion, “counselor.”

      this it to “and I also got a neato decoder ring with my bar card” paulie

      1. Marky Mark Mark – I have more semester hours in the US Constitution than you do.

  17. Since the pusillanimous Mr. Turley is too frightened to even dare mention the name of Judge T.S. Ellis III and his comments on the Mueller scam, here’s a female attorneys with more “balls” than the host of this blog. . .

    1. You want no resolve, try Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and Jeff Sessions.

      The Congress/Senate have the power to impeach and convict, for crimes of high office, as many civil officers of the United States as they can vote on before the election.

      Jeff Sessions could have appointed a second special counsel upon taking office.

      With feckless and cowardly “leadership” like this, the triumph of evil is imminent.

      Wjhat say you, Professor Turley?

      “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

      – Edmund Burke

      1. Purge the GOP! Once we purify it sufficiently, we can hold the convention in a phone booth, as both god, the Kochs, and uh, Saint Ronnie would have wanted.

        this is to “sometimes I think I channel famous dead people” georgie

  18. It’s always wishful thinking with the subjectivists of the left. Most of understood that without an explanation but thanks again

Comments are closed.