The Crack Suicide Squad: The Trump Team Moves Toward The Worst Case Scenario

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the emerging strategy from the Trump legal team with the addition of Emmet Flood and the comments of Rudy Giuliani. It is strikingly familiar to those of us who were around for the Clinton impeachment.  The team appears to be moving toward the worst case scenario as the only scenario.  That puts the President on a path that increases the risk of impeachment.  The rhetoric is already laying the foundation to refuse to cooperate and litigate issues like a subpoena in court.  Just as the Clintons claimed a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was out to get them, the Trump team is alleging a “deep state” conspiracy.  The team is now on a course of confrontation — a course that could make things far worse unless Special Counsel Robert Mueller yields to the public taunts by figures like Giuliani.



Here is the column:

In Monty Python’s film, “The Life of Brian,” the lead character hangs hopelessly on the cross when a small army arrives to rescue him. His relief is short-lived as Otto, the leader, promptly announces that they are the crack suicide squad trained to kill themselves “within 20 seconds.” The scene comes to mind as President Trump’s newly reconstituted legal team seems eager to make quick work of any active defense. Indeed, Rudy Giuliani seemed intent in beating that record of 20 seconds by half.

Giuliani has now given special counsel Robert Mueller a May 17 deadline to yield on limiting demands to question the president, but he left unstated what the Trump squad might do on May 18 if it does not get its way. The “Otto” in this case could well prove to be Emmet Flood, who was selected in part due to his work as a member of President Clinton’s defense team. The Clinton defense, however, is nothing to emulate.

Clinton lost in the courts, culminating in a unanimous judgment against him in the Supreme Court over a refusal to appear for sworn testimony in Clinton v. Jones. Clinton’s strategy ultimately cost him and his office dearly and led to his ignoble and well-deserved impeachment. Trump could curiously “pull a Clinton” but might want to look where it left his predecessor.

Months ago, I encouraged the president to take a deal with Mueller and sit down immediately to answer questions on four discrete categories that notably did not include the Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal controversies. As noted then, time was of the essence and matters would only get worse. The president waited, and now FBI raids, counsel turnover, and endless contradictions have left the Trump defense in tatters.

Even with this ruinous history, the adoption of a Clintonesque defense may be personally satisfying for Trump but would come at a prohibitive cost for himself and his office. Indeed, as suggested by Giuliani, it could have Trump become the first president in history to invoke the Fifth Amendment. The strategy of declaring the special counsel investigation a “witch hunt” and perjury trap is clearly cathartic but also untrue.

Both the special counsel and the federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York are investigating real crimes by such characters as Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen. Moreover, any sworn testimony with prosecutors is a potential perjury trap. That does not mean that you inevitably will be charged with perjury. Indeed, Clinton clearly lied under oath yet he was not criminally charged.

The current strategy, including Giuliani’s recent self-immolation on national television, seems designed primarily for public rather than prosecutorial consumption. It is in many ways the adoption of the worst-case scenario despite a number of available options.

This scenario maximizes the likelihood of impeachment if the House of Representatives changes hands, which is the Clinton strategy. The team appears willing, absent Mueller caving in on the limits of questioning, to defy a subpoena from the grand jury. While limited, the existing case law favors Mueller, as it should. A president should not be able to defy a subpoena in a nation committed to the rule of law.

So why fight the subpoena? Because the Clinton defense is not about success but about survival. You run a series of losing skirmishes in the hope that, just before a final coup de grâce, you can renegotiate conditions for a sit-down as Clinton did in his appearance before a grand jury for a limited four-hour videotaped session.

The idea is that you present the special counsel with the danger of a constitutional crisis in a defiant president in contempt unless he yields to conditions. Giuliani and others have referred to “two or three hours” as the absolute limit, an apparent effort to allow a negotiation of a Clinton deal. Putting aside the high costs to the office of the president, the strategy could just as easily result in utter disaster in this game of constitutional chicken, if Mueller does not jump first.

Two obvious problems exist with this strategy. First, Clinton was limited to four hours, with counsel present, because he had already given a deposition under oath in the Jones case on Jan. 17, 1998. Independent counsel Ken Starr already had that transcript when he sat down with Clinton on Aug. 17, 1998. Trump will not have submitted to the prior testimony and faces a much broader set of allegations, a well-based reason for Mueller to refuse such a limited period.

Second, once Trump has forced this issue to go through the courts, Mueller would not have an obligation to yield to Trump. He would have a court order compelling an appearance and could even demand a conventional appearance without counsel. That would leave Trump alone and the same lawyers demanding that he degrade himself and his office with an invocation of the Fifth. That would very likely lead to his impeachment, particularly if the House switches parties in November.

The adoption of the worst-case scenario as the only scenario is unnecessary and premature. The embarrassing suggestion of Trump’s counsel is that he cannot be trusted, even with prior questions and counsel present, to avoid self-incrimination. They would rather risk an end-game leaving no option, from their perspective, to an invocation.

It is a strategy that works for lawyers: If you do not recommend cooperation, you cannot be blamed for an interview gone bad. It is also works well for prosecutors: If Trump is left with no option but invoking the Fifth, Mueller needs only to leave the choice to Trump to join the legal suicide squad. He could effectively invoke himself out of the presidency.

Trump may indeed prefer the worst-case scenario and replicate the Clinton defense. He could survive and, if mere survival is the measure, he might be able to claim victory. Maybe. Clinton secured a handful of Republican votes in the Senate along with all 45 Democratic votes. Trump could count on the need for 67 votes as giving him the edge.

He could survive impeachment by the House after spending all of his term in grinding litigation, like Clinton, only to be saved by a largely partisan vote following a Senate trial. It would not necessarily spare him from indictment, but Trump might be able to fly away on Air Force One on Jan. 20, 2020, and very well call that victory.

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


163 thoughts on “The Crack Suicide Squad: The Trump Team Moves Toward The Worst Case Scenario”



    Special Counsel Robert Mueller must adhere to the policy of the Dept. of Justice.

    Special Counsel Robert Mueller has no authority to indict the President of the United States.

    Rod Rosenstein must adhere to the policy of the Dept. of Justice.

    Rod Rosenstein has no authority to indict the President of the United States.

    Policy of the Department of Justice:

    “…the indictment…of a sitting President…would…violate the constitutional separation of powers.”

    “…a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.”

    A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution*

    The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

    October 16, 2000



    In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.

    1. What about a standing president wielding a club?

      A golf club to be sure…

      1. You can cuff him and perp-walk him if he stands for subversion to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” or conducting a coup d’etat in America.

        1. I think The Donald does that on alternate Tuesdays but it is difficult to be sure…

    2. So a memo from 1973 is the last, best authority on an all caps declara… excuse me… DECLARATION???

      Fox Fake News, the death of all that is good and American in America, has been effective in building a lucrative brand by using that approach above. FIRST, SHOUT AS LOUDLY AS POSSIBLE A THING … THEN, further down, make your own counter-argument and undermine your LOUD, DECLAMATORY, INFLAMMATORY, LOUD HEADLINE, by stating the truth. There is no legal basis for saying they cannot be charged, or subpoenaed or whatever. It isn’t seTTLED (oops, excuse me) law. First, there is no law directly addressing this. If there is and I’m missing it, please advise. And no, I’m not talking about the Constitutional, and fundamentally American, separation of powers. That is the basis for the opinion in their memo. Which, is only for guidance on what actions they take or do not take. You know, policy, not law. So, eehnnywayyy, So, how is law made when there is no legislation? Why, through the finders of fact, in our common law system. So, you’re wrong, the president can be charged, at least once, after which, the charge itself will be litigated, and finally, inevitably, it will land on the desks of the clerks of the Justices of the Supreme Court. And there, and then, someday, hope and pray, on that day they will make law. Or they will make doo-doo. Well, probably both, hopefully not in the same “production” so to speak.

      By the way, Schoolhouse Rock guy died recently. Kind of miss it right now. The Bill one really stuck, as did Conjunction Junction.

      And when the Court most Supreme does render a decision, a tributary Schoolhouse Rock should be created in honor of new law. But the poor old Bill should have to sit on the steps of the capital, in the rain watching the aftermath, on his phone, a crappy ZTE model of course. Which will die just one or two moments before the natural timing to end the show. Maybe as he watches the celebration/reaction to the new law being made by the justices, an idea dawns on him, and he suddenly stands up and says “What? Wait!!, What??? that’s a law? and all it had to do was wait a year, and just five people to vote for it? And I’ve been hanging around here alll thiiiss tiimmme? That’s it! I’m out of here! This is F—” and it goes to black.

      YOU’RE WEL… excuse me… You’re welcome.


  2. the thing the left hates about trump is that he acts like a leftist sometimes
    like he says goofy stuff and thus makes up five scandals for every one that goes away
    i rather don’t like this about him but it makes them go crazy which is fun to watch

    most conservatives are kind of chicken and trump has some big big cojones.

  3. Thomas Jefferson’s liberty tree might get a lot of water if things go too far.

    The people are with Trump. Not all the people to be sure. But the ones that voted for him may be a lot more solid and energetic base of support than the Swamp realizes.

    Does the “Deep State” think they can successfully nullify the election? They seem intent to try. If they get their way, might end up with buyer’s remorse. Just sayin. Look before you leap.

  4. anyways folks know this. a good constitutional crisis may be the spark in the tinderbox.

    do hayden and claptrap think they still run things?
    they might be surprised at the outcome if they want to push the envelope too far

    the american people in the countryside where all the food comes from, folks, they support trump lock stock and barrel. and that is meant quite literally. one suspects the big cities might starve in one week if food shipments are interrupted and then all these nevertrumpers and resistance people may rue deeply the outcome.

    “Today, I will settle all family business.”
    ―Michael Corleone

      1. They get like that whenever Trump has another bad day. Eventually it will become a permanent condition.

    1. To “MrKurtz”, if that is your real name. So, you’re advocating for.. a civil war in America? That’s what you want? You want Americans to fight and kill each other, by the millions?

      That’s what it sounds like. You know, this IS technically a public forum. This isn’t dinner with the family, where a free for all might not be such a bad thing, on your genetic line.

      I’m kidding, I’m kidding. I’d never knowingly and intentionally demonize and over-simplify a huge percentage of my fellow citizens like that. You know, use broad terms like “liberals”, etc.

      Oh, and Trump isn’t a conservative, or a liberal, he’s a demagogue, and about himself. No, “the people” aren’t with him, and he sure as heck isn’t with the people.

      As for the swamp. We all know now, wetlands are good. They help protect lower-lying land and property and all kinds of other good stuff. How many people even know what a swamp is anymore? Where I grew up, in Redstatistan, there were plenty of streams and ponds and swamps and marshes. Sure, they’re smelly, but swamps are alot of fun as a kid. And alot of good things are smelly, like kids.

      Seriously, I love discourse and hearing from other people. But the negativity all over the place, the dehumanizing of other people, particularly fellow citizens, it’s gotta stop. This crap is exactly what our enemies want. And make no mistake, Putin is our enemy. Note, Putin, not Russia as a whole or even a significant part. But he is. He’s more dangerous than Brezhnev or Khrushchev ever were. They were Communists. Putin is all about himself, not about the people. Whether their political historical theories were right or not, they at least believed in something bigger than themselves.

      However, if you really do want a civil war and Americans killing each other, than I guess you’re on Putin’s side. I mean, you might literally be on his side and I might be typing to a ‘bot right now.

      Say hi to Masha for me!

  5. Abuse of power for the purpose of repression is not justice.

    Professor Turley indicates that the Trump defense consists of the “Keystone Cops.” The facts show that the Obama administration consists of treason. The Obama coup d’etat in America will be revealed as the most prodigious scandal in American political history. Mueller and Rosenstein are Obama’s “insurance policy ” and spearhead, conducting an illegal, malicious prosecution. Professor Turley, America sees the “legal strategy,” where is the probable cause? Obstruction of justice cannot exist in the absence of a crime.

    “An Obama Spy in the Trump Campaign”

    “There may have been an FBI spy interacting with the Trump campaign in 2016, Kimberly Strassel reported in the Wall Street Journal Thursday evening, adding fuel to long-held suspicions that an FBI/DOJ mole had attempted to ensnare Trump campaign advisers in some sort of Russian collusion trap.”

    By Debra Heine

    “Potus wants to know everything we’re doing.”

    – Lisa Page

    On a potential Trump 2016 election victory:

    “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok texted on Aug. 15, 2016. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

    – Peter Strzok to his paramour Lisa Page in the office of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

    1. “Hillary Clinton told the FBI she couldn’t recall something more than three dozen times.”

      – WaPo

      President Trump, forget everything else; remember these words: I can’t recall. I don’t remember.


    “Months ago, I encouraged the president to take a deal with Mueller and sit down immediately to answer questions on four discrete categories that notably did not include the Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal controversies. As noted then, time was of the essence and matters would only get worse. The president waited, and now FBI raids, counsel turnover, and endless contradictions have left the Trump defense in tatters”.

    Here the professor notes that had Trump taken his advice, he would have been answering less complicated questions. But since then Michael Cohen’s office was raided; plunging this crisis to a much deeper level.

    1. Months ago, Jonathan Turley revealed that he doesn’t practice criminal law…

      1. There is no way Trump should sit down in an uncontrolled meeting with Mueller. IMO it can only do harm for the impetus of the Mueller investigation is to get rid of Trump not to discover Russian collusion or improper conduct. If that was the game Hillary would be sweating under the lamp 24/7.

        Trump says he wants a face to face confrontation and he might want it, but IMO he knows better and will not have such an uncontrolled confrontation. He is using this to his advantage saying he wants the meeting while knowing it will never occur.

        1. Who keeps trying to advise Trump in re a criminal case. Unlike Alan Dershowitz, he neither practices criminal law nor publishes on the subject.

          1. Ha! I just realized you’re joking, like Strozk and Page. Dershowitz doesn’t practice law anymore!

            Good one. Almost got one by.

        2. Peter Hill, Turley’s assumption that Mueller’s question would be limited to defensible positions for Trump appears to have been refuted by the leak of Sekulow’s rendition of Mueller’s questions to The NYT. Turley’s current position appears to be that Trump being interviewed by Mueller is still preferable to Trump defying a subpoena for as long as he can before pleading The Fifth before a grand jury.

  7. The 2nd Horowitz Report will be coming out soon. The President should stay in his lane and continue focussing on the issues he was elected to address, just as he’s been doing. When it becomes officially documented that the impetus for investigating the Trump Campaign for Russian collusion was not based on facts, but rather a cynical, paranoid, speculative “narrative” Mrs. Clinton cooked up in her mind after the DNC hack and Wikileaks attack on the eve of her nomination, the Mueller investigation will have reached its natural limit. The emphasis will shift to the misdeeds of Brennan, Clapper, Reid, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Lynch, Powers, Rice and the ex-President.

  8. You can speculate and theorize for days on end. In fact, that’s probably what Trump wants. I agree he is trying to run out the clock on his first term while hoping the Dems don’t take the House. The strategy seems to be stall, pardon folks and resign at the last possible moment (to spend more time with his family and businesses). He appears to have a stalling and disinformation strategy, not a legal strategy.

    1. ” he is trying to run out the clock on his first term ”

      It seems some believe his Presidency is all about Mueller. It isn’t. Take note while all this has gone on most of Obama’s legacy has been torn up or severely mangled. Tax reform was passed, the Paris deal a meaningless deal was ended, the Iran deal which never got Senate approval has been ended, the President is dealing with North Korea, The economy is doing well, unemployment is down, food stamp recipients have failed and loads of other things are being done while the lefties concentrate on the Mueller investigation which will likely lead to indictment of some of the people involved with the set up.

      I don’t know if any recent President has done as much as Trump in less than two years. This is not the picture of a President trying to run out the clock. Ridiculous!

  9. A president should not be able to defy a subpoena in a nation committed to the rule of law.

    That train left the station long before Trump took office. We are as wildbill stated on another thread, a post truth nation. We are a nation committed to lawfare.

    1. Olly,

      Didn’t you bless us with this Bonhoeffer quote the other day:

      “The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person, but with slogans, catchwords and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.”

      Look in the mirror, son.

      1. Look in the mirror, son.

        Olly’s an old man. He’s also just about the last person who comments here to whom that would apply. You win a prize for being obtuse, D. Lien.

        1. DSS,

          I know Olly’s approx. age. I’ve read many of his posts. You are much too literal, and nothing but a bombastic twit who thinks stating ‘no’ is a valid retort.

          1. Stating ‘no’ is a valid retort in these environs because most of the commenters traffic in unsupported assertions.

            1. When followed by a factual assertion, this is true. However many posts of yours are what you accuse others of. Actually, many of your retorts of late are worded, “No … [insert snark, insult, or red herring here].”

              1. Actually, many of your retorts of late are worded, “No … [insert snark, insult, or red herring here].”

                If you ever had a valid complaint, you’d state it in real time.

      2. Look in the mirror, son.

        I did that long ago and I realized how much I thought I knew was false. I knew then that my shortfall in knowledge wasn’t due to being stupid, I was merely ignorant. That condition is correctable, but not by one lacking the humility to realize it requires constant attention.

        Apparently I can only thank you for having read that post. Comprehending it however is a matter you should take up with whomever raised you and provided you what has passed so far as an education.

        In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.

        1. You have always put yourself on a pedestal of righteousness, stating the same mantra time and again. You are the subject of your Bonhoeffer quote.

          There are many others who share your values. You seem to think you are singular and so preach the same simple thoughts from your self-imposed pedestal to the point of nausea.

          1. lien, You seem to have a view of the world that reflects yourself rather than others. Olly doesn’t “stand on a pedestal of righteousness” rather he tries to do the right thing.

          2. You have always put yourself on a pedestal of righteousness, stating the same mantra time and again…There are many others who share your values.

            D. Lien,
            I’m not clear if you disagree with my stated values or that I’m consistently espousing them. Should I not be consistent? Or should I keep those values to myself and instead join the flock debating the myriad of issues that reflect a culture with no cohesive set of values? What would be the point in that?

            …and so preach the same simple thoughts…

            I can do complicated. But is the root cause of our problems complicated? Progressives would like you to think so. My Navy training in electronics repair taught me troubleshooting techniques. If the lights in your house won’t come on, the complicated (government) approach would be to hire a contractor to come out, have them rewire the house, replace all the bulbs, and then charge you overtime after resetting the breaker that had originally tripped. Complicating that process would be examining the contractors hiring practices, those of the vendors providing the bulbs, their employee compensation, the environmental impact of the disposal of the bulbs, and on and on. I can do complicated, but I would need to be stupid enough to engage in such things that have zero chance of correcting the root cause.

            BTW, I don’t consider myself to be standing on a pedestal. If I were, you would have no trouble knocking it over simply by pointing out the errors in my comments. No, I’m standing on solid ground and folks such as yourself are viewing me from the hole you’ve been digging.

    2. what olly said.
      you have an imperial presidency with huge power and yet his own justice department can eviscerate him.
      this nation is built upon so many ridiculously contradictory elements it makes Carl Schmitt’s book
      The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy a mandatory read

    1. If you were wrongly convicted due to Mueller’s shenanigans you might have a completely different opinion. Ask the innocent people he was involved with placing in jail for many years though at least one innocent person was driven to suicide. There are limits to how much sleaziness a prosecutor should wield. Mueller has far surpassed that level in the past and in the present.

  10. Turley wrote, “Months ago, I encouraged the president to take a deal with Mueller and sit down immediately to answer questions on four discrete categories that notably did not include the Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal controversies. As noted then, time was of the essence and matters would only get worse. The president waited, and now FBI raids, counsel turnover, and endless contradictions have left the Trump defense in tatters.”

    At the time that Turley advised Trump to agree to an interview with Mueller, Trump’s lawyers were the only ones other than the OSC who knew what sort of questions Mueller was interested in posing to Trump. Since the questions that Jay Sekulow wrote based upon negotiations with The OSC over the prospective interview with Trump have been leaked to The NYT, Turley’s advise that Trump should still agree to an interview with Mueller appears to be based upon Turley’s assumption that Trump has defensible answers to whatever questions Mueller might actually pose to Trump.

    I suspect that Turley is wrong about that. Trump might not have defensible answers to Mueller’s questions. Surely that possibility ought to be considered at least as an explanation for the recent changes in Trump’s legal strategy.

    1. I forgot. Trump could assert executive privilege in response to some of Mueller’s questions as written by Sekulow. For instance, the questions about Sessions’ recusal and the holding of Sessions’ letter of resignation, just to name two amongst several others. Trump might require the advise of counsel (Emmett Flood, presumably, and in the room with Trump) in order selectively to assert executive privilege in response to some questions but not others. Trump might also, in theory, assert State secret privilege in response to those questions about Flynn that refer to events that occurred while Flynn was serving as National Security Adviser. Once again, though, Trump might need Emmett Flood in the room with him at the time those questions are posed in order to make the most out of those assertions of privilege.

  11. The date at the end of the column is incorrect. Mr. Trump’s first term is scheduled to end on January 20, 2021, not January 20, 2020.

  12. You need to lay off the Jack Daniels before you write these columns. There will be no impeachment vote unless the Democrats take the House of Representatives in six months time, something they’re not guaranteed to do and appear not likely to do. There will be no vote to convict because the rabidly NeverTrump members of the Senate Republican (Corker, Flake, McCain) won’t be there next January and you’d need about 1/3 of the Senate Republican caucus to convict, something that’s exceedingly unlikely to happen.

    Thus far, Mueller and Rosenstein have behaved atrociously (as have officials of the FBI and the Treasury), but even pulling out all the stops, they come up with bupkis: process crimes, Russian internet trolls, Manafort’s business dealings (some dating back 12 years), Cohen’s business dealings, shysterish attempts to stretch the definition of ‘in kind campaign contribution’ to include the Stormy Daniels NDA (a gambit which has failed in trial courts),

    And there was a conspiracy. It included Andrew McCabe, both Ohrs, Priestap, Lisa Page, and Peter Sztrok.

    1. Thus far neither you, nor I, nor anyone else outside of the Mueller investigation knows what his investigation has turned up.
      It could very well be that there are no crimes committed by Trump that rise to the level of impeachable offenses, we will have to wait and see.

      1. Wildbill, we’ve had several of these rodeos. Absolutely none of Mueller’s predecessors in the special prosecutor biz led of with mickely-mouse charges against peripheral figures. None of the plea agreements entered into thus far have delineated any conspiracy to which the pleading defendant was supposedly a party. You’re going to be disappointed.

        1. Nii wrote, “None of the plea agreements entered into thus far have delineated any conspiracy to which the pleading defendant was supposedly a party.”

          A fair number of the questions that Sekulow wrote based upon negotiations with Mueller over an interview with Trump can easily be interpreted as “delineating a conspiracy to which Trump may have been a party.” That is presumably why Dowd jumped ship, why Flood signed on to assert executive privilege and possible State secret privilege and why Turley is wrong to assume that Trump has defensible answers to whatever actual questions Mueller might pose to Trump.

          1. can easily be interpreted as “delineating a conspiracy to which Trump may have been a party.”

            Only if you’re working real hard at it. See Andrew McCarthy’s critique of plea agreements to date. No conspiracies are delineated. There are no bigger fish to be caught consequent to these pleas. That’s why Mueller and Rosenstein are dusting off antique charges against Manafort and attacking Trump’s lawyer.

        2. As I have always contended that A) So far there are no credible impeachment worthy charges leveled at Trump and B). No one knows what the Mueller Investigation has or will uncover I suspect my disappointment will be minor.

          Should the Yankees not win the World Series this year I will be facing a major disappointment.

  13. If you were to assume that Trump was innocent. Their current strategy seems to make little sense and only lead to unnecessary peril Trump could submit to questioning, tell the truth, and the facts will bear him out.

    If you could wrap yourself around the possibility that there are dozens of financial crimes that Trump believes Mueller has discovered, and that conspiracy charges will take down at minimum his son and son-in-law. What good legal choices does he have? He will fight, obstruct, and eventually look for an option that leaves him in the best position possible.

    1. Once again Enigma is right. Except that the “best position possible” for Trump no longer includes a realistic prospect for reelection to a second term of office.

        1. Oops! I did it again. And the sign clearly said “Please Don’t Feed The Animals.” (That’s Turley’s Job)

      1. You say, “Trump no longer includes a realistic prospect for reelection to a second term of office”. Not sure why you think that is case? One could say Trump won the last election with much worse polling. At this moment in times is polling keeps rising.

        Can the President’s 49% polling improve with republican’s and minorities? IMO that answer is a strong yes. The GDP is averaging over one point higher than during President Obama’s tenure. That one point adds one trillion dollars to the economy. Companies are investing at record levels.The employment numbers are better than any time in the last eighteen years. N. Korea and the Middle East provide opportunities for improvement.

    2. maybe so a bunch of garbage financial charges like RICO money laundering etc just the normal stuff that is so broad that any business of complexity may be guilty of them and the prosecutors who can indict a ham sandwich can drive a truck through them

      silvergate’s book is another must read for anybody who does a lot of financial business and wants to stay clear of the overzealous prosecutors armed with ambiguous criminal statutes that don’t clearly define what conduct is legal and illegal. time to reform the garbage statutes and save a lot of people the trouble

  14. Did you mean the right wing of the left – The RINOs and were you using The Constitution as the
    Center or the space between Marx and Lenin.

    I would bet were it allowed not many can define the center correctly

    BUT we did control 40% of the ballots cast……as a hint. .

    1. Word salad. It looks good on you though. Thanks for playing; drive home safely.

      this is to “huh?” mikey

  15. Trump should demand the same treatment Hillary got. No sworn testimony.

    1. Kellyanne is gonna send you a cease-and-desist if you’re not careful.

      this is to “GD that hannity, this crap won’t convince anyone” paulie

      1. Marky Mark Mark – have you been smoking those funny cigarettes again? It isn’t helping your cognition. Your post does not make sense. I’ll bet someone told you that you could drive better when you were high and you believed them. It isn’t true, your reaction times are slower.

    2. There is a far higher standard of accountability for sitting Prez Trump than for mere candidate Billary.

      Or Prez Bush lil bro Fla. Gov Jed would have been hard pressed to account for the ‘hanging chads’ high level huge corruption which saw Gore criminally robbed of his Presidency.

      1. wlllistina556 – since the case went to the SC and the justices agreed 7-2 that the FL Supreme Ct was wrong and then 5-4 to stop the count, what crime was committed?

        1. Disingenious, in denial Schulte.

          Even immoral young schoolyard bullies, so called ‘Winners’ know that the only ‘crime’ is in ‘getting caught’ by a rigged system. And, the higher it goes the more criminally rigged – way up to the SC.

          Cos the true buck always stops not at the top, but starts with the apathetic shallow ignorant sheeple backing a criminally Right-tard rigged system.

          1. You were doing so well until Right-tard was added to that sentence without the Left-tard offset. I would qualify it further by adding progressive in front of both of them.

            1. Olly, listen to Stan when he says that using his retard’s brain demands an ‘alt-‘tard’ here and there to offset the fake ‘default-tard’ B.S.

            1. Schulte’s lifetime Right-tard long lifeline cracks us up.

              “Twist and push off” snorted the dancin’ Crackerbarrel tin.

              1. willistina556 – I am a conservative Independent and I don’t hide it. If the left wins the Revolution I will be among the first before the firing squad, assuming I survive the war. I have no illusions. 😉 On the other hand, if I am on the winning side, I have no one on my list that I want against the wall. However, I do need a gardener and maid. 😉

    3. Given Trump’s penchant for lying there is no way he should testify under oath or to the FBI, even if accompanied by every lawyer from the Georgetown Law School.

      No perjury trap needed, the President would build his own.

      1. “Trump’s penchant for lying”

        Wildbill, you have been asked before so I will ask again what significant lies (not puffery) has Trump committed? A nonanswer means you don’t know what you are talking about so I am hoping for an answer this time.

          1. Why don’t you list the ones you believe to be true? Because you don’t have the slightest idea of the context of those remarks. I will provide two statements that you believe are untrue as they exist on PolitiFact. I chose those because they involve major policy.

            1) “”In seven years that (nuclear) deal will have expired, and Iran is free to go ahead and create nuclear weapons.”

            That so happens to be true. At the expiration of the deal, Iran is permitted to build nuclear weapons.

            2) “Says North Korea has “agreed to denuclearization.”

            That is what N Korea said, but Trump has continuously said if that turns out to be untrue he walks away from any deal and imposes penalties. You apparently don’t know anything about context and know less about facts.

            But let us deal with the proof of what Trump said was a lie.

            Chuck Todd said: “We don’t have a release of any of those Americans that they’ve held captive,” Todd said April 22. “We don’t have a pledge of denuclearization as the ultimate goal.”

            The captives were released and Trump stated we don’t yet have agreement on what the N Korean’s said.

            One has to be an idiot to use this type of fact checking as proof. To believe such a site one also has to be an idiot or pretty naive or just too lazy to actually read the citations they post before they post them.

            Wildbill, for now, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just call you a bit lazy. I await proof of your contentions.

            1. 1)

              “It’s fair to be skeptical of the Iran deal. But Trump’s assertion that the JCPOA is set to expire in seven years and that Iran would be free to build nuclear weapons afterward is simply not accurate.

              Whether the president was referring to “Termination Day” in 2025, or to the portions of the JCPOA that sunset in 2026, Iran has pledged to never develop nuclear weapons. The Non-Proliferation Treaty, the IAEA’s Additional Protocol and other parts of the JCPOA — all of which Iran has committed to — run well past 2025, and key provisions apply indefinitely.

              Trump knows how to hedge these types of comments about the Iran deal. He’s done it before. (“The deal allows Iran to continue developing certain elements of its nuclear program and, importantly, in just a few years, as key restrictions disappear, Iran can sprint towards a rapid nuclear weapons breakout,” he said in an October 2017 speech.)

              But in this case, the president’s misleading and inaccurate statements are worthy of Four Pinocchios. We’ll be watching to see whether he is more careful in the speech announcing his decision.

              Four Pinocchios”



              “WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Donald Trump on Sunday claimed North Korea has agreed to “denuclearization” before his potential meeting with Kim Jong Un. But that’s not the case.

              North Korea said Friday it would suspend nuclear tests and intercontinental ballistic missile launches ahead of summits with the U.S. and South Korea. Kim also said a nuclear test site would be closed and “dismantled” now that the country has learned how to make nuclear weapons and mount warheads on ballistic rockets.

              But the North has stopped short of saying it has any intention of abandoning its nuclear arsenal, with Kim making clear that nukes remain a “treasured sword.”

              Trump nonetheless tweeted Sunday that the North has “agreed to denuclearization (so great for World), site closure, & no more testing!”

              Being committed to the concept of denuclearization, however, is not the same as agreeing to it, as Trump claims.”


            2. Wildbill, I note you cannot even put the arguments in your own words because the arguments are so lame and too out of context. Perhaps the arguments you quote go over your head.

              1) ” Iran has pledged to never develop nuclear weapons.” Such a pledge is not part of the agreement so what Donald Trump said was correct. I am still waiting for what Trump said that was wrong. The major complaint of the WP response was they didn’t like his wording because they felt it confused them but they didn’t even have the ability to provide a direct attack on Trump’s statement. They asked everyone to fill in the gaps. If this is what you think to be good investigative journalism or evidence then we know where your problem lies.

              Trump: ”In seven years that (nuclear) deal will have expired, and Iran is free to go ahead and create nuclear weapons.” This is a TRUE statement that your article doesn’t dispute.

              2) “agreed to denuclearization.” Your PBS article leaves out everything Trump said over and over again. He will walk if denuclearization doesn’t occur. You have naively accepted the spin of PBS. What is denuclearization? That is unclear and has been reported to be unclear by many sources so PBS is being dishonest as well.

              The N. Koreans have stated they would no longer do testing and some of their comments met the criteria for denuclearization (They would get rid of weapons. Additionally we don’t know what the private conversations said.), however, PBS wishes to diminish the gains Trump has made and no other President has been able to make. This was done for political reasons even though it hurts America’s position and the safety of the world. In other words, it seems you and PBS wish to sit on the same side of the table as the N. Korean dictator. That is the impression I get and likely others get as well. I would have hoped you would be rooting for our country and helping to push for the solution Trump is working towards. Unfortunately, it appears that your political ideology makes you root for the heinous N. Korean regime.

            1. Allan, I have a family and a job which take up a considerable amount of my time and replying to you doesn’t take precedence over either of them.


              1. Wildbill, that should take precedence. But, then you should be more careful with your arguments and make sure they are solid. One way of doing that is to place the argument in your own words so you can review it to see if it makes sense. Copying someone else’s argument diminishes your integrity and can make you look foolish if what you copy is BS.

                Can I ask what type of work you do?

                1. Allen, I will happily back up any assertion made, as above. You will have to adjust your expectations as far as timeliness.
                  I work for a major newspaper, in the production end.

                  1. Interesting what you do. I won’t ask what part of the production end. Have you ever been interviewed by James O’Keefe? 😀

                    1. Happy Sunday to you Wildbill. I don’t know why you would be unhappy talking to James Okeefe. I recently was at his place and had lunch with him. He is a very accomplished guy and most recently released videos about abuse taking place in our school systems across the country and how the union officials have protected the teachers with lies while blaming the students and telling abusers how to avoid the law. As the Union President said, to protect the teachers, we “bend the truth”. The site for just one video is below but there are a number of others with at least one involving rape and there are more to come.

                      You probably have kids so this should interest you. Tell me what you think about it.

                    2. I find the remarks reprehensible, and I generally support unions. Up to a point he’s obliged to defend his people but when children are endangered you’ve passed that point, IMHO. After all, he’s not the lawyer for the accused.

                    3. “I find the remarks reprehensible”

                      Wildbill, we have a major agreement. You might want to look at a few of his other videos. Not all will be to your liking but what he is doing is making things often hidden, transparent.

            2. Wildbill, why don’t you simply admit the arguments are BS and preserve your integrity for the future? That is one reason you should have placed the argument in your own words even if quoting such an argument as back up.

                  1. Sounds like willistina can only produce hit videos while leaving her intellect behind.

                    Despite what this idiotic linguist said Trump’s speeches and texts won him the Presidency.

                1. Willistina, Take note of his accomplishments. He has reversed most of Obama policy, reduced unemployment, reduced black unemployment, increased the number of jobs, increased the growth of the GDP, improved the economy and now is doing something no other President was able to do, deal with North Korea.

                  Lincoln’s comment on Grant’s drinking whether said by Lincoln or not should be considered. “Find out what whiskey he drinks and send all of my generals a case, if it will get the same results”

                  In Trump’s case if what is stated is true I would promote golf instead of alcohol. You seem to look at cr-p instead of accomplishments.

                  1. BIG Al take note of consequences to so called ‘bringing jobs back home’. Back to pre-globalised high prices for U$-made goods leaving overseas makers alienated and responding in kind – meaning UNkind.

                    And, take note of at the HUGE tab$ sad O’Barmy picked up from Repugnant Right-tard Shrub BACKED by Liar Mein Trumpf (still ain’t built a Rio Grande brick outhouse let alone a long Mexican Wall).

                    Repugnant Shrub legacy fer sad O’Barmy:

                    1) ’03 ongoing Iraq U$/UK criminal War one dictator and millions dead (including kids and U$ troops) massed migrants crisis, U$ criminal renditions ongoing World Isis BIG crisis.

                    2) ’08 ongoing U$/UK criminal Banksters worst ever World financial crash, 10 yrs on ZERO savings rates and economic western World crisis ongoing unchecked. Quote ethical U$ billionaire Capitalist Warren Buffet/Berkshire Hathaway AGM, ’02, “These Wall Street derivitives dealers are creating Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction set soon to explode Worldwide.”

                    1. Willistina, your hero William Blum believes the US is the biggest terrorist organization in the world. He equates the US to Nazi Germany. He has a good number of devoted readers that are enemies of the US. Blum announced himself “glad” when Osama Bin Laden endorsed his book saying “This is almost as good as being an Oprah [Winfrey] book.” That rating by Bin Laden helped promote his book which had almost no sales to a much higher ranking book. He has associated with communists and terrorists.

                      We know what type of person you are by the company you keep. Thank goodness I don’t ever have to get closer to you than a chat site.

                    2. Why don’t you provide specifics about the things you say about the economy. You like to generalize and make mush out of everything while you shift from one topic to another. Not an ounce of in-depth thought along with ignorant arguments.

                      The above doesn’t mean that there aren’t good reasons for objecting to the Iraq war or recognizing economic consequences from economic policy. There are. You just lack the ability to have an intelligent discussion on any of these topics.

Comments are closed.