It is a familiar pattern. It has happened before. Around 10am on Memorial Day, my iPhone can be vibrating with email signals as I was driving one of my children and her friends. Soon they were coming in fast succession and then I knew: The President has tweeted out a quote. The two tweets were followed by a torrent of threats, insults, and profane suggestions involving physical acts that would have been challenging in my teens. In today’s rage-filled environment, the mere fact that Trump quotes you unleashes a tsunami of anger. It seems cathartic for people who cannot tolerate the slightest hint of agreement with Trump. The same is often true on the opposite end of the political spectrum if you challenge or question a position of Trump.
What is interesting is that people who seek out your email almost uniformly do not take the time to actually read your comments. Yet, what is most disturbing is not the endless cranks but the coverage by news sites that show the same lack of interest in the actual comments or even the tweets themselves.
President Trump tweeted two quotes from a morning interview that I gave on Fox News about the call for an investigation into allegations of FBI misconduct in the use of an informant targeting Trump officials. The interview also discussed critical comments made by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, whom Trump fired last year.
“We now find out that the Obama Administration put the opposing campaigns presidential candidate, or his campaign, under investigation. That raises legitimate questions. I just find this really odd…this goes to the heart of our electoral system.” Jonathan Turley on
@FoxNews“Sally Yates is part of concerns people have raised about bias in the Justice Dept. I find her actions to be really quite unbelievable.” Jonathan Turley
In the interview, I stated that there was a legitimate concern raised about the Obama Administration carrying out an investigation of the opposing party’s presidential campaign. I said that it is not clear that anything will come of the investigation but that the public deserves to see both the investigation of the Trump campaign and the investigation of the FBI completed. I was critical of both the efforts to derail the Russian investigation and the FBI investigation by people on both sides.
When asked about Yates, I agreed with her that Trump went about this in the wrong way.
However, I noted that I have been highly critical of her actions as acting Attorney General. I have previously discussed the ethical and professional problems surrounding Yates’ order for the Justice Department to stand down from defending the Travel Ban. As discussed in a column today in the Hill newspaper, Yates is hardly a compelling source for protecting the established lines of authority between the White House and the Justice Department.
The thrust of the discussion was Yates’ actions as Acting Attorney general: “She told an entire department to stand down and not to defend the president’s first immigration order. I said at the time that she was fired for good cause, I still believe that. I find her actions to be really quite unbelievable.”
My point is that, while Yates was complaining about the criticism of the Justice Department and FBI, her conduct has contributed to the allegations of a bias at the Justice Department against the Trump Administration: “I’m afraid that it’s a rather ironic statement because she is part of the concerns people have raised about bias in the Justice Department.”
Despite the clarity of these statements, the interview was soon twisted beyond recognition. One article proclaimed that the tweets were part of blaming Yates for “Spygate”:
Trump promotes inaccurate Fox News segment that blames Sally Yates for so-called ‘Spygate’ scandal
The discussion of the interview focused on Yates’ actions as Attorney General in questioning whether she is credible in raising such issues of maintaining long-standing lines of authority. The tweets also clearly referred to her actions as Attorney General and, rather than relating them “Spygate”, referenced the concerns over bias at the Department. There was no blaming of Yates for Spygate.
I was also accused of repeatedly promoting “the phony theory that the Obama administration surveilled the Trump campaign ‘for political purposes.'” However, I have always stated that I have no expectations of any finding of wrongdoing in the FBI investigation. Instead, I have said that there is a legitimate concern that should be addressed with a full and independent report not only for the benefit of the public but the Justice Department itself. I believe that all of the these officials should give accounts as part of a comprehensive record from both Congress and the independent investigations by Mueller and the IG.
All of this because the President tweeted a couple of quotes. It is a reflection of the distemper that has taken over our public discourse. It is no longer possible to recognize that the President can have a legitimate concern or the value of resolving such questions in an investigation by career lawyers. There seems to be an ever shrinking space for good-faith discussions. To say anything deemed supportive of one side or another is deemed an act of duplicity or deceit. Whether it is MCNBC or CNN or Fox or countless websites, people look for echo-chambers that continually reinforce their bias.
Despite being the subject of such emails and calls from both liberals and conservatives for over a year, I am still astonished by how the most innocuous quote will trigger many readers who seem to have lower and lower tolerance for analysis that could be viewed in any way favorable to the other side. For example, last week the New York Times ran a story on the President’s call for the investigation into the informant. Peter Baker quoted me as saying:
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said that while the way Mr. Trump went about seeking an investigation was ‘clearly inappropriate,” the emerging facts merited an examination. ‘Where I depart from the critics is I think the president has a legitimate point here. The extent of this investigation directed against an opposition party’s presidential campaign is unprecedented, and it does raise legitimate questions.”
The response was again fast and furious. One of the least profane emails read “C’mon, Turley, cut the crap! So you’re a deep state guy now? Soon your kids will
be speaking Russian too” I am a “deep state guy” simply because I believe that there is a legitimate concern when an Administration uses national security powers to investigate officials in an presidential campaign of the opposing party. If George W. Bush’s Administration had investigated Obama figures through FISA, would the response from these people be the same? I doubt it.
My complaint is not with the angry messages. That is like complaining about the weather for commentators and columnists. Rather I am truly concerned about our chances as a nation to emerge from this environment with an semblance of unity. There is little chance that we can resolve our divisions in this increasing polarized environment. That is why it is so important that the public (or at least those still interested in the truth) to demand both investigations continue unimpeded and a full public disclosure made by the government.
There is little chance that we can resolve our divisions in this increasing polarized environment. That is why it is so important that the public (or at least those still interested in the truth) to demand both investigations continue unimpeded and a full public disclosure made by the government.
Of course we’re polarized. Who benefits from this great divide, the American people? Not really. Midterms are just over 5 months away and there is too much power at stake to allow constituencies any truth that puts in doubt a guaranteed vote. We’re supposed to play our part…stay in our lane. Republicans going eastbound while the Democrats are heading west. The media playing their part to make sure the traffic keeps moving in the correct direction. However the truth exists. Our internal navigation is urging us to get off the interstate, but the media and the political class cannot allow that to happen.
And what are the Independents doing? They’re not on the interstate. They’re taking the back roads, avoiding the traffic and actually looking for the truth.
OLLY – the Independents are using Waze. 😉
“Spygate” is a circle-jerk of journalistic streetwalkers in an echo-chamber; Jonathan Trumpley feeds the beast to feed his seemingly insatiable desire to appear on TV.
What do we actually know? Not much, in detail. We are told that the Brits had SlGlNT in 2015, and the Dutch were in Fancy Bear’s pocket. The Russians were intent on meddling in our upcoming election, and lT lS THE JOB of the FBl’S Cl Branch to figure out the “who, what, when, where, and why.”
Jonathan Trumpley hasn’t just jumped the shark here, but did a 720 Ollie North with a twist. The FBl had two options: to do nothing, or to act. Maybe Trumpley likes Russian caviar with his vodka, but any prudent G-man would look into it. The least-invasive tool in their toolbox was the use of an informant, which was what they did. And even if there were grounds for an investigation, it should be conducted after-the-fact by Congress. Why? We learned the hard way during Nixon.
The Russians were intent on meddling in our upcoming election,
DUH! We didn’t need the Brits or SigInt to inform us of that bit of information. I would be concerned if they weren’t intent on meddling in our election. What I am concerned with is our own IC/FBI meddling in our election. Of all the evidence available, what source of meddling is known? If you still believe it’s the Russians, then you have to conclude they are deep within our IC/FBI/MSM and the DNC.
True.
What is your proposed alternative, Olly? Should we have let Putin blackmail Trump into becoming “Agent Orange” unhindered? And do you REALLY want to tell the Russians and Chinese how we do surveillance? Or are you just a passionate hyper-partisan, participating in this Nixonian circle-jerk?
l’m not sure what you would have the FBl do, and you haven’t addressed that question.
Every member of Trump’s inner circle–including the AG–has committed perjury in an attempt to downplay the scope of their Russian connections. That, to the legally-trained, is compelling evidence of consciousness of guilt. Clearly, they had something to hide.
This whole incident is eerily reminiscent of Watergate. Go to Netflix and rent the Mark Felt movie, and you’ll see what l mean. (They took remarkably few liberties.) Guiliani has already told us what this is all about–exactly what Nixon was doing in Watergate. They want to know what Mueller knows, so that they can tailor their lies accordingly.
As for oversight, we already have a system in place. Congress will do a post-mortem, protecting sources and methods. Why is that inadequate?
Every member of Trump’s inner circle–including the AG–has committed perjury in an attempt to downplay the scope of their Russian connections.
Your vivid imagination is of interest to no one.
Nut, if you get all of your news from Sean Hannity, you will never want for moonshine.
I’ve never watched more than a few minutes of his program. And you’re still lying.
Yes, President Rump.
Excellent points all around Lawdog
Lets bring back Roseanne who adds important commentary on our nation
Planet of the Apes wont be offended and Valerie never looked so good
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fYA3PvD7TBs/TJvNDsZll1I/AAAAAAAAHm0/uyOwdd92JC0/zira-michelle-wtf.png
l’m not sure what you would have the FBl do, and you haven’t addressed that question.
Oh I don’t know…their sworn duty for starters.
Answer the question, OLLY. What WAS their duty in the matter? Please be specific, and cite to sources if you assert that they had no discretion. l’m not going to let you get away with such intellectual laziness.
From the FBI website:
Our Mission
To protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Priorities
Protect the United States from terrorist attack
Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage Fail
Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes Fail
Combat public corruption at all levels Fail
Protect civil rights Fail
Combat transnational/national criminal organizations and enterprises Fail
Combat major white-collar crime Fail
Combat significant violent crime
Core Values
Rigorous obedience to the Constitution of the United States; Fail
Respect for the dignity of all those we protect;
Compassion;
Fairness; Fail
Uncompromising personal integrity and institutional integrity; Fail
Accountability by accepting responsibility for our actions and decisions and the consequences of our actions and decisions; Fail
Leadership, both personal and professional; and
Diversity.
https://www.fbi.gov/
l’m not going to let you get away with such intellectual laziness.
Your subjectivity slip is showing. When did you get our lawfare degree?
Olly: “Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage”
You really ARE a blithering idiot!
lt lS their mission to protect us against Russian intel ops. But WHAT are they supposed to do, and WHY? They actually have manuals for this sort of thing, that tells them what to do–they have game-planned this years in advance. For you to prove your case, you have to show that (a) they had guidelines to follow, and (b) that they did not follow them. All we know is that the “Gang of Eight” reviewed their work, and that there was no reported misconduct.
For you to prove your case, you have to show that (a) they had guidelines to follow, and (b) that they did not follow them…there was no reported misconduct.
At the core of this Russian collusion claim is that the Russians hacked the DNC computers back in 2015. When did the FBI get the DNC servers that were allegedly hacked by the Russians? What did the FBI forensics discover regarding the hacking? But wait, do their guidelines instruct them to acquire computers in the course of an investigation? I believe Manafort and Cohen would say they do. But then that is for investigations, matters on the other hand don’t seem to have guidelines.
I guess Professor Turley is learning that there is no way to satisfy a Liberal.
How about a little less tribalism and a little more common sense, Allan?
President Nixon– er, Trump– and his minions had nearly 100 improper meetings with Russian operatives, which they have committed perjury in many cases to conceal. Committing a crime to conceal your actions shows consciousness of guilt.
ln his desire to get his ugly mug on TV–even on freakin’ Memorial Day!–Prof. Trumpley avoided asking the most basic question: “What would you, as a rational FBl Cl agent, do?” The Brits had SlGlNT from 2015, and the Dutch were in Fancy Bear’s back pocket. Our G-men knew something was coming. But Trumpley would have them do nothing?
That just doesn’t pass the smell test.
How about reading history Lawdog? The French Revolution has similarities to the Progressive movement so when the French Revolution occurred it didn’t stop at a reasonable objective. Instead, the leaders started to eat their own. That is what we are seeing today. Take note of Evergreen University where some Liberals are starting to recognize that restraint is as important as complaint and they have been shocked at Evergreen’s violations of freedom of speech and decency.
“Trump– and his minions had nearly 100 improper meetings ”
Go ahead lawdog and list those meetings and let us know the definition of “improper meetings”. Would Podesta’s meetings be considered improper?
“Committing a crime to conceal your actions shows consciousness of guilt.”
Go ahead lawdog and list those crimes concealing actions that show consciousness of guilt. Make sure you show the evidence.
“That just doesn’t pass the smell test.”
You do and there is something quite foolish and childlike in the way you present your ideas.
l’m not a rabid hyper-partisan like you, Al. Trump’s entire inner circle has committed perjury on an industrial scale, in a concerted effort to hide the substance and downplay the significance of their meetings with Putin’s agents. Why would they lie, if what they were doing was above-board?
Trump has already committed impeachable offenses. The shakedown of Qatar f/b/o the Kushners, trading the rescue of ZTE in exchange for giving lvanka trademarks and financing a Trump venture, and trying to use the USPS to injure the interests of Jeff Bezos (see Nixon’s plan to use lRS to audit his enemies–Point One of the Second Article of lmpeachment). Those are separate and independent grounds for impeachment, regardless of what the Mueller probe uncovers.
As for the Clinton Crime Family™, you’re preaching to the choir. But if all you have is whataboutism, and you have to play the “Hillary Card,” you lost the debate. l am not so hyper-partisan as to think that HRC deserves a pass, and aver that her getting one (Loretta Lynch would look good in prison stripes) should not warrant a free pass for The Don and his crime family.
Lawdog, lets focus on the important matters of this nation
Round up all of Valerie Jarrett’s relatives and send them back to Kenya
when they go low, we go high
http://www.helpfreetheearth.com/img/michele_ape.jpg
“Civility and Decorum Policy:
This blog is committed to the principles of free speech and, as a consequence, we do not ban people simply because we disagree with them. Indeed, we value different perspectives and do not want to add another “echo chamber” to the Internet where we each repeat or amplify certain views. However, the Turley blog was created with a strong commitment to civility, a position that distinguishes us from many other sites. We do not tolerate personal attacks or bullying. It is strictly forbidden to use the site to publish research regarding private information on any poster or guest blogger. There are times when a poster reveals information about themselves as relevant to an issue or their experiences. That is fine and is sometimes offered to broaden or personalize an issue. For example, I am open about my background and any current cases to avoid questions of conflicts or hidden agendas. However, researching people or trying to strip people of anonymity is creepy and will not be allowed.”
rump’s entire inner circle has committed perjury on an industrial scale,
Again, bald lying and invention is of interest only to your psychiatrist.
Facts matter. https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/read-leahy-franken-letters-fbi/index.html Read for yourself.
Facts matter, but you’re not trading in any.
l can lead a man to knowledge, but l can’t make you think. Or, do basic research.
Your contentions about the Attorney-General, to take one example, are a talking point which has been circulating for over a year and debunked repeatedly. Do try to keep up.
By whom?
“By whom”By whom”… An FBI investigation cleared Sessions of perjury..this was widely reported in mid-March.
A so-called prosecutor relies upon secondary evidence provided by interested parties. In other words, you rely upon what partisan interested parties have to say in their political letters? Provide the evidence and if it is in their letters provide the primary site in context.
You should be relieved of your duties.
“l’m not a rabid hyper-partisan like you”
Thanks for the laugh lawdog, but you are as partisan as they come and not very knowledgeable which makes your partisanship and comments even worse. I am waiting for the proof that ” Trump’s entire inner circle has committed perjury on an industrial scale”. When you have that proof come back again and let us in on it.
“Trump has already committed impeachable offenses. …”
You say you are a lawyer? If so then the legal profession is in a lot more trouble than anyone ever suspected.
I am glad you see some problems with Hillary. I hope you see the same with Obama. This demonstrates that at times you have a bit of lucidity but not much else.
The good professor complains, “I was also accused of repeatedly promoting ‘the phony theory that the Obama administration surveilled the Trump campaign ‘for political purposes.’” My problem with Turley is that he routinely appears on Fox programs in which the hosts and commentators state unequivocally that the Obama administration surveilled the Trump campaign precisely ‘for political purposes.’” No question about! And yet he appears on these programs knowing full well that his comments will be taken out of context by Fox News as well as Trump in order to bolster their unfounded narrative of “spy-gate.” I presume that Turley would not appear on the Savage Nation or Alex Jones in order to make his sober points because these shows are not interested in a fair-minded discussion. Hannity, Tucker, Ingraham and Pirro are just as bad. And yet he legitimizes these Fox propagandists by his appearance as he would by appearing on Alex Jones. He knows better, but he never defends his decision to lend credence to these hosts who make claims repeatedly that he knows cannot to be taken seriously. Perhaps, he has an ulterior motive- by suggesting he is not dismissive of some of Fox’s narratives, he hopes to be regarded as an honest broker if and when the time may come that he has to side with Mueller’s indictment of the president. He will not be invited to appear on Fox if he is ever of the opinion that Trump/Flynn/Manafort are unmistakeably, undeniably and irrefutably guilty of criminal acts. Alternatively, maybe Turley hopes to land a spot on Trump’s impeachment defense by his high profile sympathy for some of Trump’s accusations. He has not gone unnoticed by Trump! Has Turley ever indicated that he has no desire to represent the president or refused such an offer? As a legal journalist, he has an ethical obligation to indicate had he been so approached or has not ruled out such representation. I respect Turley’s legal judgment but not where he renders it. He should not allow his bona fides to boost the credibility of talk show entertainers who do not share his good faith desire to get to the truth of all these matters; rather, they are intent upon protecting Trump from the truth.
Jeff Silberman
or perhaps quite simply the “progressive” propagandists have no interest in having the professor on their programs because those “progressive propagandists” are not interested in a fair-minded discussion, and thus, have not invited him on their shows.
Do you have proof of your claims such as a written offer to the professor which he refused? A public invitation from say, Maddow or even MSNBC generally? A statement from the professor supporting your fantasies?
No? Then your drivel is nothing but baseless speculation bordering on libel, an attempt at nasty-minded character assassination, a pack of lies puked forth by a slimy creature.
And may I say, your “complaint with Turley” is reflective of a narrow-minded bigot, a pompous smugly arrogant purveyor of rancid poppycock, whose opinion no intelligent person would ever seek out on any matter.
My complaint with Trumpley is that he is taking Sally Yates to task for doing her job. ln theory, the DoJ is not a lion under the President’s throne. They do not swear fealty to The Don, but to COTUS. And if a course of Presidential action is so obviously beyond the pale that the courts will not enforce it, it is our AG’s JOB to tell POTUS that it is doomed to fail, and not waste OUR scarce resources defending it. (The preferred course of action would have been for POTUS to run it by counsel before issuing it.)
lf l had been advising POTUS, l would have told him to state that we’re doing this b/c the passport systems in certain countries are not good enough to ensure that the carrier is who s/he says s/he is, and that the SoS is directed to exempt certain classes of person from the ban. People who already have green cards, profs, and our own informants in lraq should not have been barred, and no one would be able to scream “Racist!” l was for some form of travel ban; a dozen Arabs with a carton of Camels and Toyota sedans could devastate the West by just throwing butts out of windows. But a stupid travel ban defeats the purpose.
As for the choices of the networks, MSNBC does a better job of inviting dissenting voices, but whenever they do, the show starts sounding like a Crossfire re-run.
My complaint with Trumpley is that he is taking Sally Yates to task for doing her job.
It’s not her job to substitute her policy judgment for the president’s or to be conniving with other in the manufacture of ‘insurance policies’.
It’s not her job to substitute her policy judgment for the president’s
lf it were a mere question of making policy, l’d agree. But as l stated, her loyalty is to COTUS and the laws, and when POTUS refuses to follow them, she has an obligation to refuse. The same concept applies to the Uniform Code of Military Justice: a soldier MAY NOT follow an illegal order.
conniving with other in the manufacture of ‘insurance policies’.
Got evidence? Didn’t think so. Comey alludes to the likelihood that she probably wasn’t in the loop: “The former top G-man also said that Lynch’s relationship with Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates seemed “distant and strained” and that “their staffs simply didn’t talk to each other.”” The line of authority was from Lynch to Comey; when she recused (and there is no way to give LL a pass!), Yates should have made the call. But she didn’t.
You can ding LL, JC, and Strzok, but smearing Yates by association is a serious stretch.
Please find below the text of an e-mail sent to Jonathan Turley with regards to an opinion piece he wrote about Andrew McCabe. While many people will view the IG’s report as ‘a smoking gun’ it is also true that McCabe and his attorney are disputing its findings. I admit to being incorrect in my article ‘The Purging of Andrew McCabe: Truth , Justice and the Stalinist Way. However, ‘although I am not an attorney and have no legal training’ I continue to believe Mr. Turley’s Hill piece ‘borders on the libelous to an exponentially greater degree than the McCabe fund’s solicitation borders on the fraudulent.’
My e-mail was sent to Mr. Turley on April 9, 2018. Since he has declined to avail himself of the opportunity I gave him to defend himself I feel that I am free to make my remarks public.
Text of April 9 e-mail
This is the third email I have sent you on the subject of Andrew McCabe, the prior ones being unanswered to date. My immediately prior email accused you of being biased against Mr. McCabe. I began to suspect bias on your part when I read your remark that McCabe should be more worried about prison than about his pension.
However, what really set me on fire was your opinion piece for The Hill, entitled, ‘The Curious Case of Andrew McCabe’s Legal Defence Fund’. Your opening paragraph is an off the wall comparison of the McCabe Defence Fund to a criminal scam centered upon ‘Wounded Warriors’. I won’t insult you by asking you whether you have received money or other items of value from Donald Trump and or persons or organizations supporting Donald Trump but in all honesty such thoughts crossed my mind upon reading your opinion piece.
You then state that the McCabe solicitation ‘borders on the fraudulent’ because he has not in fact lost his entire pension and he may very well have deserved his fate. In your view, McCabe should have waited for the release of the IG’s report before asking for contributions and I believe that you made the point that donations will not be returned should the IG’s report clearly show that McCabe’s firing was justified.
I am not an attorney and have no legal training but speaking strictly as a layperson it is my opinion that your Hill piece borders on the libelous to an exponentially greater degree than the McCabe fund’s solicitation borders on the fraudulent.
In the first place the McCabe fund never claimed to be a charity and any sensible donor should have been under no illusions. Viewed in simple terms, although donations to the McCabe fund were not campaign contributions they were made pursuant to a political controversy. It is my understanding that Roy Moore received campaign contributions premised on his denials of sexual misconduct and I do not believe that any contributions have been returned now that the voters of Alabama have spoken. Additionally, it is unlikely that the IG report will be the proverbial ‘smoking gun’ and if in fact it formed a basis for McCabe’s firing I expect that McCabe and his attorney will dispute its findings. Finally, McCabe’s claims regarding the loss of his pension are at worst hyperbole and bear no reasonable relation to fraud. It is indisputable that McCabe stands to lose a substantial portion of his pension and that the McCabes and their two teen age children stand to lose substantial health insurance benefits.
I have previously published my opinion regarding the McCabe firing as an Amazon Kindle pamphlet, ‘The Purging of Andrew McCabe: Truth, Justice and the Stalinist Way’. I am giving you this opportunity to dispute my views with regards to you before similarly making them public.
*yawn* if you’re “not an attorney and have no legal training” why do you think anyone should care about your “opinion as a layperson” on this legal matter?
Breaking news: Female chimpanzee posts to blog!!
No need for that.
No need for that??
The female canine doesn’t address the points I made. She merely states that since I admit to not being a legal professional that my opinion is worthless.
Putting down a rabid dog is a public service.
l’ll have you know that this Dog (who does have a law degree) finds it offensive. The answer is that you really don’t need a law degree to sift through the facts, and second-guess the lG report. l’m used to citing authority for every proposition l advance but ultimately, an argument stands or falls on its own merits.
My attitude toward the McCabe firing is that l won’t take a position until the facts are in; what l will say is that Trump’s actions were petty, and in furtherance of a larger scheme to obstruct justice. But one hardly needs to resort to personal invective aimed at fellow contributors.
A cat that starts a fight should expect to get scratched.
She went after me without cause. I took a cue from Trump and went after her 10x as hard.
All she did was question whether you had the expertise to offer an informed opinion.
I don’t know about you but I know meanness and sarcasm when I see it. (‘Yawn’)
My attitude toward the McCabe firing is that l won’t take a position until the facts are in;
“But, but because I have a law degree and I’m used to citing authority for every proposition, I’ll have you know on myauthority, none of that matters because Trump sucks.”
There, fixed it for you. You’re welcome! 😉
WTF are you babbling about, Olly? Still no answer to my question.
You wear your trump ignorance and repulsiveness proudly. SAD!
Sean Hannity. A lot of the journalistic streetwalkers participating in this propagandistic circle-jerk have never set foot inside a law school, and those who are lawyers are soulless courtesans who have put Party before country. (l have a JD, but see no reason to ‘pull rank’.)
My question: lf there was no “there” there, why did Trump’s minions have to commit serial perjury–even the Attorney General?
This whole affair is reminiscent of Watergate–l’m old enough to have lived through it. Watch the Mark Felt movie on Netflix; you’ll see how close it is, from the “inside the Bureau” perspective.
So, Howard, do you always comment on subjects you clearly don’t understand?
I am a lawyer, I am a prosecutor, I’ve read the IG’s report, reviewed the appropriate laws and Federal regs: McCabe appears to have committed a crime, and he certainly without question violated the Code of Professional Ethics.
Now, perhaps you should go educate yourself before you post drivel.
As for “lawdog”- I lived thru Watergate, I watched the hearings- you may be right, but in this case, it’s looking more and more as if Obama is the New Nixon. Trump and his minions appear guilty of a number of financial misdoings- none of which have squat to do with the 2016 election.
Perhaps if you looked at the facts objectively, you would see this, but frankly, you come off as a blind rabid zealot, as capable of objective analysis as a pig is of flight.
Good luck with that.
I assume you’re not one of those prosecutors who relies on distorting the facts in order to obtain convictions.
My post clearly states that many people will view the IG’s report as ‘the smoking gun’ although McCabe and his attorneys dispute its findings. It also states that my own prior article on the matter was incorrect.
Perhaps chronology is not your thing so I need to point out that the IG’s report was released on April 13th and my e-mail to Mr. Turley was dated April 9th.
Finally, I stand by my asseveration that Turley’s characterization of the solicitation of funds on behalf of McCabe as ‘borders on the fraudulent’ was out of bounds (McCabes ultimate guilt or innocence notwithstanding).
In the future please do not assume that I wish to be on a first name basis with you. I reserve that privilege for people I respect.
Howard Bitterman – this is an interesting sandbox. There are both attorneys and non-attorneys on here. Even between people with law degrees, there are differences of opinion. I point you to the Supreme Court.
I don’t get your point. Please elaborate.
Howard Bitterman – tread carefully. 😉
Are you threatening me?
Oh boy. Do you have an OED?
Howard Bitterman – don’t be too touchy. If I threaten you there will be no question about it. 😉 This is just friendly advice to a newcomer.
Counselor, it is difficult to dispute the fact that Trump has committed impeachable acts, judged by the Nixon standard. None of them were done in connection with the 2016 election, but that is beside the point.
As a prosecutor, l would expect that Team Trump’s apparent serial perjury–even the AG has been caught!– would be concerning to you. Go ahead. Tell me that you would not see that as consciousness of guilt in your day-to-day practice.
The real action in the Trump saga is money-laundering (l’m also a CPA, who has done that kind of litigation support work), which is like a cop running through a house in hot pursuit of a murder suspect and finding a mountain of blow on the table. RlCO, state crimes–NY and NJ probably enjoy concurrent jurisdiction, and POTUS can’t pardon himself for them–this has all the look of a Mob prosecution. Mueller is leaning on the little fish to get to the big ones. This will take three years, and l would be surprised if he hasn’t indicted DT already (all he apparently needs is RR’s permission) as an insurance policy.
As for Obama, he was probably far enough away from the Clinton probe to have not incurred criminal liability in the whitewash they called an investigation. To me, the more interesting aspects of it would have been the apparent $17.5M bribe from Soros through Laureate U and Bill, and the grotesque orgy of crony capitalism known as the Haiti relief effort. But while Nixon was QB’ing his cover-up, Obama was probably too smart to get too close.
You say you are “tired of zealots,” but appear to be a rabid partisan. Nothing would make me happier than a broad investigation–if you are familiar with the Panama Papers, you might have noticed some ties to both of our competing crime syndicates.
Tiredofzealots:
Best short analysis I’ve read on the matter. Bravo
President Trump actually did a good job in his scripted remarks at Arlington on Memorial Day, credit where credit is due.
The ridiculous tweetstorm? He only denigrates himself, it would be in his own best interests to avoid that.
Sadly, the time for civility, went out the window. Never, to return. Who began all of this.? The campaign was
a lesson in “ how not to be civil”, by an uncouth, despicable, loud mouth, who wasn’t even educated enough, to speak on the subjects.
Just think about that….how could somebody, an aging slob, get elected and he not having a clue, about
The subject matter, he was talking about.? Forget the lies, the philandering, the Mafioso tactics. It is becoming more and more obvious, this lunatic, had to have help.!!
I am Republjcan.
Guiness:
“The campaign was
a lesson in “ how not to be civil”, by an uncouth, despicable, loud mouth, who wasn’t even educated enough, to speak on the subjects.”
**********************
Thankfully we have your refined take on the matter to dispel the noxious vapors of incivility. You’ve got quite the optical mote there, Guineas.
Jonathan Turley May 25th, 2018, from his “Squire, Patton, Boggs” post:
Cohen is known to have the legal skills of a wombat and the ethics of a parasitic tick.
L4D:
I find the verbal foray against Cohen curious, too. I don’t think Cohen is the next Melvin Belli but I don’t see why he is Paul Bergrin, either.
For folks who don’t know Paul:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/09/lawyer_sentenced_to_life_in_prison_on_murder_racketeering_charges.html
Excerpted from the article to which Mespo linked above:
The admitted gunman, Anthony Young, testified at trial that several months before [Kemo] McCray was killed Bergrin had shown up on a darkened street to tell the members of his client’s gang that their fellow gangster would possibly spend the rest of his life in prison. Then, said Young, Bergrin also looked at the group sternly and told them: “No Kemo, no case.”
Well, clearly Cohen is not as bad as Bergrin. Let’s keep Cohen in Jack Abramoff category until further notice.
It’s so hilarious to hear these lefiies so sanctimonious about Trump’s “language and decorum” when their go to public discourse is to unleash torrents of disgusting gay-porn terms to describe the tea party and all those who oppose them. (google Rick Santorum) The hypocrisy needle has broken through the glass! LOL!
“The interview also discussed critical comments made by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, whom Trump fired last year.”
You are just as guilty as the college students at Evergreen College filled with rage to harass professors.
You peddle the same click/bait garbage precisely to incite the masses and hence foment rage
You JT are part of the problem. To be quoting Sally Yates serves no intellectual purpose other than to stoke the fires
Hypocrite.
Hopefully more and more of us will rise above these cheap attempts at manipulating others and act with integrity.
Politics is local. Stop neurossing so much about what happens 300 or 3000 miles from where we live. Think and act locally and change your immediate worldmone person at a time.
Sandra:
You copied your last sentence wrong from the talking points email. Better correct it before the paymaster sees it.
JT:
That’s what happens when you poke the surly Maoist beast. No matter. Let the rabble rage. There’s always a reckoning, always a day of judgment, always a winner and a loser. That’s history’s way. And there’s a reason we used to call the institution for the insane the Mad House.
Please hang in there, you’re the non partisan voice of reason. Your doing us all a great service. So sorry you have to endure the hate and intolerance. Let me tell you you have millions of admirers and we appreciate you!
Indeed. Prof. Turley is doing great, thoughtful work. The fact that he is getting all this flak means basically nothing. Much of it could be coming from non-human AI bots or hired trolls so who really cares what background noise the hired help can create? The forces of evil want to divide us but guess what? The people are not divided though much is being done to confuse and manipulate in order to stoke hatred. I am sorry that Prof. Turley is being attacked but truth and reason is under attack in general. He is doing God’s work.
Proudly Unaffiliated – if you are getting a lot of flak it usually means you are near or over the target. 😉
JT stated, “In today’s rage-filled environment”, it’s called the roar of the world.
Here’s an analogy. Meet the most illegally trafficked mammal in the world. The Pangolin. China is behind the pouching, hunting & their extinction. Now it’s time to turn off the roar of the world & take a nap, Pangolin style.
Oh my gosh, it’s adorable. So cute.
Karen S – I am sure the horses will love one. 😉
I will never harm a single hair atop Professor Jonathan Turley’s head. For one thing, I would need a step ladder to reach that high. For another, Turley would have to hold still while helping me climb up. There’s no indication that Turley is under any obligation whatsoever to assist me in my efforts to muss up his hair. Besides, Turley’s aged mother can still beat me up with that cane she keeps by her front door. Think first; think twice, second; post message third.
P. S. I’m so sorry you had a rough Holiday, yesterday, Professor.
Will students be pressured by their peers to boycott your classes in the fall? Has your car been vandalized? How about false claims of sexual harassment? Whatever it takes to intimidate and eventually silence figures not completely opposed to anything Trump says or does at all times.
Like others, I applaud your bravery every day you try to advance the conversation. The pressure is too great for many. No doubt you have lost lifelong friends and colleagues as a result. As regrettable as it all is, that’s where we are.
JT – welcome to the club. 😉 It doesn’t get better.
There will not be unity as long as Trump is President. He thrives on discord
Yeah, that’s a helpful comment on unity.
Knee-jerk much?
“Rather I am truly concerned about our chances as a nation to emerge from this environment with an semblance of unity. ”
Well said Mr Turley.
My experience is similar. I have been accused of being a die hard Hillary supporter, and a die hard Trump supporter. I voted for neither. Based on what I think will follow in comments. Indeed we are in trouble.
No, we are not. This noise is deliberately being made to distract you from the truth.
Twitter is for twats.
David Benson still owes me a citation from the OED. Twitter is Trump’s Fireside Chat you ignorant twit.
Yes, that is partly why I wrote that, oh, most unobservant and uninformed one…
David Benson owes me two citations, one from the OED. So, all those liberals using Twitter to attack Trump are twats? Chelsea and Hillary have Twitter accounts are that twats, too?
Can we assume you do not have a Twitter account? #FreeTommyRobinson
Mike Caputo told the Daily Wire that all the yammering about the second spy was just a big misunderstanding based upon chain hearsay like the game, Telephone.
The links are on the “Religious Writer . . .” thread underneath all the yammering about the OED citation on the second page.
L4D is enabling David Benson I do not care how much yammering you do or he does, but David Benson owes me two citations and you need to start qualifying your statements.
There’s no qualification to it. Breitbart News ran a story about Republicans looking for Hillary’s deleted SoS emails. A man who read that story asked a Republican if it was true. That Republican mentioned the man’s question to Caputo. Caputo then claimed that the man’s hearsay question was evidence of a second FBI spy in the Trump campaign. To say that that Fake-News-Chain-Hearsay-Telephone-Game “might” have been a misunderstanding is TO ENABLE Fake-News-Chain-Hearsay-Telephone-Games.
L4D is enabling David Benson – are you a lawyer or do you play one on tv? You are throwing around a lot of legal jargon that really doesn’t fit with the scenario.
L4D is enabling David Benson First, Caputo did not use the word yammering. Second, the word might was thrown around.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, all Fake-News-Chain-Hearsay-Telephone-Games are YAMMERING.
L4D is enabling David Benson Cite from the Real OED, please.
A “fireside chat” … by Drunk Uncle. 🙂
Nixon called the FBl’s investigation a “witch hunt.” Al Capone complained about the FBl planting a spy–he used the more proper word “informant” inside his gang. Trump’s minions have all committed perjury in the course of congressional investigations, displaying consciousness of guilt.
Sensing a pattern?
“Nixon called the FBl’s investigation a “witch hunt.””
I wonder how all that information on Nixon was obtained and if it was legally obtained by the FBI?
The FBI under LBJ spied on Goldwater.
“Sensing a pattern?”
3 Presidents spied upon and all three were Republicans. Two Presidents at the time of the spying were Democrats.
Probably all of it. Remember that it was a break-in by known spooks. Hoover died and with it, his use of the FBl as his own secret police. Nixon tried to “put a box” around the FBl, limiting their ability to investigate the larger criminal scheme. His orders would have been invalid as a matter of law, as the President can only act in parens patriae pursuant to the Take Care Clause. Only the bold insubordination of Mark Felt brought the scheme to light.
Let’s see, now. There was Nixon–the President WAS Nixon. There was Clinton–the President WAS Clinton. Hoover was appointed in the Coolidge Administration, and he spied on EVERYONE! Sorry, but l don’t see a pattern of partisanship.
“Hoover was appointed in the Coolidge Administration, and he spied on EVERYONE!”
Which presidential candidate did he spy on? I’ll add Wilson to the list though I don’t know that he spied on Presidents or Presidential candidates. Clinton was a Democrat are you contending he spied or are you contending he was spied upon by another President. A bit of proof, please. We already have proof of Trump being spied upon under the Obama Administration, Goldwater under the LBJ administration and Nixon by the FBI.
LawDog – 90% of the press on Trump is negative. For example, the other day he calls MS-13 animals, the presstitutes say that Trump says all Mexicans are animals. What Trump says on Twitter the LameStream Media cannot change. Hence my reference to FDR’s Fireside Chats. Now, I do not follow his Twitter account, but I do follow the fury the LameStream Media has over his Twitter account. I think it is funny (haha and peculiar). The LameStream Media is obsessed with Trump’s Twitter account. He knows it and he screws with them. And that is really funny (haha). It is my comic relief for the day. 😉
l do follow the account. A lot of what he does is deserving of opprobrium. He even admitted why he does what he is doing to Lesley Stahl: “You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you.”
The term is “gaslighting.” Hitler used the term “Lugenpresse” (“lying press”). Nixon and Clinton screamed about a “witch hunt”–and the “Vast RW Conspiracy.” Al Capone complained about the FBl planting an informant/spy in his gang. O.J.’s defense team attacked the prosecutors, to great effect. While outside the Murdoch, Sinclair, Clear Channel, and Mercer propaganda mills, the coverage is heavily negative b/c he’s earned it–and arguably, b/c he has actually cultivated it.
“He even admitted why he does what he is doing to Lesley Stahl:”
Lawdog, for a lawyer you should learn to read better. Your quote was a quote by Leslie Stahl not by Trump. It was her own recollection. I’ll copy the statement over from the Hill and then you can read it again and think about it a bit. If indeed you are a prosecutor I wonder if you have wrongly had people convicted by misquoting and using false evidence.
“And he said, ‘You know why I do it? I do it to demean you all and discredit you all, so that when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you,’ ” Stahl said.
Has he claimed to be a lawyer? Natacha’s claimed to be a nurse-practitioner and a lawyer and the fellow who signs himself ‘Mark M’ claims to be a lawyer. Kinda disconcerting.
“Kinda disconcerting”…not to opposing counsel.
Hate the game, not the playa.
this is to the nutty sufferer
Marky Mark Mark – Nah, I am going to love the game and hate the playa.
The reputable media sources are neutral; however, when a public official lies, they will report the lie. So sorry for your loss. Pro tip: Pravda Faux News does not care about you, they just want you to call in to buy the commemorative “silver” coins or whatever claptrap they’re hustling to the oldsters this month.
this is to “I have hannity podcasts piped into my head while I sleep” paulie
Marky Mark Mark – the reputable news sources that you claim are neutral are not. You are blinded by your bias. At best, only The Hill and The Daily Caller are close to neutral. However, I doubt that you follow either of those two.
I love the tortured logic of “A says X” then “B says X.” Therefore “A = B.” I hear Charles Manson once said “Michele and I welcome you to the White House.” See a pattern?
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Definition of rage
1 a: violent and uncontrolled anger
b: a fit of violent wrath
c: archaic : insanity
2: violent action (as of wind or sea)
3: an intense feeling : passion
4: a fad pursued with intense enthusiasm was all the rage
The professor asserts, “… In today’s rage-filled environment, the mere fact that Trump quotes you unleashes a tsunami of anger. …”
The professor then opines, among other undocumented accusations, “… One of the least profane emails read “C’mon, Turley, cut the crap! So you’re a deep state guy now? Soon your kids will
be speaking Russian too (sec)” …”
May I suggest the professor is given to the hyperbole and hyperbolic outbursts of which he levels at his anonymously accused e-mailers.
Noise, an echo chamber of noise, simply noise.
dennis hanna
I often am critical of Prof. Turley when I feel the argument demands it; however, in this case I highly commend Prof. Turley on two fronts: 1st, his bravery for wading into to such muck and 2nd. for bringing to the discussion a calm and rational demeanor and mindset. Even when I disagree with Prof. Turley, I can never fault his professionalism and constant attempt to elevate logic above emotions. Bravo!
Indeed, a national treasure.
Sigh.