Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the decision to investigate the alleged informant targeting Trump associations and the criticism from former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates. As noted below, I believe that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein did the right thing in referring this issue to the Inspector General for investigation. That does not mean that a finding of wrongdoing is likely. To the contrary, my expectation is that the use of the informant will be viewed as appropriate absent additional unknown facts. However, as this piece discusses, there is a strong public interest in resolving this question either way.
Here is the column:
Last week, former acting attorney general Sally Yates denounced President Trump for his tweet “demanding” an investigation into allegations of spying on his campaign. Yates is correct that the president, again, crossed a long-honored separation between the White House and the Justice Department. Yates, however, is hardly a compelling voice on the maintaining of proper institutional roles in such cases.
Indeed, her controversial record is a case study of how officials, not just presidents, can exceed their authority in the handling of federal cases. Yates was fired for good cause by Trump after ordering the Justice Department not to defend the president’s travel ban at the start of his administration. Ironically, both Trump and Yates assumed that they had far too much inherent authority, yet, where Trump’s harm was rhetorical, Yates’s harm was institutional.
One of the most interesting aspects of Trump’s controversies over presidential power is the line between the rhetorical and the actual. If you take away Trump’s often jarring language, his actions are not that dissimilar from other presidents. Trump has complied with court orders and he has not fired special counsel Robert Mueller or others associated with the Russia investigation, at least following his disastrous decision to fire FBI director James Comey. President Obama advanced even more sweeping claims of executive authority in federal court and took equally sweeping unilateral actions.
That does not excuse Trump’s traumatizing tweets or his failure to respect lines of separation within the executive branch. The latest controversy is a good example: An investigation by the Justice Department is left to the discretion of DOJ officials who must independently determine that there is a legal and ethical basis for the investigation. The president can certainly fire someone like Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, but starting an investigation remains Rosenstein’s decision so long as he holds his office.
Ultimately, however, the controversy over the reported use of an informant to target Trump presidential campaign officials was addressed correctly. Rosenstein referred the matter to Justice Department’s inspector general, who already is looking into possible bias or misconduct by the FBI. Rosenstein took that action because he independently concluded that it was in the interest of justice. He made the same judgment when, over the objections of Trump, he appointed Mueller as special counsel and later expanded his mandate.
In this instance, Rosenstein apparently concluded that the controversy over the informant was a legitimate concern given the overall record of anti-Trump internal emails, alleged false statements by former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, controversial secret warrants, and the use of a dossier funded by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. It does not mean that the use of an informant was improper but, rather, that the allegations warrant an investigation by career officials.
Yates is the inverse of Trump in that her rhetoric is reassuring but her actions were ruinous for her institution. There was no ethical or legal basis for her actions during her short term as acting attorney general. Yates showed a fundamental misunderstanding of her role in shutting down Justice Department in defiance of Trump. She simply declared that, “At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with [my] responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.” In other words, convince me.
Our system does not work that way. In taking her unprecedented action, Yates seemed to confuse her personal and her professional judgment on the defense of this federal policy. Absent a clearly unconstitutional act, she had a duty to defend the policy. This is not a judgment call where reasonable minds could disagree. It must be an act that is so clearly and demonstrably unconstitutional that no good-faith argument can be made in court. That clearly was not the case with the travel ban litigation, in which good arguments were presented on both sides.
The respected Office of Legal Counsel had concluded that the president’s order was lawful. Yates chose to disregard those career Justice Department lawyers. Many legal experts believed the existing precedent favored Trump’s right to take the action despite personal reservations over the policy itself. Ultimately, judges divided on the question, though most courts ruled against the administration. The issue is now pending a decision from the Supreme Court, and is likely to divide the justices.
Former Democratic and Republican Justice Department officials have said Yates did not state a compelling basis for her unprecedented action. She could have resigned but, instead, she elected to obstruct the White House and force her inevitable termination just days before she was planning to leave the Justice Department. It made her an instant hero but her actions will remain a troubling chapter in the agency’s history.
None of this changes the dilemma for citizens trying to make sense out of these controversies. While each side claims the other side is undermining our democratic traditions, the truth is that both parties are doing so in seeking to undermine these investigations. If Trump officials colluded with a foreign government in our election or obstructed justice, that is a serious matter for the integrity of our political system. If the Obama administration improperly used national security powers to investigate the campaign of its opposing party, that is obviously no less a serious matter.
Both sides often manifest a similar purpose to delegitimize or even derail investigations that could prove embarrassing for their party or helpful to their opponents. We are constantly given secondhand information or leaks filtered through a thick screen of partisan advocates. The public would be wise to reject the cyphers on both sides and focus on the factual over the rhetorical. That requires the completion of the investigations of both the Trump campaign and the FBI with a full public disclosure of the unvarnished and unedited facts.
This country is facing a crisis of faith. We have never been more divided or more unsure of our institutions. Washington thrives on getting people to take sides: Pick the red or the blue. There is a third option: No sides. We can instead pick the truth and demand the right to decide for ourselves.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
“If Trump officials colluded with a foreign government in our election or obstructed justice, that is a serious matter for the integrity of our political system. If the Obama administration improperly used national security powers to investigate the campaign of its opposing party, that is obviously no less a serious matter.”
That sums up Turley’s entire argument here, and it’s extraordinarily myopic. What’s missing here? For one thing, change “Trump officials” to “the Clinton campaign” in the first sentence:
“If the Clinton campaign colluded with a foreign government in our election or obstructed justice, that is a serious matter for the integrity of our political system.”
Yet neither Mueller nor Rosenstein nor Yates nor any other officials are presently investigating or pursuing the already-documented Clinton campaign collusion with Russia, with Great Britain, with Australia, and with the Ukraine concerning the 2016 election.
And Turley’s second statement is deficient for the same reason of excluding the Clinton campaign. The sentence SHOULD read:
“If the Obama administration, acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign, improperly used national security powers to investigate the campaign of its opposing party, that is obviously no less a serious matter.”
Here is a far better article — one which focuses on issues of LAW — which is something Turley used to do but has essentially given up to instead enhance his resume as a argumentative TV pundit.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/31/3-reasons-rosensteins-special-counsel-appointment-illegal/
There are simple issues of LAW that need to be addressed and investigated concerning the unlawful appointment and conduct of Mueller. It’s because these issues of law are not being addressed that all of the other arguments are raging — escalating cable TV “news” ratings and inviting more appearances by Turley and his ilk, but solving NOTHING.
The Trump-collusion argument is dead, having failed after trying it for two years. The Clinton-collusion argument has yet to even be addressed. And neither has the grotesque violation of federal regulation 28 CFR 600.1 regarding appointing a special counsel to conduct a counterintelligence investigation when the governing regulation authorizes a special counsel to be appointed ONLY to conduct a “criminal” investigation.
Criminal investigations and counterintelligence investigations are two entirely different acts, using different laws and different procedures, especially in relation to surveillance authority.
Turley is just doing here what all of the other TV pundits do — sending the focus of the situation away from the issues that need to be focused on — simple issues of law.
Good post William.
Do you know what it was that sparked the Russian meddling in the 2016 election investigation? I understand in September 2015 that the DNC alleged the Russians hacked their computers. Do you know if the FBI ever did a forensic analysis to determine if it was an external actor or internal? That would be kind of an important thing to know if you were going to go before FISC for authorization to conduct surveillance on the DNC’s opposing party candidate/campaign/staff. Additionally, it would be even more significant in light of the Clinton campaign funding of opposition research on Trump presented to FISC as well.
Olly,
I agree that William asks some very good questions in his post and brings up important points. (I think he should leave out the personal attacks against JT.) Further, the evidence which has been released so far points to collusion with Israel, not so much with Russia.
The Russian narrative has a beginning point. That point is shown in the DNC e-mails. And I agree with your point Olly. The DNC refused to let the FBI ivestigate the origins of their hacking/leaking, instead they insisted that their handpiced firm, Crowdstrike, do the “analysis”.
The FBI has not engaged in proper investigation of the Clinton or Trump campaign. In fact, the FBI used false claims to obtain a FISA warrant, meaning, they broke the law. Good points by both you and William!
“(I think he should leave out the personal attacks against JT.)”
They are not strictly “personal attacks against JT” — they are citations of gross deficiencies in both his points of view and related arguments. A personal attack would be to call JT fat and stupid. I’m merely responding to Turley’s increasingly bizarre and indefensible legal analysis, founded upon ignoring basic issues of law. I didn’t have to study architecture to learn that a building will be unstable if its foundation is unstable or inadequate.
Long ago, Turley founded virtually all of his subsequent arguments or analysis related to Trump, or Russain collusion, or Cohen, or other related matters upon an ignoring of basic, fundamental principles of law. I’m quite confident that Turley is intelligent enough to understand this, therefore I conclude that his conduct is intentional, and THAT opens him up to my criticism of him related to these matters.
It’s sort of the same idea as when the cops arrest and interrogate someone without apprising them of their Miranda rights. That pretty much nullifies all other issues, from a legal perspective. In pursuing law enforcement, one cannot violate the law. And one reason for that is that the violation of law by law enforcement leads to much more serious consequences that any single crime they were investigating.
Justice Brandeis said it best, in a quote I’ve never tired of posting over the last several years (though probably others have long ago tired of me posting it), and it’s interesting that that quote comes from the first unlawful electronic surveillance case ever brought before the Supreme Court:
“*** Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. ***” Justice Brandeis, OLMSTEAD v. UNITED STATES 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
That’s a particularly prescient observation, as was something else Brandeis said in the same dissenting Opinion:
“Ways may some day be developed by which the Government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home.”
And here we are today, living in times when the government is doing exactly what Brandeis predicted — violating the law, inviting anarchy, and gaining access to personal correspondence “without removing papers from secret drawers.”
The Olmstead criminal case was about busting a bootlegger — but long after bootlegging has ceased to be much of an issue, the issue of government surveillance and whether it’s being lawfully or unlawfully conducted is bigger than ever — aka Spygate.
ha ha, you are asking a question that probably you know the answer is NO. They did not. they just alleged the russians hacked them.
if we are talking about the emails that lead to the wiki dump, the fact is, that was a leak not a hack
not sure exactly but I think that’s what you mean
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
“they just alleged the russians”
….that is because the pygmies were busy on the date of the “crime”, the jujubugs were rigging someone elses election and the DNC ran out of alibis. The Russians had to do
Actually the last I knew the DNC had not provided the hardware to the FBI, but that was long before they executed no-knock raids on others in this investigation.
What we have here is effectively the DNC claiming they were raped by the Russians; they wouldn’t permit the FBI to examine them; their BFF paid to have a dossier manufactured in an attempt to tie Trump into the rape; and for nearly 2 years of investigations have not even attempted to prove if a rape occurred or whether the DNC wasn’t raped by one of their own. Mike Nifong would still be practicing today if he had Mueller’s resources.
Yep. That was the first conclusive evidence I’d cite that the entire Russian-interference narrative was a fabrication.
In our system of government and justice, the government is required to control the evidence. When the FBI abdicated its responsibility to take custody of and examine the DNC’s allegedly-hacked device(s), it abdicated any legitimate ability to make accusations or conduct related investigations.
That’s a pretty elementary principle of law — something that Turley ignores, making ALL of his arguments meaningless dribble.
And the FBI’s dereliction of its duty to control and examine alleged criminal evidence concerning the allegedly-hacked-by-Russians DNC device(s) by allowing Hillary to maintain unlawful possession of her own unlawful device containing tens of thousands of government records which had not been provided to the National Archives — allowing Hillary’s associates to eventually destroy a ton of federal records and criminal evidence.
That happened in March of 2015 — actually before Hillary even announced her candidacy, and therefore exempt from the standard FBI procedure of trying not to interfere with elections.
Had the FBI followed its standard procedure and responsibilities, when it was discovered (or disclosed to the public) that Hillary possessed tens of thousands of government records YEARS AFTER LEAVING THE STATE DEPARTMENT, the FBI would have/should have immediately impounded Hillary’s “personal” email server in order to take custody of unlawfully alienated federal records. And it should have charged Hillary with criminal conduct, not limited to unlawfully removing and concealing federal records BEFORE she subsequently had an opportunity to destroy them:
18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally:
“*** (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, *** willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”
When NONE of that action was taken by the FBI, and when Hillary’s associates were allowed to get away with destroying those federal records, it was immediately clear to me that the FBI was engaged in political conduct contrary to law. Everything that’s transpired since has only reinforced that conclusion.
William,
I agree with what you said about the FBI. No legitimate law enforcement agency would take a complaint and not examine the evidence. If Clinton had a complaint and refused to hand over her evidence in support of that complaint then the only thing to do is close the case.
Sometimes people or organizations will also hire their own investigators to look at evidence but that’s not what happened here. Clinton actively refused access of evidence to the FBI. At that point, there is no case. The fact that the FBI pretended this was an actual case and used fake evidence to apply for a FISA warrent is simply both inexcusable and unlawful.
There is nothing legitimate about this whole exercise.
Well put.
Correction of paragraph 4: “And the FBI’s dereliction of its duty to control and examine alleged criminal evidence concerning the allegedly-hacked-by-Russians DNC device(s) by allowing Hillary to maintain unlawful possession of her own unlawful device containing tens of thousands of government records which had not been provided to the National Archives — allowing Hillary’s associates to eventually destroy a ton of federal records and criminal evidence.”
With correction in capital letters, that paragraph should read, “And the FBI’s dereliction of its duty to control and examine alleged criminal evidence concerning the allegedly-hacked-by-Russians DNC device(s) WAS PRECEDED by DERELICTION IN allowing Hillary to maintain unlawful possession of her own unlawful device containing tens of thousands of government records which had not been provided to the National Archives — allowing Hillary’s associates to eventually destroy a ton of federal records and criminal evidence.
Maybe next Christmas Santa will bring an edit function to this comment process.
When NONE of that action was taken by the FBI, and when Hillary’s associates were allowed to get away with destroying those federal records, it was immediately clear to me that the FBI was engaged in political conduct contrary to law. Everything that’s transpired since has only reinforced that conclusion.
I believe it was clear to many, many voters leading up to the election. We’re now supposed to debate whether the IC/FBI have used and are using proper procedures during this investigation, while completely ignoring the fact proper procedures were not followed resulting in this investigation.
Exactly. And that’s where the investigation of the investigation needs to begin — by looking at everything that led up to the investigation, such as how the FBI allowed Hillary to control all of the evidence concerning the email “investigation” AND the Russia-hacking allegations, which are the cornerstone of the Russian-election-interference investigation and the Trump-collusion investigation.
Proper investigations by the government never result from the government allowing someone else to control the evidence.
By the way, Olly — that article in The Federalist I linked and recommend cites Senator Grassley’s May 17, 2018, letter to Rosenstein wherein Grassley finally woke up and cited the conflict I’ve been complaining about for a solid year, between federal regulation 28 CFR 600.1 which restricts appointment of special counsels to conducting “criminal” investigations, and the fact that the investigation that Mueller took over was called a “counterintelligence” investigation by Comey under oath (and subsequently reaffirmed by Mueller’s team in arguments in one of the Manafort cases).
The Federalist article provides a link to Grassley’s May 17 letter, and upon rereading it, I noticed that Grassley requested that Rosenstein respond by May 31, 2018 — which is TODAY.
https://www.scribd.com/document/379653813/Grassley-Letter-to-Rosenstein-May-17-2018-Special-Counsel-Investigation-Questions
It would REALLY be nice if Rosenstein’s answer to Grassley’s letter were made available to the public — so that we’d finally receive some answers instead of just being provided more questions. Currently, there must be 1000 questions that are unanswered for every one question we, the public, have received an answer.
I’d find Rosenstein’s answer — true or false or evasive — far more illuminating than any news I expect to hear today, and certainly more illuminating than any pundit arguments such as I read here in Turley’s piece.
I think picking the truth is the only way to go. The real question is, how do we get the truth?
As many other posters have pointed out, there are no clean hands in this govt. Yes, I am waiting to hear the report. I’m certain that this will be part of the truth but I doubt it will be all of the truth.
Asking citizens to believe this govt. is asking people to disreagard reason. This govt., every branch, deep state and visible, spins the public like a top. There is a reson that this govt. would like Julian Assange dead. That reason is he exposes them for who they really are and what they really do. It would be strange indeed for a govt. who goes after Assange and other investigative reporters with the full faith and credit of the USG to suppenly turn into a truth teller.
If we really want to discover the truth, the govt. is one of the last places to look for it. It’s going to take the work of many people to find out what happened here. I do want the truth. The govt. isn’t in the truth business. This whole story will come out after many FOIA requests and actual investigative reporting fill in the gaps and not before. It’s going to take really hard work and discernment from citizens in hopes that we may fully understand what is going on here.
I do want the truth.
No, you don’t. You want emotional validation.
The only caveat I have is Turley’s “acceptance” of an extra-Constitutional entity like a special council without any statutory basis. I mean it’s an odd thing to do.
The only thing I’ve heard for a “reasonable” basis of such an appointment is an absurd interpretation of the Treason clause in the Constitution and an equally absurd interpretation of the “or any other thing of value” clause in a campaign finance statute — both pointed out by Turley.
I put “acceptance” in quotation marks because I think Turley knows this is a bunch of political B.S.
But I will say this. I find the formation of a special council without a statutory basis to be disturbing. They’re not calling it a special prosecutor. But he’s already indicted some people. What does that really make him?
In the history of our Country, I’ve never heard of indictments that were made by an entity that has no statutory basis for its investigation.
The only caveat I have is Turley’s “acceptance” of an extra-Constitutional entity like a special council without any statutory basis. I mean it’s an odd thing to do.
The office is no more extra-constitutional than that of U.S. Attorney.
A U.S. Attorney does not begin work before being informed that there is reason to believe a statute has been violated.
That ship has sailed, pay attention.
He makes a good point, but vis a vis Rosenstein’s compliance with statutory law, not the Constitution.
President Obama advanced even more sweeping claims of executive authority in federal court and took equally sweeping unilateral actions.
I expected President Trump to do exactly what JT claims he has done. What I’m not clear on is what unilateral actions has President Trump taken that equal that of President Obama? Is he talking about unwinding the pen and a phone Obama actions, like DACA, TPP, Paris Accord, the Iran deal?
And what was disastrous about his decision to fire FBI director James Comey?
Sure, he rightly fired Comey, but what was the disaster? An appointment of a Special Counsel and a protracted investigation? I’d say what has been discovered as a result of the investigation is a necessary reset of the public’s trust in our institutions.
Those were questions of mine, too, Olly. And “traumatizing tweets?” What’s that? Nice to see someone in government shit-posting instead of watching each other’s backs.
More news on the wheels of justice and associated grinding issues/noises:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/30/politics/andrew-mccabe-rod-rosenstein-memo/index.html
Excerpted from the article linked above as a special favor for Bill Martin:
The document, first reported by The New York Times, details McCabe’s impressions of a meeting with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein where the subject of Comey’s firing came up after he had been dismissed, according to the source.
In the meeting, Rosenstein said President Donald Trump had initially asked him to reference the Russia investigation. Rosenstein ultimately authored a controversial memo outlining the ways Comey had flouted Justice Department protocols leading up to the 2016 election but did not mention the Russia probe.
The source confirmed to CNN that McCabe’s memo recounting this meeting with Rosenstein, as well as an early draft of Trump’s letter firing Comey, has been turned over to special counsel Robert Mueller. What exactly Trump’s draft letter says and when it was turned over remain unclear.
LOL Trump used his Twitter clout to call out the NYT after they lied about his crowd size in Nashville. Who believes lousy excuse for a newspaper anymore? Lies, half truths, and omissions. And how many times has CNN had to issue corrections? Free Julian Assange – at least he deals with facts!
http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/30/nyt-corrects-false-report-about-trump-rally-size/
Prof. Turley, somehow I think Col. Jessup had your number.
The voice of reason. What the news papers in the news sections should be reporting if the news business was honest. Thank you professor!
This country is facing a crisis of faith. We have never been more divided or more unsure of our institutions.
Rubbish. We had 600,000 dead between 1861 and 1865, with the South occupied for 12 years and then Southern blacks subjected to ferocious political repression for a quarter century afterward. How do you think people regarded ‘our institutions’ in 1933, when we’d seen a 30% decline in real incomes over a 42 month period and a quarter of the workforce was desperate for a job. As for the affluent post-war period, we had over 700 urban riots in the years running from 1964 to 1971; we had nearly 60,000 dead in an overseas war between 1964 and 1973; the attrition rate of marriages tripled in just 12 years and the number of abortions increased 17-fold. Anyone alive and sentient in 1979 has seen a world more discombobulated than the one we live in. What has changed for the worse is the culture of the Democratic Party, of the bar, of academic institutions, and of the media. No one can fix that but them.
You forgot to mention Watergate. Coincidence? And how about those assassinations? Or the attempted assassinations, for that matter. Tumultuous times. Too much to squeeze into one paragraph. Fine. Never mind.
You forgot to mention Watergate. Coincidence?
See Nicholas von Hoffman’s remarks on the Watergate scandal: something of intense interest to about 200,000 people living in the BosWash corridor, not to the broader public. As for the assassinations, those were random strikes. They may have been more likely due to the ‘crazy years’ atmosphere (while also contributing to that atmosphere). They provoked anxiety, not contention (though important elements of the media et al tried to promote division by attributing the assassinations to ‘hate’ in particular loci. Lee Harvey Oswald was a self-aggrandizing screwball very unlike the typical Dallas Metroplex denizen and both ML King and James Earl Ray were strangers to Memphis; newspapers don’t employ ‘sense checkers’).
So it’s not too much to squeeze into two paragraphs. Fine. Never mind.
P. S. I have never doubted The Warren Commission. [Don’t tell billmcwilliams]
L4D, Are you disagreeing with what Nii wrote, or just being generally disagreeable?
Is that supposed to be a rhetorical question?
The rhetorical answer is downstream by about 30 or so posts. You can’t miss it. Or maybe you can.
Re. the Lone Wolf theory (Oswald assassinated JFK): Several times since the event 55 years ago, the world’s best US Military snipers have attempted to recreate Oswald’s kill shots using a same make/model rifle, and failed every single time.
The alleged kill weapon was a cheap, inferior, Russian made rifle when new, with a serious jamming problem, refusing to properly rechamber fresh rounds. The shooter had to manually rechamber each round in a short few seconds, following a target moving 6mph (twice that of a moderate jogging speed), shooting a highly inaccurate rile that jams, at long distance.
Oswald failed his first military target drills, and barely passed later. There is no record of Oswald practicing at any range for a long period prior to the shooting, except for one brief visit.
If one desires to believe X about one of the world’s most significant assassinations, one would be well served to chose to believe something that is at least believable.
Israel proposed to JFK to go nuclear. JFK told Israel “no,” properly fearing an imbalance of ME power that would cause an arms race (most recently, see Libya and its state of chaos over this exact issue). Also, JFK proposed to close the CIA, properly fearing its unchecked power (see the ME cauldron today, for which the CIA is partly responsible).
Re. the Lone Wolf theory (Oswald assassinated JFK): Several times since the event 55 years ago, the world’s best US Military snipers have attempted to recreate Oswald’s kill shots using a same make/model rifle, and failed every single time.
From which wacky website did this factoid originate?
JJ – this is why Kennedy was killed – LBJ was compliant to the Deep State – which is why he wanted the USS Liberty at the bottom of the sea and then buried the story when they were miraculously able to get out a distress signal.
The USS Liberty survivors btw are trying to produce a full-length film – naturally Spielberg, Netflx or Amazon is not going to pick this up.
Liberty survivors are dying off and need to have their story told. They and the American people deserve no less. Help us make this dream a reality.
Donate to the USS Liberty film project today.
More info and how to donate here –
usslibertymovie.com/
JJ – this is why Kennedy was killed – LBJ was compliant to the Deep State – w
This is, of course, a fantasy.
Maybe my musing on LBJ and the Deep State are a fantasy…
What, however, is NOT a fantasy is that the American Legion has denied the USS Liberty Survivors a booth at this year’s convention:
The American Legion Denies 2018 National Convention Booth to USS Liberty Survivors
by Joe Meadors, USS Liberty Survivor
In a shocking letter dated May 22, 2018, The American Legion has refused to allow USS Liberty survivors to purchase a booth at their 2018 National Convention.
At previous National Conventions our booth has been very popular.
Legionnaires learned about the June 8, 1967, Israeli attack on our ship.
They learned that USS Liberty crewmen:
saw the unmarked aircraft as they attacked our ship;
heard the jamming of our radios on both US Navy tactical and international maritime distress frequencies;
witnessed the deliberate machine gunning of life rafts we had dropped over the side in anticipation of abandoning ship;
witnessed the slow circling of our ship by Israeli torpedo boats as they fired from close range at crewmen who were either trapped topside or who ventured topside to help their wounded shipmates;
saw the Israeli helicopters filled with armed assault troops hover very close to our ship in an apparent attempt to find a place to allow those troops to rappel down to the ship; and,
witnessed the torpedo boats immediate departure from the scene of the attack after cessation of hostilities instead of offering assistance as is their obligation under international law.
They also learned that among the awards won by the officers and crew of the USS Liberty are the Medal of Honor, two Navy Crosses, eleven Silver Stars, twenty Bronze Stars, nine Navy Commendations, 208 Purple Hearts, 294 Combat Action Ribbons, the Presidential Unit Citation and the National Security Agency Exceptional Service Civilian Award which makes the USS Liberty among the most decorated ships in US Navy history for a single event.
American Legion Resolution 40 calls on the US government to investigate the attack.
At the same time, The American Legion will not allow the victims that are the subject of Resolution 40 to educate Legionnaires about the attack.
Legionnaires must call on their National Organization to persuade them to allow the victims of that attack to have a booth at their 2018 National Convention.
The phone number is (317) 630-1200.
Watergate? How come the MSM is not covering the biggest cyber spying scandal – the Imran Awan case. Oh, right, DWS’s brothers office is taking care of it. Dirty Dims and possibly some RINOs caught up as well.
” At one point, Awan had access to the computers of dozens of members of Congress, including those on the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees. Judicial Watch has launched an investigation and is pursuing public records.
The government’s bizarre failure to prosecute Awan for the national security violations he appears to have committed points to a political coverup that’s dangerous, craven and borders on traitorous. A House Office of Inspector General investigation determined earlier this year that Awan and his relatives committed numerous violations of House security policies, including logging into the House Democratic Caucus server thousands of times without authorization. The same news agency that reported that story published alarming new revelations in the case this month, concluding that “Democrats appear to want to keep the case out of court” because “a trial could expose their reckless IT practices.” It turns out that, not only has Capitol Police failed to make any arrests, it inadvertently gave evidence to defense attorneys that was supposed to go to prosecutors. It gets better; prosecutors appear to be sharing information with someone on Capitol Hill who in turn is leaking it to Awan’s lawyer.
Here is an excerpt from the news article published just a few days ago: “The Capitol Police turned over a trove of evidence in the alleged Imran Awan House cyberbreach and theft case to the defense attorneys when they were supposed to deliver it to prosecutors instead, according to court documents and a source.” Someone inside government apparently tipped off Awan’s lawyer, Chris Gowen, that a reporter was digging around for information on the Capitol Police’s suspicious mistake involving the mishandling of evidence. Gowen, a former public defender in Miami Florida, worked for Bill Clinton and on Hillary Clinton’s failed 2008 presidential campaign. The exchange of information (known as discovery) in a federal criminal case occurs between prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and defense lawyers by either registered mail or a third-party copy service. Law enforcement is never involved, according to federal law enforcement sources contacted by Judicial Watch.”
https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2018/05/evidence-political-coverup-dem-security-scandal/?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=corruption%20chronicles
Nutchacha:
As bad as the Great Depression was, it ultimately brought Americans together; strongly behind FDR. So beyond the Hoover phase, it wasn’t divisive.
“700” urban riots..?? That figure may broadly include every rowdy student protest and barroom disturbance that spilled outside.
The attrition rate for marriage increased as historic restraints against divorce melted away; especially for Catholics. Women used to suffer with loser husbands for the rest of their lives.
The number of abortions increased 17 fold..?? From what year to what..?? There was no way of keeping reliable statistics before 1973. What’s more, crime statistics fell sharply about 20 years after Roe vs Wade because hundreds of unwanted children were never born. The best-selling book “Freakanomics” devotes an entire chapter to that.
As bad as the Great Depression was, it ultimately brought Americans together; strongly behind FDR. So beyond the Hoover phase, it wasn’t divisive.
In the imagination of Arthur Schlesinger only. The Democratic Party’s supermajorities had dissipated by 1938.
“700” urban riots..?? That figure may broadly include every rowdy student protest and barroom disturbance that spilled outside.
No, that means riots.
The attrition rate for marriage increased as historic restraints against divorce melted away; especially for Catholics. Women used to suffer with loser husbands for the rest of their lives.
Uh, no. There was a discrete 12 year period when there was a complete flip in the social ecosystem. And, no, it wasn’t a good thing. Your second sentence is stupid, both intellectually and morally. (A stupidity that is common among the sort of people who fancy Gloria Steinem was a prophet).
The number of abortions increased 17 fold..?? From what year to what..?? There was no way of keeping reliable statistics before 1973.
No, but there is a way of reconstructing abortion rates from public health data.
What’s more, crime statistics fell sharply about 20 years after Roe vs Wade because hundreds of unwanted children were never born. The best-selling book “Freakanomics” devotes an entire chapter to that.
Yes, and their thesis was rapidly discredited by people who took a look at actual cohort-by-cohort criminal behavior.
“Women used to suffer with loser husbands for the rest of their lives.”
Now women suffer with the abuse of power, abuse of conscience and abuse of trust ala Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Morgan Freeman, and on and on and on
Thank heavens for progressives like Peter Hill destroying religious institutions
Nicole – Bill and Hillary Clinton are co-dependent. They each enable each other. He can have as many women as he wants. She can have as many women as she wants. They do not have a marriage, they have a business partnership.
IIRC, social research on lesbians has discredited the notion that they build exceptionally durable relationships. However, they still don’t go in for toilet trading. If HRC was an active lesbian, we’d know the names. The only candidates for the position would be Susan Thomases and Huma Abedin.
DSS – both Hillary and Huma have been to Epstein’s Lolita Island. It wasn’t just for men. And remember that odd statement when Hillary was so upset and shut herself in the bedroom. Huma went in and it took her two hours to calm Hillary down. Just what was she was doing to calm Hillary? And Bill’s longtime gf (consensual for once) said that Bill told her that Hillary had had more women than he had.
DSS – both Hillary and Huma have been to Epstein’s Lolita Island. It wasn’t just for men. And remember that odd statement when Hillary was so upset and shut herself in the bedroom. Huma went in and it took her two hours to calm Hillary down. Just what was she was doing to calm Hillary? And Bill’s longtime gf (consensual for once) said that Bill told her that Hillary had had more women than he had.
Alan Dershowitz was there with his wife and daughter in tow. Epstein was a client of Dershowitz. It wasn’t just for sex romps either.
What was she doing? Women yak and yak. They commiserate with other women at length. They find that a useful activity. (No clue if this story actually occurred).
Someone whose status we cannot verify told someone or other who told someone or other who put her remarks in print that Pres. Lounge Lizard told her…
DSS – Dershowitz was on the plane, never on the island. Logs show him going to Canada on the Lolita Express, not Lolita Island.
Peter Hill – during the Great Depression there was a second, even worse depression known as the Roosevelt Depression. BTW, I was 15 before I found out that ThatGodDamnRoosevelt was not one word. 😉
a second, even worse depression known as the Roosevelt Depression.
No, there was an economic contraction in 1937-38. It was demoralizing at the time, but production levels in calendar year 1938 were only about 3.5% below those in 1937. It was of modest dimension compared to the 1929 to 1933 contraction. I believe there’s still debate among economic historians as to the trigger for this contraction (with one explanation centering on contractionary fiscal policy and two on contractionary monetary polices).
It wasn’t just the South that was occupied. In Maryland there is a monument to the hundreds of men, women and children who were removed from their farms, rounded up and held behind barbed wire during the Civil War because they “might” have been sympathetic to the Confederates. Many of them died of hunger, thirst and typhus. All done at the direction of “the greatest man who ever lived,” dictator Abraham Lincoln. Who also ordered the destruction of newspapers which questioned his actions, BTW.
Oh, the swamp, the swamp! It used to just have alligators and now it sports pythons.
Turley wrote, “This country is facing a crisis of faith.”
Says who? Turley’s having a crisis of faith.
Turley also wrote, “We have never been more divided . . .”
Says who, again? Turley has never been more divided against himself.
Turley further wrote, “[N]or more unsure of our institutions.”
Says who for the third time? Turley’s institutional uncertainty is his and his alone.
There’s a bourgeois subsegment which is having trouble coming to terms with the world around them and making their arrangements with others. It isn’t our problem, it’s their problem. The they in question would be much of the Bar, academe, the media, and the social work and mental health trade.
Blah, blah, blah . . .Meh.
Anyone paying attention is having a crisis of faith no matter what political persuasion.
Autumn,
It’s more an awakening than a crisis of faith.
I don’t know Olly – it’s good that more people are “woke” but I don’t know if we can clean up the corruption. Some days I wish I was still aleep! =)
This seems like a case for Sherlock Holmes – The Strange Case of the dog that didn’t bark ,
With all these years of serious Russian involvement trying to hijack the American Electoral system, isn’t it very very odd, the only group to be investigated was the Trump campaign? Hillary’s campaign was exposed by leaked e mails, so where was the investigation looking for a leak in her campaign or within the Democrat Party – especially as it was revealed the DNC Chair hired a cabal of Pakistani, non-technical non experts at huge salaries to run the Democrat Party web site and provide security. His wife left with hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the guy left his computer in a telephone both with a note to the FBI – Huh? Wouldn’t they be an obvious place to start any investigaton into who released the Democrat Party e mails? Pakistani Muslims? Or is that so obvious, the geniuses at the FBI and CIA missed it?????
The Russians weren’t coming during the entire Obama Administration, and then as soon as Trump won, “The Russians are Coming, the Russians are coming!!!!” They decdied Trump or his campaign had to be guilty, and have spent 2 years trying to piece some kind of coherent narrative together – but where are the investigations into much more likely areas? Nada – when the dog doesn’t bark, when no other investigations are occuring, that is as significant as when a dog does bark, maybe more.
Senator McCarthy is laughing from his grave – I have a list of Communists and their sympathizer and fellow travellors troughout the government, army , et al. Huh? the primary difference between then and now, is it seems McCarhty was actually right about Hiss, the Rosenbergs, et al, and so far the Red Scare Democrats have come up with some really serious IRS Tax issues and some farily minor process errors, but zero colusion.
Where was the Obama Adminstration, the FBI, the CIA, Nat. Security, et al, during the years before the election when all this Russian invovlement took place? Why did the Democrats refuse to let the FBI even inspect their e mails after they were hacked. Instead the rounded up the unusal suspects, at the Trump Campaign? The one utterly non-political amateur group involved in the campaign – the Trump campaign.
Who was Monaford working with from 2004 until 2014 – Hillary’s campaign manager, or his PR company. Trump didn’t even know him during the time Monaford was rightly convicted of not paying taxes on millions of dollars he made with or through Podesta’s PR company, the most lucretive in DC until a few weeks after it came out they paid Monaford, and they closed up shop and just disappeared …….Who paid Monafort and Podesta’s company ………….the freaken Russians to fool around Ukraine politics – and they nab Gen Flynn for speaking with the Russian Ambassador?
Isn’t the incoming Nat. Security Chief one of those you want to speak to the Russian Ambassador? you can’t make this stuff up. As as far as the Logan Act, well lets get Obama for his pre inaugaration tour of the Middle East, et al and Kerry for his collussion with the Iranians to keep his non-treaty active – surely he has no right as an American Citizen, to discuss foreign policy, especially on behalf of a nation we were indirectly at war with – isn’t that treason, maybe once removed, but what if he gave them any classified info – is he being investigated?
I am surprised at Turley, Trea, et al, to give such a huge pass to the FBI, CIA, et al, placing a guy in the Trump Campaign, to find stuff out, is what is known as spying in a national security situation, read the damn dictionary – doring this in an election year, is politically stupid, even if it is not illegal – and my G-d man, will we have to wait for a signed confession before all the circumstatial evidence can be added up?
The Manhattan Mafia at work and play.
It has long been accepted that the Russians have had the capability and have used it to hack into US systems. It is and has been accepted that the Russians hacked into the Dem’s systems. However, the combination of Trump’s financial dealings with Russia which are buried under his refusal to release tax info, the fact that many, many mega rich Russians connected all the way to the top have purchased his real estate and financed his projects, the fact that the Russians as they stated wanted Trump to win, the fact that Trump is a sleaze ball of international proportions capable of just about anything…wait, that’s what the investigation is all about. The Russians didn’t help Clinton win but maybe lose. Clinton hasn’t sought financing for projects in Russia.
Ya got Eric Trump who gives speeches at Moonie meetings, Lil Donnie who meets with Ruskies, and Lil Ivanka who along with her hubby help to run America.
I would say that this necessitates some investigating.
RL – every day it gets worse. Now we find out that the emails from Weiner’s laptop were examined by an outside (commercial) corp. Apparently the FBI is outsourcing all Dem-related materials these days.
The public’s concern can be put to rest knowing that there was an FBI “informant” and not an FBI “spy” that infiltrated the Trump campaign. Since the concern was about Russian meddling in our election, why are there no revelations regarding FBI “informant” in HRC campaign to investigate $$$ paid for the Steele sleaze report?
The public reporting from The NYT and WaPo on the subject of Stefan Halper is likely to have been leaked from Ninny Na-Na Nunes. The chain of custody on Halper’s HUMINT is likely to have gone from the CIA to the National Security Division of the Justice Department. Whether and when the FBI was or wasn’t informed about Halper’s HUMINT remains unknown. Go ahead on and investigate the tempest in the teapot.
Halper met Page at an academic conference in Cambridge, England. Halper met Papadopoulos at a private club in London. Halper had coffee with Sam Clovis in Virginia. Page and Clovis both say Halper talked with them about China–not Russia. Papadopoulos is the only member of the Trump campaign who discussed Russia with Halper. And that conversation took place on foreign soil, as did the conversation with Page. The conversation with Clovis is the only one that took place on US soil. There’s no indication that Halper was spying on Clovis. It might be possible that Halper’s coffee klatch with Clovis may have been a preliminary job interview. Or not.
In any case, if you’re all going to whine about the FBI planting a spy in the Trump campaign, then you simply must forfeit the privilege of carping that the FBI did not conduct security-clearance background-checks on the members of the Trump campaign with whom Halper met in London and Cambridge, let alone Halper’s coffee klatch in Virginia with the man who had hired both Page and Papadopoulos–namely, Sam Clovis.
L4D is enabling David Benson The material in the NYT and WaPo was leaked by the DOJ and the FBI, not Nunes. They are trying to get ahead of the story and spin it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/us/politics/trump-fbi-informant-russia-investigation.html
Excerpted from the article linked above:
” . . . according to people familiar with the matter.”
That’s the attribution The NYT gave. There’s no indication that the DOJ or FBI leaked to The NYT. There’s plenty of indication that Ninny Na-Na Nunes has been leaking Spygate poppycock to Chuck Ross at The Daily Caller since that crock of cockamamie first showed up. Chances are the leaks from Ninny Na-Na Nunes “framed” the reporting from The NYT and WaPo, who really ought to know better by now.
L4D is enabling David Benson Nunes has already been cleared of passing classified info, Schiff has not and the DOJ and FBI have not. Now we know from the emails and texts that they both did it officially and unofficially. Nunes will no longer meet with them because they are leaking and them blaming him for the leak.
Also excerpted from the article linked above:
“Details about the informant’s relationship with the F.B.I. remain scant. It is not clear how long the relationship existed and whether the F.B.I. paid the source or assigned the person to other cases.”
There’s a reason the details remain scant. The informant’s relationship was more likely with the CIA, who more likely shared their asset’s HUMINT with the NSD at DOJ rather than the FBI. The most likely reason the FBI might have been notified would be if Halper’s HUMINT was submitted along with the FISA warrant application for Carter Page. Otherwise, Halper’s role in the investigation would have remained a closely guarded secret within the NSD at DOJ.
More excerpted from the article linked above:
“. . . according to current and former law enforcement officials.”
That attribution goes to a different part of the story than the use of an informant. And it doesn’t specify FBI officials. So that leaves the barn door open wide for Trump’s Justice Department and its National Security Division as well as Giuliani’s cadre of retired FBI agents from the New York Office. Sound familiar? It’s the same whipsaw routine they pulled on the campaign trail. Can you say Fake News?
.
Still more news about Manafort’s request to unseal an affidavit for a search warrant:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/manafort-search-warrant-unredacted
More news about Manafort and Mueller’s protective order in EDVA:
https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-denies-mueller-request-for-protective-order/
News about unsealing affidavits for warrants and Manafort’s motion to suppress evidence:
https://www.courthousenews.com/mueller-seeks-to-block-media-access-to-sealed-documents/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/us/politics/trump-conspiracy-theories-spygate.html
Turley wrote, “We are constantly given secondhand information or leaks filtered through a thick screen of partisan advocates. The public would be wise to reject the cyphers on both sides and focus on the factual over the rhetorical.”
No kidding? A thick screen of partisan advocates? Cyphers on both sides? Focus on the factual?
Turley concluded, “There is a third option: No sides. We can instead pick the truth and demand the right to decide for ourselves.”
Really? They say that Soren Kierkegaard once said something like,
“I have to choose that which is true for me.”
That can’t be true.
Excerpted from the article linked above:
Several news organizations, including The New York Times, have reported that an F.B.I. informant contacted Trump campaign aides who evidence suggested had had suspicious contacts with Russians in 2016 as part of a counterintelligence investigation into possible efforts by Moscow to meddle in the election.
In Mr. Trump’s telling, however, the informant was a spy sent by Mr. Obama and a cabal inside his Justice Department and the intelligence community who were bent on stopping his candidacy.
And here’s the choice as presented in the subjunctive mood by way of Turley’s own words:
If Trump officials colluded with a foreign government in our election or obstructed justice, that is a serious matter for the integrity of our political system.
If the Obama administration improperly used national security powers to investigate the campaign of its opposing party, that is obviously no less a serious matter.
It seems that there are three activities on which to focus when criticizing or applauding the President, or most other higher officials.
Firstly, at the core there is policy, which affects the country and its people. On this, Trump is regressive, oligarchical, and sometimes quixotic to the point of being dangerous. To some degree, Trump is taking care of business but it remains to be seen if he is doing more harm than good. Thus far there have been few if any positive results from his taking the helm.
Secondly, there are, as Turley discusses above, the institutional boundaries. Given the potential for interpretation regarding what is legal and/or appropriate, given the ability of lawyers to argue black is white or black or just about anything, one could say that Trump has been more threatening than destructive to the Presidency. One could also say that Trump has navigated the ambiguities without losing the ship on any rocks.
Thirdly, there is, what Turley refers to as the ‘jarring language’ or ‘rhetoric’. This is a broad area that includes the rantings/tweetings of an imbecile, an established and documented history of pathological lying, narcissistic expressions of what continually appears to be megalomania, and an almost completely absent level of Presidential substance.
The policy of rewarding oligarchs by the worst oligarch of all includes the rhetorical aspect of lying about who will benefit along with the megalomaniacal aspect of attributing the lies to the performance. The policy of ‘playing tough’ in the global economic theatre has been thus far counter productive and/or incompetently performed. Trump’s so called negotiating skills have thus far only had a negative effect from the chaos and uncertainty. The policies focusing on the illusion that everyone can make it in a society of 350 million through the sink or swim, law of the jungle scenario without support from the larger society is not only disproven by the history of the world but hypocritical, given the advantages which Trump has enjoyed. Trump is no real American ‘self made man’. The only part of ‘Make America Great Again’ resulting from Trump’s administration is the ‘Again’ part in that Trump is taking America backwards to repeating so many travesties, ‘Again’. Repeating the same mistakes again and again is not something one celebrates by wearing a hat or attending rallies.
However one looks at Trump, he has disgraced the Presidency and shamed America. He has, as with past Presidents, provided ample material for legal self gratification, but not much if anything else.
Isaac: “Thus far there have been few if any positive results from his taking the helm.”
Here’s one for ya…do you really think Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, et al, would have been called out? Or that the Hollywood #MeToo movement would have happened if Hillary and Bill Clinton were back in the White House controlling the levers of power? Not likely. It’s because of Trump that all this is being brought to light.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2018-05-30.html
Excerpt:
“A New York Times article on Weinstein’s court appearance noted how the “ground shifted” last year, finally ending the “code of silence” surrounding powerful men. Why “last year,” if this has been going on for decades?
The article explained that Weinstein’s power was enormous, his connections extensive and his willingness to play dirty without bounds. Did Harvey lose his money and connections “last year”?
Nope. But “last year” was the first year of Trump’s presidency, or as I like to think of it, the first year of Hillary not being president. Ever.
The liberal protection racket for sexual predators was always intimately intertwined with the Clintons. The template used to defend Bill Clinton became a model for all left-wing sexual predators. They all hired the same lawyers and detectives and counted on the same cultural elites to mete out punishment to anyone who stood in the way of their Caligula lifestyles. It was Total War against the original #MeToo movement.”
TBob
So, you’re saying that Trump being President is what is responsible for the outing and pursuit of sexual deviants, the likes of Weinstein. So, you’re saying that Trump, one of the most notorious sexual deviants himself, being President, is responsible for so many men in powerful positions who grope and coerce, men like Cosby, etc. being outed and brought to some modicum of social justice. Well, that is a good thing, I suppose.
As much as the pillorying of fat fuc*# like Weinstein and Cosby is way overdue and a fantastic event(s), the ruination of the nation is not necessary. American society is changing despite imbeciles who make it to the Presidency.
There is, also, a significant difference between Weinstein demanding sex for advancement and Slick Willie getting a hummer from a clerk. Monica was getting off on Willie and Willie was getting off; consensual. It’s not really the same thing. But keep poking, you serve a purpose by illustrating the sort that brought this disgrace to the White House.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Nothing changes if nothing changes. Trump represents change, not Hillary. It would have been far less likely that we would see so many powerful men taken down, like Weinstein and others in Hollywood and the media who are close to the Clintons, if Hillary had won and she and Bill were back in power maintaing the status quo power structures they’ve built and surrounded themselves with for decades. Read Ann Coulter’s article.
I didn’t suggest that what Weinstein did and what Bubba did consensually with Monica was the same thing, though it was a gross abuse of power on Bubba’s part. And like Weinstein, Bubba has been credibly accused of sexual assault and rape and he used his political power to shield himself and silence his accusers for decades in much the same way Weinstein and the others were able to do. It’s not implausible to think those same power structures would have continued to hold the dam with the Clintons back in the White House. Why Bill Clinton continues to get a pass from the #MeToo feminists in Hollywood and the media is an interesting question.
TBob
The difference between Weinstein and Slippery Willie regarding Willie getting a hummer from an infatuated and somewhat self serving Monika and Weinstein making or breaking careers is somewhat vast. The shortcoming of Willie wasn’t so much that he couldn’t keep it in his pants but that he weaseled so much with his dueling semantics on what constitutes a sexual encounter etc. That Willie was missing the balls to just say, “It’s nobody’s business but mine, Hillary’s, and Monika’s.” is where he fell flat. That he was a horn dog had been well established by then. Most of Willie’s defensive moves against his accusers, granted he used his position(s) of power, were to fend off opportunists. He paid handsomely. Willie’s inability to live a monastic life-given to who he was married-is one thing, lying, weaseling, is another. Weinstein did harm by ruining the careers. Mia Sorvino was a hot number, won an academy award, was held in high esteem, until she turned down that fat disgusting Weinstein.
We seem to agree to some degree that Willie and Weinstein are both scum when it comes to the sexual predator issues, however, Weinstein is scum much thicker, more disgusting, and dangerous than Willie.
Where I find a problem is attributing anything to Trump, other than he raised the radar somewhat, being a disgusting sexual predator himself. This has nothing to do with if Hillary were to have been elected or not. Some social evolution in America goes on in spite of what slime ball happens to be President. Trump is between Willie and Weinstein, but much closer to Weinstein.
Both W. Bush and Mr Trump demonstrate that the office of President of the US can accommodate mentally deficient folks who happen to find themselves in that position because others thought they could be easily manipulated. While the Presidency can be a sham position when occupied by folks like W and Trump, it can also be a position of leadership when occupied by competent leaders. Right now, those directing Mr Trump are more dangerous than Mr Trump himself.
“That does not excuse Trump’s traumatizing tweets or his failure to respect lines of separation within the executive branch.”
******************************
Art 2: Sec 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
My copy of the Constitution doesn’t add to the clause: “and a group of unelected lawyers over whom no one has any control.” The Constitution provides impeachment as the check on Executuve overreach not a group of Sally Yates’s imposing their own brand of ethics on the duly elected leader of the country. This notion of DOJ independence from the people’s leader is a recent phenomenon that needs to disappear. They aren’t a super executive branch as they seem to want to be.
+1
Unfortunately, one of Prof. Turley’s baselines is that everyone must play nice with the lawyers (or, at least, lawyers not named ‘Michael Cohen’).
TURLEY FEARS FOR THE COUNTRY
The professor is worried here. Trump’s constant talk of “Spies” and “Deep State” are shaking our institutions. About one third of the population is livid with paranoia. This has never happened before.
America has never had a president actively promote conspiracy theories. It’s not a healthy thing. Historically presidents have used measured language to tamp-down conspiracy theories.
If you’re a real leader, with a positive agenda, you don’t need conspiracies. Conspiracies are used mainly by evil men; liars demanding obedience to their lies.
Responsible leaders know the masses are easily stirred. A president peddling conspiracies is bad for public safety. Any cop will tell you that.
So I think Professor Turley has a gut feelingTrump is leading us to a danger zone. A crisis where the government jumps the track and derails.
Our institutions collapse because the president recklessly promotes conspiracies to cover his ineptitude! No experience for the job!!! Trumper supporters forget how significant that is.
Historically America demanded real credentials for Presidential candidates. We wanted to know they could handle high profile jobs in government.
But somehow Libertarians advanced this stupid notion that business experience was more important than high office in shaping presidents. And Republicans totally embraced that notion only to get burned!
In the real business world people succeed because they understand a certain product or service. Harvey Weinstein had a Midas touch for Oscars. But we know now that Harvey was the most menacing of bullies. The business world if full of them! It’s always been that way.
Trump was a bully throughout his career. He bullied his way to the White House. And now Trump wants to bully our institutions. The Justice Department, The FBI, Mainstream Media, and now the U.S. Post Office!
Trump demanded that the Post Office ignore signed contracts and shake-down Amazon because it’s founder owns The Washington Post. Trump actually summoned the Postmaster General and threatened to have a tantrum.
And that another thing about Trump. He’s always threatening to blow his top. That’s what bullies do.
Peter Hill – weren’t the Clintons’s worried about a “vast right-wing conspiracy”?
Paul, after Hillary made that comment “Time” magazine published a chart that illustrated the vast right-wing conspiracy. Basically it was a network of right-wing donors and activists who had funded anti-Clinton initiatives of one kind or another. An heir to the Mellon fortune figured prominently.
One of the so-called ‘Christian TV networks’ promoted, sold and distributed ‘The Vince Foster Murder Video’ alleging a huge conspiracy. That video actually sold about 200,000 copies. And it was all lies and junk science! CBS’s “60 Minutes” picked it to pieces.
While Hillary’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” was somewhat overstated, there really was a very organized effort to smear the Clintons with lies. And that effort continues to this moment.
Oh jeez: the “just because Im paranoid doesnt mean Im not right” argument.
Peter Hill – I stopped watching 60 Minutes after reading the Supreme Court on Westmoreland vs 60 Minutes.
Paul – what was that? Westmoreland is still very much hated in parts of the South – elitest liar scum who vowed to “clean up the pool halls of America” according to a friend of mine in TN who saw way too many good ol boys return in body bags
Autumn – read the case. It was how 60 Minutes was allowed to do a hatchet job on Westmoreland.
What..? So the Vince Foster Murder Video was legit..?? I don’t think so.
PH re: “But somehow Libertarians advanced this stupid notion that business experience was more important than high office in shaping presidents”
Educate yourself – read Thomas Frank’s book which explains how the Dems beginning with Bubba started moving the party away from the people and towards business interests and technocrats. Sad!
Listen, Liberal: or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?
Autumn, Clinton was chummy with Wall Street but Democrats never pushed the idea that a background in business alone was a qualification for the presidency.
PH – true. However, the Dems starting with Clinton married the party to corporations – giving China most favored nation status, pushing NAFTA through – it tooks Dems to get this done. And they filled their cabinents with the most vile reps from Monsanto, GE, Citi/GS, etc. And Obama tried his damndest to get the TPP passed!
There’s nothing wrong with NAFTA. That’s just Trump ripping up treaties like the markets will never react.
But somehow Libertarians advanced this stupid notion that business experience was more important than high office in shaping presidents.
No, the stupid idea was that a legislator with no executive experience, a man who had sat in legislatures for a decade without establishing himself as a maven in any area of policy, a man with a desultory career in law practice and teaching, a man who’d run the Chicago Annenberg Challenge into the ground, was a satisfactory candidate for President. After that, they peddled the notion that a career criminal whose executive experience had been her misbegotten years in charge of the Foreign Service was a satisfactory candidate. Prior to that, they’d peddled another career legislator who, when you stripped away the airs, was a rank-and-file Boston lawyer with some odd curios in his biography. Prior to that, they sold us another career legislator – a legacy pol who’d taken up politics after a six year stint as a newspaper reporter.
Nutchacha, your response here is absurdly broad. I’m not a viewer of right-wing media. So don’t presume I’m following Fox talking points.
The crux of your argument here is that Obama was somehow this colossal mediocrity who managed to fake his way onto the national stage. Yet by almost any objective measure, he and Michelle were overachievers who rose high from humble beginnings. Unlike Trump who was born to one of New York’s richest families.
The crux of your argument here is that Obama was somehow this colossal mediocrity who managed to fake his way onto the national stage. Yet by almost any objective measure, he and Michelle were overachievers who rose high from humble beginnings.
No, they were ‘overachievers’ only in the mind of shallow people for whom the idea of ‘achievement’ is a JD from Harvard.
Michelle Obama quit practicing law in 1991. Her license lapsed in 1993. From 1991 to 2008 she had a series of jobs in the public sector and philanthropic sector whose actual duties remain obscure. It is known she was paid handsome salaries and that her salary at the University of Chicago Hospitals was doubled when her husband was elected to Congress. Her crucially important position was eliminated in a hiring freeze when she vacated it.
Barack Obama eschewed a clerkship and was not hired by a firm for two years after he completed law school. He was never granted a partnership and quit practicing after 3 years. The firm in question employed about 12 lawyers and practiced a mix of landlord-tenant and labor law. About a year prior to his hire, he’d scored a position as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. In 12 years on the faculty, he never published a single scholarly article. He taught about 40% time and was allocated boutique courses law students sometimes call “___ & and the Law”. Supposedly, he was a constitutional law specialist. A critic who’d taken a look at his tenure there offered the observation that constitutional law may be taught well, but it’s the easiest discipline within law for a professor to fake it, something you cannot do if you teach commercial law or tax law.
Obama was a child of Honolulu’s haolie professional-managerial bourgeoisie. That class in society had less of an advantage over the rest of society ca. 1975 than it does now and the world was less affluent in 1975 than it is now. His mother was a functionary of the Ford Foundation, his grandfather sold insurance, and his (custodial) grandmother was a vice president at the Bank of Hawaii (in charge of the mechanics of mortgage finance). He attended a swank private school. That’s not what people mean by ‘humble beginnings’. (Michelle was a working-class girl whose father was employed by the city water works, so you’re on more solid ground there).
Michelle was in the first instance a function of the patronage of Valerie Jarrett, then a function of the affirmative action machine, then a function of her connection to an elected official. As for Obama, he’s on-air talent.
You are totally off the mark about Obama’s grandparents. They were lower-middle class from Kansas whose longtime home in Honolulu was a 2 bedroom apartment. To describe them as “professional-managerial bourgeoisie” is nonsense.
And this idea that Obama just faked his way through meaningless jobs is a load of crap. If Obama was such a mediocrity how did he get anywhere..?? To at least half the country Obama comes across as highly intelligent.
Your take on Obama reflects 10 years of Fox talking points. It’s a subtle racist spin where the Obamas were merely beneficiaries of Affirmative Action. Like they were really vacuous people filling only quotas! That thinking almost falls in line with Roseanne Barr’s recent tweet.
And this idea that Obama just faked his way through meaningless jobs is a load of crap. If Obama was such a mediocrity how did he get anywhere..?? To at least half the country Obama comes across as highly intelligent.
First of all, I don’t believe he was faking at all. And you’re selling Obama short. I believe far more than half the country believes Obama comes across as highly intelligent. He was the perfect candidate for a a progressive constituency that ignorantly believes we only need someone intelligent to give us a bang for our buck. (you should recognize that phrase, you made it) So now $10 trillion bucks later, Mr. Constitutional Scholar and Mensa wannabe wasn’t smart enough to figure out how to install Clinton into the office and secure his fundamental transformation of America.
Show me a report from a recognizable mainstream source that says Obama added $10 trillion to the national debt. I want to see how you’re calculating that amount.
And if you’re so concerned about the national debt, you should be outraged by the recent Republican tax cut. It was simply a welfare bill to billionaires that everyone else will have to pay for.
Thank you for reminding me to look this up. I believe we are at $21 trillion right now. According to the link provided, Obama added $8.588 trillion and GW Bush added $5.849 trillion. That’s $14.4 trillion from the previous two administrations. I was off by about $1.4 trillion. But according to you, it really isn’t about the debt, or the constitution…it’s about what bang did we get for those bucks. Get back to me when you can explain how we are to know which expenditures are constitutional.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296
You are welcome to correct those figures using any effing source you want. Think lipstick and a pig.
You are totally off the mark about Obama’s grandparents. They were lower-middle class from Kansas whose longtime home in Honolulu was a 2 bedroom apartment. To describe them as “professional-managerial bourgeoisie” is nonsense.
Peter, she was the vice president of a bank. The two big banks in Honolulu at that time were the First Hawaiian Bank and the Bank of Hawaii. I don’t know what you fancy is meant by ‘professional’ or ‘managerial’, but your usage of these terms is surely idiosyncratic. Because I had family in Honolulu at that time, I’m familiar with some aspects of how consumption patterns differ there from other loci. There are people who live in detached housing in Honolulu, but the high-rise condo is modal for professional-managerial people.
And this idea that Obama just faked his way through meaningless jobs is a load of crap. If Obama was such a mediocrity how did he get anywhere..??
(1) His employment contract with the University of Chicago was such that he was relieved of the obligation to publish anything. (2) the functional terms of his employment meant he was relived of any obligation to undertake university service. (3) the functional requirements of his employment relived him of the obligation to teach core courses at the law school or to teach any subject where you really needed to know your onions. There likely wasn’t a faculty member working their with a more lax set of requiements.
As for his political career, he was the anointed successor to the incumbent state legislator. She changed her mind and filed at the last minute, with deficiencies in her petitions. So, he filed a legal complaint and had her knocked off the ballot. (I’ve participated in such suits myself). I don’t blame hm for that, but it does mean he ran unopposed. State legislative contests commonly feature weak competition and his were no different. When I was involved in local politics in New York, we had one year where a grand total of 1 member of the state assembly was voted out of office. His challenge to Bobby Rush in 2000 was his first competitive contest. Rush wiped the floor with him. What’s interesting about his candidacy for the U.S. Senate in 2004 is that moles in the court system provided the media not once but twice with confidential paperwork from opponents’ divorce cases (first in the primary, then in the general election). What compounded the scandal was that the media was willing to publish it. I think the voting public in Illinois should have reacted with revulsion to those sorts of tactics, but they didn’t.
And, no, you cannot make a case that he was anything but vapid as a legislator. Bill Bradley, he ain’t.
Your take on Obama reflects 10 years of Fox talking points. It’s a subtle racist spin
I’m telling you a truth you don’t want to hear. Deal with reality, twerp.
Nutchacha, from Wikipedia: “Until her death, Madelyn Dunham lived in the same small high-rise apartment where she raised her grandson Barack Obama”.
That same article also says that Obama attended that Prep School on full scholarship.
The grandmother never earned a college degree and worked at the bank for years before becoming Vice President. And it sounds like her job was only at one particular branch as opposed to corporate headquarters. So this idea that Obama came from a ‘privileged’ background is not really true. Solid, middle-class, perhaps, but not ‘privileged’.
Peter Hill, you are aware in Manhattan that very affluent people commonly do not own a car and quite ordinary people do not do their own laundry? Living in a high-rise condo is the norm for affluent people in Honolulu. It was the norm in 1975 and Madelyn Dunham as she aged never had any reason to take on the responsibility for a piece of property. If she’d wanted one, they wouldn’t have stayed in Honolulu. A relation of mine was asked in 1975 why he rented a from an absentee condo owner (kitchenette, lanai, master bedroom, 2 bath, 1 half-bedroom, common room). Well, he said, “you remember that $18,000 box I bought in 1955? That costs $80,000 out there..” That is to say, a 1,400 sq. foot house cost in 1975 12.6x personal income per capita as it was at that time. As we speak, 12.6x personal income per capita is about $630,000. There’s a reason an elderly couple with just their grandson wasn’t going to invest in a detached house at that time and place. And, of course, when he left, they had no reason to expand the amount of space they occupied.
The grandmother never earned a college degree
Fairly unremarkable for a woman born in 1922. Strange as it may seem to you, higher education wasn’t as important in sorting the labor market in the business sector when Madelyn Dunham was at the mid point of her working life. Even among my contemporaries, maybe 25% have a baccalaureate degree.
and worked at the bank for years before becoming Vice President.
About 10 years. She held supervisory positions ‘ere she was a VP. She held that rank from 1970 until she retired in 1987. You fancy you score a point with this observation?
And it sounds like her job was only at one particular branch as opposed to corporate headquarters.
She was a vice president in charge of one particular component of mortgage finance for the entire bank.
So this idea that Obama came from a ‘privileged’ background is not really true.
You can make that complaint to someone who called him ‘privileged’. I merely pointed out his background was professional managerial bourgeoisie. Which it was. You’ve spent several posts waving your hands trying to deny the blatantly obvious.
No clue where you got the idea he was on ‘full scholarship’. Profiles of the president indicate he received a scholarship, not that tuition was entirely remitted.
==
You were the one that traded in this bilge about his ‘humble upbringing’. There’s nothing out of the ordinary about his upbringing from a social or economic standpoint. It’s notably less humble that that of John Kasich, Marco Rbio, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Alan Keyes, Tom Harkin, Paul Tsongas, Richard Gephardt, Jesse Jackson, Walter Mondale, Gary Hart, and Ronald Reagan.
Peter Hill – given that Barry, who registered as a foreign student at Columbia, is hiding all of his documentation still, it is hard to get a handle on exactly what was done by whom, but some details have bubbled to the surface. We know his first autobiography was written by Bill Ayers. We know that the dust jacket was correct but then corrected. We know that he dated white women exclusively until he thought he was going to move up politically, then he found himself a black woman. We know he was raised Muslim and was not religious until he and Michelle turned to Liberation Theology. We know that Barry is bi-sexual and did/does coke. We know he is willing to do whatever it takes to get elected. We know he will do whatever it takes to stay elected. We know he will do whatever it takes to maintain his legacy.
1. No, we don’t know he registered as an international student.
2. No, we don’t know that Bill Ayers ghosted his book. That’s a speculative thesis courtesy Jack Cashill. Obama has ample verbal facility.
3. No, we don’t know he was ‘raised Muslim’. His mother was a professing atheist and his step-father was from Java, an area with famously lax and syncretistic religious practice. (There’s also reason to believe Lolo Soetero was a drunk).
4. No, we don’t know he was bisexual. The only evidence of homosexual practice in his past is that you can find people who met him at Columbia who got the idea in their head that he and a Pakistani buddy of his had some kind of thing going.
DSS – 1. There is a copy of his student ID from Columbia with Foreign Student on it. 2.
Photoshopped by whom?
DSS – goodness you are the apologist today. 😉
DSS – 2. His book has been dissected and doesn’t fit with his real timeline, but does fit with Ayers timeline. 3. He went to a Muslim school. Do you think they taught him Christianity there? 4. There is a YouTube video of a man who said he gave Barry two bjs while he was a state senator and Barry bought and did speedballs in front of him. He would have been married at the time to Michelle. Assuming, for the sake of argument that Michelle is female and that he and Michelle were having sex, this would make him bisexual.
DSS – 2. His book has been dissected
By people who expect you to take amateur form criticism seriously.
3. He went to a Muslim school. Do you think they taught him Christianity there?
The school’s in Java. What other sort of school was there? And it’s Java, full of what Indonesians call ‘statistical Muslims’. He lived in Indonesia from 1966 to 1971. While we’re at it, you can find on Youtube a 40 second tape of BO trying to say a few words in a Malay dialect. The place made hardly any impression on him. You’ll notice his sister (who was actually Lolo Soetero’s daughter and spent more time there) lives in Honolulu and married an ethnic Chinese.
4. There is a YouTube video of a man who said he gave Barry two bjs while he was a state senator and Barry bought and did speedballs in front of him. He would have been married at the time to Michelle. Assuming, for the sake of argument that Michelle is female and that he and Michelle were having sex, this would make him bisexual.
There was a psychopath in an Indiana prison who said he was Dan Quayle’s supplier. Convinced GB Trudeau, which is a reason to chuckle at GB Trudeau.
Paul, show me a mainstream media report that says Bill Ayers wrote Obama’s autobiography. That sounds like an Alex Jones conspiracy.
And show me a mainstream source that says Obams is bi-sexual. Again those are Alex Jones conspiracies. I thought you were above that level.
Peter Hill – the Lame Stream Media covered up the affairs of every Democrat from at least FDR. You think they are not going to cover for Obama? Come on, Peter, you have a brain, use it. You cannot rely on the Lame Stream Media anymore. The dissection of the book was done by a New Zealander. YouTube has the video of the guy claiming he did drugs with state senator Obama and then gave him a blow job. Then went to his house the next day and gave him another blow job. There are also two photos of Michelle on the web that make it appear she has male genitalia. In one she reaches down and adjusts it. Just throwing it out there. 😉
You are a disgusting loser, hiding in your basement, jerking off to your ignorance
Tony – I keep telling people I don’t have a basement. And I will tell you it is impossible to masturbate in a basement you do not have. Ad hominem attacks have never worked on me.
That sounds like an Alex Jones conspiracy.
It’s not a ‘conspiracy’, except between Obama and Ayers. The trouble is that form criticism is a chancy business anyway and the people purporting to show this are amateurs.
What’s amazing about Obama is that something about him gets his critics hunting these snarks. The great birth certificate hunt is the one which has captured the largest number of pixels. Another line of discussion concerns Frank Marshall Davis. Another fusses over his ex’s and imagined ex’s. Stanley Kurtz invested a great deal of time and effort into establishing certain biographical details, but the salient ones would excite ordinary people a good deal less than they excited Kurtz. That Obama was associated with Michael Harrington’s outfit is interesting – to Stanley Kurtz (and perhaps the residue of membership therein). To the best of my knowledge, no one has fully elucidated what needs to be studied – the association between Obama’s career milestones and Michelle’s salary milestones. Another unexplored question is just who was who in the nexus between the Obama campaign, court system employees, and the press. We know that the press has been an extension of Obama’s PR operation. The Los Angeles Times has been sitting on that Khalidi tribute tape for a reason. And it is interesting how careless Ivy League schools were with the transcripts of Kerry, Bush, and Gore contra their treatment of BO’s.
Nutchacha,
Obama talks in perfect paragraphs and never uses sensational language. By almost any standard he is an articulate, reasonable man. Yet right wing media turned Obama into a character from some ’70’s exploitation film. ‘Their’ Obama is a raging militant hating White America. Never mind that Obama is really half-White!
Never mind that Obama is actually fairly moderate in his views. So much so the Bernie Bros felt he was a sell-out. And many Blacks felt Obama didn’t do ‘enough’ for them. While Hispanics were uncomfortable with Obama’s border enforcement.
None of that matters, Nutchacha. In the alternate reality of right-wing media, Obama was a Nazi-Communist member of the Muslim Brotherhood trying to conceal the fact that his name is really ‘Barry’.
It’s Barry from Honolulu.
And this is how Joe Biden described Barack Obama back in 2007 — I particularly like his choice of the word “clean”….
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
No Obama is not “fairly moderate”.
Being more moderate than Sanders is NOT moderate.
More importantly Obama was a failure – not a colossal failure but overall indistinguishable from Bush II.
Trump has promised better – he appears to be delivering better – thought it still is too early to tell and outside the US there are serious storm clouds and they will have a negative effect on the US even if Trump does everything right.
At the same time Trump is radically different than Obama, but NOT inherently better.
There are issues he is flat out wrong on (Trade).
That is why what happens to the economy over the long run matters.
Is the sum of Trumps good and bad choices better than the sum of Obama’s good and bad choices.
I think that is likely. But that will depend on hw badly mistaken he is on some things like trade.
No Obama was not a nazi communist member of the muslim brotherhood.
But he was approximately the same as a european social democrat.
They have not failed disasterously – like full blow socialists.
But they are responsible for a european economy that over the long term has significantly underperformed the US.
And as one would expect – under Obama we got the same sluggish economy that the Europeans have had for decades.
Americans are not used to 8 years of doldrums. Trump got elected.
Now he must deliver.
Overall Obama was a failure as a president – about like Bush,
As compared to the success that Reagan and Bill Clinton were.
Trump appears to be trying to be the republican Clinton.
And economically successful pervert.
Never mind that Obama is actually fairly moderate in his views.
I have no clue why partisan Democrats peddle to themselves and others the notion that Obama lies on the Susan Collins – Joe Manchin axis. (Well, stupidity is an explanation for this).
Obama isn’t ‘moderate’. He’s vapid. He shows no sign of any originality or critical engagement with what is modal among professional-managerial liberals. He has no visceral sense that he’s in competition with and debate with others. There are lots of people like this, starting with most college faculty. They fancy they hold the views they do because they are ‘well-informed’ and their opposition is benighted. Some of the mind games they play with themselves and others is delineated in Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed.
Unlike Clinton, the Bush’s, or Reagan, or Gerald Ford, he couldn’t negotiate or build relationships with the opposition. The newspapers covered for him, framing the inevitable car-wrecks as the fault of Congressional Republicans. Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon also lacked people skills, but Obama’s never had Carter’s intellectual and moral seriousness nor does he have Nixon’s liberal education and intellectual virtuosity.
Steven Sailer has offered a couple of interesting apercus about BO. One is that the optimal position for him might have been in the Foreign Service, where you transmit other people’s views rather than offering you own. Another is that Obama doesn’t use his social and recreational time the way other politicians at that level do – to build relationships – and tends to avoid peers, preferring the company of people who aren’t challenging.
The net effect was that with Obama, you got the resultant of all the vectors at work in the Democratic Party without amendment. You got their default position. And, since the Democratic Party is a repulsive criminal organization, the result wasn’t pretty. It’s the detritus of some of that we’re confronting right now as we sort through just what Andrew McCable and company were up to, and it’s that reality about which you continue to lie to yourself and others.
PH – Obama is indded very intelligent – I saw him live when he was campaigning for 2008 – he has incredible charisma and is gifted in rhetoric. My pick was John Edwards, but he allowed himself to be derailed – HRC was NEVER a consideration and certainly not McStain so I voted for him. Within 6 months I was totally disillusioned – the man was put there by the Deep State and has profited mightily.
Btw – Michelle’s job at U of Chicago was to turf poor South Side residents off to “community clinics” – it’s all about the $$ with them
PH – Obama is indded very intelligent –
In Obama’s case, it doesn’t matter because he isn’t interested in anything all that much.
I saw him live when he was campaigning for 2008 – he has incredible charisma and is gifted in rhetoric.
Max Weber coined the term ‘charisma’ to describe rare inspirational ability – e.g. Buddha and Christ. Not human TelePrompTers.
“Deep State”. LOL.
Peter Hill: The imbedded spy/informant is no conspiracy theory. Nor is the source of the Steele dossier, as well as the Steele media leaks. And then there is the matter of the sky rocketing number of “unmaskings” in the lead up to the campaign. And oh yeah, the minor matter of the Lerner IRS abuses in the 2012 election.
Please do not minimize quite serious breaches by the federal agencies (and possibly higher) as “conspiracy theories”. Need I piint out that many of these abuses have been reported by the agencies’ own IGs?
I guess you are well enough informed to know that the Obama administration was also arguably deleterious in actually filling vacant IG positions. And the most aggressive administration in litigating whistleblowers.
Its remarkable these abuses are even known to the people.
Viennoise, “sky rocketing number of unmasking”..?? What the hell are you talking about..??!!
With regards to Lois Lerner, she was never indicted for any crime. The real IRS Scandal was that there was ‘no’ scandal! Conservative activists were really gaming the system; filing as charities when they weren’t.
With regards to Lois Lerner, she was never indicted for any crime.
Yeah, she took the 5th at a congressional hearing because she’s cleaner than a hound’s tooth.
Eric Holder assigned the case to an Obama donor.
Think George, you will understand.
I don’t trust any agency’s inspector general to be completely independent of its parent agency. Having worked for the Feds for 25 years, I see the close interaction between the parent agency and it’s IG staff. Employees go back and forth between IG and agency positions, and IG personnel who are seeking advancement into management often move up into the agency management and executive staff. In fact, my Branch Chief is a former IG Special Agent. As far as IGs go, Horowitz has a good reputation. But as the Supreme Court pointed out, an IG is a part of its parent organization, and wouldn’t exist but for the parent organization. To claim that an agency IG is wholly independent is a myth.
Appreciate the light spin on today’s Pravda Faux News talking points. Thanks for playing, drive home safely.
this is to “I have a ‘Hannity was here’ tattoo across my lower back” TINNY
Marky Mark Mark – I have yet to see you make a coherent argument defending your position. How the devil do you defend your clients? Plea deals? If you are litigating they must eat you alive!
Says the guy — Paulie — who isn’t a lawyer but thinks he is one. Why don’t you focus on your OED and Inga/Annie obsessions.
anonymous – I do have a degree as a legal assistant, but only used it for a little while before I went back to school to get my law degree. Then I got side-tracked into teaching (it was so much fun). Now you have the sordid story of my life. All of my legal assistance courses were taught by experienced attorneys or judges.
As someone who perseverates about “proof” — and especially since you use your real name, Paul — I’m sure that you’ll post documentation verifying your “legal assistant” degree.
anonymous – just as soon as you post your real name.
Excuses, excuses. Paul. (And my “real name” has nothing to do with your silly boasts and claims.)
Paul – What makes you think this person is a lawyer? I rather doubt it; he comes across as an adolescent or immature college student who posts drive-by insults but can’t formulate a thoughtful comment about the topic under discussion. We had another person who would regularly post half-witted, usually crude comments in a failed attempt at humor. For some reason I thought he was in the early stages of dementia, but in this case, I think it’s the other side of the coin; probably a teen. In any case, I don’t think either one are worth responding too….
I see the close interaction between the parent agency and it’s IG staff. Employees go back and forth between IG and agency positions,
That’s too bad. Ideally, the IG and his staff would be late career personnel (many hired from the outside) who work there about 9 years ‘ere retirement.
I would like to see a completely separate federal agency – the Office of Inspector General, instead of the present system of each agency having its own IG. It would eliminate the cozy relationship between agency management and those tasked with oversight.
I have heard Trey Gowdy on this subject, however, my problem is that I have no trust in the DOJ or FBI. If they said the sky was blue, I would look up to check for myself. I think this needs an investigation from an outside agency like the Secret Service. Although I think Horowitz is an honorable person, he and his staff are up to their armpits in investigations and the DOJ and FBI are slow-walking hoping the Democrats will win the midterms and protect them. Judicial Watch is not going to get all the Strozk-Page texts until after the midterms and they are not getting all of Hillary’s emails until the end of the year.
The Secret Service? You mean the agency that goes on drunken road trips and scores hookers along the way?
Doubtmeister – it was either them or the Dept of Education. 🙂 I could not think of an organization with clean hands.
Doubtmeister – for $140k a year plus perqs what do you expect them to do on a road trip? BTW, I did use the word “like” as a qualifier. 😉
Agree with you there. The Secret Service is another agency which should be dissolved. It has a rancid intramural culture and a weird assemblage of functions. A big problem is the culture of the presidency, which now incorporates scads of unnecessary travel with a clanking advance and PR apparat. Compare the presidency now to the Truman-era presidency. It’s distressing. There was an attempt to cut back during the Ford-Carter era, after which it was off to the races again.
Paul – I too have heard Trey Gowdy on the subject, IIRC he said, “The FBI did just what we would want them to do in the situation.” The man that gave us years of Benghazi could see no wrongdoing. Why isn’t that enough? Why isn’t that enough?
enigma – for one thing, the vaunted President at the time withheld information from the committee as did the members of his cabinet who testified. Obama says he did not have a scandal on his watch, how soon he forgot.
Paul – I suppose it’s a matter of relativity. Fox News, Breitbart, InfoWars et. al, were reporting scandals on a daily basis, mostly not based on fact. There were certainly some Cabinet nominations that were withdrawn, Trump just lets them stay on no matter the level of corruption (Pruitt, Ross, etc.) Obama is said to have lied about keeping your doctor, certainly, when he knew it was wrong in some cases he didn’t keep repeating the lie again and again. I must have missed the payoffs to pornstar’s and playmates somewhere along the line, my bad.
Amen to that! Plus, I read somewhere that Gowdy did not read the actual documents in the case.
Whatever it is true, I certainly have no faith in the FBI or the official version of anything. I don’t necessary disbelieve it, but neither do I believe it. I will just wait to see the facts.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
You probably would recognize some of the Feds since they’ve undoubtedly infiltrated your Klavern.
this is to the squeeKKK
Marky Mark Mark – if you have read anything about Squeeky’s daily activities, she does not have time to join a Klavern.
Why are you neglecting the obvious and plain-to-see transgressions of the Trilateral Commission. Everybody knows that this nefarious cabal is behind the whole thing. Why the sudden inflationary spiral in the price of tinfoil? Huh?! And what about the fleet of brand-spanking-new black helicopters to be deployed without insignia or fringes on the flag against American patriots?
this is to “I can cut-and-paste conspiracy prattle all day, just watch me” paulie
Marky Mark Mark – the only thing that I cut-and-pasted yesterday was a relevant paragraph about the hiring of the people who killed Bonnie and Clyde. What did you cut-and-paste today? Looks like all of your snarky ad hominems are cut-and-paste.
Paul I look at Gowdy as the Republican equivalent of Elizabeth Warren – lots of grandstanding no results. Dude is a RINO – voted for the TPP