The Pardon Power Is Not A ShamWow For Presidential Scandals

downloadBelow is my column in The Hill newspaper on Giuliani’s statement that the President may “clean up” the entire Mueller investigation with a slew of pardons at the end. After causing an outcry, Giuliani later said that the President would not pardon anyone under investigation. That led to utter confusion, again, about what Giuliani is saying and whether the original statement remains valid for pardons after the investigation.

Here is the column:

After a few weeks on the job, President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani is beginning to sound like the Vince Shlomi of constitutional law. Shlomi became a household name for his mesmerizing low-grade “ShamWow” commercials promising a towel that “holds 20 times its weight” and “doesn’t drip, doesn’t make a mess.” He would ask, “Why do you want to work twice as hard?” when you could just pull out a ShamWow.

Asked about the jailing of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for witness tampering, Giuliani declared, “Things might get cleaned up with some presidential pardons.” The only thing missing to complete the Shlomi comparison was a picture of a pardon soaking up a bowlful of special counsel Robert Mueller’s indictments.

The pardon power is not a ShamWow for presidents to clean up scandals. True, the Constitution gives a president total discretion in the granting of pardons and commutations. However, it was not designed, and should not be used, to protect figures like Manafort or Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen. Shortly after Manafort was thrown into jail pending trial, Trump lamented, “Wow, what a tough sentence for Paul Manafort, who has represented Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole and many other top political people and campaigns. Didn’t know Manafort was the head of the mob.”

In waving around the pardon power, Giuliani essentially offered a Shlomiesque, “Not wow, Mr. President, ShamWow!” The problem is that Manafort would be the least compelling pardon recipient since President Clinton pardoned his own half brother and Marc Rich, a fugitive Democratic donor. It is true that Manafort is not “the head of the mob,” but he is facing compelling allegations of an array of criminal acts running the gamut of the criminal code. Indeed, the list of indictments would have made mob boss John Gotti blush.

For months, I have written about Manafort’s longstanding reputation for being reckless. It was the reason some observers expressed surprise when he was chosen as Trump’s campaign chairman. He is now accused, however, of an act of sheer stupidity that is truly breathtaking: A grand jury indicted him on additional charges of witness tampering after he allegedly tried to coach witnesses over the telephone while under the continual monitoring of a house arrest.

Trump has complained that Manafort is being prosecuted for things that happened “12 years ago.” However, that is why a pardon would be so problematic. Most independent observers view the charges against Manafort as exceptionally strong. Trump would need to pardon him for crimes ranging from fraud to conspiracy and witness tampering to money laundering and tax violations to false statements.

The same is true with Michael Cohen. This pardon talk notably got louder when reports surfaced that Cohen had fired his lawyers and was considering “flipping” as a cooperating witness. However, he also faces a long list of criminal allegations, ranging from business fraud to tax violations to lobbying violations to false statements. The vast majority deal with dubious business practices unrelated to the Trump campaign.

While it is true that none of these alleged crimes might have been identified had Manafort and Cohen not assumed such visible positions, that does not mean they are not criminals or should not be punished for their crimes. In the end, pardons could certainly keep associates loyal and uncooperative with prosecutors, but a pardon may not be quite as legally absorbent as Giuliani suggests. A president cannot pardon away future crimes. Thus, Manafort and Cohen could be called to testify under oath and could be charged with any new acts of perjury or other crimes. A pardon would make it more difficult for the men to refuse to testify under their privilege against self-incrimination.

Finally, a presidential pardon does not protect against state crimes, which, for Cohen, is a particular concern. Giuliani noted that a potpourri of pardons could come “when the whole thing is over.” It is not clear what that time frame might mean. Ironically, if Mueller is slow-walking the investigation, Giuliani’s words would encourage him to reduce that to a glacial pace. Yet, if it comes too early, they could still be forced to testify and require a daisy chain of pardons for any new false statements or criminal acts. The pardons would also have to cover not only the alleged crimes being investigated by Mueller but alleged crimes uncovered by career prosecutors in the Southern District of New York.

Presidential pardons were meant to address manifest injustices. No matter how you feel about the original basis of the special counsel investigation, it is hard to say that the prosecution of Manafort or Cohen would be an injustice to any degree. Indeed, using this power to relieve them of any accountability for crimes worth tens of millions of dollars would be a manifest injustice. They agreed to take high-profile positions and, when one does so, one accepts greater scrutiny. Hence the old expression, “One day on the cover of Time, next day doing time.”

Trump is correct that he and his campaign had nothing to do with these crimes. That is the point: Just as Manafort and Cohen should not be accused of crimes simply because of their connection to Trump, they should not be excused for prior crimes on the same basis. If Trump is going to grant immunity for any crime of any kind at any time, all of the ShamWows in the world won’t absorb the stain that would be left behind.

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


177 thoughts on “The Pardon Power Is Not A ShamWow For Presidential Scandals”

  1. What did Christopher Wray know and when did he know it?

    Wray was on the comprehensively corrupt “7th Floor”

    and he didn’t know what was going on? Not plausible.

    Were that true, Wray would be either totally corrupt or grossly incompetent.

    Impeach Christopher Wray for crimes of high office.

    1. No, George. The information that Ninny-Na-Na Nunes seeks from the FBI and DOJ is information subject to Grand Jury secrecy protection. That’s why Wray and Rosenstein won’t release that information to Ninny-Na-Na Nunes. Moreover, Gowdy already knows that, but he wants Wray and Rosenstein to say so out loud in public. So the threat of impeachment against Wray and Rosenstein is actually a sort of hostage-taking situation aimed at whipsawing the FBI and DOJ into publically revealing their profound unwillingness to violate Grand Jury secrecy protection. That’s not going to end well for Ninny-Na-Na Nunes, George.

    1. Usually the partisan Democrats on this board are bitching and moaning he hasn’t released his tax returns. Now David Benson wants us to take seriously a law professor who knows they’re crooked without examining them.

      1. Good lord! Read the op-ed before spouting off.

        Certainly makes you appear ignorant. Wait! You *are* ignorant…

        1. It’s a pay wall, David, and you called him a tax cheat. In you’re demented state, you should know what that means.

          You can look at the IRS 990s for the Trump Foundation if you’re not completely aphasic.

          1. Anyone who doesn’t know how to slip by the NYT’s paywall is either stupid or lazy, or both.

            Shut off javascript and don’t accept cookies. The site defaults to static CSS for formatting and one can read as much as they can stomach.

            DSS/SOT/NII is just a pretender, complaining when work need be done by his poor soul.

            He much prefers denigration in few words.

                1. David Benson owes me 3 citations after 4 weeks, one from the OED, plus the source of quotation – you cannot figure out the Gish Gallop or how much color is on the WSU Cougar football team.

              1. Nii asked, “Why not stick to one handle, Diane?”

                You flatter me. I wish I was as good as R. Lien. You’d all be in deep trouble then.


        The government could anchor a tax evasion and false statement case upon the multiple instances of self-dealing, as cataloged by the New York attorney general, between Mr. Trump and the foundation. The attorney general details occasions when Mr. Trump directed the foundation to acquire expensive things like paintings of himself for himself; paid $258,000 to settle two private lawsuits; and made political contributions by paying $25,000 to the re-election campaign of Pam Bondi, the Republican attorney general of Florida. The attorney general also amply documents that in 2016, Mr. Trump directed the foundation to operate as a political arm of his campaign.

        These acts fail to meet the basic requirement of a charitable organization to operate exclusively for charitable purposes. Yet Mr. Trump signed tax returns year after year through 2014 stating that these expenditures went for charitable purposes.

        Edited from: ‘Why The I.R.S. SHOULD GO AFTER TRUMP

        By Philip Hackney, The New York Times, 6/17/18

        1. How is it a ‘sham charity’? Was it spending gobs on ‘administration’? It’s IRS 990 for 2015 lists disbursements in excess of revenue. The disbursements are as follows, beginning on p. 15

          Fairly non-controversial collection of causes, with a few exceptions.


    A president who lost the Popular Vote by a 2% margin has no margin for error. Whatever legitimacy Trump has could evaporate if he tries to Shamwow the Russia Probe.

    One should note that in 1972 Richard Nixon won reelection by the greatest margin since FDR. But less than one year later, Nixon’s presidency was essentially dead after the Saturday Night Massacre.

    1. Uh huh. Peter, the Watergate investigation opened in June of 1972. A known crime was at the core of it. There were three sets of indictments secured against perpetrators of consequence. The last of these was issued in March of 1974, or 21 months after the investigation began.

      There is no known crime here. This investigation was opened (by McCabe’s clown car posse) on 31 July 2016. That was 22 months ago. You’ve got nothing. No known crime much less anyone being prosecuted for it. Rod Rosenstein, who is the perpetrator of this shambles, retroactively issued a blank cheque to Mueller to allow him to turn his lawfare operation on Paul Manafort’s lobbying business, then turned the harassment of Trump’s attorney over to the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan while engineering an end run around the U.S. Attorney there and sluicing it to Obama appointees working under him.

        1. The ‘guilty pleas’ are for process crimes, Peter. They don’t antedate the investigation. The indictments are for process crimes, Russian internet trolls, and matters irrelevant to the Trump campaign. We can all explain this to you. We cannot comprehend it for you.

          1. Mueller’s mission is an extremely difficult one to accomplish. Mueller has to investigate Russia’s efforts at cultivating members of the Trump campaign without revealing to Russia how members of the Trump campaign were caught, so that Russia will not be better “enabled” to go back, Jack, do it again; wheels turning around and round. Likewise, Concord Management already knows who they conspired with. What they really want to know is how they got caught. Same thing with Manafort, Stone, Caputo et al. BTW, Manafort still has a joint defense agreement with Trump. And Trump really, really, truly, truly needs to know how Manafort got caught. But Mueller holds his cards close to his vest. It’s so unfair. I love it.

            1. L4D enables David Benson – you are assuming that Mueller is just not Making Stuff Up for the Grand Jury.

              1. Do Grand Juries issue search warrants without approval from a supervising Judge who reviews the same affidavits that were submitted to the Grand Jury?

                Manafort asked Judge ABJ to review the affidavits for search warrants in the DC case. She did and held that Mueller would have been derelict in his duty had he not investigated Manafort.

                P. S. You’re going to be in big trouble when Mark M. comes home.

                1. l4D enables David Benson – you do realize that all Marky Mark Mark’s criminal clients go to prison?

            2. Manafort has been investigated by the FBI since 2014, if not longer.
              The charges against him are for money laundering and tax evasion; no charges related to campaign “collusion”.
              Mueller was the longest serving FBI Director since Hoover.
              There was likely a wealth of FBI info on Manafort, and Mueller would know better than anyone about obtaining and using FBI material gathered before Mueller was appointed Special Counsel.
              If Mueller is going for guilty verdicts in the Manafort case, he will need to disclose proof, a “paper trail” of the money laundering.
              If the involved Russian funds, Mueller will have to prove it.
              Even if that “tips off” the Russians about how they discovered a money laundering operation; a prosecutor can’t just say “trust me, he did it”.
              You seem to be greatly overstating the amount of effort Mueller put in re the Manafort case, given that he had access to the results of
              existing FBI investigation and is building on that previous work.
              You further seem to assume that if Manafort is in fact guilty, that Trump must be guilty of the same offenses and that he needs to know how Manafort “got caught”.
              Finally, you have repeatedly praised Mueller for “playing his cards close to the vest”, not commenting on the indictments except in court documents.
              Mueller is in fact closed-mouth, but at the same time you criticize the FBI for not publicizing the early results of the Russian/ 2016 campaign issues.
              That is an obvious contradiction, but if ” it works for you”, stick with your contradictions.

              1. Trump accused the FBI of trying to prevent Trump from being elected. Paul C. Schulte parroted Trump’s FUBAR argument verbatim. The fact that the FBI did not reveal their investigation of the Russian effort at cultivating members of the Trump campaign proves that both Trump and his parrot, Paul, are FUBAR when they claim that the FBI tried to prevent Trump from being elected. To call that L4D’s “contradiction” is FUBAR cubed. For those keeping score at home, FUBAR cubed is FUBAR times FUBAR times FUBAR.

                1. It “reveals “only that a recently-launch investigation had not gathered suffient evidence of “Russian,Collusion”.
                  The FBI was not likely to put out speculative, flakey bits and pieces of dossiers, etc.,only to have it backfire on them.
                  That is a risky move, and since Hillary was “certain” to win, the FBI was not about to take that risk.

                  1. Is this one of those confounded Socratic method routines? You agree with me for a different reason than the one I give for agreeing with you and you palm that off as a refutation of my argument despite the fact that we’re both saying the same damned thing?????

  3. I am still waiting for Turley to give me a statutory basis for the formation of this special council. It’s been over a year and I’m still waiting.

    Maybe he ought to give me a statutory basis before he starts complaining about pardon abuse.

    1. Steve:

      Professor Turley has no obligation to justify the Russia Probe to you. If Trump supporters have difficulty following this episode, then right-wing media is to blame. And it is! The alternative reality presented each day by right-wing media leaves its followers with an inability to comprehend events.

      1. Truly you have a dizzying intellect. A person with the power to indict requires a statutory basis for its existence.

        You dispute this?

        1. We know East Euopean hackers stole DNC emails and turned them over to Wikileaks which Donald Trump publicly praised. In that one moment Trump went on record as commending a crime that gave him an advantage in the election. And shortly before that, a Trump campaign advisor in London told an Australian diplomat that hackers had stolen DNC emails which Wikileaks would soon publish. Then several months later, Trump asked James Comey to muzzle the Russia Probe. Trump then fired Comey when the latter refused, only to give contriditory statements about his reasons for firing Comey. Then, in case we had any doubts about Trump’s motives, he invited the Russian Ambassador to White House that next day and assured him that Comey was gone. If Trump is completely innocent of any collusion, then he is guilt serial foolishness. No president has ever acted more guilty of anything!

          1. Peter Hill:
            We know East Euopean hackers stole DNC emails …


            No, we don’t. We’re told by our some of our Trump-hating intelligence agencies that’s what they think happened. The DNC never turned over the server to the FBI (I bet ENRON wished they could have done that) so we’re relying on the same brain trust that assured us that Saddam had nuclear weapons hence we needed to invade Iraq and that no rational person could conclude from an intelligence memo dated 8/6/201 discussing airport attacks in the US and entitled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US,” that Bin Ladin was really determined to strike in the US using airports.

            1. Actually the FBI took it’s good sweet time informing the DNC. Initially they only left a phone message with the DNC’s IT specialist. That doesn’t sound like they were jumping right on it. But the Democrats hired their own forensics investigators who traced the hack to Grucifer in Romania. The FBI and other intelligence agencies later confirmed that.

              1. I agree they were asleep at the wheel, but it’s false to say the FBI confirmed anything. No surprise given what the work product we’ve seen from Comey, McCabe et awfuls.

          2. Peter Hill—what rock did you crawl out from. I watched Assange deny any Russian connection to the info on Wikileaks. You DON’T know jack squat—East European hackers DID NOT steal the DNC emails. How do I know that—The DNC DID NOT turn over their computers! How in the heck can you say they were stolen by East Europeans—when the DNC refused to let the FBI look at their computers! Mifsud is a CIA informant and FBI lure. Trump campaigners were the target of a Foreign Intelligence operation where the Liberals in the FBI used Lures (i.e. informants) to create the illusion of collusion to facilitate their spying. Trump did NOT ask Comey to muzzle the Russia probe. Peter Hill–you just make crap up. What went on is that the Liberals, Obama operatives in the FBI, and the CIA and the DOJ conducted a soft coup-de-etat to remove a legitimately elected president.

            Jonathan Turley needs to be ashamed of his piece on pardons. Because this whole Mueller investigation IS a witch hunt based on NO criminal activity. It is all made up nonsense by the media and John McCain who went to London to get the Steele Dossier. What about the FISA abuse there Turley? Peter Hill? Do you care? What about those emails that Hillary destroyed? What about that Secret Server, Turley? And you are concerned about the pardon power of the President? You’ve got your priorities wrong—but that is not so far off the mark. It is the mark of Liberals to get everything wrong.

            1. Wllndsaywheeler:

              “I watched Assange deny any Russian connection to the info on Wikileaks”.

              Why should we believe Julian Assange..?? What makes him a paragon of virtue? He’s not even an American. And it’s known that Assange is hostile to American power. Would he tell us if those hacks came through Russian sponsored sources? Probably not. Because it would look like he’s a stooge to Putin.

              By publishing those DNC emails, Assange deliberately sabotaged our election. Theoretically Donald Trump and his supporters are victims too. Because of Wikileaks, and James Comey’s letter to Congress, the 2016 election is forever tainted. Assange certainly did his part. He wanted to undermine our democracy and turn us against each other. That was the whole plan.

              1. By publishing those DNC emails,…

                He exposed the truth about the completely corrupt DNC and their anointed candidate. When the truth is perceived as undermining our democracy, then we no longer have a legitimate claim that it was undermined.

                1. Olly: What business is the Democratic Party in..?? ‘Politics’, right? So of course their decisions are going to be political. Only ‘one’ person can be the party’s nominee. And more often than not that one person is someone long-familiar to the party.

                  Nevertheless, Bernie could have been the Vice Presidential running mate. Hillary would have been thrilled to bring in Sanders’ youthful supporters. The party could have used those kids. But after attacking the party, all through the primary season, Bernie effectively burned his bridges. Bernie could have been a team player but chose not to be.

                  Let’s compare Bernie to an actor in Hollywood. Let’s say Bernie’s in the cast of a new TV show that becomes a surprise hit. Bernie wants to capitalize on that success by pursuing movies. But let’s say those movie offers aren’t coming in fast enough. So Bernie makes the rounds of talk shows and charges that Hollywood is ‘rigged’ against him. Would anyone want to work with Bernie after that..?? No, of course they wouldn’t! Yet Bernie Sanders did essentially that in his repeated attacks on the Democrats.

                  1. What business is the Democratic Party in..?? ‘Politics’, right?

                    From the website: We’re fighting on behalf of the notion that anyone, from any walk of life, should have a fair shot at the American Dream.

                    Your attempt to rationalize the DNC’s actions towards Sanders is unconscionable. The party defrauded their members by rigging their primary in favor of the DNC leadership’s preferred candidate. They effectively disenfranchised millions of voters by a rigged primary season and then they laundered $84 million in party funds to the Clinton campaign. They colluded by funding foreign operatives to create a phony dossier against their political opponent which was used by the IC/FBI to spy on that opponent and create an insurance policy against his run for President.

                    That may be politics, but it’s banana republic politics. It’s what we expect from countries with tinpot dictators. All the trappings of democracy but with an outcome planned by the parties central committee. How does that party get away with it? That plan begins and ends with the useful idiots that will reliably defend the party.

                    Yes, that would be you.

          3. Actually only one thing has been proven regarding those DNC emails; they ended up in the possession of Wikileaks. How they got there has never been proven by our “premier” law enforcement agency, the FBI. There is absolutely no doubt had the DNC been hacked by eastern Europeans or the Russians, their computers would have been immediately made available to the FBI with a lifetime supply of donuts and coffee.

      2. I don’t have a clue what the statutory basis is either, I just think it’s totally cool. And if I can find a way to use Trump supporters, alternative reality and right wing all in one sentence, then I might get a good post Peter in the process. That’s way cool too!

        There, fixed it for you PH. You’re welcome.

        1. Prof. Turley, how about Michael Mifsud who was employed by the FBI to “””Push””” info into the Trump campaign that the Russians had Hillary’s email. How about that!?!

          Is that Constitutional? That the FBI, DOJ, and the CIA ran a counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign. That they used Lures to Push supposed oppo research on Hillary in order to set up a collusion story? That our government bureaucracy was trying to run a coup-de-etat? That’s the problem JT—not pardons.

          That our “press” and JT doesn’t care that our bureaucracy to destroy a legitimate President. People need to be arrested on Treason charges including the press. The Press and liberal Obama operatives, like the mafia, colluded to destroy President Trump. There needs to be arrests. Hillary Clinton HAS TO BE ARRESTED!

          Here is the Dan Bongino: MUST LISTEN.

    2. Or perhaps, you do your own legal research?

      this is to “I’ll take free legal work for $100, Alex” stevie

          1. Yes; the investigation has already been approved through legal channel. You are attempting to challenge the investigation after the fact. Therefore, it’s incumbent upon you to support your challenge with fact, which unfortunately for you, don’t include the screechings of Pravda Faux News talking heads.

            this is to stevie

      1. Marky Mark Mark – you still using the public law library for your access to Lexis/Nexis?

    3. Stevej whined, “I am still waiting for Turley to give me a statutory basis for the formation of this special council.”

      18 USC 371–Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. Manafort and Gates were both indicted for it. It was likely stated in the un-redacted version of Rosenstein’s August 2nd, 2017, memo expanding the scope of the special counsel’s mandate. It’s also likely stated in the Urgent Reports between the FBI and DOJ as well as between Mueller and Rosenstein.

    4. Common sense would indicate that statutory basis would somehow be connected to probable cause as is the case with any crime. Yet no probable cause cited anywhere, the start of special counsel was hysteria driven by lefties and deep state who were shocked by election result and desperate to pin a a soothing excuse narrative on that result. In there eyes there had to be another explanation that choice by American public and instead of revealing probable cause to start with they managed to get special counsel to investigate phantom suspicions vs probable cause. OJ still looking for real killers and Muler still looking for probable cause.

      1. Manafort has challenged every last search warrant that has been issued against him and the Judges have ruled against Manafort every last time. Those search warrants do not issue without probable cause. Those search warrants are not upheld by Judges without probable cause, either. Besides, the standard for initiating a special counsel’s investigation is substantial and credible suspicion that a crime may have been committed.

        1. Correction: substantial and credible “evidence” [not suspicion] that a crime may have been committed.

        2. Excuse me Ma’am: The probable cause referred to in my comments relates to initiation of special counsel – for which there was and still is none. You are referring to probable cause for a cold case alleged crime for former Trump campaign manager which dates back more than a decade. Now go kiss that girl.

          1. Manafort and Gates were charged with an ongoing conspiracy that did not end until the indictments were brought against then in 2017. Their conspiracy was ongoing at the time that Manafort was Trump’s campaign manager and afterwards while Gates was on Trump’s transition team and inaugural committee. Meanwhile, Manafort attended the Trump Tower meeting, gave Trump campaign progress consultations to Deripaska through Kilimnik and is alleged to have made at least one outreach to Russia for assistance to the Trump campaign. Stop telling other people what to do.

  4. The pardon power is not a ShamWow for presidents to clean up scandals. True, the Constitution gives a president total discretion in the granting of pardons and commutations. However, it was not designed, and should not be used, to protect figures like Manafort or Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen.

    JT’s sentence (in bold) makes the other 2 sentences completely irrelevant. There is no ShamWow equivalency and there is no however. It reads the way it does and if that is now deemed inconvenient, then there is a process to amend it.

  5. Here’s a “ShamWow” for ya. “Disgraced FBI Agent Peter Strzok, through his attorney, reportedly wants to testify, without immunity, without taking the 5th, before Congress, so he can get “his side” of the story out.” LOL, my sides hurt, please stop.

    If true, it will be the biggest Dog and Pony show ever up on Capitol Hill. Can you imagine? You can hear the Republican Chairmen of the phony 5 Congressional Committees running around, all fighting throwing down, over who gets to interview him first.

    Ole’ King Corn Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley, (octogenarian non-lawyer) Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will stamp his ethanol drenched feet demanding he gets first shot, while the others Richard Burr, Trey Gowdy, Devin Nunes, Bob Goodlatte and Lindsey Graham clammer to get first shot or at least sloppy-seconds . . .

    While the (too many to count) phony pundits posing as journalists or TV network legal scholars babble about what Strzok “might say . . .” And what it means and how we should interpret it . . . While the corrupt DC Swamp’s cracked dam finally breaks on “leaks” galore . . . spewing “fake news” like nuclear fallout . . .

    Talk about a Reality TV show!

    For all those hyperventilating out there, praying “this is the real real smoking gun that will finally take Trump down,” you need to calm down and take a deep breath.

    Rudy Giuliani is just playing with everybody’s head, including professor Turley’s, and other TV star legal beagles, as the MSM takes his bait on “pardons” and everything else he says. That’s the plan. And it’s been their plan all along as it’s working like a swiss watch.

    The Trump team knows exactly what they’re doing. In basketball it’s called “working the refs.” Only the “audience” here in this whole “Trump whatever everyday” is the corrupt, phony and “fake news” propagandists aka: MSM and their “cult” followers, and Trump is playing them all (yes even the scholar Joe Scarborough) like a well-tuned Stradivarius.

    Fagetabout the Nobel Peace Prize. Trump deserves over a half dozen Oscars for: Best Actor in a Leading Role. Best Actor in a Supporting Role. Best Adapted Screen Play. Best Animated Feature. Best Cinematography. Best Costume Design. Best Visual Effects. Best Original Story. Best Picture.

    Relax. Make some popcorn and grab a beer and enjoy the show.

  6. We are at a critical mass because Americans can not rely on the main screed media anymore.
    Thus Trump can do whatever he sees fit and Americans will give him a pass because anything the Dems scream at him will elicit a big yawn and eye roll.

    to wit, Wa “Truth dies daily in MSM” Po, ran this headline with the number one take home message on the IG Report. no wonder WaPo is a laughing stock


    “Last week’s IG report about the FBI made a big splash. Here’s what you need to know about inspectors general.”

    This past Thursday, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz released a much-anticipated report about how the FBI and Department of Justice investigated Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. To put it mildly, this got a lot of media attention.”

    1. We can (mostly) thank Watergate for creating IGs”
    – Wah Putz weblink here

    there you have it…incredibly WahPutz ties Watergate to it all

    Trump in 2020

    1. the main analogy to watergate is that a legitimate candidate was interfered with by elements of the government.

      that’s what happened to trump too

      the difference is that the victim of the interference won the election

        1. It starts with operant conditioning and ends with experimentally-induced psychosis. Never forget that Ivan Pavlov was a Russian. And always remember Angleton’s Wilderness of Mirrors.

  7. I’ve said this before and will say it again. Barring a lightning strike or a pardon, Manafort is almost certainly toast on the tax and FBAR-related charges. These are areas of the with which I’m quite familiar.

    1. DDD:
      Probably so, but just like OJ where he was almost certainly guilty of murdering Nicole, Americans don’t like it when the system looks rigged. They believe there is a bigger issue than one clown who got away with it, namely that the system is a circus. If he pardons Manafort, I’d lose not one nanosecond of sleep.

      1. The fact that you wouldn’t lose sleep over a pardon of Manafort for what are currently alleged criminal violations not visibly related to Trump, because Manafort was appointed to manage Trump’s campaign, says all that needs to be said. You’re an intelligent, experienced attorney, and You’ve deluded yourself into thinking that what Trump leaves in his wake will be beneficial to anyone other than Trump and his cronies. I’m truly sorry to see that happen.

        Trump is not your savior; he cares about no one other than himself and his cronies.

  8. Most independent observers view the charges against Manafort as exceptionally strong.

    Who? They’ve been ably dissected by Andrew McCarthy, who, unlike Prof. Turley, was a working prosecutor who handled complex federal matters.

  9. ‘After causing an outcry, Giuliani later said that the President would not pardon anyone under investigation. That led to utter confusion, again, about what Giuliani is saying and whether the original statement remains valid for pardons after the investigation.’

    Confusion and chaos are what the Trump administration is built on. Trump is safe until either Mueller comes up with something impeachable or Trump’s policies produce a track record of failure before the next election.

    As long as there is chaos and confusion, Trump can call it a ‘terrific’ success and continue to lie through his teeth. It has worked so far, given the dupes.

    1. My baseless prediction has been and continues to be that the con-man will lose the popular-vote by a greater margin than 2016 yet will eek out the Electoral College. Potentially six more years of this garbage.

      People who say they want to move out of the country should instead move to red districts.

  10. The Mueller investigation is humbug, so shuttering it with the issue of pardons to anyone who was schlonged for a process crime would be apt. Complaints in re the business interests of Cohen and Manafort can be transferred to the U.S. Attorney or the Criminal Division, which is where they belonged to begin with. If the Republicans retain control of the Senate, I’m hoping the first order of business is letters of dismissal issued to Messrs. Rosenstein and Wray and the second order of business is an executive order releasing all of the documents requested and subpoena’d by congressional committees. The third order of business should be draft legislation breaking up the FBI into a half-dozen pieces and distributing different components of federal law enforcement over about a half-dozen departments and administrations. The fourth order of business should be a revised criminal code which dramatically reduces the book of federal prosecutors and provides a mechanism for indemnifying people for their legal costs. The fifth order of business should be a federal law extending tort liability to prosecutors and judges.

  11. Professor, isn’t it time to stop nibbling around the edges of fat and take a bite of the steak? Can you see the forest for the trees? Trump is manifestly corrupt and using his office for ongoing self-enrichment. It is time to discuss the endgame. Now.

    1. The forest is that partisan Democrats crave emotional validation these phony investigations provide.

        1. Process crimes, Russian internet trolls, and Cohen and Manafort’s business interests. The two latter could have been readily handled by the Justice Departments regular structure had their been any merit to them.

          So, yes, phony.

          1. Obviously there was merit, but it took this investigation to pursue it, clearly.

            And who hired Manafort in the campaign, and who hired Cohen? Hillary?

            1. The charges contra Manafort refer to the period prior to 2015, when he didn’t work for Trump. Trump hired him for his experience at supervising operations at the Republican National Convention, something he’d done before.

              The supposed offenses of Cohen concern his ownership of taxi medallions, something which has nothing to do with Trump.

              1. Manafort and Gates were conducting an ongoing conspiracy to defraud the United States that did not end until they were indicted in 2017.

                1. Which is what Nutchacha said.
                  The point being that Trump is not alleged to be involved in the in the alleged crimes of Manafort and Gates.
                  And the charges against those two have nothing to do with campaign “collusion”.

                  1. Nii said, “The charges contra Manafort refer to the period prior to 2015, when he didn’t work for Trump.”

                    1. I know what he said, and then confirm what he said, and then you act like you’ve made debating points by doing a 180.

                    2. L4D said, “Manafort and Gates were conducting an ongoing conspiracy to defraud the United States that did not end until they were indicted in 2017.”

                      Nii said, “The charges contra Manafort refer to the period prior to 2015 . . .”

                      Here’s a hint, Ptom: 2017 is two year after 2015.

                    3. L4D,..
                      We all KNOW what everybody said; it’s right here on this page, but if you enjoy cutting and pasting bits and pieces of those posts, have fun.
                      Most of the charges against Manafort cover the 2008-2014 period.
                      About 10 charges, I think, for that time period.
                      Maybe 2 or 3 of the charges overlap into 2016-2017.
                      E.G., the alleged fraudulent loan application was submitted by Manafort in 2015, but approved in 2016.
                      None of the alleged charges are related to the 2016 campaign itself.
                      If you want to believe that Trump must have been “in on” a money laundering scheme with Manafort and that he wants to see how Manafort “got caught”, go ahead and believe it.
                      I’ve said before that a “belief” or “suspicions” are NOT evidence.
                      I don’t think you understand the difference.

                    4. Trump’s lawyer Jay Sekulow wrote the following question based upon his negotiations with Mueller over an interview with Trump:

                      “What knowledge did [Trump] have of any outreach by [his] campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?”

                      Manafort knows the answer to that question. Trump knows the answer to that question. What Trump doesn’t know is how the hell Mueller knows the answer to that question. Now here’s another helpful hint: Mueller knows the answer to that question. It’s so unfair. I love it.

                    5. And L4D is foolish and presumptious enough to “know” that she knows what Mueller and what Trump know.
                      Stick with the pattern that works for you, L4D.
                      Start with your conclusions/ desired outcomes, then work backward; hammer around in all those scenarios in which you create pillars that support/fit your conclusions.

                    6. Start with your conclusions/ desired outcomes, then work backward

                      That’s DNC politics in a nutshell. Set the boundaries and then everything that happens within those boundaries is fair game. Rigged election? Money laundering? Phony dossier? Nothing to see here, move along, that’s just politics.

      1. “partisan Democrats”? You mean, the majority of Americans who voted against Trump? You mean the majority of Americans who don’t approve of him and want him gone? Are those the people you are referring to?

        1. “partisan Democrats”? You mean, the majority of Americans who voted against Trump?

          Most people and most voters are not all that interested in public affairs, Nutchacha. I’m referring to the odd minority who are and who vote Democratic – about 15% or so of the general public – who, in addition, have intense emotional investments. Such people used to be an irritant to the commonweal. Now they are pure poison. (I should say someone pathological to your degree is exceedingly unusual. I’m not sure I’ve ever met such a person in meatworld).

          1. Many voters and persons in general weren’t as interested in politics before the Trump turd storm hit. Now, they’re very interested and are getting involved, at least by keeping up with political news, some for the first time in their lives. Programs like Rachel Maddow’s show have the highest viewership in years, because people are really, truly appalled at Trump, his poisoning of our relationships with our former allies, his praise for murdering dictators, his malignant narcissism, his consistent, pathological lying, his lack of compassion and lack of accomplishments. I know of no one personally who approves of unnecessarily traumatizing innocent young children by separating them from their parents and opposite-gender siblings, all in the name of religion. The hypocrisy of using religion to separate young children from their parents by lying to the parents that the kids are being taken for a bath, is appalling to everyone I personally know. This is reminiscent of the Zyklon-B showers of Aushwitz. You speak of the “commonweal”? Trump was not elected by the “commonweal”, who overwhelmingly and consistently disapprove of him. He’s had over 1 1/2 years to prove himself, and his main accomplishment has been to confirm all of the bad things people said about him before the election.


            1. No, Nutchacha, the share of people interested in public affairs varies only within a narrow band. It isn’t 1942 and the country isn’t under a general mobilization. You’re projecting your own emotional disorders on normal people.

            2. Natacha – Rachal Madcow did not complain about the children when Obama did the same thing. Oh, the humanity!!!!

              1. Once again you’ve conveniently forgotten all of the complaints against Janet Reno during the Elian Gonzalez fracas.

                1. L4D enables David Benson – Janet Reno was Clinton’s AG, not Obama’s. I was talking about Obama, that would be Holder and Lynch.

                  1. An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth. And a non-sequitur for a non-sequitur. It’s Holy scripture; don’t you know?

                    1. L4D enables David Benson – an eye for an eye subsumes equality. Janet Reno is responsible for the dead children at Waco, the Randy Weaver shootout and the Gonzolez mess. However, that is different from Holder and Lynch being responsible for separating kids from their parents at the border.

                    2. The Ruby Ridge fiasco occurred under her predecessor, Wm. Barr. I believe the FBI director at the time (Wm. Sessions) and certainly his successor (Louis Freeh) bear some responsibility for sabotaging efforts to hold the perpetrators accountable. You think about it and its absurd. They had a bloody SWAT army there to take down a man who’d missed a court date on a weapons charge (which charge was generated by an agent provacateur. Critics of Janet Reno maintained that the director of ATF and the Treasury secretary of the time were willing to see heads roll over the Waco catastrophe while she prevented anyone from being held accountable and would not resign herself.

  12. In my opinion Rudy is witness tampering by reminding those who stay true that their “sins and crimes” will be forgive by a presidential pardon. Any truth telling and the possible pardon disappears! Witness tampered!

  13. Giuliani throws out every option possible and then waits and watches for all the talking-heads to respond with free analysis, thereafter used to sculpt a favorable narrative and (apparently) strategy going forward.

    The Steak Salesman will do what he wants; he has no idea what the Constitution says let alone what it means. He wants constant praise and publicity for himself, and worse a rubber-stamp Congress with stacked courts. (So much for separation of powers.)

    He’s a total moron who gets away with everything. It really is astounding. He violated the Constitution on Day 1 by receiving emoluments (nevermind all the campaign incompetency), and excessive (and optically atrocious) pardoning is just the most recent abuse.

    (For instance, Obama saluted a US soldier with a coffee-cup in hand and that was treasonous; Trumpy salutes a North Korean General, and whatever that’s fine.)

    We’re in the Twilight Zone.

    1. Dave137 says,”We’re in the Twilight Zone”. You zealots deserve a great deal of credit for that reality.

      The IG investigation does not vindicate the biased political zealots of the Hillary or Russia investigations. The IG condemns them.

      Proof you ask? Demoted, fired and referred senior FBI officers are not endorsements of a satisfied IG (Horowitz). Those IG actions are penal actions.

      Horowitz referred five (5) members of the FBI team in the Hillary investigation. McCabe the FBI’s number two was fired and referred. Strzok the number two in FBI counter intelligence was demoted to the H.R. department. That is Twilight Zone by all historical FBI standards.

      An awful legal comparative awaits Strzok (lead investigator in the Clinton and Russian investigations) with the second IG report.

      Expansive immunity grants to the inner Clinton staff and Strzok’s handling of Huma’s/husband Anthony’s computer is Strzok’s legal standard in IG report one.

      In IG report two Horowitz will anecdote a different legal approach used Strzok. The Trump Dossier and the actions of twice demoted DOJ director Bruce Ohr show how far legal standards were allowed to fall under Comey and McCabe .

      You probably think so what? Defense lawyers understand comparative analysis, tainted evidence and how to create reasonable doubt. These defense attorneys have a good part of their cases made by the DOJ IG reports. Federal prosecutor Huber is next to act.

      1. What does any of this have to do with the crimes committed by Trump? The Trump effect is already producing Democratic wins in districts Trump won by double digits. Fox News spins aren’t fooling anyone. The rodeo clown in chief is a failure. His malignant narcissism is apparent even to the relatively uneducated and unsophisticated.

        1. What does any of this have to do with the crimes committed by Trump?

          As always, Nutchacha, your imagination and hopes and dreams are of no account in the world out here.

        2. Notcha you are overly simplistic. There are several legally mandated steps in making a legal determination of a US citizens guilt.

          Despite your obsession with Ad Hominem one does not need Fox news to understand legal due process. Google search and law books books are excellent resources.

          The the DOJ IG has telegraphed that Mr. Strzok has created some procedural issues in the Russia probe. Judges understand poisonous tree doctrine and due process abuses better than the press. The IG reports, Strzok’s texts will insure a fair review of evidence.

          Of course you omitted the elephant in the Court room. There is some opinion among the more informed that President Trump is not a target. Can we assume you have knowledge that Trump is being charged? Political rhetoric is by definition vacuous of facts.

          1. I need to follow the news more closely.
            I didn’t realize that Trump has been convicted, or even charged with, the crimes Natacha says he has committed.

    2. Rudy is a long way from 9-11 now, and it shows. He’s like the one time star power hitter who can’t get around on the fastball any more.

      Trump only hires the best people, and then they fail him.

    3. lol moron you think so? you werent around when he nailed the Wall Street junk bond traders that others let run amuck. prolly still in diapers

  14. The FBI wanted to play ball with Hilary because they thought she would win. If they did anything against her and she won, they knew that Hilary doesn’t get mad, she gets even.

    1. What ever in the world do you mean by “if” the FBI did anything against Hillary?

      Are you suggesting that Trump was the instrument of Hillary’s vengeance upon Comey?

  15. By ignoring Congress’ demands for source docs, Rosenstein’s only goal is to delay as long as possible disclosing the many various felonies he and his FBI felons committed.

    The good news for Trump supporters is Rosenstein’s timing. Trump and his crew are going to spread this thing out to explode somewhere between early September and late October.

    If HRC and her DNC felon friends at the FBI had just played along, if she had just admitted she was the worst nominee to ever run for POTUS, if the DNC had some kind of position other than to glorify and elevate to Sainthood MS13 members and to cancel the 2nd Amendment, if the DNC gave one whit about the middle class, they could be cruising to easy victory.

    God bless the DNC and HRC for being in denial, and for stretching their circus right up to the mid term election date. Thank you, Rod Rosenstein and Chris Wray.

      1. David Benson is touting the article of a law professor who supposedly knows Trump is cheating w/o examining the returns. You guys need to get your stories straight.

    1. Thanks for checking in with today’s Pravda Faux News talking points. I regret to inform you, however, that other gullible rubes, dupes and mouth-breathers have beat you to it. So sorry for your loss.

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

  16. The FBI went in to the HRC investigation having made up their minds she’d never be charged. The same agents started the Russia investigation of Trump having already confirmed that not one American should have voted for him (Strzok) and that persons who voted for Trump have a “stench” (an unnamed agent), and that Trump was already guilty.

    The foundation of the entire Russia investigation vis a vis Trump is fruit from the poison tree, a setup invented by the FBI, who helped purchase the Steele dossier, a pack of lies invented by an HRC sycophant and confirmed avowed self-proclaimed Trump hater, a foreign agent who the DNC, HRC, and apparently the FBI paid to concoct lies about Trump (felony employment of a foreign agent for political purposes). Congress demanded for a year for the FBI to submit the founding document for the FBI warrants on Trump’s campaign, and has not provided such. If they don’t turn it over this week, Wray and Rosenstein shall finally be impeached, then fired by the Senate (after they are held in contempt). Hopefully later they are both charged with Obstruction, convicted, and serve prison time.

    I don’t know how Rosenstein can be Mueller’s boss when Rosenstein apparently signed the FISA warrant, knowing the “evidence” (Steele dossier) was a pack of lies purchased by Trump’s political enemies HRC, the DNC, and possibly even the FBI itself partially paid Steele. We don’t know because Rosenstein has only given the finger to Congress’ demands for the original source documents, which obviously confirm the FBI’s felony crimes.

    Even the judge to whom Flynn plead guilty is the judge who signed the FISA warrant, a fact which the judge kept secret from Flynn. If that’s not an invitation to toss that conviction in the toilet then Trump is not the POTUS.

    DNC sycophant position: when J. Edgar Hoover created files on every perceived enemy of the State including Martin Luther King: bad, bad, bad. When the FBI is in the tank for HRC’s several felonies, attempts to insure HRC’s election, and then after Trump got elected makes it their goal to impeach Trump (“insurance policy): good, good, good.

    1. I hope you’re enjoying a full-bodied red. You may want to claim you are even if your cannonballing Ripple; at least the incoherent, paranoid-conspiracy prattle wouldn’t seem as ridiculous as it truly is. Pro tip: most of your ilk don’t try to synthesize the wackjob conspiracy hoodoo, they just cut and paste from the original obscure website.

      this is to “if I gots mo wine, I gots mo politickin to post” joey

  17. Had the FBI not been trying to keep Trump from being elected President, none of these people would be in this position. Let’s put the blame squarely where it belongs.

    1. Paul -HAd the FBI been trying to defeat Trump, they would have exposed the fact he was under investigation, which they did not. Hard to explain why they didn’t if that were their goal?

      1. Comey testified that he repeatedly told Trump that he was NOT under investigation.
        ( Senate Intelligence Committee, June 8, 2017).
        Unless he decided to publicly announce the opposite of what he told Trump, he wasn’t in any position to announce or leak a non-existent investigation.

        1. OFCOLA. IG Horowitz’s Report clearly shows that Comey, McCabe, Yates and Lynch were afraid to authorize any aggressive and overt investigative methods of Russia’s efforts to cultivate members of the Trump campaign because they believed that the New York Office of the FBI would leak that information to the press and Comey, McCabe, Yates and Lynch would then face accusations of intervening in, and interfering with, the 2016 election for President.

          Trump’s argument to the contrary is FUBAR.

          1. L4D–….If you feel that the FBI was in some way obligated to inform the press and the public of every twist and turn of every investigation, then you and others who feel that way should not support Mueller’s lack of communication about his investigation.
            The FBI investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 campaign began in late July, 2016.
            By election time, c. 3 months later, this investigation was still in its earliest stages; without publicly announcing or leaking every detail of the investigation, the FBI was no where near a conclusion to that investigation.
            On the core question of whether there was active, illegal coordination between the Trump campaign, we still don’t have charges related to to “collusion” TWO YEARS” into this investigation.
            The Clinton email investigation was ongoing for a year or so before it was ostensibly concluded in July 2016.
            That’s when Comey made the “extreme carelessness” comment, and said “no reasonable prosecutor” would criminally charge Clinton.
            Then he reopened the investigation in late October; that announcement was as controversial as his July press conference.
            So in one case there was the completion of ( and reopening of) a long- term investigation.
            In the Trump/ Russia “collusion” issue, it was c. 3 months into what is now a 2 year old investigation.
            Not withstanding the above, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and others attempted to make a major campaign issue of Trump/ Russia/ Putin allegations.
            Christopher Steele was unable to get the media to publish material he briefed them on from the Russian Dossier. ( with the exception of Mother Jones, which did publish some of Steele’s allegations in late Oct. 2016).
            Established media outlets were not going to run with unverified allegations from Steele, and the FBI was not far along into the investigation.
            So the efforts of Fusion GPS, Steele, Hillary, Sen. Reid, and others to make this a campaign issue never got any real traction.
            If you feel that investigators are obligated to inform the public of all developments at every stage of an investigation, at least be consistent and hold the Mueller investion to the same standard.

            1. Paul C. Schulte said, “Had the FBI not been trying to keep Trump from being elected President, none of these people would be in this position.”

              Enigmainblack said, “Paul -HAd the FBI been trying to defeat Trump, they would have exposed the fact he was under investigation, which they did not.”

              Tom Nash said, “Comey testified that he repeatedly told Trump that he was NOT under investigation.
              Unless he decided to publicly announce the opposite of what he told Trump, he wasn’t in any position to announce or leak a non-existent investigation.”

              L4D said, “IG Horowitz’s Report clearly shows that Comey, McCabe, Yates and Lynch were afraid to authorize any aggressive and overt investigative methods . . . because they believed that the New York Office of the FBI would leak that information to the press and Comey, McCabe, Yates and Lynch would then face accusations of intervening in, and interfering with, the 2016 election for President.”

              Paul C. Schulte said, “Had the FBI not been trying to keep Trump from being elected President, none of these people would be in this position.”

              For those of you keeping score at home, Paul C. Schulte never admits that his argument has been thoroughly refuted and Tom Nash works way far too hard at refuting arguments that were not made.

              1. I’m not going to try to,unravel whatever it is you just said, beyond pointing out to you that my first post was in response to Enigma’s comment.
                It’s all there in,this thread so I’ll skip writing out a transcript of
                “so and so said, then “such and such” said, etc.
                Your earlier post claimed that the FBI was reluctant to give details on the Trump campaign/ Russia issue.
                Intimidated or fear that they would seen as interfering with the election.
                I then pointed out OTHER reasons why the FBI was not in a position to give a wrap-up of the investigation,given that it was still in the very early stages.
                Realisticly, it’s not possible to know at this point if the FBI “held back” in their investigation or went flat out.
                Intimidation was mentioned as a factor by James Comey in the case of the way that the Hillary email investigation was handled.
                Comey thought that Hillary’s “high-powered legal team cowed investigators and prosecutors.
                This was mention in an October 18, 2016 New York Post article titled “How Hillary’s lawyers ran roughshod over the FBI in the email investigation.

              2. <L4D enable David Benson – for goodness sakes, did you not watch the hearing yesterday? Or have you not read the entire report? What do you think the Russian investigation was for? Why do you think Hillary got off scot free? Have you not read the text, IM and email msgs?

          2. Dear Ms. Late4Yoga, Ship set sale more than 500 days ago and you and your ilk aint gonna catch it our stop it for at least another 2500 days or so. Therefore time to change your trip plans, and maybe get some game.

            1. Where is this sale on ship parts and accessories? I have boat, and could use some good used equipment.

              1. Nat: You need to wait 2500 days or so for a sale price on parts. However, chances are the ship will be refurbished by 2024 (no sale on parts) and set back out to sea until 2030 (ship will be renamed “USS Pence”).

            2. Bill Martin said, “. . . time to change your trip plans, and maybe get some game.”

              Out of curiosity, Bill Martin, how is Trump going to get reelected in 2020 without the help of Manafort, Stone, Caputo, Cohen, Papadopoulos, Page, Flynn, Trump Jr., Kushner, Bannon, Hicks or any of the other members of Trump’s 2016 MAGA campaign who are currently in the cross-hairs of the special counsel’s investigation?

              Is there an endless supply of dirty tricksters lined up three deep around the block at Trump Tower and the fence-line at Mar-a-Lago waiting for a chance to be hired by Trump’s 2020 Keep America Great campaign? Have they all set-up their legal-defense piggy-banks yet?

              Or will they all be squeaky-clean newbies–no dirty tricksters allowed? For how long do you suppose that Trump stand to work with a campaign crew of squeaky-clean newbies? Wait. Did you hear that?

              You go back, Jack; do it again.
              Wheels turning around and round.
              You go back, Jack; do it again.

              1. And will the DNC and Democratic nominee’s campaign pay for foreign opposition research in Russia or elsewhere.
                Maybe Fusion GPS and Orbis will do a name change for their businesses, and dig up dirt on candidates with new firm identities.

                1. Correction on a previous post…Most,of Manafort’s alleged crimes were between 2006-2014, not 2008-2014.

              2. Dear Ms. Late for a Very Important Date: Trump will get re-elected in 2020 the same way he got elected in 2016 – common sense communication via television technology and bringing message to the people by hitting road and doing the work. If you all hang on to your Russian Facebook $100k budget excuses for losing in 2016 you all gonna lose again via multi-billion dollar television media.

Leave a Reply