Stone Cold: Mueller Wins Key Legal Challenge To His Authority As Special Counsel

440px-Director_Robert_S._Mueller-_IIIFor over a year, there has been an ongoing debate over the constitutionality of the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel.  The claim is that Mueller constitutes a “principal officer” who should be nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate.  Instead, defenders claim Mueller is an “inferior officer” who does not require such a process. Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia just gave Mueller an impressive legal victory in an opinion that swept aside this and two other fundamental challenges to the Special Counsel.  The decision came as part of the grand jury investigation into Trump confidant Roger Stone.

While there are good-faith arguments that Mueller is no inferior officer given the sweeping nature of his mandate, I have previously expressed great skepticism of the viability of these challenges in light of the prior decision of the Court in Morrison v. Olson, which upheld the constitutionality of the Independent Counsel Act.  That Act was allowed by Congress to lapse but the special counsel procedure is, if anything, stronger than the ICA since Mueller is squarely within the Justice Department and subject to its chain of command.  This of course could well change with the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.  Kavanaugh is a long critic of Morrison.  However, his past writings do not clearly establish that he would rule a Special Counsel to be a principal officer.  However, this challenge is clearly designed to move up to the Supreme Court where Morrison is considered an endangered precedent, even before the expected addition of Kavanaugh.


The challenge was brought by the aide to Stone, Andrew Miller. His able counsel pressed three attacks on the Mueller’s authority under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, U.S. CONST. art. II, §2, cl. 2.  First, they claimed that the Special Counsel is a principal rather than inferior officer. If Mueller is a principle officer, he must be nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate.  Second, they argued that  no statute authorized the Special Counsel’s appointment. Finally, they argued that Rosenstein lacked authority to appoint Mueller.  It was the first argument that has attracted the most academic interest but Mueller swept the table on all three challenges.

While many have portrayed Kavanaugh’s concerns about Morrison as a partisan issue, it is not.  As the Court stated in Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651, 660 (1997) “[T]he Appointments Clause was designed to ensure public accountability for both the
making of a bad appointment and the rejection of a good one.”  The clause guarantees care and accountability in the selection of these powerful individuals.  This concern was magnified for many in the appointment of Robert Mueller, who has been criticized by Trump and others as having conflicts of interest in his position.  Indeed, when Mueller was appointed, I expressed surprise that he was even on the list and I have maintained that both Mueller and Rosenstein have conflicts.  However, I supported the appointment of a Special Counsel and I believe Mueller should be allowed to finish his work unimpeded.

The 92-page ruling by Chief Judge Beryl Howell gave Mueller a ringing victory that could be cited in other jurisdictions as persuasive authority.  She ruled that the “scope of the Special Counsel’s power falls well within the boundaries the Constitution permits.”

Howell found Mueller to be an “inferior officer” given the supervision of deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein.  That is a much more solid constitutional footprint than the earlier Independent Counsels.  “His appointment, without presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation, thus did not violate the Appointments Clause.”
On the first question, Howell wrote:

Edmond clarified that the first of these factors—whether an officer is “subject to removal by a higher . . . official”—is by far the most important to a Court’s determination of principal-inferior status, while reformulating that factor into a broader inquiry into whether an officer’s “work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by Presidential nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate.” 520 U.S. at 663. “Generally speaking,” Edmond explained, “the term ‘inferior officer’ connotes a relationship with some higher ranking officer or officers below the President: Whether one is an ‘inferior’ officer depends on whether he has a superior.” Id. at 662; accord Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (“PCAOB”), 561 U.S. 477, 510 (2010) (applying Edmond to conclude that officials were inferior rather than principal due to the agency’s “oversight authority” and “power to remove . . . at will”).11 Indeed, Edmond held that an officer with a presidentially-nominated, Senate-confirmed superior is inferior even if all three other Morrison factors—the magnitude of an officer’s duties,

jurisdiction, and tenure—weigh toward principal officer status. 520 U.S. at 661–62 (concluding that a Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals judge was an inferior officer despite that “the last two [Morrison factors—limited jurisdiction and tenure] do not hold . . . here” and that such judges “are charged with exercising significant authority on behalf of the United States”).

The witness contends that the Special Counsel is a principal officer who was neither
nominated by the President nor confirmed by the Senate, and thus was unconstitutionally appointed. See Witness’s Mot. at 14. As explained in more detail below, however, the Attorney General has ample legal authority to “direct[] and supervis[e]” the Special Counsel, which makes the Special Counsel an inferior officer. Edmond, 520 U.S. at 663. To the extent relevant, theremaining three Morrison factors each weigh in favor of inferior officer status. Nor does thebreadth of the authority the Special Counsel wields negate his inferior officer status. The witness’s argument that the Special Counsel is a principal officer thus does not pass muster.
Here is the opinion:  the Mueller/Miller Opinion

363 thoughts on “Stone Cold: Mueller Wins Key Legal Challenge To His Authority As Special Counsel”

  1. The decision is quite clearly wrong.

    The argument being made – would make ALL officers except the president inferior as the president can fire them at will.

    I would further note that at this point both Rosenstein and Mueller are unfireable – or they would already have been fired.

    Mueller quite clearly has very broad authority and the ability to make policy within his domain.

    We have been dancing arround how to constitutionally investigate a sitting president for decades.

    The current SC law is clearly not an answer.

    I think there is very good reason that Mueller never should have been appointed – the SC law does not provide for a counter intelligence investigation, nor does a counter intelligence investigation have the conflict necescary to issolate it from the administration. Even if there is good reason for an independent investigation – and I do not think we have that here. The SC is a deeply flawed approach.

    The oversight of the executive is a legislative power. I would suggest that the power to appoint an SC should rest with the house and Senate.
    I would suggest that either chamber by a simple majority can appoint an SC to investigate the executive.

    Nothing is going to be perfect, but what we have now is disasterous.

    Rod Rosenstein is the defacto AG Sessions is impotent – and not just on This issue.

    Rosenstein might beleive in what he is doing, but he has total control of vast swaths of the DOJ and is accountable to no one.

    1. “The best form of defense is attack.”

      – Carl von Clausewitz

      At what point is it appropriate to appoint a special counsel to conduct a routine counter-intelligence investigation?

      Answer: When Obama orders it for legal protection and political benefit.

      Other than that, the appointment is entirely incoherent, unnecessary, unjustifiable, political and corrupt.

      Incidentally, a routine investigation is very easy to “fix.”

      Just ask Comey how easy it was to “fix” the Hillary investigation to protect Obama; in front of God and everybody.

      When you’ve got them by the b—s, their hearts and minds will follow.

      Of course, the “fix” was exposed after Hillary’s loss but Wray, Rosenstein and Mueller were steeped in the “swamp” and learned

      well how to preserve and perpetuate the “deep state” with considerable acumen, wouldn’t you agree?




    Apple, Facebook, YouTube and Spotify took their most aggressive steps yet to penalize conspiracy theorist and prominent right-wing talk show host Alex Jones for violating their hate speech policies.

    Late Sunday, Apple stripped the majority of podcasts published by Jones’s website Infowars from iTunes and its podcast apps. “Apple does not tolerate hate speech, and we have clear guidelines that creators and developers must follow to ensure we provide a safe environment for all of our users,” the company said in a statement to The Washington Post.

    Apple’s decision came after other popular tech platforms, including Spotify, Facebook and YouTube, had removed some of Jones’s offending content. But Apple’s move was the most sweeping yet. The company’s decision to pull the Infowars podcasts was first reported by BuzzFeed. Apple removed five of the six Infowars programs from its listings, including “The Alex Jones Show” and “War Room.”

    YouTube on Monday terminated the Alex Jones Channel, telling The Post in a statement, “All users agree to comply with our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines when they sign up to use YouTube. When users violate these policies repeatedly, like our policies against hate speech and harassment or our terms prohibiting circumvention of our enforcement measures, we terminate their accounts.”

    In a series of text messages to The Washington Post, Alex Jones called the decisions to remove him from Apple, Facebook and Spotify “a counter-strike against the global awakening.” He accused Apple and Google of colluding with the Chinese government, mainstream news organizations, the Democratic Party and establishment elements of the Republican Party to misrepresent his views and deprive him of platforms that allow him to spread his messages.

    Edited from: “YouTube, Apple, Facebook and Spotify Escalate Enforcement Against Alex Jones”.


      1. Oky1, that’s a false equivalency. Turley and Jones are two different animals.

        1. private ISP can do whatever they like.

          the powerful ones now do what the left likes

          but it won’t always be that way

          and the right may return the favor one day.


        “Maybe it’s fringe speech. Maybe it’s dangerous speech. But it’s not defamation”.

        Attorney Mark Enoch in an Austin Texas courtroom defending Jones from a lawsuit by families who lost children at the Sandy Hook mass shooting. Jones has reluctantly admitted the shooting occurred (after saying for years it was a hoax).

        1. questioning current events, even with wacky conspiracy theories, is not normally thought of as defamation. the lawyer does not really stake out a controversial position.

          but if the thought police have their way, then only apple, google, facebook and other billion (nearly trillion in apples case) corporations will decide what is news

          and then they will cry cry cry

        2. Peter,…
          The plaintiffs are said to have been “tormented and forced to move seven times”.
          I wasn’t aware of this case, but it looks like they are suing Alex Jones for feeding these Sandy Hook conspiracy theories?
          Unless Jones himself is directly involved in tormenting/ harassing these parents and forcing them to move, I don’t think they’ll be successful in suing Jones.
          Whoever is “on the ground” ( as opposed on the airwaves) doing the ” tormenting” and forcing the parents to move might face both criminal and civil liabilty.
          There aren’t enough specifics in the linked article to know exactly what the “tormenting” involved, what harassment forced them to move seven times, etc.
          There are remedies like restraining orders that may or may not have been attempted by the plaintiffs.
          If they did not attempt to take any action against those responsible, and jumped straight to a lawsuit against Jones, that would seem to be even weaker.
          I don’t know anything about this case beyond what I read in the article, so if there’s additional info and/ or corrections to what I wrote, I’d appreciate it.
          This case reminds me of the fringe group showing up at the funerals of KIAs and calling for ” more dead soldiers”; there are some restrictions on how close they

          1. (accidently posted early) restrictions on how close they can get to the site of the services, the funeral procession, etc.
            But the courts have said they had the First Amendment right to continue doing what they’re doing.
            ( there’s usually police, and often biker groups in case they “cross a line”).

          2. Tom,

            I’ve been & still am a supporter of Infowars since a year or so after 9/11/2001.

            They’ve always been under attack.

            “1st they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, & then you win”

            Ring a bell?

            This is called Lawfare & even Prof Turley has gotten caught with sh*t on his face over fake bullSh.t game. IE: JT repeating a lie: Pedo slave kids on Mars! Jeezus Turley. Anyway, I digress.

            They’ve filed about 20 or so fake lawsuits against Infowars this year attempting to tie them up in court & at the same time deplete Jones of financial resources.

            I think the last count a few days ago he’s defeated about 16 of the 20 as the remainder worker there way though court.

            They don’t care how much money they’ll lose & have to Pay Infowars, they’re panicked Jones is informing people to their Scams & they’re just trying to Buy time to reset to a different Scam.

            To Late Game Over! LOL:)

            20 plus years, remove Jones/Infowars today & it’s still to late, They/Jones/Infowars have already gotten the Info Virus of the Truth out & it continues to spread without Jones/Infowars.

          3. Tom,

            I was thinking,

            I remember the BS from Turley on the Robert David Steele, Frm CIA/ or still CIA attacking Jones attempting to destroy Jones/Infowars with the fake Pedos have slave kids on Mars & Turley distorted the story & printed it.

            I thought maybe that Youtube was deleting the Jones Info & it may be gone, but I see some of it remains.


            Further, the Hillary/Obama/FBI/DOJ Pissgate/Spy on Trump papers are claimed to be written by a Red Coat Brit Bast*rd Intel guy named Steel or Steele.

            My question is, is Robert David Steele related to that American hating piece of Crap Red Coat Steele??


    1. It’s about time.
      If this leads to fewer morons buying into Infowar’s garbage then it’s a very good thing.

        1. I’m surprised fruitcakes like Crazy George, Oky, and Autumn haven’t glommed onto that yet.

          Just a matter of time I suppose.

        1. Does free speech allow people to broadcast outright lies that subject grieving families to endless harassment?

          1. defamation is indeed one of the legal claims that does impinge on what we consider free speech. in general, yes.

            but when it comes to news the standards are very very loose.

            here is the key case


            NYT v Sullivan

            next….. when it comes to the damages, attributing “harassment” to jones is an even farther stretch…. in general there is not duty to anticipate the bad acts of a third party due to the exercise of free speech.

            that’s why BLM gets away with all their “kill pigs” chants, for example

            generally articulating alternative viewpoints about current events is not thought of as defamation. the jones case on a law school exam would be an interesting question to flesh out the basic elements and the A students would give it a dismissal

            i sense you never went to law school peter— but if you did I would guess that you were not an A student

            1. Can anyone actually track down a working office for Black Lives Matters? And is Black Lives Matters a For-Profit company?

              1. Peter,..
                They have a website that will accept donations, sell BLM-themed items ( looks like T-shirts, caps, etc.) and refer to their different “chapters” that they have.
                I don’t know their financial condition, if they are required to account for income and expenses, the major source(s) of funding, etc.
                Even an “internet-based” company or operation has to have physical facilities if it’s selling merchandise, processing donations, etc.
                There may or may not be officers ( like treasurer(s)) who may ( or may not) be responsible for handling, and accounting for, the
                My guess is that they rent office spaces in different locations…..they may do all of their activities out of their residences, but I doubt it.

                1. Tom, your point on internet companies is taken. But I get the impression BLM is not that different from the so-called Occupation Movement; a loose confederation of kindred spirits.

                  Alex Jones, by comparison, has become a millionaire selling irresponsible conspiracies of which there are many documented victims. Jones’ lawyer admitted in court that Jones’ rumors could be ‘dangerous’. See post above.

                  Families shouldn’t be harassed into moving because Alex Jones keeps linking them to baseless lies And many of Jones’ victims were cases of mistaken identity. People who shared the ‘same name’ as a Jones victim were mercilessly harassed by paranoid strangers.

                  Within the past couple years Jones was sued for divorce by his longtime wife. She testified that Jones is obsessively paranoid and believes his conspiracies. Jones’ lawyer, however, issued a disclaimer: ‘Jones is just an entertainer’. The same disclaimer Rush Limbaugh waives.

                  But that divorce trial revealed that even Alex Jones cannot publicly embrace the conspiracies he sells. And that, I think, is significant.

                  1. Peter,…
                    The courts, at least the Supreme Court, has tended to give broad leeway to offensive speech.
                    With very few restrictions, there is “freedom” to say and broadcast even the most odious expressions of speech.
                    On the BLM situation, they seen to be “kind of an organization” and “kinda not an organization”.
                    When a group is selling merchandize, taking donations., has local chapters, etc., that seens like an organization to me.
                    I think that the court ruked otherwise in New Orleans? when a seriously injured officer sue BLM for inciting violence against cops.
                    I don’t know if that’s on appeal on not
                    …but, if a “Unite the Right” rally, which is determined to be a group, not an organization, chants kill the counterprotesters, then “Unite the Right ” is not liable for damages in a civil suit.
                    If you go by the “New Orleans” standard.
                    I think whether the entity ( I’m leaving the “group/ irgainzation debate out of this comment) is for profit, or non-profit, in immaterial.

                    1. Peter,…
                      I don’t know what form of harassment occured, if remedies were attempted via restraining orders, etc, or if Alex Jones was actually directing ( not “inspiring”) the harassment.
                      Based on what little I know about the case from reading the article you posted, I don’t think Jones will be ultimately held liable.
                      If this is a jury trial, anything can happen….regardless of what they jury decides, I don’t think Jones will ultimately be found liable.

        2. There’s no First Amendment issue here.
          Private companies are under no obligation to provide a platform for nuts.

          1. true but what if they own the airwaves. then there is a duty to provide access. you get the idea. or at least you do, even if you don’t admit it. and when the liberals ox gets gored, then you will cry censorship. well, we shall see when then screw turns, who fares better in the end

            I think the “silent majority” will survive even without help from appleFBGoog et al.

            1. No, I’m not a Liberal, just a #NeverTrump Conservative who believes that both the President and lunatics like Alex Jones are embarrassments to the Conservative cause.

              1. Wildbull wants to separate himself from the crazy Liberals. He thinks he can suddenly call himself a conservative yet have Liberal / progressive values. A lot of bull and it is wild.

                1. Not if you mean a Trump fan who gets his news from Breitbart, Sludge and Infowars.
                  I’m certainly not THAT type of Conservative. Or a loony like Crazy George who cries salty tears over the demise of the Confederacy….

                  It’s all in how you define it.

                  1. wildbill99 – I am so far to the right I am willing to restore the monarchy. As long as you have been on this blawg, I have never pegged you as a conservative. So, how do you define yourself as a conservative?

                    1. wildbill99 – Buckley is dead. Who do you follow now? That is the important thing.

                    2. As far as Conservative pundits go put me down as a fan of David French, George Will and David Brooks.

                    3. wildbill99 – I know nothing about French, but I watched both Will and Brook on Election Night and they were suicidal. I am sure at some point in the evening the staff were told to take sharp objects out of the reach of all the pundits.

                    4. None of the above Conservatives have any affection or respect for Trump.
                      Neither do I.

                    5. Paul, one needs to ask Will if he supports the two Supreme Court nominations by Trump that will be one of the longest lasting results of the Trump Presidency. Then ask wildbull.

                    6. I followed Nat Hentoff and Alan Dershowitz my entire life. Did that make me a Liberal?

                      Is David Brooks really a conservative? Will is definitely a smart man and an easy one for a Trump hater and a leftist to site as supporting.

      1. So much for the concept of freedom of speech. Instead of more speech jokers like wildbull want less speech.

    2. apple and these others are essentially more like utilities than they are private media. i would agree the first amendment does not apply but the same concepts that go into utility public access should apply to the internet portals.

      they are eating up the public media and eventually the FIrst Amendment will be narrowed down to what you can just cry out in the public square and digital will be wholly privately owned

      normally left wingers spot this issue but the TDS crowd here is aglee with joy over Alex Jones banning

  3. It appears we may safely add another name to the list of accomplices to the Obama Coup D’etat in America, Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

    Accomplices to the Obama Coup D’etat in America:

    Howell, Rosenstein, Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Steele, Simpson, Hillary, Huma, Lynch, Brennan, Clapper, Joseph Mifsud, Kerry, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Power, Farkas, Rice, Jarrett, Obama et al.

    Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller, now conducting a “malicious prosecution,” has falsified factual testimony on multiple previous occasions. Mueller lied about WMD in Iraq for the purpose of reinforcing and promoting a blatantly fraudulent theory by the Bush administration:

    1. Yeah, George, we get it, anyone not supporting Trump is part of a vast, liberal conspiracy. Never mind that Republicans essentially control all three branches of government. That shouldn’t muddy the narrative.

      1. Never mind that Republicans essentially control all three branches of government.

        If we actually did ‘control all three branches of government’, we wouldn’t have Obergefell and Trump could can anyone without being anxious about obstruction of his appointees in the Senate. Come to think of it, Obamacare would be history.

        1. Well then, majorities aren’t enough for Republicans to implement control.

          Or, to put it in other words, “Republicans Are Unfit To Govern”.

      1. Thanks, Mr. Bill. You’re the only one who perpetually reads all of my material. I don’t suppose you could return some royalties? Don’t be greedy now. That’s so “Republican!”

        1. I never denied that your posts provide comic relief. I especially get a chuckle when you bemoan the demise of the Slaveocracy.

          1. For the record, I read the Constitution and argue for its dominion. Slavery is not in my wheelhouse. Secession was constitutional then, it was constitutional in the interim and it is constitutional now. As I’ve said, the Constitution provides for the full freedom of speech to dissuade people of the institution of slavery, the freedom of enterprise and commerce to boycott any and all direct and ancillary products of slavery and the financial freedom to comprehensively divest of slavery. Think of it, brokers could have generated fortunes “shorting” slave plantations. The method of eliminating slavery through employment of free market tools is eminently and irrefutably constitutional – and it doesn’t kill anyone.

            And thanks again for being my one faithful reader.

            Now about those royalties…

              1. PCS, would that start Civil War II? Would the President send in the military – declare martial law? I think the real culprit is China, sewing the seeds of dissension waiting to pounce and fill the vacuum it creates. Google and Facebook are already following Chinese law on censorship. Who has the better global strategy? Our President is responding to internal attacks and may be distracted.


              Californians Puzzled by Trump’s Failure to Blame Wildfires on Hillary

              “SACRAMENTO, California (The Borowitz Report)—Californians were baffled on Monday by a series of tweets by Donald J. Trump in which he utterly failed to blame the state’s current wildfires on Hillary Clinton.

              In interviews with residents up and down the Golden State, Californians agreed with the assessment of Harland Dorrinson, a Modesto native, that Trump’s failure to pin the fires on Clinton was “nothing short of bizarre.”

              “When he said that there wasn’t enough water to put out the fires, I naturally assumed he was going to accuse Hillary Clinton of sneaking into California and somehow stealing all of our water,” Dorrinson said. “It was so confusing when he didn’t.””


  4. Professor Turley –

    “While there are good-faith arguments that Mueller is no inferior officer given the sweeping nature of his mandate, I have previously expressed great skepticism of the viability of these challenges in light of the prior decision of the Court in Morrison v. Olson, which upheld the constitutionality of the Independent Counsel Act.”

    No. There is the law and there are politics.

    “…men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    Alexander Hamilton –

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    Three weeks ago, the Supreme Court overturned its own “decision” and the “decision” of a lower court. Obviously, the judicial branch bases its decisions on politics and ideology, not the Constitution and/or statute law. Relying on precedents is preposterous. Is it possible for General Motors or McDonald’s to rely on previously made cars or hamburgers. This “decision” is political. The “judge” simply verbalized, “I’M WITH HER.” Sorry, Your Honor, you and Hillary lost.

    Enough “interpretation” of the law. The branches of government are distinctly not co-equal, understanding that the Founders gave the People’s representatives, solely, the power to impeach. Beginning with the judicial branch, Congress needs to get that party started.

  5. We have a “crawl space” or basement under our condo units which has a rat family. I scanned the Mueller photo off the blog here and printed out three copies. I posted them at rat level in the crawl space. The rats all have left. Mueller does have a mission in this world.

      1. Peter Hill – It is just as funny as “In Mueller We Trust” 😉

        1. Paul, I trust that Mueller will drive Trump to send more ill-advised tweets.

      2. Second Amendment liberal. The right to arm bears. You know what I mean jelly bean.




    President Trump said on Sunday that a Trump Tower meeting between top campaign aides and a Kremlin-connected lawyer was designed to “get information on an opponent” — the starkest acknowledgment yet that a statement he dictated last year about the encounter was misleading.

    Mr. Trump made the comment in a tweet on Sunday morning that was intended to be a defense of the June 2016 meeting and the role his son Donald Trump Jr. played in hosting it. The president claimed that it was “totally legal” and of the sort “done all the time in politics.”

    But the tweet also served as an admission that the Trump team had not been forthright when Donald Trump Jr. issued a statement in July 2017 saying that the meeting had been primarily about the adoption of Russian children.

    That statement is being scrutinized by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who is examining a broad array of Mr. Trump’s tweets and public statements to determine whether he made them as part of an effort to deceive investigators.

    Edited from: “Dirt On Clinton Was Focus Of 2016 Meeting, Trump Admits”

    Today’s NEW YORK TIMES



        “Governor Jerry Brown must allow the Free Flow of the vast amounts of water coming from the North and foolishly being diverted into the Pacific Ocean. Can be used for fires, farming and everything else. Think of California with plenty of Water – Nice! Fast Federal govt. approvals”.

        Trump sent this tweet 3 hours ago. It has no basis in fact. No one can even speculate where Trump got this idea.

    1. I am having difficulty understanding the moves that are being made. Trump is tossing Don, Jr. under the bus on the meeting. Why? With an agreement to pardon Don, Jr.?
      Likewise, Manafort’s Gates did it defense so far looks very lame. Why? Is it just to get Gates on the stand and obtain information that might help Trump at some stage? Then, Manafort gets pardoned?
      It’s sort of reminding me of how Nixon kept peeling off aids one by one until he had no more who could resign.
      Then there’s the suggestion that Trump should resign before the end of his term so that Pence can become President and immediately pardon Trump. That didn’t go so well for Ford. What if Pence doesn’t hold up his end of the deal?

      1. I don’t think Trump’s tossing Don Junior under the bus. Trump just doesn’t think when he sends these tweets. This one could have ramifications.

        1. Would it have the same ramifications as when he tweeted the exact same thing in July 2017?

            1. It’s on Twitter. 7/17/2017. I don’t know how to link to it.

        2. “Junior, I dropped my wallet under that bus over there. Would you mind getting it for me?”

        3. If only Trump had sought the advice of his campaign counsel, Don McGahn, he might have avoided the kompromat trap that Rob Goldstone and The Agalarov’s had set for him at the Trump Tower meeting. Unless, of course, McGahn also approved of the Trump Tower meeting. But I seriously doubt that.

          Why didn’t Manafort see it coming? Or did he?

      2. “With an agreement to pardon Don, Jr.?”

        Get ready for but “Clinton pardoned Roger”. They see an inch and take a foot.

    1. More crazy from our favorite fruitloop Oky Wan Infowars. Good for a laugh.

    1. Mespo, the problem I am having with the entire scope of events is that the President has virtually complete legal control over the executive branch. However, he cannot control the politics. Both the legal aspect and the political aspect seem to have merged in certain areas creating a new type of “law”. He can fire Rosenstein but that does not end the special prosecutor until a person in Rosenstein’s position directly fires Mueller. Can he directly fire the Special Counsel? The Special Counsel appears to be directly under the control of the executive branch. That is where it political “law” seems to enter the picture.

      Other Presidents have done far worse but they had the support of their party when they were elected. Trump never had that type of support so he seems to be more at the mercy of the political “law” that exists. A lot of the rhetoric we read and listen to enhances the merger of the law and political “law” confusing the issue and some of Professor Turley’s rhetoric does that as well. Are you able to slice the two apart cleanly or do you find the edges too unclear to do so?

          1. So says Wildbill who has seldom been able to back up anything he has said. It is more likely that wildbill is a raving Stalinist than Trump has a collusive relationship with the Russians.

            1. Allan, the Trump Tower meeting, itself, just so happens to be but one instance of the kompromat that Putin has on Trump. If you really want to blather on and on about lawfare this, lawfare that, lawfare the other thing, then why not take a long hard look at the lawfare that Putin is, has been and will continue to wage against The POTUS, Trump?

              1. Nothing Trump or son did is wrong. It is done all the time. However, if money is exchanged which seems likely in the Clinton team exchanges, that is generally considered illegal.

        1. Yes, Lawfare is an appropriate consideration. Lawfare is being used elsewhere to restrict freedom of speech. However, sometimes Lawfare can be used against the perpetrators by engaging and going to court because that permits depositions into the internal workings of organizations that prefer their privacy because their private actions frequently reveal who they really are.

          1. Allan, “lawfare” is a portmanteau with the word “warfare.” Or, if you prefer, you could call it a folk etymology like “cheeseburger” in place of “hamburger.” Either way, lawfare is warfare by other means–most often, the use of law to provide “cover” for illegal acts of actual “shooting” warfare.

            1. Thank you Diane, for looking up the meaning of Lawfare and repeating it on the blog. Fortunately, I think most of us know what Lawfare is even though you looked it up.

          2. lawfare is an apt phrase that characterizes a large part of American life from big people down to small.

            lawfare is like gunfire. it aint goin away. better get good at it, because your time will come.
            and it’s a tool in everyone’s tool box eventually

            1. Mr. Kurtz, not to change the subject but CAIR uses a lot of Lawfare.

              This book “Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation” documents 150 cases and the book was given to all members of Congress. The idea behind lawfare is to silence critics. The solution is what was done in that sector where many got together to hire lawyers to protect those who were attacked with lawsuits and then deposition those that sued them since CAIR doesn’t want to reveal its inner workings.

      1. Allan, you’re basically saying that because Trump has no background in government, he is at the mercy of political forces.

        It happens in the corporate world as well. Sometimes when CEO’s are hired by companies outside their proven fields, they fail to get a handle on their new companies.

        That famously happened in Hollywood about 20 years ago. The most powerful Talent Agent in town was hired to run Disney Studios. But he quickly found that studios operate differently than agencies. And his inability to control Disney became a daily story in the trade papers; exposing him to endless embarrassment.

        1. Meanwhile, Trump lied to Congress in february, 2017.
          “When President Donald Trump gave his first address to a joint session of Congress in February of 2017, he claimed that “the vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country,” citing “data provided by the Department of Justice.”

          “Not only was that claim not true, but there was no data from the Department of Justice to back it up.”

          1. HollyWeird from Pedoville, (sick bast@rds the lot)

            Where did Mueller, head of the FBI before/After/, hide the evidence from 9/11/2001?

            Where’s a bunch of the Steel/Ruble/etc?

            Who were those people from Navy Intel in the Pentagon that died on 9/11/2001 & what were they investigating? ( Commie/Fascist Sen McCain ring a bell yet?)

            D Trump Jr tower meeting w/the FBI’s/Hillary/Obama’s Russian Agent…., Magnitsky Act?, Bill Browder & the fake Trump Russia investigation by the Commie/Fascist Mueller backed by authoritarian Demos/Rinos.

            Maybe the story isn’t widely known but it’s well known by many now.

          2. Was it a lie or something he thought was true but cannot be proven? Did anyone prove that his statement about where terrorism was coming from was wrong? If this is the type of drivel you deal with then it is no wonder you are an IYI.


                  1. Fool
                  2. Stupid
                  3. Shady
                  4. Joker
                  5. Raving Stalinist
                  6. IYI

                  Maybe someone could keep a running total.

                  1. Hollowood, keep in mind that you are the one that is called a fool, though stupid is also true. I don’t think I have used the words shady or joker. I doubt you would understand what a Stalinist is. That is above your league. Dhlii used IYI to describe you which was way above your pay grade.

                    You are a fool.

                    1. Allan,
                      I grow worried about you. You seem to be losing your memory. You should take the night off and rub bellies with your Mensa-wife. Or an inflatable woman if she’s not available.

                    2. It is so kind of you to worry Hollowood but no need. My memory is fine and perhaps that is why I am able to provide detail and you are not.

                      I leave the inflatable of your choice to you because you probably need one. With an inflatable you know in advance your IQ’s won’t be mismatched.

                    3. Were Allan anything other than Intelligent Yet Idiotic, and if Allan truly believed hollywood to be a fool then, instead of a lame riposte such as hollowood, Allan would come up with something clever like . . .

                      No. I can’t do it. And neither can AllanIYI.

                    4. Diane, you are not making much sense but as long as you don’t scream and fight the nurses won’t have to inject you with Thorazine.

          3. hollywood – so now you are going to back that up with figures taken at the same date as the SOTU? You have made the statement, back it up. I want figures, then a citation for your source(s).

            1. Lazy, lazy, lazy. Read the link.
              When President Donald Trump gave his first address to a joint session of Congress in February of 2017, he claimed that “the vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country,” citing “data provided by the Department of Justice.”
              The statement about immigrants and terrorism was false. [lie #1]
              The statement about DoJ “data” was false. [lie#2]
              It took a FOIA request that was denied and a lawsuit to get the government to admit there was no data whatsoever.

        2. Not quite Peter, but getting close. Trump doesn’t know the playbook or players as well as seasoned politicians do, but most politicians seem to be unaware of what makes America work.

          However, Trump has had a lot of experience with more local politicians where he has built his properties some of whom are likely in higher office today. He is not totally inexperienced and hit gut feelings seem better attuned than the politicians that test the wind every time they vote.

          By the way, Peter, did you ever find out exactly what that Y-axis on the graph, you felt important, meant?

          1. Allan, Trump has a lot of experience getting special tax incentives from New York City. In fact, a great deal of Trump’s fortune is owed to special tax breaks.

            Regarding that ‘Y-axis’, I don’t know what you’re referencing.

            1. Y-axis of the graph from the NYTimes you told everyone to look at because of its importance. I guess it wasn’t that important and you didn’t understand the graph.

              Tax incentives is how NYC controls what is built. All large developments can get tax incentives and other incentives if they do certain things NYC wants. You seem to know nothing about what you speak of.

              Let us take something you know a little about. Trump Tower. There is legal height to the building but if one provides a public space the building can be built higher. There is a public space within Trump Tower. There may also have been a tax incentive.

              NYC derives its tax base from development and what is developed. Therefore NYC will push for certain things in order to increase the tax rolls. Trump so happened to be one of the first willing to invest his money at the time NYC was considering bankruptcy. Overall, Trump has benefitted the city more than most people.

              1. Yeah Trump got his dad to finance purchase of the old Commodore Hotel back in 1980 and the city gave him like a 20 year tax break. Now that might have worked fine for both parties, but the fact remains that much of Trump’s fortune is due to tax breaks. Therefore it’s odd when Trump comes to Washington with a zeal to destroy government.

  7. Paul, Maybe reading dictionary from start to finish will help Late4Yoga get over the HRC 2016 election loss.

    1. I’ve been glad that Hillary lost ever since it happened. But Tab Lockheed and Caviler Schulteacher are perfectly welcome to get started on reading the dictionary from A to Z, anyhow..

      1. Instead of reading from A to Z i just went straight to the definition of the word that best describes Late4Yoga’s Trump derangement condition:

        1. deriving from or affected by uncontrolled extreme emotion.

  8. Mule Er, Mule Er, Bo Buler…
    Banana fanna fo Fueler
    Fee fi mo Mule Er
    iIf the first two letters are ever the same..
    You drop them both and say the name like Bob, Bob
    Friggin F so Bob or Larry, Larry is so hairy
    That’s the only rule that is contrary.

  9. However, I supported the appointment of a Special Counsel and I believe Mueller should be allowed to finish his work unimpeded.

    ORDER NO. 3915-2017 In part reads:
    The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI
    Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
    Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
    (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
    (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
    (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
    (c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
    authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

    Are there any objective limits to the SC’s investigation? The fact is, the scope of the SC authority is so broad that if Mueller wasn’t careful he could pull a thread and find himself on the other end of it.

    1. Left media used to be civil libertarians which was their only redeeming quality. Now they pick and choose whose civil liberties suit their big picture leftist cause. It is shocking that Muler has taken Manafort to trial vs. a more appropriate referral if he came across new information relating to cold case 2005 tax matter. Where is the outrage from left media at Muler using his resources on a 2005 tax issue when mandate was to investigate Russia meddling in 2016 election?

      1. Nat Hentoff is dead, sad to say. Alan Dershowitz and Jerilyn Merritt remain civil libertarians in that sense. Dershowitz sees his 80th birthday this year and Merritt her 70th.

        People who’ve been subject to these investigations or adjacent to those who have tend to be skeptical of special prosecutors regardless of party. When Kenneth Starr’s office brought a particularly ill considered action, Marlin FitzWater, who’d been White House press secretary to the Walsh investigations had this to say: “It’s this law. That’s what this law does to people”. One critic of Mueller is Mark Penn, who had a front-row seat during the Starr investigation. Walsh and Starr had actual crimes to investigate at the beginning, then went off the rails. Starr has said he had some regrets about decisions he made. Walsh never did. We need a world where prosecutors don’t get their ego invested in cases, and one way to contain that tendency is for them to have other claims on their time and attention. The problem with special prosecutor investigations is that that constraint is taken away.

        1. Teachings “We need a world where prosecutors don’t get their ego invested in cases..”. Good point, and this is true at all levels from Federal down to state/local. This is a chronic systematic problem.

        2. “Nat Hentoff is dead”

          A great loss even though he was on the other side of the aisle. Today he would probably make comments that would cause the leftist crazies to hound him while he ate breakfast.

    2. Olly,…
      – that ” any matters that arose or may arise” seems pretty open-ended.
      I think Rosenstein modified or expanded the directive to Mueller this spring, but I’d have to check on the specifics.
      It looks like Mueller can do anything Rosenstein authorizes him to do, so absent court intervention, there’s little to rein them in with Sessions’ recusal.

    1. Dear Ms. Late 4 Yoga: “It’s just a fantasy, it’s not the real thing. Sometimes a fantasy is all you need….”

      1. It’s the exact same article to which Turley linked in the hypertext of his original post for this thread.

        Go read Turley. And try to keep up.

  10. Damage already done prior to this recent development. Rat Ron Rosenstein panicked and set up this creepy crawling investigation with no specific probable cause. Rat Ron Rosenstein protecting his bad decision and Legacy Building Bob Muler trying to score points at any cost (i.e. Manafort Persecution). Irony is that Manafort’s old Ukrainian dealings were brought to the surface through DRC collusion with Ukrainian officials in summer of 2016 which led to his firing by Trump. Anything wrong with this picture?

      1. OMG Late 4 Dinner: You quoting fired opportunist Sebastion Gorka’s media comments is the desperation.

      1. Dear Late: You have resorted to your old bad habits of randomly pulling obscure articles to make some point that remains in your head but not expressed concisely using your words and your logic. Its enough for us to check out the Jon Turley Hype Machine to read what he has posted. We don’t need you acting like some lefty loon version of Drudge by posting lefty leaning articles for us to read. Honey, you’ve been spinning your wheels for too long following HRC 2016 loss. Have you considered taking a walk around the block, going to church, etc?

        1. Tab Lockheed said, “Irony is that Manafort’s old Ukrainian dealings were brought to the surface through DRC collusion with Ukrainian officials in summer of 2016 which led to his firing by Trump.”

          Tab Lockheed also said, “We don’t need you acting like some lefty loon version of Drudge by posting lefty leaning articles for us to read.”

          For those of you still keeping score at home, Tab Lockheed just admitted that he got his ironic observation about DNC “collusion” with Ukrainian officials dredging up Manafort’s old Ukrainian dealings from a lefty loon article published by left leaning Politico on January 1st, 2017.

          1. I don’t get the “Tab Lockheed” reference so we can consider that an uncatchable pass. Looks like we agree that DNC colluded with Ukraine officials. Big question that comes to mind is why is that meaningful meeting(s) not being analyzed by the media to the nauseating extent that they are covering meaningless Don Jr. Trump Tower meeting?

    1. Probable cause is only needed to make an arrest or get a search warrant.

      Reasonable suspicion is what is needed for police to investigate something.

      Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause.

      1. Neither reasonable suspicion nor probable cause laid out at start of Muler Witch Hunt.

        1. Reasonable suspicion was created when George Papadopoulos bragged to Australia’s ambassador that Russia was going to share dirt on Clinton.

          There has been reasonable suspicion of Trump’s knowledge of Russia’s crimes since at least 2016.

          1. Reasonable suspicion relating to DNC meeting(s) with Ukrainian officials in Summer 2016 and HRC campaign payments (actual payment$) to British/Russian operatives completely overlooked by un-special counsel and left media.

        2. That Mr. Mueller to you. He’s a combat wounded Marine. He’s incorruptible.

          1. MarcoZandrini – Audie Murphy was the most decorated soldier in US history but it did not make him a great actor. 😉

          2. Marco,…
            – John Mitchell was a heavily decorated Navy officer… addition to 2 Purple Hearts, I think he was also awarded the Silver Star.
            Few people were aware of Mitchell’s WWII record, and he himself downplayed it.
            Did what he did in WWII make him “incorruptible” 25-30 years later?

            1. Or hell TN – if you wanna bring up the Navy look at the McStain legacy. Father covered up USS Liberty attack and protected son who killed a bunch of people on the USS Forrester and then came home as a “hero” only to seal off the records so those grieving folks seeking closure who still had MIA/POWs in Nam couldn’t try to find them.


              1. Nah, he was woke after having wasted time, energy life and blood. You are aware of the Bonus Army debacle right?? We love our military peeps til it comes to pay up. F*ck the banks and MIC

                1. “F*ck the banks and MIC”, you are so edgy. Read any new good conspiracies lately.

          3. Repeat after left media: “Bob Muler is beyond reproach” until you believe everything he does unconditionally with no challenge to his creepy crawling investigation. It is commendable that he is combat wounded marine but that does not excuse him from public scrutiny of investigation.

          4. i used to party with a combat wounded marine who was a very dubious fellow. he gave meaning to the words “teufel hunden” but not always in a good way

            Meuller is an old fart and the sooner he blows away in the breeze the better

        3. False, but typical.

          this is to “but hannity says it every day” billie

      1. L4D still enables David Benson – what does your link have to do with Mueller being supervised?

        1. Mueller is being supervised by the DoJ and the courts.

          So far, not a single motion he has filed has been overruled, and no indictments have been thrown out.

          1. Marry – sadly, the DoJ is not supervising him and the courts are rubber-stamping him.

        2. Paul said, “I want to those logs.”

          Paul also asked, “What does your link have to do with Mueller being supervised?”

          The logs you want are likely to contain numerous records from Mueller’s grand jury proceedings. You don’t get those logs before Mueller presents his final report, orr until pretrial discovery begins for Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner.

          1. L4D still enables David Benson – I want proof he is being supervised, not unsupervised or the one doing the supervision. Those would be in Rosenstein’s logs.

    1. PC Schulte…
      According to Trump, there is no log book.
      Rosenstein OKed the use of the guidelines for Mueller spelled out in the 1647 book by Matthew Hopkins.
      ( Vincent Price did a 1968 movie, loosely based on the life of Hopkins)

      1. MarcoZandrini – how do you know what I deserve or don’t deserve? Only I know that!

        1. Anyone who reads Paul’s comments on this blawg knows full well that Paul deserves to be punished just as relentlessly and mercilessly as Paul punishes this blawg.

          1. L4D still enables David Benson – we were not talking about punishment, we were talking about information. Do you have a fetish of some sort?

            1. You were talking about what you deserve or don’t deserve. I gave the most obvious example. Now go get Rosenstein’s logs from Dr. Benson.

              1. L4D still enables David Benson – Goodness you are feisty this morning. Got a burr under your saddle?

    1. The term is ‘beyond the Pale” and my statement is actually rather bland. Change your Depends.

  11. 1. The number of ‘independent agencies’ in the federal executive should be around about zero.

    2. There’s a wretched excess of subcabinet positions intervening between department secretaries and bureau chiefs.

    3. There are far to many positions subject to advise and consent.

    4. Ideally, advice and consent in re federal district judges and U.S. Attorneys would be distributed to state legislatures.

    1. Hopefully you are not in any position of authority re the appointment of the judiciary.

    2. Spas, are you a strong believer in the “fuehrer principle,” as once strongly advocated by you-know-who? That is, per Wiki: “The ideology of the Führerprinzip sees each organization as a hierarchy of leaders, where every leader (Führer, in German) has absolute responsibility in his own area, demands absolute obedience from those below him and answers only to his superiors.[2] This required obedience and loyalty even over concerns of right and wrong.”

      1. I take it you’re a strong believer in uttering defamatory non sequiturs.

        1. I’m just asking questions. Your points 1-4 above sound a lot like the fuehrer principle. Total obedience to those above, total control over those below.

          1. Jay, it’s a set of remarks on the organization of the federal government. I cannot help it if your reading comprehension is zero.

      2. Jay that is kid stuff. Try Carl Schmitt’s “Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy”
        you may find it interesting but most people are too impatient

    3. And on what do you base these assertions? There are independent agencies for a simple reason: prevention of influence by a particular Department. My wife is a retired federal government attorney. She worked for an independent agency that heard OSHA cases. When OSHA was created her agency, OSHRC, was created so that the Department of Labor would have no influence over handling of cases.

      1. There are ‘independent agencies’ because Congress is sloppy and riven with turf protectors. I hate to break it to you, but OSHA is a component of the Department of Labor.

    1. Hey you cheap bast@rd, The CDC is now telling you Pedowood freaks of the universe to stop reusing condoms because you’re/you people likely to stupid to remember if you turned your last condom inside out from the last time.

      Now, tell us more about your Felony Child about your Pedophile friends you’re cover for & supporting, after all you’re already exposed as is your IP address & all ears of white hat intel are upon you.

      1. Aside from the typos, you people are done I believe Hollyweird from Pedowood.

        Just a thought, you creeps have lost the narrative & you people should take the hint you’ve lost the crowd & leave before the crowd turns on you people as they likely will.


        1. L4D still enables David Benson – I know Q is real when so many liberals try to take him/her/them down. Seems rather coordinated doesn’t it?

          1. We liberals aren’t trying to take him/her/it down. We’re ridiculing it for his/her/its stooopidity and lack of reality. See, that was simple.

            1. MarcoZandrini – that is trying to take Q down. It won’t work. It might stop new people joining, but it is not going to cause old people to leave. You have much to learn about how movements work.

              1. Paul, it’s not only Liberals debunking Q – it’s Indies as well – both Right and Left. Most consider Q to be “controlled oppostion” to placate some of theTrumpsters who otherwise would be upset with him. The 22D chess or whatever assure them that is there a plan =)

          2. Paul said, “I know Q is real . . .”

            Then why are you so keen on taking Mueller down?

            Wait. I get it. You haven’t the faintest idea what Q says about Mueller. Do you?

            1. L4D still enables David Benson – should I care what Q says about Mueller?

              1. Q says Trump appointed Mueller to investigate Clinton, Obama and The Liberal Elitists who are corrupting the morals of the youth the same way Socrates did way back when.

                1. L4D still enables David Benson – so you’re a Qanon then. Who would have thought it.

  12. Are you out of your mind Turley?

    Bill Browder?

    You’re sleeping with that dog & others.


    Turley, as I was trained, we are better off to face reality today then lie & become compromised as you now appear to be. Turn now I suggest for your Rep & your family!!!!

    Just Phkin Do it! That’s as I see it.


  13. Turley,

    Without all the background & just reading the first 2 lines of you’re comments, so you’re just fine with Hitlers people saying/doing/gas the phfin Jews & others?

    Can you even hear what you a saying???

    As a friend, I think you’re now a very dislodged troubled man.

    BTW: as a Friend, I hate the spread of intentional cancer, think G5, not if but when, your/others, have to deal with the cancers, get your azzes down to Cancer Treatment of American, & politely rising helling for the best treatment for yourselfs or your loved ones.

    If not Phk it just get your family & close friends another round of Vaccines!!!! LOL

    1. The Cambridge English Dictionary definition of argot: words and expressions that are used by small groups of people and that are not easily understood by other people:

      Example–thieves’ argot.

    2. Merriam Webster Dictionary definition of argot: the language used by a particular type or group of people : an often more or less secret vocabulary and idiom peculiar to a particular group ·

      Example–He has been bombarded by thousands of scathing messages—known as being “flamed” in the argot of cyberspace.
      —Peter H. Lewis

    3. From the Wikipedia article on argot:

      An argot (English: /ˈɑːrɡoʊ/; from French argot [aʁˈɡo] ‘slang’) is a secret language used by various groups—e.g., schoolmates, outlaws, colleagues, among many others—to prevent outsiders from understanding their conversations.

    4. From the Wikipedia article on ergotism:

      Ergotism (pron. /ˈɜːrɡətˌɪzəm/ UR-gət-iz-əm) is the effect of long-term ergot poisoning, traditionally due to the ingestion of the alkaloids produced by the Claviceps purpurea fungus that infects rye and other cereals, and more recently by the action of a number of ergoline-based drugs. It is also known as ergotoxicosis, ergot poisoning and Saint Anthony’s Fire.

        1. lmk where i can get my occasional dose. i’m “jonesing” since he censored from youtube.

      1. L4D still enables David Benson – you learn new word, you learned a new word. I am writing that is a singy-song manner.

        1. Your sing-song manner reads like a Garo Yepremian impersonation. “I kick touchdown! I kick touchdown!”

Comments are closed.