Criminal Tweets: Trump Critics Should Not Respond To Acts Of “Fake News” With Fake Law

Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the latest “smoking gun” of obstruction in the form of Trump tweets.  There continues to be a categorical refusal of many to acknowledge the implications of the interpretation being advanced to implicate Trump.  There is also a failure to acknowledge that the Clinton campaign received more information was Russian sources, including Russian intelligence figures. The difference is the Clinton people were smart enough to use a cut out in the form of a former British spy.

While advocates continue to maintain that agreeing to go to a meeting to review promised evidence of crimes is a federal election violation, no case like this has ever resulted in a conviction that I know of.  Indeed, I do not know of any case remotely similar to this case as being brought.  The First Amendment implications should bar any such prosecution.

Here is the column:

 

President Trump has ignited yet another firestorm with a tweet admitting that the meeting in Trump Tower between Russians and his son, Donald Trump Jr., was an effort to gather dirt on Hillary Clinton. It contradicts the statement that Trump released to the media in 2016.

CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota and others declared that the tweet makes a criminal charge against Trump an “open and shut case.” It does not. It is not even compelling evidence of a crime, because it is based on an erroneous interpretation of federal election laws. What is most alarming is the failure, again, to consider the implications of radically expanding the scope of such laws just to bag Trump or his family at any cost.

Early on Sunday morning, Trump tweeted, “Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics — and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!” At the outset, there are a couple glaring problems with these public statements.First, this is not “fake news” but serious news created by Trump and his team in issuing a clearly misleading statement to the New York Times, then issuing a false statement denying that Trump drafted the statement to the media. Trump attorney Jay Sekulow stated categorically that Trump had no role in issuing the statement that the meeting was only about “a program about the adoption of Russian children.” Sekulow belatedly addressed that over the weekend with the equivalent of a shrug and a statement that “in a situation like this, over time, facts develop.” He added, “That is what investigations do.” The problem is that Sekulow is not investigating his client but supposedly talking to him. The facts do not develop from a “no” to a “yes.” The answer simply changed.

Second, the president is only partially correct in saying that the meeting with Trump Jr. is “done all the time in politics.” The media has largely ignored that Hillary Clinton and her campaign spent a huge amount of money to fund the efforts of former British spy Christopher Steele to gather dirt on Trump, including information from the Russian government and intelligence figures. All of the outcries and expressions of shock by Democratic leaders over the Trump Tower meeting ignores the more extensive contacts and efforts by the Clinton campaign.

However, this particular meeting is not “done all the time” because it was uniquely dumb. Trump Jr. pulled Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafortand Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner into a meeting with unknown participants connected to the Russian government in Trump Tower as members of the media meandered around downstairs. The irony is that the Clintons showed how this is “done all the time” with cutouts and third parties like Steele. Indeed, despite denials during and after the campaign, the Clinton team only admitted to funding the dossier after the media stumbled onto the paper trail long after the election. When caught, they simply declared it was done all the time as “opposition research.”

The point is that only amateurs would take a meeting after a cryptic email from a music promoter about having Russian government evidence. They should have informed the FBI and used lawyers as surrogates. They should have done many things other than assemble the Trump triumvirate and walk blindly into that meeting. If stupidity were a crime, Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner would serve life sentences for doing so. However, crimes are defined by acts and levels of intent. More importantly, courts narrowly construe such definitions to protect the public from ambiguous rules that prosecutors can twist to indict anyone at any time.

Take the crime being proclaimed as “open and shut.” Before Camerota came to this conclusion, the CNN anchors discussed federal election laws that make it a “crime for any person to solicit, accept, or receive, anything of value from a foreign person or U.S. political campaign for the purpose of influencing any elections for federal office.” Thus, if Trump Jr. was willing to review evidence of criminal conduct by Clinton, it must be a type of foreign campaign contribution and, therefore, a federal crime.

Such logic is so inescapable that Camerota responded, “I mean, what more really is there to talk about after that one?” The answer is “a lot more.” The Russians setting up the meeting said their government had evidence of criminal conduct connected to the Clinton Foundation soliciting illegal donations. According to witnesses, Trump Jr. asked for the promised evidence but Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya said she did not have it and only wanted to talk about Magnitsky Act limitations on Russian adoptions. The meeting ended shortly thereafter.

If the Russians had evidence of criminal conduct by Hillary Clinton, her campaign or her family foundation, the Trump campaign had every reason to want to know about it. That is precisely what the Clinton campaign spent millions to do, talking to Russians and other foreigners investigating Trump. Indeed, under this interpretation of federal election laws, Clinton and her surrogates would be equally guilty in using a former foreign spy to gather information on Trump from foreign sources, including Russians.

Consider the implications of what the critics are suggesting. It would mean treating information as a form of political contribution as no different from money, for purposes of a criminal charge, even information about criminal acts by an election candidate. That would mean administrations could prosecute political opponents for merely attending meetings with foreign individuals to discuss the criminal conduct of a sitting American president. Democratic politicians could be charged if they reviewed evidence of alleged bribes or quid pro quos by Trump.

Indeed, it could be any foreign source, since the law is ambiguous. Does that not include foreign organizations like environmental and other public interest groups? How about journalists or lawyers sharing evidence of crimes by powerful politicians? Fortunately, courts likely would reject such an interpretation as a major threat to First Amendment freedoms of speech and even the press. So why are so many journalists and activists blind to implications of such an expansion? The answer is rage. We live in the age of rage, from Trump tweets to cable news crusades.

The latest media frenzy is part of the Newtonian principles that now guide both politics and journalism: “To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction.” However, journalists and lawyers are trained to avoid immediate involuntary reactions, particularly when the potential costs are so prohibitive. Responding to a sweeping political tweet with a sweeping legal interpretation is neither equal nor wise. In the end, the Trump Tower controversy is not based on “fake news” as claimed by the president, but the federal crime alleged by the media is based on fake law.

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

444 thoughts on “Criminal Tweets: Trump Critics Should Not Respond To Acts Of “Fake News” With Fake Law”

    1. Squeeky, your reply got separated from the comment. I can’t tell which shill you are talking about. I assume Peter but it could be another. I’m waiting to see if he can tell us how the Republican Party abandoned him when it moved leftwards and now he is a leftward Democrat.

      1. I got tired of the skinny nesting, sooo I took it up top. I am referring to hollowood at this time, and heck let’s throw Peter Shill and “Angah” in, too.

        Now, lets step back and look at this scenario.

        A law professor, with actual courtroom experience say the Tower Meeting is no biggie, and not a crime.

        Then, a law student, who hasn’t passed the bar yet, writes that it is, and finds four law professors to chime in, but they have to add other acts, which apparently do not exist, in to make the meeting a crime.

        Here come the DNC shills,or DNC morons, whichever is the case, and they are unable to articulate why the meeting is a crime. Which means that they are just taking that proposition on faith, on reliance on a legal authority.

        But which authority do they choose? The Professor here, who has actual courtroom experience, or a law student? BINGO! You got it! The law student who hasn’t passed the bar yet, and has zero real world experience!

        Which means at the very least hollowood, Peter Shill, and Angah’ are dumb, and just confirming their own biases. Or, they are lying shills who could care less what lies and deceptions they spread.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Squeeky,

          a couple issues:

          Do you think Mueller, (like the Nazi German name W/Dulles/Hitlers money/etc…./, or Rosenstein is the Pitcher or the other is the Catchers.

          I sense they’re both Catchers.

          Speaking of DJT Jr’s Tower meeting… DNC/Hillary’s/Obama’s/ Onama’s DOJ/FBI’s Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya & their Magnitsky of the Magnitsky Act, Magnisky’s Boss, CIA’s/Brenning’s(sic),& the Rest of the US’s intel repoting to the Busk/Clinton’s/Deep State Mafia/ Obama’s Russan Ambassador & all related to Deep State’s “Insurance Policy” & their ” Hail Mary Pass”! LOL:)

          “A law professor, with actual courtroom experience say the Tower Meeting is no biggie, and not a crime.”

          No biggie for DJT or Jr..

          But Rosenstein/Mueller might better contact Houston as they’ve muitiple problems.

          Sedition, Espionage, among a few.

            1. Oky1 – so, we have a major source in the US who is a Russian who has now disappeared. Hnmmmmmm??????

              1. Paul,

                The writer from the Hill Article, John Solomon, I believe was the same guy I heard on Mark Levin last night.

                And they’ve not banned Levi

                The audio was a pretty good show I thought & the the relevant interview with Solomon was around 1/2 way through.

                1. Hollowood, it is not you who is dismissing us rather it is you that can’t keep up and keep falling behind. There is nothing wrong with an intellect that is a bit slow. Your problem is you act like a fool.l.

                2. Here, let me translate that ego defense mechanism for you!

                  “Damn! These conservatives here are wicked smart, and they are showing me up as un-informed at the least, and truly stupid at the worst. Pointing out how I chose a law student over a full grown law professor. Damn, I fell right into that one! Or, they are proving me just a lying shill. I am heading back to the leftie echo chambers, where I don’t have to think, and keep up. Owwww, my head hurts! Owwww, I got butthurtz, too! Mommmmmiiieee!”

                  You’re welcome!

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

  1. People think I’m somebody named Inga? And they are actually looking thru these comments to compare times that certain comments posted? This is a good window into how conspiracy minded people weave together unconnected dots to create a nonsense conspiracy which other people then buy into. It’s also how Trump, Jones, the Fox evening hosts etc., do it.

    That’s pretty nutty but it was interesting to see how people go down the yellow brick road straight into crazy.

    I’ve been here for a short while, a month or so, but I’m heading back to Kansas.

    1. This is a good window into how conspiracy minded people weave together unconnected dots to create a nonsense conspiracy which other people then buy into.

      You don’t say.

      The pee tape story is a paragraph or two in a far larger series of memos. It got all the attention but it’s a tiny part of the overall dossier. Also, you don’t know if it’s true or not.

      That’s pretty nutty but it was interesting to see how people go down the yellow brick road straight into crazy.

      I’ve been here for a short while, a month or so, but I’m heading back to Kansas.

      LOL! Yellow brick road? Kansas? Thank you Dorothy for letting Annie come out and play. 🙂

      1. You miss her point, Olly, as you do so many other’s.

        Read her opening sentences:

        “People think I’m somebody named Inga? And they are actually looking thru these comments to compare times that certain comments posted?”

        The core commentator pool is very small here, given the traffic. Most people get out of the way of clown cars, because they know a crash is coming.

        This is why I only comment when the honking of the clown car is egregious, and to have some fun with the real trolls before they crash.

        1. R. Lien – you are welcome to add your vast knowledge to the core at any time. We have just yet to see anything substantial from you.

          1. You’ve added nothing substantial that I have read. PCS, in your whole time here.

            Well, o.k., with the exception of HRC getting $400M from Browder, Where did that argument go?

            Other than that, I’ve seen nothing from you except bravado and an ill-placed sense of importance.

            1. R. Lien – you evidently are not following along, which is sad because it shows your ignorance.

              1. I follow along more than you know, PCS.

                Again, you conflate reading posts with voluminous posting.

                Your comments are typically ill-informed; playing the role of red herrings, not to mention your propensity for non-sequesters.

                Much like this post of yours that I’m responding to.

                    1. R. Lien – if you can’t spell it, you can’t be it. That is what my old Papi used to say before he died.

                  1. PC Schulte,…
                    I saw the comment about your “voluminous posting”, and now have a better understanding of why R. Lein prefers L4D.
                    Obviously, it’s because L4D is so concise.😉

                    1. Krazy Kat Rambler said, “I . . . now have a better understanding of why R. Lein prefers L4D.”

                      I predict with high confidence that R. Lien will not spare L4D the rod indefinitely.

      2. @Annie:

        Some of these jokers seem to believe that I’m R. Lien, Diane — and possibly Late4Dinner (L4D). And now, I guess I’m Inga — or the old Annie — or you. It’s hard to keep their delusions straight.

        1. Who’d’ve thunk that there might be more than one English speaker in this world whose parents had named her Annie and that at least two of them have posted comments on the Turley blawg, albeit, however many years apart? The odds in favor of those two consecutive events must be staggering. Why didn’t I see this coming? Even Krazy Kat Rambler could’ve predicted it, if only he’d ever allow himself to predict something, anything at all.

          The poor schnook. (The new Annie, that is) She could not possibly have had any idea whatsoever about the criminal inanity amidst which she posted her comment. Unless she had a crystal ball that Paul had not yet fogged up. Too late for that now, New Annie. And don’t worry about Paul ever catching on to the “avatar,” as Mr. Smith insists upon calling the little thumbnails alongside our comments.

          1. L4Yoga still enables David Benson – I follow everything by email so I do not get the little avatars unless I happen to see them after I post like I did with wildbill99.

            1. Your avatar is two shades of green. New Annie’s avatar is also two shades of green. The patterns are different, however. And that’s how we know that Paul is not Annie–unless Paul is deliberately misspelling his IP address as I will now demonstrate with this post

              1. Shifty Avatar – 1) I have no reason to misspell my IP address and 2) I would have no idea how to do it. I don’t even know what my IP address is. Can you check and see?

            1. Maybe New Annie is not yet old enough to perceive the wisdom of reversion to childhood. Or maybe her employer expects her to be a responsible, mature, adult-type persona. They say that the Old Annie was retired and would have understood.

    2. Yeah, they are. It’s a Paul C Schulte (PCS) meme that others have bought into. It goes back years from my limited understanding

      I knew you’d be called out, which, really, is the only reason I posted anything in this logic-forsaken place today.

      They also think I’m Annie/Inga/Diane/anonymous/L4D…

      Carry on, you’ll be fine.

        1. What a stupendous, game-changing comment, PCS.

          It obviously is the epitome of your mental processes–for better or worse–in your crusade to convince everyone that all comments that cut your grain come from one source: the diabolical Annie/Inga, aka anonymous, L4D, Diane, me…

          What a chump.

          1. R. Lien – ow, that really hurt. I haven’t been that badly burned in years. I am going to have to find some salve to cover that burn. Geez, you are a wordsmith. There is no way I can compete with you. If you were on here regularly I would be in the intensive care burn ward. Lucky me. Thank you for staying away and probably saving my life.

            1. Don’t honk the clown car horn too much, PCS. You might draw attention to the irrelevance of your contributions.

            2. PC Schulte,…
              – Since R. Lean brought up the issue of “clusters”, did you notice that R. lein and anonymous are tag-teaming here?😯
              ( You can check the “Recent Comments” section).
              I wouldn’t have really thought about had eagle-eye R. Lein brought it up, so we owe R.Lein a debt of gratitude for this and other valuable contribution.😆
              I hope you’re holding up OK under these withering attacks, Paul.😕Bad enough to contend with one commentator with permanent PMS, but when two similarly afflicted commentators team up….that’s the stuff of a Stephen King horror novel.😯😖
              I know that “anonymous” has gone back and forth about my use of emojis, first complaining about them, then encouraging me to keep using them.
              I see that this is an issue with R. lein, as well.😦
              I wish R. lein had said something earlier, and I would have responded appropriately.😯😕😶
              I would have adjusted the number of emojis used, and the frequency of their use, accordingly.😃😉😄
              But now that I know that this is an issue with both anonymous and R. Lean, I have a better idea of how to communicate with them.😔😌😇😏

              1. Tom Nash – clearly symbology seems to work best for you. I only have two emoji. I was hoping you were going to tell me where you got all your extras.

                  1. Tom Nash – so you are going to keep your stash secret. That is okay. I can continue with just two, but I would really like that poop one. 🙂

                    1. PC Schulte…
                      Feel free to “lift” and use any of the emojis I’m using, if your computer can extract them for your use.
                      If you’re not able to do so, you should be able to download a bunch from the internet.
                      As you know, I limit their use when commenting to a few people here with emojiphobia.😊😀

              2. “Since R. Lean brought up the issue of “clusters”, did you notice that R. lein and anonymous are tag-teaming here?” T. Gnash

                I never brought up the issue of, nor wrote the word ‘cluster,’ T.Gnash. Point it out, link to it — you put it in quotes. Putting words in others mouths is a quick way to lose all credibility.

                Don’t know the difference between single and double quote usage? Too bad, maybe read up on it.

                Ohhh, tag-teaming. Yeah, that never happens between PCS, Squeek, you, Allan, Olly, et al.

                Everyone, except you jolly fools, are actually one person, who PCS saved this blog from years ago.

                Some day, T. Gnash, you’ll realize that this blog is pretty much available to the whole world, and that at times strangers post, much to your chagrin.

                1. R. Lien – I didn’t save this blog, I just exposed a lot of sock puppets on a particular day. Darren Smith saved the blog that day. 🙂

                2. There are now over 300 posts in this thread, not time-stamped and often in no particular order.
                  If R. lein thinks I’m going to waste time scrolling back through this mess to find his comment about 3 of us posting in near-sequence, R. lein is even dumber than I thought.
                  If anybody else wants to plow thru these comments to find it, have at it….the evening is young.

                  1. Again, T Gnash, you prove you don’t read, nor can you write.

                    All posts are time stamped, but beyond this you should be able to follow you own argument.

                    “… find his comment about 3 of us posting in near-sequence, R. lein is even dumber than I thought.” — T Gnash

                    I never stated anything remotely similar to, “… 3 of us posting in near-sequence.”

                    What I said is here, and refers to your use of the word ‘tag-team’:

                    https://jonathanturley.org/2018/08/09/criminal-tweets-trump-critics-should-not-respond-to-acts-of-fake-news-with-fake-law/comment-page-2/#comment-1769018

                    Of course the referenced post also points out how you attributed the word ‘cluster’ to me. So I can understand how you are confused.

                    1. They are not time-stamped on the devise I’m using, but I’d be interested in hearing who has time-stamped comments on their screen, and who does not.

                3. “Ohhh, tag-teaming. Yeah, that never happens between PCS, Squeek, you, Allan, Olly, et al.”

                  Tag teaming? No. Lien, you really have to be dumb. If you didn’t want me involved in these crazy back and forth games you wouldn’t have brought my name in. So dumb.

                    1. Look at the numerous times you involved me in your petty discussions where I was totally uninvolved. I rightfully asked if Diane was talking to herself and you weren’t smart enough to defuse the issue. That sounds like Diane.

                      No matter to me for both of the aliases are ignorant and worthless to discuss anything with. The Lien alias in particular, hasn’t added anything of value since it has been here. Totally worthless.

                    2. Until Allan has tried talking to himself, Allan has no basis for finding fault with the self-conversant.

                    3. Diane, as far as I am concerned you can talk to yourself and your aliases as much as you wish. The blather is no different from when you converse with anyone else, not terribly accurate or meaningful.

                  1. Allan,
                    There are individuals who make an issue out of “banding together” in groups of comments.
                    Now, no one said “banding together”….I use this as an expression, and that’s why the words are in quotation marks.
                    I used “cluster” in the same way, but R. Lein didn’t figure that out.
                    But when someone makes an issue out of commentators on the same side of an issue posting in close sequence….and that has happened before…..it comes across as a stupid, petty observation.
                    It also invites scrutiny of the posts from the person making that “an issue”, when they are posting in close sequence with ( in this recent case) fellow troll(s).

                    1. The whole issue is stupid Tom. Lien and Diane individually or together act like fools. They are destructive to a blog’s intellectual development if indeed they are the same individual. I don’t think honest people change their aliases on blogs such as this. Even if they are different people both have been guilty of changing their aliases.

                      I have an interest in how people act and respond so I casually follow this drivel though I would prefer intellectual discussion.

                4. I never said or inplied that this comments section was not open to anyone and everyone.
                  Your presence here proves that.
                  Nor did I ever deny that you were stranger than most.

              3. I was only pointing out, as anonymous discussed, that such copious usage is juvenile.

                Street translation: it makes you look stupid.

                But carry on to the best of your abilities, T Gnash.

                1. That’s what I referred to as a reference to a “cluster”…..since I just went through this backtracking and reconstructing of previous comments with someone else, I’m not inclined to spend time doing it again.
                  And I won’t even try to estimate the amount of wasted time with someone like L4D, reconstructing what was actually said vs. “the L4D version” of what was said; this turns into an endless game.
                  This is the most active I have ever seen R.Lein, so when you’re in your element, r. lein, discussing these major issues if the day like you’ve been doing here😃😄😀, you are at your most productive.
                  This is a continuing pattern with you, and why your contributions to these discussions are so highly valued.😀😂

                2. R. Lien – you don’t get into the Top Ten by being a voyeur. Annie/Inga always loved being in the Top Ten.

                  1. Paul,…
                    Thanks for the info on the timestamping.
                    For some reason, that feature disappeared on my smartphones when the new format was introduced.
                    I noted it the time, but no one said anything about the fact that they were still getting the timestamp.

                    1. Tom Nash – right now it is all time-stamped EDT. That kind of screws with me who is on MST. Still, I just take the comments in the order they come in my mailbox. 😉

        1. Another fool that buys into the PCS conspiracy of Annie/Inga/Diane/anonymous/L4D/me, being all one and the same.

          Except Allan wasn’t here during PCS’s genesis of such blather. Nor was he here when it was picked up by Olly, and then SOT/DSS/…TSTD.

          No, Allan’s sharp mind takes it as a matter of faith. Faith in commentators on a blog simply because he feels a kinship with their angst.

          Allan, who recently posted long excerpts without ‘his understanding’ prefaced nor suffixed. A trait he rails on other’s about as proof of their ignorance.

          Allan. while not steering the clown car, is riding shotgun.

          1. I can’t be sure who you are but this alias of yours is not the first. It matters little to me whether you are Diane, Late4 or any of the other bloggers that add nothing to the blog but stupid rhetoric. To me, you are all one of the same kind.

            1. I never really got very involved in the sock puppet identification game.
              I’m more concerned that R.Lein is a Ruskie.😦

              1. PC Schulte,..
                I got used to the Eastern Time Zone timestamp……when the timestamp disappeared on my device with the changeover, it made it more difficut to track comments; especially since you never know where the comments will be placed.

      1. Indeed,L4D, carry on. In time you may be able, as you put it, clear up ” Turley’s continues confusion on this same subject”, as well as using your website here to educate JT and others on all matters of election law, constitutional law, etc.
        Enjoy your fan club and enablers here…..maybe some other trolls will join the L4D fan club.

        1. When Trump is no longer POTUS, L4D will no longer post on Res Ipsa Loquitur. So pick one and stick with it.

          1. That looks like a win-win scenario in some respects.
            A. Trump goes, you go. ☺ Good outcome for the blog.
            B. Trump stays…and you, Natacha, et al are “all atwitter”, and continue to go ape and tear hour hair out, stamp your feet in rage. 😠. – An OK outcome, some entertainment value in watching the complete meltdowns

    3. You have to understand that PCS, Olly, T. Gnash, and a few others standing on the precipice, cannot understand how others can disagree with them.

      And, so, in the mythical ways of cults they have created Annie/Inga as a diabolical troll who spends her every waking hour posting here under a multitude of names.

      From their perspective it is entirely rational; from other’s, not so much.

      Don’t worry about it. I get accused of being the troll goddess every time I post also.

      1. R. Lien – you evidently were not here when Annie/Inga went bonkers and created 17 sock puppets in one day. L4Yoga and Annie/Inga have a similar style. To say that Annie/Inga and I have a history is to understate it.

        1. The “Annie” thing is obviously one of the most exciting things that’s ever happened to you, Paul. And you still see Annie/Inga everywhere.

          She “went bonkers and created 17 sock puppets in one day.” So says Paul.

          Catastrophe! (..said in French) Oh, what hell that must have been for you.

          And as far as your “history” with this person — and the rest of your exaggerations. It’s a freakin’ blog, Paul.

          1. anonymous – it was an unfun day and she did go bonkers. She has been suspended (disappeared) for a while but I did hear she was back under a new name. I do not know that to be true. I do know that L4D and she have the same style in some areas.

                1. As I said earlier, “Quelle horreur.” Such excitement for a day. Why it must have felt like “Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride.” And poor boy, you still haven’t recovered.

          2. “Catastrophe! (..said in French) Oh, what hell that must have been for you.”

            “Quelle horreur” would probably better describe it — from Paul’s point of view.

        2. I was, actually.

          I wasn’t commenting then, as I was just chuckling at the backslapping going on, which continues, amplified, to this day.

          In my recollection, Annie/Inga’s writing is far removed from L4D’s, not to mention L4D’s comments reflect current events.

          Actually, if I remember correctly, it was Nick Spinelli and Annie/Inga that were having a feud, dating back to Althouse’s blog — which I believe you’re aware of.

          For some reason, you were compelled to jump in.

          How do you know that Annie/Inga had 17 puppets in one day? Is this a number from where the sun doesn’t shine, or what?

          Again, someday you’ll realize that far more people read this blog than comment.

          You have consistently shown yourself to be lacking acumen, sound thought, and being overly impressed with yourself. You are in a vortex of your own making.

          Other’s will see you for the charlatan you are, rest assured.

          1. R. Lien – there were 17 because I uncovered many of them and Annie/Inga ‘fessed up to them. I see similarities and differences in the styles of L4D and Annie/Inga, so I am really tossed. Right now I am against it, but I have been for it.

            Nick and Annie’s fight was something I was not involved in so I cannot speak to it. I thought she was spending her time at Pansies for Pluto when she wasn’t here. I have never been to Althouse. I know there was a huge rift in this board just before I got here and I got caught in some of the backwash. Did you have a thing going with Annie/Inga? Is that why you are defending her?

            1. “Nick and Annie’s fight was something I was not involved in…” — PCS

              You were very involved in it, you spent much effort supporting Nick. I don’t care either way, but I do remember your involvement.

              “I see similarities and differences in the styles of L4D and Annie/Inga, so I am really tossed.” — PCS

              I see no similarities, and I have recently gone back and read many of Annie/Inga’s posts, and also your involvement, hence my reference above.

              So, if you’re “tossed” then maybe put your wacky theory to rest and grudgingly consider that probably most who disagree with you, and laugh at you, are people, not trolls from a past you forged for yourself.

              L4D sticks to the matter at hand, and her posts are not emotional; they are so far from Annie/Inga posts that you bring your lack of acumen into question. Do you really want to do that?

              It seems that you also accused posters of being Elaine M. Yes, you were the first to mention it, and you got slammed by people who actually know Elaine M.

              It seems you have a paranoid quality of reaction to what you read here. Deal with your ghosts on your own time.

              1. R. Lien – you are right about Elaine M. However, I was not really involved in the Althouse fight. I did support Nick though. If your purpose on here is to attack me, wouldn’t it be better to join the conversation? I have survived a lot of attacks while I have been on here, so I must have some importance. 😉

                1. “However, I was not really involved in the Althouse fight. I did support Nick though.” — PCS

                  So, let’s see:

                  1) You weren’t involved, yet:

                  2) You supported Nick.

                  That makes perfect sense, PCS. I’m sure you’ll elaborate at a future date.

                  And now you know why I don’t, “join the conservation.”

                  You lie until called to the carpet.

                  I much prefer watching you drive the clown car in circles, while occasionally yelling, ‘watch out’!


              2. “Nick and Annie’s fight was something I was not involved in…” — PCS

                You were very involved in it, you spent much effort supporting Nick. I don’t care either way, but I do remember your involvement.”

                This tells us Lien was on the blog when all that happened apparently a long time ago. Paul was the alias R Lien used at that time? If not, then one has to consider which alias Lien used for Lien doesn’t sound like a character that is silent or that disappeared for long periods of time. Lien needs more than one alias to become a full person.

                1. Allan – I do not remember an R. Lien at any time I was on the blawg. R. Lien should tell who he/she used to be when all this was going on. Now I am very curious since you (R. Lien) are taking a specific interest in the Annie/Inga-Nick debacle.

                  I am leaving for a couple of hours so I will not be back to answer immediately.

                  1. “Allan – I do not remember an R. Lien at any time I was on the blawg.”

                    That increases the evidence on your side Paul.

                    1. Allan – I do remember that Annie/Inga was very good at digging into the archives, something I never got around to learning to do.

          2. Still more issue- orientated posts from those ( two) anonymous commentators, dealing with the major issues of the day.
            Great contributions😶, as usual.

          3. R. Lein said, “How do you know that Annie/Inga had 17 puppets in one day? Is this a number from where the sun doesn’t shine, or what?”

            Speaking of current events, it has been reported that Trump spoke the word seventeen seventeen times last weekend, IIRC, and that the notorious letter Q is the seventeenth letter of the current Roman alphabet. Could it be, shall one suppose, that Paul Caviler Schulteacher is “Q” of Q-Anon fame? I doubt it.

            1. That’s nothing. Eddie Murphy’s character found the k suspiciously reappearing in the movie “Bowfinger”.
              He also understood the hidden meaning in the word “Shakespeare”.

                1. PC Schulte,..
                  – Both Steve Martin and Eddie Murphy were superb in their roles.
                  And I think Steve Martin was the sole author of the script….he came up with a genuinely original premise.

                  1. I loved the film crew how they progressed through the movie. First, they were just illegals and finally, they were reading high-quality industry mags. And “Rollergirl” literally slept her way through the cast and crew and then ended with a lesbian agent.

                    1. PC Schulte…, The “shake a spear” and “kkk” interpretations by Murphy really had me laughing.
                      The dog with shoes that terrified Murphy in the big parking garage was another one of my favorite scenes.
                      There were a lot of good, funny scenes, and the movie never “lagged” ….it was fast-pace from beginning to end.

                    2. Tom Nash – yes, Bowfinger is a classic. Now I am going to have to dig it out and watch it again. 😉

            2. L4Yoga still enables David Benson – I doubt that Paul is Q, too. I don’t have the time and I wouldn’t know where to find his channel on Reddit. I don’t know where to find Reddit, actually. 😉

      2. I don’t mind people disagreeing with me, and I do understand how one might be misguided enough to do so.😄
        I don’t see much in the way of substance from people like R. lein.
        Issues, at best are secondary to bitching and sniping.
        That’s not really “issues-based” disagreement, but if that is the limit of R. lein’s capabilities, that needs to be taken into consideration.😌

        1. “Issues, at best are secondary to bitching and sniping. That’s not really “issues-based” disagreement, but if that is the limit of R. lein’s capabilities, that needs to be taken into consideration.” — T. Gnash

          This was my point, idiot.

          You posted a multitude of times complaining about L4D and trollish behavior over the course of 2-3 days. You had nothing to say about ‘issues’ in your multi-day screed.

          You don’t remember?

          It was all you could post about, troll this, troll that, sucking on PCS’ filtered down one troll theory.

          You’re really clueless.

          1. The problem is that I read the comments here.
            I have a pretty good idea who is interested in a real exchange on issues, and the chronic bitchers.
            Overwhelmingly, you and Anonymous bitch and moan about someone else, and your posts are notable devoid of any substance.
            I try to give people the respect and consideration that they deserve, and that’s what I’ve done with you two slimy anonymous trolls.

          2. L4D’s hijacking of this website is a seperate issue, buy I recognize that she does have something of a fan club, and enablers.

              1. You must not be ready L4D’s comments, Anonymous.
                If you reading them, you sure hell don’t understand them.

          3. R. Lien – you are subsuming that I think that Annie/Inga is a troll, which I don’t. She carries on a better conversation than you do. There are lots of trolls on here.

              1. anonymous – here you go. I am pretty sure I used it correctly.

                subsume
                səbˈsjuːm/Submit
                verb
                gerund or present participle: subsuming
                include or absorb (something) in something else.
                “most of these phenomena can be subsumed under two broad categories”

                1. ” I am pretty sure I used it correctly.” – Paulie

                  Just as I’m pretty sure you didn’t. (But we know that you’re a self-described “polymath.”)

                    1. The only thing that makes Paul a polymath is his old Pappy’s saying that “You can’t be a Plymouth, if you can’t spell Plymouth.”

                      OTOH, Paul may be a avid reader. But he does not devour every book in his path. He has not yet read Weart. And he can’t get OED citations on his own.

                    2. L4Yoga still enables David Benson – I can get OED citations on my own, but I won’t when David Benson has a 5-minute walk to a perfectly good academic library with an OED in it. Besides, as I have told you, only David can tell us which of the many definitions is the one he specifically selected when he used it.

  2. lots of russian hate coming here these days
    russians can hate back
    dont miss it the fight we have all been waiting for

  3. @R. Lien

    My knife collection is fine, thank you for asking! My guitar collection is even better, since I just added the kewlest telecaster evah! String through! Modern bridge, with 3 brass saddles. Coil tapping on each pickup, so I have 8 tonal choices!

    https://michaelkellyguitars.com/en/products/view/53DB

    I think this shall be the only guitar I shall play for the next month or so. Except for my noodler.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeks…….Leapin’ Loquiturs, Bat Girl! I play keyboard! (have a fiddle but too old to resurect).
      Daddy has a barn, so let’s put on a show!!!!..LOL

      1. If I wasn’t such a private person. . .

        FWIW, if anybody here is thinking about taking up guitar, I highly recommend the Michael Kelly DB53. It is reasonably priced, and very high quality. The coil tapping allows you to use it like a Les Paul, and then pull up the knobs and it’s like a Telly. And, all the tones in between with various combinations. It is a very versatile guitar.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Paul ……You just passed your audition, son! Welcome!
          We had a stage with floodlights in our house when our daughter was growing up. Our daughter thought everyone did..We were always putting on shows and parties. My fave was our Watergate party of 1977. Our guests had to “break-in” to our house…so funny. We still have all of their fingerprints saved in a frame….Good times…. lol

          1. Cindy Bragg – I actually worked with a theatre group called The Barn Players. They had started in a barn and I saw them do The Monkey’s Paw there. Scared the pants off me. 😉 When I was with them they had two railroad cars put together and made a theatre out of that. Stage was ultra small. 🙂 Did two shows with them as an actor, several shows doing props, etc.

            1. Paul C…..I’ll bet you were good and had a blast! What a clever theater venue, also!
              Live theater is so much fun.
              My attorney husband had an idea for local fundraiser for high school scholarships for kids wanting to go to college. He talked the local bar assoc into doing a play each year, (that my hubby writes) The plays are based on actual historic murders that took place in our county. The members of bar, and actors, act out the stories and trials…..and let the audience be the jury. The locals here love it……hubby has now written 5 plays ….most stories/ trials are from 1880-1920. We have an old historic opera house here in our little town as the venue. The play has become an annual event. Some of the bar assoc..members had never acted before, and found a new talent in themselves. And raised a lot of money for a good cause.

              1. Cindy Bragg – your husband might look for a play called Where were you the night of January 15th? It is a murder mystery and you pick the jury from the audience. The ending of the play depends on the decision of the jury. 🙂

                1. Paul C…..thank you.. I’ll tell him. Until that first play, he had only written law books. But you know how the theater bug hits ya.
                  I was music director for Austin’s Melodrama Theater 35 years ago….fun, but I really love legit theater…the old plays that never fail..like you mentioned….Noel Coward, etc

    2. I’m so glad your knives are well.

      I own 23 guitars — some dating back to 1902. I play them all.

      Keep it up, it’s good for the soul.

      1. The oldest I have is a Kramer from the 80’s that my father gave me. I have it loaned out to a relative who is trying to learn to shred. I told her, “Get an Ibanez for that!”, but she is cheap.

        I have some really kewl guitars, including a Yamaha FG180 50th reissue that I got for my birthday a few years ago. My father and uncle gave me a few more. I tend to like semi-hollows, but this latest telecaster is just awesome. I can actually do the riff from After Dark on it! And then flip into that B Chord and slide up to whatever that other one is.

        I have another telly. a WalMart Sawtooth one made out of swamp ash that I got for $105 on sale. I have replaced the nut, and am trying to do the set up myself. But I can’t get it right. I bought a set of alnico 5 pickups for it, but I think I may go instead for a set of Duncan Quarter Pounders, or the Bill Lawrence ones.

        Then, I bought a brand new Cozart 12 string telecaster off EBay for $120, and got the brass nut for it. It is an amazing guitar, and absolutely beautiful. It is truly the Golden Age for reasonably priced guitars. I have some more expensive ones, like a G and L S-500 which you can feel the quality of it, but I figure I should stock up on the cheap ones while the prices are low. Come the Zombie Apocalypse, I figure busking will be in big demand.

        I am also exploring alternate tunings, which is pretty easy on my variaxe. Like Daddad, which is not on the variaxe.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo6wvM9mA7w

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

  4. Bill Plante, March 7:

    “Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?”

    Obama:

    “The same time everybody else learned it through news reports.”
    ____________________________________________________

    Lisa Page to Peter Strzok, “…POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing.”

    Lisa Page to Congress, “…the texts mean what the texts say.”

  5. The president hates chain migration and vows to end it.

    Two beneficiaries of chain migration were sworn in today as naturalized citizens.

    Guess who?

    Melania Trump’s parents.

    Can’t make it up.

      1. He doesn’t like chain migration for anyone, regardless of their status. But his in-laws are white, so he’s okay with that.

          1. OMG! The NYT article that anonymous posted was written by someone named . . . No. Wait. They’ll never figure it out.

        1. But his in-laws are white, so he’s okay with that.

          I’m going to go out on a limb and guess the In-Laws were not the only people sworn in as naturalized citizens today, this week, this month… I also would guess not all of them were white. Now I realize you would prefer a President that simply uses a pen and a phone to change the law, but President Trump won’t take that progressive bait.

  6. I had to leave about 4-5 hours ago when there were far fewer comments in this thread, with a lot of disagreements.
    In reviewing the ( many more) comments now, I’m glad to see that a consensus has been reached by all.😊😆😃😄

  7. This is how bad it’s getting for Trump’s enablers, but I get that they’re gonna hang on to the bitter end:

    Scaramucci to Wolf Blitzer on Trump and why his lawyers think it’s a bad idea for him to sit for an interview with Mueller: “His personality is such that he likes to embellish stories.”

    It’s quicker, easier, and more honest to say, “The president lies.” Try that, Mooch.

  8. Jon says: “The media has largely ignored that Hillary Clinton and her campaign spent a huge amount of money to fund the efforts of former British spy Christopher Steele to gather dirt on Trump, including information from the Russian government and intelligence figures. All of the outcries and expressions of shock by Democratic leaders over the Trump Tower meeting ignores the more extensive contacts and efforts by the Clinton campaign.”

    Jon and other pro-Trumpers ignore the fact that the Steele investigation was started by a Republican opponent of Trump, and was well-developed, but not complete, when Trump got the nomination, at which time his Republican rival decided not to further fund it, but instead offered it to the Clinton campaign. The Clinton campaign merely took it over. The Clinton campaign did not instigate the investigation.

    Jon also says: “Consider the implications of what the critics are suggesting. It would mean treating information as a form of political contribution as no different from money, for purposes of a criminal charge, even information about criminal acts by an election candidate. That would mean administrations could prosecute political opponents for merely attending meetings with foreign individuals to discuss the criminal conduct of a sitting American president. Democratic politicians could be charged if they reviewed evidence of alleged bribes or quid pro quos by Trump.”.

    This over-simplified view of the picture ignores the fact that Russians actively interfered in our election for the specific purpose of helping Trump win. They pandered to prejudices to divide and conquer. That is the key fact missing from this analysis: the purpose of the meeting was to convey dirt on HRC, and who knows what else. Since Trump, et al, are proven to have lied about the purpose and contents of this meeting, they cannot be trusted with anything they say now. Then, there’s the money laundering evidence, the ties of Trump campaign officials with Russian oligarchs, and who knows what other evidence the public doesn’t know about this entire scandal. The conduct of HRC’s campaign is by no means comparable to that of Trump’s campaign. Russians didn’t contact HRC’s campaign to offer useful dirt on Trump.

    Another thing we’ve learned this week is that Jon’s advocacy for Trump and Republicans pays well: fancy Hawaiian vacations.

    1. The Steele investigation was not started by a Republican, but cling to that belief if you need to.
      Steele started his dossier in June 2016….the oppo. research on Trump funded by Paul Singer / Washington Free Beacon had already ceased.
      But even IF that lie is to be believed, it simply would mean that Singer shares the blame for the dossier.

      1. The point was: the HRC campaign did not initiate the Steele investigation. What is there about the Steele investigation that is blameworthy, anyway? The facts he has uncovered so far are true, and the FBI already knew about them.

          1. The pee tape story is a paragraph or two in a far larger series of memos. It got all the attention but it’s a tiny part of the overall dossier. Also, you don’t know if it’s true or not.

        1. Through internediaries, the DNC/Hillary Campaign Fund commissioned and paid for the Russian Dossier.
          The reason it went through so many different channels is that the DNC/ Hillary Campaign did not want their role in this project exposed.
          For that same reason, it took a year and some digging to find out who funded this foreign opposition research.
          If you believe that “the facts” in the dossier “are true, and that the FBI already knew about them”, stick with that fantasy as well.
          Steele himself has not gone that far, so step in and make that claim for him.

      1. The guy’s entitled to a vacation. I’m thinking since he blogs about it that maybe he writes it off as an expense against his blogging income.

          1. Tsk. Tsk. I thought you believed in reducing taxable income. In addition to his work as a professor, Turley has a media business. He will often post on this blog and then the post will be picked up by the likes of The Hill or USA Today. I am confident he gets paid on those occasions.

            1. Dummy, if you haven’t noticed his articles go to the Hill first and then he reposts them here. I am sure the Hill pays him, but that pay has little if anything to do with what he does here.

              Tell us Genius the direct income and tax deductions Professor Turley gets from the blog.

              You are a fool.

  9. One can forgive the Democrats and their shills for being confused about this issue. They are being fed crap on a daily basis. See, for example, this Highly Informative (NOT!) article from Politifact:

    https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/may/31/gregg-jarrett/fox-news-hosts-wrong-no-law-forbids-russia-trump-c/

    The authors take issue with Greg Jarrett’s statement that “collusion” is not a crime, and that a person could collude with a foreign government all they want. They attack this assertion with statements by four idiot law professors who take “collusion” and then add other stuff to the “collusion”, like taking foreign money, and then say that “collusion” is therefore potentially illegal.

    No. It’s the taking of the foreign money that is illegal. But, this is what passes for “informative for Democrats and their shills. It is why you get DNC shills blathering the nonsense they blather. Because the average Democrat non-shill is a complete frigging moron and will fall for anything that confirms their bias.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  10. ” Trump Critics Should Not Respond To Acts Of “Fake News” With Fake Law”

    That says it all. This is a non-issue. Nothing wrong was done and the issue is trivial. What that should tell everyone based on the time spent on this issue is that all the other issues are trivial as well. There was political naivete but no crime proven by the fact news reporters could see everyone that was at the meeting.

  11. Those wily Clinton’s, like their friend Harvey Weinstein, took a page from the Godfather:

    “Oh yeah, a buffer. The family had a lot of buffers.”

  12. DOSSIERS ARE ‘NOT’ AUTHENTICATED, FACTUAL REPORTS

    This point was made clear, in the mainstream media, when that ‘Pee Party’ rumor first emerged in January of 2017. The mainstream media had known about the Steele dossier but never covered it ‘because’ it was only a dossier.

    Dossiers are detective reports. Detectives gather ‘all’ the information they can find including rumors and gossip. That’s what distinguishes dossiers from factual reports. It’s up to whoever commissioned the report to decide which information they want to use. The Clinton campaign never used the Pee Party as a campaign issue.

    With regards to Christopher Steele, there’s no evidence to suggest he was predisposed to ‘hate’ Donald Trump. As a British national living in London, Steele was probably not connected to the American Culture Wars. Issues like abortion, guns and taxes were probably not paramount in Steele’s mind when he set about compiling his dossier. But American followers of right-wing media are hard-pressed to understand that. For them, every issue is framed from a Culture Wars perspective.

    But it seems that early in his investigation, Steele was learning things about Trump that truly alarmed him. Money laundering for Russian oligarchs probably weighed heavy. Then too, there may have been some truth to the Pee Party, and, or, Russian call girls. One should note that two of Trump’s three wives are from the former East Bloc. Trump more than likely has a penchant for Slavic women. Most guys are drawn to certain types.

    Therefore Christopher Steele probably felt that Great Britain’s interests could be threatened by a Trump presidency. Great Britain’s security has been largely tied to the United States since the end of World War II. As a former British Intelligence officer, with connections to the British government, Steele may have honestly felt he had to stop Donald Trump from getting the White House. Steele was acting out of patriotism for Great Britain!

    Those concerns led Steele to contact the FBI. Steele’s research was already known to both the FBI and State Department. And it seems the FBI shared Steele’s concerns regarding Donald Trump. Which makes perfect sense considering that at least half of all Americans had deep reservations about a Trump presidency.

    Currently Trump supporters pretend that Trump is a ‘normal’ president respected around the world. Trump is no such thing! Just last week Trump contradicted his national intelligence team for the umpteenth time in so many weeks. And as Professor Turley notes, Trump’s tweet on the Tower Meeting was ill-advised, to say the least. Trump’s rash behavior validates Christopher Steele’s concerns. That ‘was’ the Donald Trump that Christopher Steele aspired to stop.

    1. yes as you admit steele was biased

      and the dossier is full of unsubstantiated gossip which is patently ridiculous, specious, and defamatory

      who made some self appointed James Bond the guy who could cobble up the pretext to leverage an impeachment? f#%& Christopher Steal

      1. So far as I am aware there are 2 things in Steele’s work that have been questioned: the pee party and whether or not Cohen had a meeting Prague. Now, that we know more about Cohen, his denial of the Prague meeting seems suspect.

        1. the pee pee allegation is tawdry and unverified and specious. in itself it taints the whole work as something worthy of the national enquirer. even below that level.

          1. Kurtz, I don’t personally believe Trump requested peeing. When Trump say’s he’s a germaphobe, I believe him on that.

            But the girls in question probably waited until Trump was reaching climax, then they peed for the hidden cameras. That was part of the blackmail plot. On tape it might look like Trump was enjoying it. When in fact he might have been secretly grossed out.

            One should note that Trump left Moscow only hours after the alleged pee party. His plane took off at about 3 am. In other words, Trump didn’t stay in that hotel suite ‘after’ the alleged pee party. Who could blame him..?! I wouldn’t care to sleep there after a ‘party’ like that.

        2. and where exactly are the peeing prostitutes? most of them would be pleased to make a lot of money to tell a tale on trump as we see from various other women

          they dont exist thats why.

          falsus in unus…

      2. Has the allegation that Christopher Steele is now working for the Weekly World News been been disproved?
        If not, then is it still “possibly true”?

          1. Still online, still billed as “The World’s only relaible News Source”.
            I don’t know how Mueller missed this, but 3 days before the election, they covered Putin joining Trump on the campaign trail.
            That would be a Nov. 5, 2016 WW News article, with photographic evidence and quotes from Putin.

    2. Steele’s “concerns” prompted him to contact the press as well.
      If in fact he was telling the FBI that he was not talking to the press and briefing them on the dossier, that gets into the crime of lying to the FBI.
      That’s what the criminal referral to DOJ is about.
      Steele’s political leanings would probably be considered far left by American standards, maybe center- left by British standards.
      It isn’t clear if he “was alarmed” at the prospect of Trump being elected before or after he started his Russian Dossier.
      If it’s the former, that’s another problem with the dossier.
      Steele’s contacts have yet to be publically identified, as have the contacts’ sources.
      ( there may have been some developments I missed, but these shadowy figures seem to be remaining in the shadows).
      So their objectivity is questionable as well as Steele’s objectivity.

      1. Tom, I read an extensive article in Vanity Fair that emphasized the ‘alarm’ Christopher Steele felt. And again, I should emphasize, Steele was probably more concerned for Britain than America.

        With regards to Steele’s politics, most British ‘are’ to the left of American Republicans. So what..?? The Republican party has been moving steadily rightward for 30 years. It’s moderate faction barely exists anymore. Susan Collins is about all that’s left.

        ‘I’ was a moderate Republican all through my teens and 20’s. But the party abandoned me a long time ago.

          1. Paul, currently I identify as ‘Mainstream California Democrat’. And since California is America’s biggest state by far, that ‘is’ mainstream.

            But I think the country was much better off when both parties had liberal and conservative wings. That way factions of each party had an interest in working together on bipartisan legislation; something that is sorely missing in America today.

            1. Peter Hill – I do not know how to break it to you, but CA is NOT mainstream. 🙂 It is an outlier.

              1. Paul, California has more people from other states than any state in the country. If this isn’t mainstream America, I don’t who is.

                Your point, however, hits on one of my favorite topics: ‘Everyone wants to think their own politics represents the middle’. No matter how conservative or liberal someone happens to be, they typically identify as being in ‘the center’.

                But the political center is different in almost every region. The center in New York City is left of Miami. The center in Chicago is left of Dallas. The center in L.A. is left of Phoenix.

                So the question becomes, “Which region’s middle is the ‘real’ middle?

                I think the political center is like sunlight on a lawn. Everyone can see where the light is shining. Everyone can feel the sun’s warmth. But you can’t nail down that sunlight. What’s more, that light is constantly moving. In just 20 minutes it will be in a different position. And I think the political center is similarly hard to secure.

                1. Peter Hill – just because a state is more populated does not mean it is more mainstream. CA is the most racist state we have ever had. It killed off all its Indians. It was responsible for the Chinese Exclusion Act and the fact that the Chinese could not be citizens. It was responsible for putting the Japanese in concentration camps. It tried to prevent Okies from entering CA during the Great Depression.

                  1. How you could determine which is the most racist state is beyond me. I suspect that some other states might have bragging rights on that title.

                    1. hollywood – no one is as anti-something as CA. Think about it. Even Maxine Waters who owns two homes and a condo does not live in her own district. How racist is that!!! Although I give Diane Feinstein credit for having a Chinese spy work for her for 20 years.

                  2. Paul, for real..??? ..Seriously..??

                    Name ONE U.S. state with a clean, moral record. Name ‘one country’ with a clean moral record!

                    Every U.S. state has tolerated some degree of injustice during it’s history. Southern States especially! To single out California is absurd. It’s History according to Trump supporters as “Death of A Nation” plays in theaters. We’re supposed to take a Stupid Pill and buy this new history.

                    From an intellectual perspective I have never seen a shabbier attempt to claim the moral high ground. And ‘why’, in God’s name, is an immigrant from India framing U.S. history?? The question is highly relevant when said history is utterly polarizing; requiring total suspension of intellectual integrity.

                    Paul, I expected more from you.

                    1. Peter Hill – I have been a historian most of my life. I don’t know anything about the film except that it is out now. I have not seen it so do not blame my conclusions on a film I have not seen. I don’t know if they still teach CA history in the schools, but I am sure they leave out all the fun stuff like I told you.

                    2. Dinesh D’Souza might stretch the truth a bit in his storyline but not with regard to the important factors. Instead of relying on the spin reviews see the movie yourself and then look up the history preferably in books that are of an older date and relatively unbiased. On the big important points, D’Souza is quite accurate both in his books and movies.

        1. “‘I’ was a moderate Republican all through my teens and 20’s. But the party abandoned me a long time ago.”

          Peter, I don’t like either party but what was the change in the party that made you feel abandoned? If anything the Republican Party has moved towards the left as has the Democratic Party so this is particularly interesting since you sound so far to the left. That would mean you abandoned the party which was moving left to go in a more leftward direction than the party was moving.

          1. Allan, show me one, ONE article from mainstream media that says the Republican party has moved ‘left’. That is the most bizarre assertion I have heard all week.

            That’s like saying the Muslim world has become more progressive since the Iranian Revolution!

            No wonder I never relate to your comments, Allan. If you think Republicans have moved ‘leftward’, that explains why your posts always sound like they’re coming from an alternate universe.

            1. “That is the most bizarre assertion I have heard all week.”

              That is because you don’t know history. Today the revered Democrat JFK would be to the right of the average Republican.

              1. Allan, regarding JFK, my mother told me that 50 years ago. We’re in a different century now.

                Nevertheless you’re trying to promote this new, revisionist history being spun by an immigrant from India, Dinesh D’Souza. And ‘thinking people’ are supposed to believe that Republicans are really the cool, progressive party true liberals should want to join.

                It’s like Target running ads claiming that ‘their’ clothes are really more stylish than Saks or Neiman Marcus. And customers of Saks and Neiman Marcus should want to be seen in Target fashions.

                To customers of Saks and Neiman’s, it doesn’t look that way. It’s like trying to say that ‘Down’ is really ‘Up’ and ‘Up’ is really ‘Down’.

                1. Peter Hill – I left the Republican Party because of people like John McStain. However, I am an Independent. Everyone has to suck up to me for my vote. 🙂 Such power!

                2. We were talking about history and history involves long timelines. 50 years is enough time to see how the Democratic Party has moved further toward the left and to also demonstrate how the Republican Party as a whole has moved in that direction as well.

                  Look at the stance taken by JFK on all the major issues:

                  Taxes: Both Kennedy and Trump markedly reduced personal and business taxes. Both believed the way to raise revenues was to increase business activities by reducing taxes. Both relied on growth. Today the Democratic Party has repudiated conservative economic policies that worked in JFK’s time and are working today. Neither JFK nor Trump sold America short. JFK believed every dollar taxed was one dollar less for growth.

                  Foreign policy:

                  JFK was naive when he first came to office and could have started WW3 but he was strong against Russia and had a relatively strong foreign policy. Like Trump, he recognized America’s strength and its leadership position. He didn’t bow to foreign despots something Trump would never do.

                  Immigration:

                  Like most Democratic leaders he didn’t push for open borders. Even Chuck Schumer called for border control prior to Obama’s Presidency. Trump believes like Kennedy that a nation has borders that must be controlled.

                  Space

                  Kennedy pushed exploration and pushed us to catch up to the Soviets. Trump is calling for a space force.

                  Peter, learn your history.

                1. The difference between you and I Hollowood is that I can provide a rationale to back up what I say and I can respond to questions. You don’t have that capacity. The max you can do is paraphrase a soundbite from a left-wing site.

                  You are a fool.

        2. Peter Hill,…
          I read the very long, gushing New Yorker account praising Steele.
          I forget the name of the woman who wrote it.
          It sounds like the Vanity Fair piece is simlilar.
          So both pieces portray Steele as an “alarmed ” hero exposing the danger(s) of a Trump presidency.
          I’ve ready plenty of material about Steele, and it’s fair to say that I don’t agree with thr loftier versions of Steele and his motivations.
          It looks more like he was out to please those paying him, and also an opening, a possibility, to make sure that one candidates chances were destroyed.
          That seemed to be his objective in briefing the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, and others on the contents of the dossier.
          I think you said earlier that the dossier’s contents were a collection of obtained material, information, that was not necessarily screened for accuracy.
          And that’s why no reputable publication would touch it, despite Steele’s efforts to get these unverified allegations out before the election.

          1. Peter,…
            I meant to add that it would be interesting to get the publications’ accounts of how they were approached by Steele.
            By that I mean did he tell them up front about his own doubts about the accuracy of the allegations in the dossier, or did he promote the dossier’s contents as solid, reliable information about Trump.
            If he was saying that then, he is not saying that now. He is hedging and not strongly vouching for the accuracy of much of the dossier.

              1. Peter,…
                That seems to be the beauty of it….it seems that it can simultaneously reliable, accurate, unverified , rumor, raw unvetted information, and the people behind it, especially Steele, can do this chameleon-like change as it suits their purposes.
                If Steele is “standing behind” the Russian Dossier’s allegations and “not standing behind them”, then we get back to the same problems any reputable publication had before the 2016 election when Steele approached them and briefed them on the dossier; their problem was “we can’t go with unverified allegations”.
                We are now two years into this saga and, speculation and wild claims not withstanding, we don’t know what’s fact and what’s fiction on the central question.
                Whether Michael Cohen was in Prague or not doesn’t, by itself, tell us much.
                E.G. if he was ( and we will likely know for sure, now that he’s flipped), it tells us that one piece of the dossier’s claims is accurate.
                That’s all that it tells us unless that there’s strong evidence that he conspired on behalf of the Trump campaign to make an illegal arrangement with the Russians in connection with that alleged trip to Prague.
                I’m not criticizing the people here ( well, most of them) for trying to put the pieces together and pretend like they’ve come to reliable conclusions, one way or another, about the overall veracity of the dossier.
                The longer this thing strings out, the more of this we’ll see.
                But based on what I’ve seen of these theories/ guesses, I wouldn’t ask any of them to help me with a jigsaw puzzle.

  13. Other topics Mr. T could cover: Chris Collins’ arrest for insider trading; the VA being turned over to rich MarALago cronies of the president; Kris Kobach refusing to recuse himself from overseeing the recall effort in his own race; Sen. Paul being the latest errand boy between Trump and Putin; California wildfires; Trump family corruption; the Rohingya camps; the trade wars.

    1. PS

      I’d love to hear JT’s comments on RG’s strategy: We can’t allow the president to testify to Mueller’s team because the president will lie through the entire interview and the Mueller team will know that he’s lying. And we can’t have that!

      1. it’s unconstitutional for various reasons.

        and your reasoning could be used against every single person who ever wanted to or did invoke the Fifth amendment

        and talking to the feds is a special trap for everyone

            1. Mr. Kurtz,…
              Clinton probably did feel compelled to testify once the threat of a subpeona was put on the table.
              That hasn’t happened, yet, with Mueller-Trump, but it may not be far off.
              Clinton may have had a different response, even under threat of subpeona, had his former campaign manager been treated to a pre-dawn no knock raid. And had his lawyer’s home, office, and hotel room been raided.
              I don’t remember Starr stacking his team with hyper-partisan aggresive prosecutors, but it was a long time ago.
              Nor do I remember Starr having a long-standing professional relationship and friendship with a key figure in that saga.
              20 years after Clinton decided to testify, these things I’ve mentioned are some of the different characteristics of the Mueller probe from the Starr investigation.
              I think it’s led to an “F.Y.” response from Trump and his legal team to Mueller.
              If Mueller does suboeona Trump, I think the response will be “and the horse you rode in on”, and we’ll go from there to the courts for ruling.

              1. Just to clear up some nonsense, the search of Manafort’s home did not occur in a no knock raid. It wasn’t in the middle of the night either. The authorities showed up in the morning, knocked repeatedly and got no answer. They then obtained entry (some issue whether there was a key or not).

                1. Most accounts described it as a no-knock entry.
                  There were some reports that disputed the “no-knock version,” but I never heard accounts from Manafort, his neighbors, or the FBI team that showed up at his house.
                  It was described as “pre-dawn”, as in early AM, not “in the middle of the night”.

                    1. Hollowood, you made a statement about the time the raid occurred. Based on your own cited article: “The FBI conducted a predawn July raid on the home of President Donald Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort”

                      You stated something like: ‘it was a morning raid’ and railed on another for getting the time wrong.

                      What is predawn? It sounds like he was raided somewhere in the nighttime perhaps in close proximity to morning. Most people are still asleep before the sun starts to rise.

                      You are a fool.

      1. Mr. Kurtz,…
        Sen. Paul and Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon(D., far left) are two Senators who have consistently worked together on privacy concerns, gvt. overreach and megadata info collected on tens of millions of Americans.
        They may have some other Senators with them on this issue, but I don’t see a lot of them working with Paul/ Wyden.

    2. Rohyngya muslims leaving Burma is a legit refugee crisis but you should ask why certain refugee crises get more attention than others. Maybe because it’s an attempt to open another avenue of disruption against China?

      Not like they aren’t busy oppressing lots of groups besides the Rohyngyas. SO why them? Why the special attention?

      1. I wasn’t discriminating. I’d be happy with stories on the Palestinian refugees, the Syrian refugees, the disaster in Yemen, refugees from central America, etc. I just picked that out because I read an editorial about it this morning and it was on my mind.

        1. Yemen, a disaster because of Saudis. Syria, same. I doubt the US news which is much beholden to Saudi money is going to be running much against the Saudis.

          Russia plus Iran plus Syria versus US plus Saudis plus Israel. Got it? Geopolitics and war.

    3. Trump won the trade war with Europe and the press didnt even notice. because they are tards that’s why

    1. Pat C. Russia Russia Russia has become a useful diversion. Even Trump has jumped on board again – sanctioning Russia for the Skripal poisoning even though “No public evidence confirming Russia’s involvement has yet been released, and instead UK and US authorities hope the public will accept the conclusion on faith alone”.

      Trump Hits Putin With New Sanctions Over Skripal Nerve Gas Attack

      https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-08/trump-hits-putin-new-sanctions-over-uk-never-gas-attack

              1. of course. so do i. the question is do the staffers at youtube/amazon/et al get to decide what content is ok to watch or not. is it a public utility or is it just a printing press. a serious question for civil liberterians but i suspect that such you are not

                1. It’s private property just like a newspaper.
                  Anyone with the least concern for property rights would recognize it as such.
                  I don’t know where you stand on property rights so I won’t prejudge you.

                  1. it’s private property just like an electric company maybe
                    that means a quasi public good which should be accessible to all
                    you hear a lot of democrats whining about net neutrality,
                    usually the same ones who now applaud banning Jones
                    think about it

                    1. Maybe you should have named yourself Mr. Marx instead of Mr. Kurtz, and I don’t mean Harpo.

                    2. i am not a limperterian. as for Karl Marx he had a lot of keen insight into capitalism. and so did Lenin for that matter.

                  2. Newspapers can be sued for what they print because they have control over what is being printed. I believe this can be extended to Facebook and other entities if they are controlling what is permitted to be published.

      1. Your cartoon is an example of a “rolling disclosure”, which technique was made famous by_____________________.

        I left the blank for you to fill in. While the cartoon is “funny”, it isn’t really accurate, as Trump still denies knowing about the meeting in advance. Last I heard. Plus, collusion is still not a crime.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

          1. Sometimes conspiracy is a crime. Sometimes it isn’t. You are just blathering nonsense and using words that you do not know the definition of, vis a vis criminal law.

            But, by all means, keep on living inside your head.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

                1. Mueller won’t indict for conspiracy that isn’t a crime. So I’ll wait to see if he indicts for the conspiracies that are crimes. And that’s what I’m referring to.

                  1. Oh. c’mon! Jump on out there and tell us what you think the conspiracy is! If you can’t, then you should STFU using legal words and terms that are over your head. Lord Knows, we have enough DNC Shill Founts of Spewing Ignorance around here as it is. And those Democrats who bathe in the feces-laden waters thereof.

                    Squeeky Fromm
                    Girl Reporter

                    1. Squeeky,
                      I’m not sure anyone has noticed that the last L4D comment was at 9:25a and then Annie’s first comment was at 10:35a.

                      For those that have been on this blog awhile, Annie/Inga is L4D. Is this the same Annie? Well if replying to her own comments is a tell, then…

                    2. Olly and Squeeky,..
                      What Olly mentioned re L4D/Annie…..bets are now being taken on either “troll teamwork” or “Multiple Personality Disorder”.
                      Current odds have it 7-5 in favor of the latter.

                    3. Tom Nash – this happened once before when JT on vacation in Europe. Annie went bonkers had like 17 sock puppets before Darren put a stop to it. It does help us out all her sock puppets though. 😉

                    4. That was back in 2014 when it was Inga/Nani then Annie, and so on. Very strange. I look forward to the day she takes on a conservative sock-puppet personality and is forced to argue for and against the existence of natural rights with herself. 😉

                    5. @Olly

                      I hate typing in those little skinny nesting boxes. IIRC, I thought Late4 was Inga once before, due to the style. Which, IMO, there is nothing wrong with her posting stuff, it is just that it is usually not posted in an honest fashion, but just to shill for the DNC. Which, makes the whole idea of interacting with her meaningless. See:

                      https://pansiesforplato.wordpress.com/2018/04/30/the-avocado-as-a-big-green-nut/

                      It would be like having a PUBLIC conversation with Joseph Goebbels. Face it, he ain’t going to say anything except Germany is winning the war! Even as bombs are falling all around him.

                      If it is her, I think there is an element of mental disorder going on, re the oppositional behavior, and probably some borderline issues, but mostly just a shill.

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                  1. I don’t want to read somebody else explaining it. I want YOU to explain it in your own words. I want YOUR thoughts and YOUR reasoning. Do it like a legal person – state the facts, state the law, and then apply the law to the facts.

                    As long as you just repeat someone else’s screwed up thoughts, you will never have to get there on your own, and you can’t be cured.

                    Squeeky Fromm
                    Girl Reporter

                    1. You sound like Allan.

                      The Allan that has copy/pasted many paragraphs in the last week without one word of his understanding offered — something he demands from others.

                      Are you two done with the CD meme you both latched onto and rode for a few days?

                      Jeez, if I didn’t know better I would think you two were sock puppets; but Allan has much better arguments than you — when he sticks to them and doesn’t rant off.

                      How’s you’re knife collection going,Squeek? Are they sharp enough to skin a cat?

                    2. “You sound like Allan.”

                      It looks like R Lien is back. She would be lucky to have a small fraction of the brainpower Squeeky has. R Lien hasn’t said anything of value since I have been here.

                      I’ve been pasting those things for ignorant people like you Lien waiting for you to say something of value. When you do we can have a discussion but right now talking to you is like talking to all the people buried in a cemetery except they make more sense. They don’t say anything.

                    3. i got a pretty ok knife collection but my favorite is this one shiv I made by hand

                    4. I’ll cut you some slack, Kurtsy.

                      But just so you know, Squeek brags about her guns, knives, and cats and how she doesn’t ever, ever leave her house (basement) without at least two guns and multiple knives concealed.

                      She loves taking abut them.

                      You might want to spend more time reading here — over a period of months — before you take the wheel of the clown car.

                    5. R. Lien – some of us like to move the conversation forward, not denigrate people on a regular basis. We have been watching you too. Basically, you are a bully, an educated bully, but a bully. You’re also a voyeur and a lurker. Your tactic is to hit and run, never staying long enough to fight it out or to add to the discussion. So, I will put my tinfoil pop psychology hat on and psychoanalyze you. You are everything I said before, but I am going to add coward.

                    6. Hollowood is unable to actually think. There are plenty of things one can say about conspiracy but despite the spin, the sites can’t link Trump to anything illegal stumping Hollowood. He doesn’t realize they are spinning things to make fools like him believe Trump committed a crime.

                    7. R Lien

                      I always see SqueKKKy in George. I believe George and Allan are sock puppets controlled by SquueKKKy. And PCS is still a fool.

                    8. YNOT you are a complete idiot and no one associates you with the other aliases. Doing so would insult those who hold those aliases and they don’t have much going for them to begin with.

                1. “apply the law to the facts.”

                  Squeeky, Hollowood is a fool. He is lucky if he can apply the cream cheese to the bagel.

            1. Squeeky,…
              – You, Paul, Mespo, and several others have been here ( at the JT site/ comments section) lomger than me.
              Is this Annie, as in “Inga/ Annie”?😯😦😧

                    1. Thanks for confirming, Paul: You’re just another one of the resident chuckleheads.

              1. Emoticon Boy, T. Gnash,

                Hey, did you notice over the last few days that Kurtsy, Allan, and dhlii had moments where the left side ‘recent comments’ space was all theirs?

                Didn’t you give L4D a hard time for this very issue? Why not them?

                Now you’re obsessed with Annie/Inga (don’t forget Diane, anonymous, and me) also?

                This is nothing but foolishness from PCS, who has the acumen of a hamster, which SOT/DSS/…/TSTD has swallowed and perpetuated. It’s good to see you in your rightful place — the clown car.

                1. R. Lien – thank you for outing yourself. I always had my suspicions. Do you have any more we should know about?

                  1. “Do you have any more we should know about?”

                    Yes, you’re a fool.

                    Don’t you know this blog has high traffic? Did you think your sage little bubble could last forever?

                    Many people read this blog, PCS, far more than post. However, when the self-congratulatory hubris is bubbling onto the burner, it’s fun–yes, fun–to point others to the clown car.

                    The only reason I know of your obsession with Annie/Inga/Diane is due to your repeated references when a ‘new’ commentator that you don’t agree with arrives.

                    Your pattern hasn’t changed for a very long time: ‘It must be Annie/Inga/Diane because I’m so smart how can anyone refute me.’

                    Big world, PCS; maybe you should start to consider that many read your words and note that you, over time, are consistently wrong.

                    A current example being: the $400M Putin claimed the Clinton Foundation received from Browder. You yelled this in the clown car for two days, until Putin walked it back by admitting his mistake, and changing the amount tp $400,000.

                    There are many other examples of your anxiousness to carry the water of a false narrative without any thought, let me know if you want me to count them.

                    1. R. Lien – I walked it back when Putin walked it back. We go with the information we have. So, Putin made a major mistake at the press conference but no one is crucifying him. Why is that? Yet you are trying to crucify me because I correctly repeated what he said in the press conference. And when he changed it, I changed it. So, what is your malfunction?

                    2. Paul, Lien said “Your pattern hasn’t changed for a very long time: ”

                      I haven’t been here that long so that sounds like an admission that Lien has been with us even when the alias Lien wasn’t. Lien has been accused of Being Diane and Late4nothing. Diane at one time stated her time on the blog wasn’t very long. I guess the blog has to deal with her multiple alias disorder. Right or wrong it doesn’t seem to matter since none of them make sense, but if true at least that means there are less crazy people on the blog than previously thought..

                    3. I’ve been here long enough to have had multiple discussions with Annie, then Inga, then Inga/Nani, then L4D and Annie once again. Her style has not changed. She tended to change her alias when no one was responding to her posts and she was stuck replying to herself. Apparently this Annie will be clicking her heels and heading back to Kansas.

                    4. OLLY – wasn’t the real Annie/Inga from Wisconsin? Wasn’t there this whole thing about Friday Fish Fries?

                2. R.Lein,
                  No, I didn’t notice. But you did, and I congratulate you for it.
                  Now you can go back in your records and see how common that cluster is, vs. the repeated:
                  Late4Dinner
                  Late4Dinner
                  Late4Dinner
                  Etc.
                  that you’d normally see.
                  Since you’re paying such close attention to this issue, you probably have a tally for us on L4D’s total volume of verbiage as well.
                  Just keep those valuable contributions that we expect from coming, R. lein.

                  1. Why don’t you, Kurtsy.

                    I just thought I would point out that T. Gnash went on a two day diatribe about ‘trolls’ based on his extremely astute observation, yet said nothing when the clown car comments were up for bat.

                  2. Yeah, you keep educating us on issues known and discussed for seventeen years.

                    You’re like Rip Van Winkle. Nice to see you wake up, though.

                3. So, 3 people had comments posted in close sequence.
                  If anyone looks at the “recent comments” summary, they will find that that is not uncommon.

      2. This is so perfect. Their stories just keep evolving. Interesting that Ms. Hicks, who had a major hand in the drafting of the cover letter, was back on AF1 just the other day. She just “happened” to be around and Trump just “decided” to invite her along to the rally. Honestly, team Trump thinks everyone is as dull as their followers.

        1. keep on praising yourself. just like HRC the other side is always stupider than you. until, that is, they are proven smarter, in which case, then they must be criminals

Leave a Reply