Giuliani: “Truth Isn’t Truth”

225px-rudy_giulianiIn a interview painfully reminiscent of the “alternative facts” statement of Kelly Anne Conway, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani triggered another firestorm by declaring on NBC’s Meet the Press that “truth isn’t truth.”  I actually can see what Conway was trying to say with her “alternative facts” comment, but the Giuliani comment left me mystified why a lawyer would frame such an argument. He was understandably trying to convey that prosecutors can frame the facts in ways to trap a witness. However, it came out in a terribly mangled way.  In the meantime, President Trump was on Twitter asserting that White House Counsel Don McGahn is “no RAT” like John Dean in the Nixon Administration. Both statements took the worst possible framing of their respective arguments and predictably led to another wave of criticism.

Trump’s comments followed a New York Times report that McGahn spent more than 30 hours talking to agents during voluntary interviews. It suggested that McGahn feared he was being made into a fall guy and refused to be made into the next John Dean. Trump lashed out by tweeting

Trump, in a series of tweets, denounced a New York Times story that his White House counsel, Don McGahn, has been cooperating extensively with the special counsel team investigating Russian election meddling and potential collusion with Trump’s Republican campaign.  Trump tweeted: “The failing @nytimes wrote a Fake piece today implying that because White House Councel Don McGahn was giving hours of testimony to the Special Councel [sic], he must be a John Dean type ‘RAT.’ But I allowed him and all others to testify – I didn’t have to. I have nothing to hide……” He added “Study the late Joseph McCarthy, because we are now in a period with Mueller and his gang that make Joseph McCarthy look like a baby! Rigged Witch Hunt.”

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Study the late Joseph McCarthy, because we are now in period with Mueller and his gang that make Joseph McCarthy look like a baby! Rigged Witch Hunt!

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

The Failing New York Times wrote a story that made it seem like the White House Councel had TURNED on the President, when in fact it is just the opposite – & the two Fake reporters knew this. This is why the Fake News Media has become the Enemy of the People. So bad for America!

Since Dean helped expose crimes by Nixon and his subordinates, the reference to being a “RAT” was jarring for many. It would suggested that Dean should have remained quiet and uncooperative during the Nixon period.  It made McGahn look like Verbal in The Usual Suspects

The situation got worse with Giuliani’s latest appearance — the latest in a long list of gaffes.  The statement came in an exchange with Chuck Todd.  Giuliani pushed back on an inquiry as to why Trump fears simply sitting down with investigators.  Giuliani insisted: “When you tell me that, you know, he should testify because he’s going to tell the truth and he shouldn’t worry, well that’s so silly because it’s somebody’s version of the truth. Not the truth,” he said.

Chuck Todd, the host, responded: “Truth is truth.”

“No, it isn’t truth. Truth isn’t truth.”

I fail to see how such statements help the President or how this fits with any cognizable political or legal strategy.  This morning, Giuliani tweeted out a clarification (which should have not been necessary with greater message control):

My statement was not meant as a pontification on moral theology but one referring to the situation where two people make precisely contradictory statements, the classic “he said, she said” puzzle. Sometimes further inquiry can reveal the truth other times it doesn’t. 4:48 AM – 20 Aug 2018

I believe Giuliani in what he originally meant and understand the point. However,  Giuliani often seems too loose and improvisational in these interviews.  If Giuliani is pursuing a purely political strategy with impeachment in mind, this does not help. It is embarrassing for allies to associate themselves with a defense that “truth isn’t truth.”   The lack of control over the message in these interviews has given critics another easy soundbite to play on an endless loop against the Administration.  Both Trump and Giuliani are right the messaging is key, but this is not the message.

202 thoughts on “Giuliani: “Truth Isn’t Truth””

  1. Testing to see if I am allowed to comment. Apparently, I have been banned from the site and every hint of my existence has been erased. If I had to guess (because I received no notification) it was I posted one of my blog posts which contained the N word, not sanitized but spelled out.

    Mr. First Amendment Turley never took action when I was called a “sambo”, “boy” and many other things which I notified him of via Email according to his policy. He said he “was attempting” to ban the person in question but somehow never was able to.

    I started to say I won’t stay where not wanted but by that criteria, many of you would have had me gone long ago. Take care, some of you will be missed, others of you not so much. I will amuse myself with the hypocrisy of being banned from here, probably write about it on my own blog. Take care all!

    1. It has been previously pointed out by Darren that the site has had problems with WordPress for the last 3 days or so. Many of us were having issues that now seem to be resolved.

        1. Enigma,

          Your older posts haven’t been erased. Type or copy/paste this into google:

          enigmainblackcom site:jonathanturley.org

          this will bring back a lot of threads you’ve posted in, so I don’t think you’ve been erased.

    2. enigma…….Before you start selecting hymns for your memorial service, get a grip, son! I couldn’t get on here for 36 hrs …..others too. Do your Lamaze breathing and relax.
      😀

    3. Please don’t go. I look for your comments. I, too, have had comments disappear. don’t know if I have been eliminated because some of them are posted.

      1. I don’t get notifications any longer despite being registered. I may check in from time to time to look for topics that interest me. I contacted Jonathan Turley, we’ll see what happens.

        1. “I don’t get notifications any longer despite being registered.”

          This is true for others, as well, as I understand it.

  2. Ignoring Trump, I am curious about Dean. I was a kid during Watergate, and as an adult grew to understand Dean as the sort of hero of the story. But really, all of my current knowledge of John Dean comes from the Wiki, which truly seems to say that:

    + Dean had his hands dirty including knowingly destroying evidence
    + Dean cooperated in return for immunity

    So without saying that John Dean was a rat, is John Dean the hero that current lore make him out to be?

    1. Ash,.,,
      – John Dean was an early and central participant in the discussions that led to the Watergate breakin.
      He, John Mitchell, and others worked with “the plumbers unit” on their projects.
      So Dean was in the Watergate scandal up to his neck.
      When he saw that the cover-up was unraveling, he fully cooperated with investigators and prosecutors to save his own hide.
      In return, he got off with a very light sentence.

  3. Giuliani insisted: “When you tell me that, you know, he should testify because he’s going to tell the truth and he shouldn’t worry, well that’s so silly because it’s somebody’s version of the truth. Not the truth,” he said.

    Chuck Todd, the host, responded: “Truth is truth.”

    “No, it isn’t truth. Truth isn’t truth.”
    ___________________________

    Professor Turley, please tell my why I sense that you are being disingenuous.

    Clearly Giuliani is debating “versions” of truth in response to comrade Todd’s statement that his “version” of truth is factual truth when

    typically comrade Todd is utterly clueless.

    CNN’s version of truth is usually at variance with the factual truth.

    CNN employs the collectivist/communist version of truth to “brainwash” its delusional viewers.

    CNN incessantly reports that President Trump engaged in “Russian collusion” which Trump did not. In fact, Obama and Hillary did collude with Russia. Collusion is not a crime. And there exist no probative facts of Russian “collusion” by Trump. CNN reports “collusion” by implication and, when necessary, alters the definition to “Russian meddling.”

    1. The meeting with Russian spies in Trump Tower was a conspiracy to defraud the US.

      Trump believing Putin’s denials of meddling over his own government is open cooperation with Russia.

      Collusion is not a crime but conspiracy is.

      1. The meeting with Russian spies in Trump Tower was a conspiracy to defraud the US.

        Only in the imagination of Late4Yoga and like shills.

        1. TS to Dance,..
          -That Trump Tower meeting was over two years ago.
          There’s been public knowledge of that meeting for over a year, but it’s not known if investigators had knowledge of the meeting, and for how long, before the story broke in the media.
          If the meeting was “a conspiracy to defraud the U.S”., that must not be a very high priority for prosecutors.
          The Manafort trial has nothing to do with that meeting, and there have been no indictments related to that meeting.
          Marry a Minority and others can throw out accusations like “conspiracy to defraud the U.S.”, or “treason”, or whatever.
          What they can not do is point to specific charges by prosecutors related to those accusations.

          1. Tom,
            We’ve been at this for how long and the Left’s strategy should be well understood. They begin with a JENGA tower built on every imaginable accusation. Then as their tower is deconstructed piece by piece, we begin building our own tower using the evidence discovered in the process. Then, they myopically ignore the factual tower rising and fixate only on what now remains of their own. And as long as Mueller and company are artificially propping up their tower, they still have something to pin their hopes on.

            I guarantee you they’ve already begun construction on the Pence tower.

            1. If everybody else is as tired of all this as I am, what can we do? I don’t know if we have lots of people to protest as the lefties do. I tell friends it’s because we are all busy working and spending a day protesting is just not doable. I liked Paul Ryan’s piece today about Republicans being doers. So a new pitch for R’s running against D’s. I pray and will donate to Shiff’s opponent if we have one. That man alone has done so much damage. I am a Jim Jordan fan for Speaker. He will put them to work! Sessions should fire Mueller and resign. That single thing would make Sessions a hero (I guess that’s two things).

              1. Be patient. The more this ridiculous fishing expedition runs its course, the wilder the claims by the anti-Trumpers get. It began with golden showers and it will end with them looking like they’ve been peeing in the wind this whole time.

              2. Sandi, Adam Schiff is my congressman and no Republican is about to take his seat. Few, if any, Republicans live in this part of Los Angeles. Trump is so unpopular here that speaking out on his behalf could threaten a career.

          2. Tom Nash said, “. . . it’s not known if investigators had knowledge of the meeting . . . before the story broke in the media.”

            Jared Kushner submitted a revised security clearance form on April 6th, 2017, admitting a meeting with Veselnitskaya. It is probable that the FBI agents conducting the background check on Kushner found out about the Trump Tower meeting over the course of conducting their background check on Kushner and that that’s why Kushner revised his SF 86 to admit the meeting with Veselnitskaya.

            P. S. If you weren’t so petrified of violating the “taboo” against “guesswork” you could figure many things out on your own recognizance, Gnash.

      2. The meeting with Russian spies in Trump Tower was a conspiracy to defraud the US.

        Getting information on an opponent, especially if that information is true, in no way defrauds the US. As it turned out, the meeting was a conspiracy to defraud the Trump campaign, FISC, the 2016 election and the US.

        Now when a senior DOJ official (Bruce Ohr) facilitates gathering information on a candidate using a foreign agent, paid by the Clinton/DNC and provides that unsubstantiated information to the FBI (Peter Strzok) to secure FISA warrants to spy on the Clinton/DNC opposition candidate, then that is a conspiracy to defraud the US.

        Put another way, if you put all the evidence known today on one side of a scale showing a conspiracy by the Trump campaign to defraud anyone, and all the evidence of a conspiracy by the Clinton/DNC/DOJ/FBI to defraud all mentioned above, the latter would blow up the scale.

        But by all means, let’s stay objective and pray for a blue wave to impeach on the former and ignore the latter.

        1. Trump Jr. was approached by a foreign government seeking to influence an American election. Trump Jr. welcomed the possibility of influence, and candidate Trump’s actions, while circumstantial, indicate that he intended to make use of that information. It is irrelevant, in conspiracy law, that Trump Jr. found the information ultimately worthless, or as Trump said, that “it went nowhere.”

          The statute criminalizes “any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government,” even if the object of the conspiracy is not a criminal offense. According to Mueller’s indictment, the conspiracy sought to defraud the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice — the agencies charged with preventing foreign nationals from making contributions, donations or expenditures (which can include not just money, but any “thing of value”) that would influence U.S. elections.

          1. Wow, that really sounds important.

            Has there been any evidence demonstrating a conspiracy to defraud any entity involved in the 2016 election?

            1. Olly,
              WHERE ARE THOSE INDICTMENTS, when did Mueller bring those indictments, and who is named in those indictments.
              The claim was made that Mueller brought indictments related to the Trump Tower meeting alleging violation of campaign laws.
              I’m going around in circles with Marry A Minority in trying to get some straight answers, so this is an open question to anyone.

              1. First, in the broad scheme of Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, nobody beyond his tight-lipped team has a good sense of what evidence the special counsel does — or does not — have. That’s why virtually all of the commentary about Mueller’s work is conjecture, including some of what I’ll offer below. It’s also why any grand pronouncements of certitude about what the forthcoming Manafort verdicts may augur should be viewed skeptically.
                https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/08/20/why-a-bombshell-nyt-story-about-the-mueller-probe-actually-looks-relatively-exculpatory-for-trump-n2511154?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=&profileid=

                1. Olly,…
                  A while back Late4 Dinner claimed that “the attendees of the Trump Tower meeting gave Congressional testimony” that there would be sanctions relief for Russia in exchange for negative information about Hillary.
                  Now a reader can believe L4D’s claim, or spend a lot of time tracking down Congessional testimony thst does not exist.
                  L4D may wish that the testimony she claims was given actually exists, but that “wish” on her part does not make that testimony magically appear, because it does not exist.
                  So in addition to the endless conjecture, there’s the problem of “inventing facts”; and that goes beyond conjecture and gets into outright lying.

                  1. I’ve enjoyed this blog more since I took Turley’s advise to not respond to trolls. Therefore, I have nothing to offer regarding L4D.

                    1. Olly,…
                      When there is a particularly significant lie posted by L4D, I think it needs to be pointed out.
                      Left uncontested, she is likely to have people believing her lie that “the attendees of the Trump Tower meeting gave Congressional testimony” of a quid pro quo deal of Russian sanctions relief for dirt on Hillary.
                      Or that The New York Times does not do investigative reporting…..she pulled that one out of thin air and “made a ‘fact’ out of it” when it suited her purposes.
                      I think calling out the lies of a determined propagandist using this comments section as her platform is important enough to respond to those lies.

                    2. When there is a particularly significant lie posted by L4D, I think it needs to be pointed out.

                      I understand your point Tom. I’ve been doing it for years with all of her sockpuppets and quite frankly, there is not enough time in the day to respond to them all. She has a fundamental problem that is the root of her lies; she does not believe in natural rights. She believes all rights come from government. Like all progressives, this distorts her understanding of the purpose for government. If a comment catches my interest, I’ll respond.

                  2. Olly,…
                    I would add that just today a claim was made that Mueller’s team was made up mostly of registered Republicans.
                    That claim is obviously false to those who know better, maybe believable to some who don’t actually know who Mueller recruited.
                    I don’t think I used the word “lie” to challenge that wildly inaccurate claim because the person who posted it isn’t playing with a full deck, and can’t necessarily be held responsible for crazy distortions and wild inaccuracies.

                  3. Tom Nash said, “A while back Late4 Dinner claimed that “the attendees of the Trump Tower meeting gave Congressional testimony” that there would be sanctions relief for Russia in exchange for negative information about Hillary.”

                    That’s not what L4D said. L4D said that the four Russians who attended the Trump Tower meeting testified to Congress that Trump Jr. supposedly told them that his father might revisit the Magnitsky sanctions after he won the election. What L4D said is true. What Tom Nash said about what L4D said is false.

                    It’s doubtful that Tom Nash knows that what he said about what L4D said is false or that he intended to post a false statement about what L4D said. The main reason to doubt Tom Nash’s knowing intent to make a false statement about L4D is that Tom Nash can’t follow an argument any better than he can follow a thread.

                    Most likely Ptom can’t follow an argument or a thread because Gnash is struggling mightily to avoid biting his own tongue whilst typing his comments. L4D recommends that Ptom Gnash should bite on the handle of a wooden spoon whilst typing his comments so that he won’t have to worry about biting his tongue, instead, and so that he can follow both the thread and the argument.

                    1. That is EXACTLY what L4D said…..doubling down on a lie is a neat trick if you can get away with it.
                      When challenged on these lies at the time, L4D immediately deflected and changed the subject.
                      Now, months later, she’s going to revise what she said.
                      Her normal stunt is to distort and rephrase what OTHERS wrote, but I guess it’s a small step for a lying propagandist to do that with her own words.

                    2. Tom Nash said, “That is EXACTLY what L4D said.”

                      Prove it. When you accuse someone of lying, the burden of proof is on the accuser. That’s you, Tom. Prove that what you said L4D said is “exactly” what L4D said. I seriously doubt that you can prove your accusation of lying against L4D.

                      Don’t forget to bite on the handle of that wooden spoon to protect your tongue while your attempt to prove your accusation of lying against L4D.

                    3. Dr. Benson enables L4D. Thank you so much. I need a codependent to deal with Gnash’s increasing apoplexy. (I’m serious worried about Ptom. He’s really losing it, big time.)

                    4. The transtion from hyper-partisan hyper-RPM spin machine to outright liar is not as seamless as L4D thought it would be.
                      If she now wants to deny writing what she wrote, it’ll be interesting to see how she tries to spin her lies.

                    5. Way to stay on topic, L4D. You are reverting to your original game plan, deflection, instead of dealing with what you wrote on June 5th.
                      You were better off sticking with your deflection/ obfuscation strategy, instead of denying what you wrote in your June comment.
                      Where is the Congressional testimony that backs up what you claimed in that comment?

                    6. The response to your unruly demand is on the next page of this thread under your comment at 5:21 am.

        2. Haha. Bruce Ohr. As if. Next. Pro tip: Pravda Faux News doesn’t really care about you. Change the channel, you’re embarrassing yourself.

          to olly

          1. That’s right, Bruce Ohr. I hope you work pro bono because it would be a crime for anyone to pay for your lack of debate skills.

            1. Rich. Debate? As if. I also don’t debate flat-earthers, 9/11 false flaggers, or birthers. You’ve mouthpieced for some sort of conspiracy hoodoo which is no different from the other nonsensical prattle I’ve set forth above. Moreover, I’m not trying to “convince” you, “save” you, “educate” you or “show you the error of your ways.” I have a very good idea why dwindling few of you, your ilk, gullible rubes, dupes, klan-wannabees and pocket traitors still avert their eyes and mouth support for the obscenity which is the day glo bozo. The only way that rationale is gonna pass is for your types to just die the f*ck off and take your 19th century racism with you to the next plane. Meanwhile, rational, authentic American patriots will step up to save the Republic from your clumsy and buffoonish sabotage.

              this is to “but they had slavery in the bible, right?” olly

              1. Well that was easy. 🙂

                Moreover, I’m not trying to “convince” you, “save” you, “educate” you or “show you the error of your ways.”

                Of course not. That would require you abandon trolling this blog and provide a cogent argument. We know that won’t happen because you lack the humility to make the effort.

                Like I said, pro bono would be a fee too high for your services.

                  1. that is going to leave a mark…

                    🙂 I’ll finish the sentence…unchanged. Mark and his ilk remind me of this statement by Bastiat, especially the text I bolded: Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

                    If they had a legitimate argument to make, they wouldn’t need to resort to the childish insults. Maybe that works on their playground, but those antics stopped having an impact on me 50 years ago. I have no problem being proven wrong, but they don’t even make an effort to do so.

          2. Yes, Bruce Ohr. If you happen to have a reasonable explanation as to why Ohr was still feeding information to the investigation sourced from Steele after the FBI supposedly terminated Steele as a source, that would be a good discussion.

  4. When I first saw this headline, I thought how could he say something like that. For a vast majority of people who only read the headline they just think he is an idiot and move on. I took the time to find the entire conversation, because I figured there had to be more to this, and of course there was. He definitely stated this very poorly, even if he would have simply said, “Let me give you an example when truth isn’t truth.” He was referring of course to a conversation between only two people where each is saying the exact opposite. Some prejudge Trump and say he must be lying, some prejudge Comey and say he’ lying. Trump’s history as a teller of tales doesn’t help him, however, without real evidence to support one or the other, there is no truth here that can be depended on.

    1. 18 U.S. Code § 371 There is no question the Trump campaign participated in a conspiracy to defraud the US.

      On the face of it, Trump Jr. was approached by a foreign government seeking to influence an American election. Trump Jr. welcomed the possibility of influence, and candidate Trump’s actions, while circumstantial, indicate that he intended to make use of that information. It is irrelevant, in conspiracy law, that Trump Jr. found the information ultimately worthless, or as Trump said, that “it went nowhere.”

      http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-litman-lieberman-trump-tower-meeting-conspiracy-20180806-story.html#

      1. Again, where are Mueller’s indictment re the Trump Tower meeting, and who is named in the indictment(s).
        Anybody? If someone knows about this, I would like to know.

        1. This excerpt from the article linked above is especially telling:

          Cheaters always win, just watch kids playing and you’ll spot the winner by noticing who makes up the best new rules.

          Kids who make up rules advertise them! They first complain. Then they turn the complaint into a problem. Then, sure thing, the come up with the solution. Then they give it away for free. Then they explain, in one on one sessions, how the new rule makes the game better. But, at all times, they keep the name of the game at the top of the conversation: they must win this particular game they’re in, not name out a new one, that breaks the spell of play!

            1. Another selection from the linked article. Perhaps Gnash will like this one better:

              Cheaters always win because they make the rules. And you know what? All the rule makers are cheaters. You know what else? You cannot make any rule without cheating first! There is the often quoted incompleteness theorem to prove this, but there is also the absurdity of existence to explain that: cheaters always win.

              And if they lose, at least they lose in their own terms.

              1. L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – evidently, you have not played in homes where there are “house rules.” These are rules added or subtracted to the game that the family made for their enjoyment. They always explain the rules to you, so you have the chance to opt out if you want. Unless you are in a tournament, rules are not writ in stone. If everyone agrees to the rule changes, no one is “cheating.” The hypothesis is invalid.

                1. Res Ipsa Loquitur is not The House of Schulte. It’s The House of Res made possible by a grant from Turley, surely.

                  1. L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – I have always said that this is JT’s sandbox, although you seem to think it is yours. I am glad to see you admit it is not your site though, but in your heart of hearts you still think it is yours, don’t you. 😉

            2. Ptom Gnash says that an article about cheaters and cheating is, in fact, on topic for Turley’s post about Giuliani’s “truth is not truth” comment to Chuck Todd.

              L4D agrees. It is on topic for this thread.

              1. It was NOT the topic we were discussing about L4D’s lying, and her doubling down on that lie.
                She didn’t waste any time sprinting away from that discussion, and this is a common stunt that she likes to pull.

                1. Tom Nash now says that Turley’s topic for the thread entitled “Truth Isn’t Truth” is not Gnash’s topic for the imaginary Ptom Gnash thread entitled “The Topic Isn’t The Topic.”

                  1. Nice try, Slick. Our exchange started with the lie that you posted in a previous comment, and your doubling down on that lie.
                    It did not take you long to ditch that topic once I produced your June 5 comment.
                    So you dropped that exchange cold out of respect for the topic of JT’s column.
                    Something you just now decided was important; I have seen you immediately jump off the topic of a column to start your daily propaganda show with the topic of your chosing, but now you want to stick to the JT topic.
                    As I said, nice try, Slick.

                    1. Krazy Kat Rambler said, “. . . once I produced your June 5 comment.”

                      When was that? Not yet. You have produced precisely and exactly just nothing that L4D had ever posted on this blawg. Most likely you don’t know how to copy and paste. Prove me wrong. Or suffer the consequences of your own rule-making.

      2. Thanks for linking us to that excellent article, MarryAMinority/AngerTrumpVoters.

        I noticed that many of your downstream comments also included excerpts from the linked article. But I had to read the article to figure that out. There aren’t very many AngryTrumpVoters who would read the linked article and see for themselves that your comments were not your own opinions. Evidently, Tom Nash did read the linked article. Otherwise he would not have questioned the distinction between Mueller’s IRA indictment versus the case in chief that Mueller has not yet indicted.

        P. S. It should be interesting to see if Ptom can figure out exactly what L4D just said.

          1. Go to, Krazy Kat. You do know how to copy and paste; don’t you, Ptom? You just put your lips together and blow that whistle, Man, blow.

              1. Tom Nash – I know this is just going to confuse the issue, however, I think all topics in a conversation are on topic. They are off the original topic but all conversations move to new topics as the conversation goes on. One thing reminds you of another which triggers something important you want to say, etc.

          2. Liar4 Breakfast evidently does not read “recent comments”, so I’ll go back again to her June 5 comment and lies.
            It will appear in recent comments, and in any case her comment is archived in the June5, 2018 column about Mueller/ Manafort.

            1. This how copy and paste is done Nash:

              Tom Nash says: August 20, 2018 at 7:01 PM

              Olly,
              WHERE ARE THOSE INDICTMENTS, when did Mueller bring those indictments, and who is named in those indictments.
              The claim was made that Mueller brought indictments related to the Trump Tower meeting alleging violation of campaign laws.
              I’m going around in circles with Marry A Minority in trying to get some straight answers, so this is an open question to anyone.

              Notice Tom that you got MarryAMinority/AngerTrumpVoters claim wrong, too. The comments that MAM/ATV posted were actually excerpts from the article to which MAM/ATV linked just upstream from here. Had you read that linked article you would have realized that the comment at issue refers to Mueller’s IRA indictment. Meanwhile, your own comments about the IRA indictment strongly suggest that you did read the article to which MAM/ATV linked. Your constant confusion most likely results from your profound unwillingness to speculate, to make conjectures or to guess. Unless and until you can overcome this demonstrable confusion of yours, you really ought to consider holding off on any more accusations that somebody else is lying.

              1. I’m not going to try to review and untangle the exchange that I had with Marry A. Minority, especially with LIAR4Breakfast jumping in here and screwing up that exchange even more.
                A comment was made about the “discovery process” in “the Russia case”.
                That isn’t very specific, so I was trying to find out what “Russia case” M.A.M. had in mind.
                Without getting into the alphabet soup that Liar4 Breakfast loves, I asked if he was referring to case against the Russian company that actually showed up in court to contest the charges.
                Then, Marry A. Minority did claim violations if FEC rules because of the Trump Tower meeting.
                And that indictment(s) by Mueller were brought in relation to those alleged violations of FEC rules.
                Liar4 Breakfast’s comments did absolutely nothing to answer my question,but that is a standard practice with her.
                So my question is the same….given that Marry A. Minority mentioned the indictment(s) by Mueller related to alleged FEC violations that occured at the Trump Tower meeting, I wanted to know who is named in the indictment(s)?
                If LIAR4BREAKFAST is going to jump in on an exchange, the least she could do is actually READ what was said in the exchange.
                She clearly missed or ignored M.A.M. comments about the alleged FEC violations at the Trump Tower meeting, and the claim that Mueller issued indictments because of those alleged violations.
                This is not complicated; if Mueller did bring those indictments, who is named in those indictments?

                1. No. You’ve still got MAM/ATV’s claim all bollixed up and garbled beyond recognition. What MAM/ATV posted were excerpts from the article to which MAM/ATV linked. The excerpt that refers to Mueller’s indictment refers to the IRA indictment. Neither the article at issue nor MAM/ATV asserted that Mueller had indicted anyone for any election law violations committed at the Trump Tower meeting. There was, however, an argument by analogy to the IRA indictment showing that the attendees of the Trump Tower meeting could be indicted for election law violations. Thus, the previous judgment stands: Unless and until Ptom Gnash can demonstrate his ability to follow an argument, he needs to refrain from accusing his interlocutors of lying.

                  1. Congratulations to Liar4Breakfast for what she does best…..muddying the waters and avoiding a direct, straitford exchange.
                    If she’s going to ignore what I quoted from Marry A. Minority’s earlier comment, there is no point in her “contributions” with the objective of distorting and screwing up an exchange.
                    Happy Trolling, LIAR4BREAKFAST

  5. What Giuliani meant is rather clear. Essentially, one man’s truth is another man’s lie. Trump tells Mueller “the sky is blue.” Mueller says “ummmmm, no, it looks more gray to me.” Mueller indicts Trump for perjury. If I had a client who ignored my advice and agreed to talk to a prosecutor, I’d withdraw from representation and walk away.

  6. What is most amazing to me is the extent to which the rubes believe the lie machine. Giuliani’s mission is advance damage control, calculated to keep Trumpy Bear’s supporters when the Mueller report comes out showing that Trump and his family committed various crimes.

    Some of these people that blog here are so delusional about Trump that they actually believe: 1. no possibility that Trump committed any crime; therefore, Mueller must be on a “witch hunt”, aided and abetted by the “fake media”, manipulated by Democrats to accomplish a coup de etat; 2. Mueller and his chief investigators are Democrats, and therefore, the investigation is politically-motivated, even though Mueller and most of his investigators have always been registered as Republicans; 3. Russia didn’t do anything to interfere with the 2016 election, despite the fact that multiple investigations by multiple agencies concluded otherwise; 4. Trump is right to avoid cooperating with the Special Prosecutor, because it’s all just a set-up to trap him into perjury; 5. There’s Trump’s “truth’ and the other “truth”, and both version of “truth” are entitled to equal weight and credibility. Trumpsters will believe Trump’s truth, no matter how blatantly false it is or the amount of credible contrary evidence. Therefore, for instance, if Trump denies meeting with Russians and agreeing to accept their assistance in getting elected in exchange for easing sanctions, loans, cash payments or other concessions, no matter how long and credible the paper trail, if he merely denies these facts, Trumpsters will buy it.

    1. ” Mueller and most of his investigators have always been registered Republicans”.
      Natacha isn’t in any postion to talk about others being “delusional”.
      She also needs to brace herself for the possibility that “when the Mueller report comes out” that it will not show “that Trump and his family committed various crimes”.
      This from the person who likes to say “we don’t know what Mueller knows”, yet she “knows” what will be in Mueller’s report.

    2. Mueller and most of his investigators have always been registered as Republicans;

      1. Natacha is lying. She doesn’t even know in which state Mueller is registered. (James Comey was registered in Virginia, which has no party registration).

      2. She’s lying about the investigators. Four of his initial 14 hires were Democratic Party contributors, three of the four-digit contributors. Only a single-digit % of the population make political contributions.

      1. DDS – one of Mueller’s attorney’s was at the DNC loser’s party and I think was the same person who sent Yates a Go Get Um note after she defied Trump.

      2. TS to Dance,…
        At least we know that she can still count up to 5.
        If Trump runs in 2020 and is re-elected, I’m not sure that she’d still have that ability.

  7. Guiliani’s manglement of his truth explanation was oddly appropriate. No president has ever been so unmoored from the truth.

    And ‘yes’, the professor is right about Trump’s use of “rat”; it betrays a criminal-like mentality on his part.

    1. To paraphrase Kipling’s fine poem “If,” Trump has not lost the “common touch” and that is why he can communicate so concisely

  8. Turley wrote, “Trump’s comments followed a New York Times report that . . . [edit] . . . suggested that McGahn feared he was being made into a fall guy and refused to be made into the next John Dean.”

    The fall guy for what, exactly? Surely not the obstruction of justice case. But what about the conspiracy case in chief? Well, either McGahn was informed about the Trump Tower meeting before it happened on June 9th, 2016, or McGahn was left in the dark about the Trump Tower meeting until Jared Kushner was forced to revise his SF 86 applications on April 6th, 2017,to admit a meeting with Veselnitskaya. If McGahn found out about the Trump Tower meeting the hard way, then McGahn has a perfectly legitimate grudge against Trump and the Trump campaign. If McGahn knew about the Trump Tower meeting before it happened and didn’t do anything to prevent it from happening, then Trump and the Trump campaign have a legitimate grudge against McGahn who spent five years as a Commissioner with the Federal Elections Commission from 2008 through 2013. Of course, it’s entirely possible for both McGahn and Trump to harbor legitimate grudges against one another. But I don’t see how its possible that neither McGahn nor Trump harbor any grudges against one another. Exactly how many things has Don McGahn screwed up?

      1. Mr. Kurtz,..
        If,if,if
        It’s possible
        It’s entirely possible
        I didn’t see a “it’s highly probable” in this round, but it won’t be be long before that line is used again.😊😀

  9. What this interview revealed is Trump and his apologists have been wrong about this case from the beginning.

    They keep saying there has been no evidence of wrongdoing, but they have acknowledged they have no idea who McGahn told Mueller.

    They cannot know what Mueller has found because we have not reached the discovery step of the case yet.

    The claim that this is a witch hunt is wrong if they have evidence of crimes.

    1. investigation of criminal allegations by a prosecutor is discovery. discovery by the state. or rather, discovery of what “evidence” they can find which may be admissible and tend to prove the allegations.
      .. in other words, in this case as in others, the state forms an opinion first, and then goes hunting for evidence, instead of forming an opinion later based on evidence found first. well, that’s how the system works for everybody in the end. welcome to American justice

      1. The discovery phase of the Russia case hasn’t begun yet. It is when the prosecution shares the evidence it has found with the defense so the defendants can create a legal reply.

        Mueller shared his evidence on Manafort with his defense team before he was tried.

        The fact that Trump and Giuliani don’t know what McGahn told Mueller is contradicts their claim there is no evidence of a crime.

        They cannot say there is no evidence of crime when they do not know what witnesses have testified about.

        1. M.a Minority,…
          So you’re referring to the discovery process and in the charges against the Russians that Mueller brought?
          If Mueller had uncovered “collusion” related to the charges against the Russian trolls, etc., I doubt that he would have indicted only Russians.
          One Russian company did show up to face Mueller’s charges in court, but it’s very unlikely that they did that to implicate Trump.
          The other Russians indicted are far removed from Mueller’s reach; unless they volunteer to face the charges in an American court, Mueller can’t force Russia to turn them over.

          1. Since Giuliani and Fox News don’t know what McGahn and other witnesses have testified to, they cannot say there is no evidence against Trump.

            It is elementary.

            1. M.aMinority,
              ..
              You commented on “the Russia case” and “the discovery phase”.
              Since you weren’t very specific, I was trying to find out what “Russia case” and what indictments.
              Now you mention McGahn.
              Can you be more specific on “the Russia case” that you expect to produce (or reveal) incriminating evidence?
              The discover process occurs after indictments and before a trial.
              So what indictments against Russians? or whoever do you mean?
              So far, there have been no indictments against McGahn, or resulting from McGahn’s meetings with Mueller.
              Of course we “we haven’t reached the discovery phase” related to McGahn.
              I haven’t seen updates recently on “the Russia case” against the trolls etc.
              So it remains unclear , when you mention “the discovery phase”, then “the Russia case” and then “McGahn” ….it remains unclear which discovery phase of which trial
              that you mean.

            2. M. a Minority,
              It looks like my last comment to you did not post, so I’ll try this again; what discovery phase of what trial are you referring to?

              1. I am referring to the discovery of the conspiracy case that Mueller is building against Trump for the meeting in Trump Tower.

                Under the “defraud clause,” as precedent and the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual make clear, the statute criminalizes “any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government,” even if the object of the conspiracy is not a criminal offense. According to Mueller’s indictment, the conspiracy sought to defraud the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice — the agencies charged with preventing foreign nationals from making contributions, donations or expenditures (which can include not just money, but any “thing of value”) that would influence U.S. elections.
                Conspiracy law, it’s important to note, punishes the act of agreeing to a forbidden goal regardless of whether that goal is achieved. So long as the government can establish that targets agreed to pursue the conspiratorial objective, they may be prosecuted as co-conspirators.

                The Trump Tower meeting clearly fits established definitions of “conspiracy to defraud the United States.” In early June, Trump Jr. received an email explaining that a Russian government official wanted to provide his father’s campaign with incriminating documents and information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr. replied, “if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.” The June 9 meeting was confirmed two days earlier, on June 7. That night, Trump announced that he would “give a major speech” in the next week to discuss “all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons.”

                1. M. a Minority,…
                  The “discovery phase” is not the same as an investigation; it is the presentation of evidence to the defense following an indictment and before ( and sometime during) a trial.
                  You are calling an investigation “the discovery phase”, but they are not the same thing.

                2. M. a Minority,..
                  – I re-read your last comment, and you mentioned “Mueller’s indictment” relating to conspiracy charges arising out of the Trump Tower meeting.
                  When did Mueller bring that indictment, and who is named in the indictment?

    2. They keep saying there has been no evidence of wrongdoing,

      In two years of investigating, they’ve turned up (1) process crimes, (2) Russian internet trolls (who did little of consequence and who he thought he’d never have to try, (3) Paul Manafort’s offshore accounts, about which Trump knew nothing, and (4) Russian security officials (who he’ll never try). IOW, trivia plus allegations for which he’ll never have to provide any evidence. Those are his revealed preferences. You’re Linus on Holloween, waiting for the Great Pumpkin to appear. Enjoy.

      1. TS to Dance,…
        The “but we don’t know what Mueller knows” is the stock answer given as “evidence” that Mueller has “evidence” of
        this or that criminal offense.

        1. Tom: How can you say “there is no evidence” when it hasn’t been released yet?

          You are failing elementary logic.

          Even Fox News has said as much. Watch Chris Wallace talk to Trump’s attorney about this.

          1. M.a Minority,…
            How can you say that there IS evidence when it hasn’t been released yet?
            Let’s take this game a little farther.
            “We don’t know” what evidence the Huber-Horowitz investigation has uncovered.
            Now I’ll just jump ahead from there, and claim that thr evidence from the Huber-Horowitz investigation will result in criminal charges against Hillary, Marc Elias, DW Schultz, Bruce and Nellie Orh, Glenn Simpson,etc.
            Now you can’t say that’s not likely, because “you don”t know” what evidence Huber and Horowitz have uncovered.
            This “you don’t know” game is played with the “belief” that there is evidence because “”we don’t know, there might be evidence”.

          2. It looks like there is a lag between the time I hit “post comment”, and when the comment is actually posted.
            So I’ll give my reply to you another 5 minutes or so to show up, before I have to type and post it again.

          3. You would be hard put to find a federal investigation by a special prosecutor in the last 50 years that had accomplishments of note more than about 40 months into the investigation. Also, you’d be hard put to find an example of a petit jury verdict rendered less than 9 months after the indictment was issued. Special prosecutors are not ordinary prosecutors. They have open-ended budgets and no competing claims on their time.

            One thing that distinguishes this investigation from previous such investigation is that no one has any idea what the crime is that they are investigating, so cretins like Late4Yoga are reduced to reciting incantations (“conspiracy to defraud the United States”) about whose semantic content they have not a clue or offering other claims (“obstruction of justice”, “election law violations”) that don’t pass a laugh test.

  10. “He was understandably trying to convey that prosecutors can frame the facts in ways to trap a witness.” The lefty loon media also understood this was what he was trying to convey, but they intentionally ran with the bad look to feed the lefty loons and generate more ad dollars. Similar to how they drop the word “fake” as it relates to Trump’s comments on the media. Left media likes to surgically extract words to feed to their base as part of business model.

    1. Turley got it right – we know what he meant, but the comment was so poorly stated that it blew up on him. Given the fact that the president is loose with his facts, it just plays into the existing narrative. If you don’t understand this, it’s media 101 and Giuliani is supposed to be there to help Trump, not make things worse.

    2. He cannot be trapped if he tells the truth to investigators. Plus he has the 5th Amendment he can take to avoid perjury. There is no prosecution trap.

      1. a. I don’t believe you
        b. Neither does scooter libby
        c. That law exists.
        d. I don’t believe you. you have offered no proofs. .

      2. Bullsh*t. Trump says one thing, and Comey says another. For example, Trump says, “No, I didn’t ask Comey for a loyalty oath.” Comey says, “Trump asked me for a loyalty oath!”

        Mueller says that he believes Comey, and that Trump is therefore lying to the FBI.

        Does the analysis seem a little thin to you? Then just remember how phony oppo research became the backup for FISA warrants. Nothing here is too attenuated to happen.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Giurl Reporter

        1. Let’s see now, just how many proven lies has Trump told so far? Literally thousands. Therefore, when Trump or Guiliani refuse to cooperate with the Mueller investigation because of fear of a “perjury trap” and proclaim that the “truth isn’t the truth”, you don’t have to be a social scientist or even an adult to figure out what they’re saying. Trump’s going to lie, again, but they’ll have him under oath. Trump and Giuliani are afraid there are tapes, documents or other irrefutable evidence that will establish yet another lie, but this time, the lie will constitute obstruction of justice. Trumpy Bear’s going down.

        2. If he afraid of being caught in a contradiction like that, all he needs to do is take the 5th amendment. Any witness can take the 5th if he believes his answer will be used to incriminate himself.

          1. One other big problem is that with his dementia or ADD or whatever mental decline problem he suffers from, he has a limited attention span. His lawyers can’t prep him adequately, because he can’t pay attention long enough or apparently can’t retain what he was woodshedded to say. He wouldn’t be able to recall what spin to put on facts he can’t lie his way out of, or when to couch what he says ambivalently so that could it could be spun later on.

            Then, there’s the “problem” that he sometimes he accidentally tells the truth, like when he admitted to Lester Holt that he fired Comey to try to stop the Russian investigation. He forgot to lie about that one. That’s really what Giuliani is afraid of.

            1. One other big problem is that with his dementia or ADD or whatever mental decline problem he suffers from

              Another diagnosis from you. (1) You’re not a lawyer (2) you’re not a nurse, either. Those are just the lies you told in this forum.

  11. Under all of this could lurk an ego driven throwing down of the gauntlet. Trump may be posturing, agitating, and enticing Mueller to make a ‘demand’ move. Once Mueller makes his move, Trump will have exposed Mueller’s position to a large degree. Too little demand and Trump toys with Mueller; too much demand and the tweets continue into the early hours, rallying supporters for the victim of the witch hunt. The garble about truth is an idea of the garble to come.

      1. Could be. Look how easily the fell for coffee coveve. Most of President Trump’s successes are based on traps the left constantly falls into . Not talking a lot of brain power there.

        1. Or, to be more productive, you could look at how easily the gullible rubes, dupes, klan-wannabees and pocket traitors fell for the big con.

          this is to “ya, he’s an imbecile and probably a traitor, but at least he’s an old white guy” mikey

  12. Turley wrote, “It is embarrassing for allies to associate themselves with a defense that ‘truth isn’t truth.’”

    Speaking from experience, I can tell you that sometimes embarrassment is just-plain unavoidable. For instance, if it should turn out that Trump’s only defense is abject denial, then, no matter how embarrassing it might be to Trump’s allies, the old “truth isn’t truth” defense might make an excellent segue to the preemptive self-pardon defense. After all, why should Brennan be the only one who has “lost” his “objective position” in the “ongoing controversies”? Surely “The Subject” of the “ongoing controversies,” himself, cannot be expected to maintain an “objective position” indefinitely. The truth still has to make its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The President of the United States of America doesn’t just lie down, roll over and play dead for any “pontification of moral theology” such as “the truth.” Whatever it is or even might be. “Whatever.”

  13. If we had a political system that puts competent people in power, we wouldn’t need a witch-hunt to remove them from power.

    If we had a foreign policy of peace, civil discourse, and diplomacy, we wouldn’t need Russia as an enemy.

    Nevertheless, Giuliani is right that truth is an opinion.

    1. If we had a political system that puts competent people in power, we wouldn’t need a witch-hunt to remove them from power.

      Is Kim Jung Un trolling the Turley blog?

      We have a system to put all levels of competence in public office. We also have a constitutional means to remove them. No where in our legal system does it provide anyone the authority to conduct a witch hunt to remove someone from office.

      As we’ve discovered over the last 2 years, the witch hunters weren’t going to wait around to see if Trump was going to be competent. They certainly were not going to rely on the constitutional system to do what they believed was the right thing.
      And after 2 years of their efforts, they still haven’t found anything candidate Trump did to collude with the Russians. They still have found nothing this President has done that has been unconstitutional. What we’ve seen is an unconventional President plowing soil the deep statists believe should be unplowable.

      This President is competent, just not in the cooperative way his opponents have always found to their liking.

    2. The truth is not an opinion. 2 does not equal 3.

      This is Orwellian talk.

      It is like saying there are alternative facts. Either something is a fact or it isn’t a fact.

    1. The court jester Rudy G knew what he was doing. Trump is losing and will continue to lose, so work the public rubes that still believe into alternative facts and truth isn’t truth. Don’t believe your ears or eyes works very well with Trump supporters.

      1. Last I looked the socialist progressive left was losing. Got any facts from verifiable sources to back up that wild claim? No? So what else isn’t new.?

        1. Your support of tRump indicates your intuitive abilities are nonexistent. Stick to what you know, there must be a personal injury suit for you to chase.

      2. I don’t think Guiliani knew at all. I think Rudy has “lost a step” and can’t seem to figure it out. Unfortunately for the day glo bozo, he’s also “lost a step” and appears unable to distinguish between a competent, ethical attorney and the bookie / fixer down at the corner watering hole. Alternatively, the day glo bozo likely doesn’t have much of a talent pool for defense counsel, as I doubt that very many competent, ethical attorneys would agree to represent such an unmitigated train wreck; not because of the clearly foreseeable peril he’s in, but because he won’t accept the wise counsel and advice a competent, ethical attorney would provide.

        1. Marky Mark Mark – I just watched a video that was a perfect example of what Guillani was talking about. 60 Minutes did a segment on the Vince Foster death basically destroying a reputable reporter who thought it was a murder. By using clever editing, their truth made him look like a liar. However, he had the documents, the FBI reports, the autopsy report, etc. All they had was innuendo. After watching that, I am convinced 60 Minutes did a hit job to cover for the Clintons and Vince Foster was murdered somewhere else and moved to the Park.

          1. By all means, don’t be afraid to identify the wackjob-wingnut website where you watched another “Clinton Conspiracy” video. I believe you’ll agree that “‘something-something’ minds want to know.”

            to paulie

                1. Marky Mark Mark – you asked for the specific video. I suggest you open your teeny tiny mind and watch it. Learning is such an interesting thing and one of the reasons I continue my education at my advanced age. You asked me to back up what I said, I did. The least you could do is have the courtesy of watching it. Then comment.

                  BTW, I think of snopes the same way I think of the SPLC. Neither has credibility.

          2. Paul C……..I’ll retry my comment to you. That is so typical about 60 Min… and I believe you are correct about the sinister story re: Vince Foster they were manipulating. My husband did alot of tv interviews back years ago (one with Mike Wallace) and I remember there was alot of talk about 60 Min playing fast and loose with editing back then They were known for it

                  1. Paul C. A very compelling film! Thank you so much for the link. Chris Ruddy is a very credible man.
                    No one can crucify and bury the opposition like Dems….esp. Clintons. I am quite sure Vince Foster was “relieved” of his duties.

                    1. Cindy Bragg – interesting how Vince Foster got all the way into the park on that dirt and did not get any dirt on the soles of his shoes. 😉

                  2. Paul C. Yeah! No dirt on shoes and how about no blood!!!
                    Did the Parks Dept have a valet service no one knew about?!
                    Jeeze…..!

                    1. Cindy Bragg – and then blaming the carpet fibers on putting the clothing in the same plastic bags. Geez. I have seen sloppy reporting before but this was a hit job.

    2. every human including we who get paid to talk for others
      but Trump does not evoke a lot of charity from his adversaries

  14. The Truth is that Trump has no intention of answering Mueller’s questions. The truth is that Trump never had any intention of answering Mueller’s questions. The truth is that Trump will never form any intention to answer Mueller’s questions. The truth is that Trump is almost certainly right about avoiding Mueller’s questions like the plague. Exactly why Trump should avoid Mueller’s questions like the plague has not yet been publically disclosed. But the reasons for Trump’s morbid avoidance of Mueller’s questions almost certainly will be publically disclosed eventually. And when that happens, Don McGahn will have had something to do with the revelation of the truth.

  15. Giuliani and Trump are complicit in the 9/11 Cover-Up

    “9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB”
    The official U.S. Government & Media 9/11 story is that 2 NYC towers were brought down by 2 airplanes.
    This is a total LIE !
    The Truth is that 3 NYC SKYSCRAPERS WERE DESTROYED BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION ON 9/11.
    In the following video 3020 Architects and Engineers prove the U.S. Government & Media are Lying about 9/11.
    The U.S. Government & Media are complicit in the murders of 9/11.
    Christopher Bollyn: If the government and media are lying to us about 9/11, it means they are controlled by the same people who carried out 9/11.
    Our enemy does not want you to know about the 3rd building, WTC 7. It was not hit by a plane.
    This issue exposes the wide and deep corruption of the governments, courts and media.
    http://www.ae911truth.org/

    https://youtu.be/_nyogTsrsgI

    1. It would be like letting the Jack Nicholson character from A Few Good Men or Humphrey Bogart character from Caine Mutiny be interviewed by Muler. PS: It would also be like letting Larry David testify.

    2. PCS, the implication of your post is that Mueller was maliciously appointed as SC without an iota of probable cause for a “crime” and in a situation that would, at best, be a counter-intelligence investigation, not the purview of an SC, and that Mueller is abusing power and conducting an illegal “malicious prosecution.”

    3. Neither would I; but I wouldn’t have to ever make that recommendation as I would refuse representation.

      1. Marky Mark Mark – you think the President is going to reach out to someone who gets sloppy seconds from the Federal Public Defenders Office? Come on! Even you cannot be that unrealistic!

Leave a Reply