Columns, Criminal law

“More Sinned Against Than Sinning”: The Sacking of Sessions Leaves a Dangerous Delusion for Trump

jeff_sessions_official_portraitBelow is my column in USA Today on the sacking of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the implications for the Trump Administration.  The most worrisome thing about the forced resignation is that Trump still does not understand that Sessions not only took the only ethical course in recusing himself, but the best course for the Administration.

Here is the column:

In the Shakespearean drama known as the Trump administration, the Jeff Sessions is the ultimate tragic figure undone by doing the right thing. His epitaph could accurately borrow a line from King Lear: “I am a man more sinned against than sinning.”

Sessions was the first powerful Republican and U.S. Senator to support Donald Trump. However, his greatest service to Trump was the act that Trump never forgave him for: his recusal from the Russian investigation. The fact that Trump still does not seem to appreciate how Sessions helped him is precisely why this resignation is so unnerving. The appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general only magnifies those concerns.

When Sessions was nominated, some of us immediately said that he should recuse himself since he played a key role in the campaign.  Sessions did not immediately do so but rather waited for a full review of career ethics experts at the Justice Department. That review came to the same conclusion that a recusal was needed to protect the integrity of his department and the investigation.

Trump began crisis by firing Comey

The recusal snowballed in significance after Trump unwisely fired then FBI Director James Comey. I was highly skeptical of the need for a special counsel until Trump fired Comey. Trump insiders have stated that only Jared Kushner supported firing Comey, but Trump still gave the order. Had he stayed quiet and allowed the FBI to complete its investigation, he would have been likely cleared in short order. However, that firing left little question that a special counsel was needed. That had nothing to do with Sessions.

Even then, Trump should have seen the benefit of the recusal. There is still no direct criminal evidence against Trump of obstruction or collusion. By recusing himself, Sessions guaranteed that such a conclusion would be untainted by questions of improper influence. Instead, Trump began his campaign of self-defeating attacks on Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Trump clearly wanted Sessions to bring the investigation to a rapid close and to refuse to appoint a special counsel. That would have required Sessions to shut down an investigation that was already pursuing possible criminal charges. That could well have cascaded from a threat of weak prosecution into a strong impeachment.

More: Jeff Sessions’ firing poses grave threat to Robert Mueller inquiry

Flashback: Trump political protection plan is replace Sessions with Mueller saboteur

Two more years of this? Donald Trump spars with media during press conference

Despite Trump’s continual abuse of Sessions, the attorney general continued to advance his agenda in every other way. Indeed, Sessions has been one of the most aggressive cabinet members in reshaping the policies of his department to push through Trump’s policies on immigration, criminal justice and a host of other areas.

The lesson not learned from Sessions could still prove lethal for this president. The appointment of Whitaker may well indicate a worrisome failure of comprehension. Whitaker has previously suggested that an acting attorney general could kill Mueller’s investigation without actually firing him. He has also been critical of the investigation.

Whitaker’s appointment could still snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. Mueller is clearly winding down his investigation. While there are some possible subjects (like Donald Trump Jr. and Trump confidante Roger Stone) who may be facing serious threats, Trump is unlikely to be indicted or even implicated in collusion or obstruction. If Whitaker acts to limit Mueller at this point, it could raise new concerns for obstruction.

Moreover, Whitaker could well receive Mueller’s report and refuse to send the report to Congress or approve new charges. Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, Whittaker can serve without Senate confirmation for 210 days. That would mean serving until June 2019 – well beyond the expected date for the submission of the report. Finally, Whitaker could mirror a hardline approach with the new White House counsel in refusing investigatory demands from the new Democratic-controlled House.

The longer Whitaker serves, the more suspicious

Whitaker could use the next seven months to move the Justice Department into a fully bunkered position with regard to the Special Counsel and congressional investigations. He could then hand over the department to a nominee to become the permanent Attorney General. The longer he serves in this position, the more likely he will be viewed as a cynical choice. There is no reason why a new attorney general nominee could not be selected in January and, with a strong Republican majority in the Senate, such a nomination could move swiftly to confirmation. Continuing with an acting attorney general for an artificially long period would add suspicions that Whitaker was selected as a type of one-trick pony.

None of this means that Trump is about to repeat his mistakes from the start of his administration. In his press conference, Trump said that he does not intend to cut short the investigation despite his contempt for it. Moreover, while Rosenstein would have been the natural choice as acting attorney general, Rosenstein’s own serious conflicts of interest (and baffling failure to recuse himself as a witness in the investigation) makes his selection problematic. Finally, Whitaker is likely to allow Mueller to continue and could well defer to him on criminal charges in conformity with prior Department special investigations.

This brings us back to lesson of Sessions. For the president, the lesson was appointing someone who put the ethics rules of justice over the interests of the president. If Whitaker is viewed as the anti-Sessions, that could put him in a very difficult position within weeks. The greatest test for Whitaker could come if Mueller proposes an indictment of someone like Trump Jr. or a report with damaging evidence against President Trump.  At such a moment, the problem may not be Whitaker’s inclinations but Trump’s expectations.

Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley

168 thoughts on ““More Sinned Against Than Sinning”: The Sacking of Sessions Leaves a Dangerous Delusion for Trump”

      1. is avenatti admitted to practice in that jurisdiction or is he adding UPL to his other observed ethical breaches such as excess publicity in pending matters?

  3. TUCKER CARLSON SCUFFLED WITH GAY MAN ON OCT. 13

    INCIDENT OCCURRED AT CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTRY CLUB BAR

    Conservatives will be suspicious to learn that Michael Avenetti, of all lawyers, is representing the gay Hispanic man Carlson confronted backed by his son and a friend. A video, included in the link below, captures a very angry Carlson.

    The gay man said something to Carlson’s 19 year old daughter as she passed through the bar on her way to the ladies room. Carlson claims he called her a ‘whore’. The gay man claims he only asked the girl ‘why’ she should would sit with Tucker Carlson.

    Carlson’s son threw a glass of red wine on the man. Club employees intervened as a scuffle erupted. Witnesses were not entirely sympathetic to Carlson.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2018/11/11/video-shows-tucker-carlson-cursing-during-bar-scuffle-he-says-he-was-defending-his-daughter/?utm_term=.3be6aa523a8d

      1. PH,..
        It’s like it’s becoming a version of “I am Spartacus”.☺
        “I am Anonymous”, “I AM ANONYMOUS”, etc.

    2. Natacha – the report is the guy called Carlson’s daughter a “cu+t whore”.

      1. That’s Peter Shill.

        In response to your question, Natacha would launch into a four paragraph long rant which would include the phrases ‘pussy grabbing’ and ‘Kellyanne pivot’.

        1. DSS – they are all Natacha to me now. Identify yourself or be named Natacha. That is your fate. 😉

    3. Burr–Hamilton Duel

      The Burr–Hamilton duel was fought between prominent American politicians Aaron Burr, the sitting Vice President of the United States, and Alexander Hamilton, the former Secretary of the Treasury, at Weehawken, New Jersey. It occurred on July 11, 1804,[1] and was the culmination of a long and bitter rivalry between the two men. Hamilton shot first, only to miss and hit a tree directly behind Burr; Burr responded by shooting and mortally wounding Hamilton, who was carried to the home of William Bayard Jr., where he died the next day.

      – Wiki

    4. Anonymous, why is Tucker Carlson Tucker Carlson and the perpetrator of the assault against Tucker Carlson’s daughter is a gay Hispanic man; a double beneficiary of affirmative action?

    5. Anon.:
      Juan called Tucker’s daughter a “whore” without provocation while she was returning to her dinner table at Farmington Country Club. Tucker should have whupped his a$$. I am disappointed he didn’t. Juan is now out of the club. Women only matter to radicals if they are liberal, too.

      1. Mespo, take note how Peter attempted to bend the truth. That type of truth bending makes Peter into a chronic liar.

        “TUCKER CARLSON SCUFFLED WITH GAY MAN ON OCT. 13”

        The incident had nothing to do with the man sexual preference. It had to do with an argument surrounding Tucker’s daughter and Tucker where presumably the man called Tucker’s daughter a whore.. Peter slimes away as usual. Instead of Peter Shill maybe it should be Peter Slimes.

        1. Sort of amusing the assumption gliberals and leftoids make about the world around them. It’s like high school never ends with these people and it’s cliques and social strata all the way down. Tucker Carlson had the effrontery to ‘scuffle’ with someone from the top social stratum.

  4. If The Donald could write, he could write “How to Turn Friends into Enemies”.

    If he could write, that is…

  6. I remember when Charles De Gaul told Dean Rusk that he wanted all American military personal out of France. Ruck replied, ” Does that include the ones that are buried here also”?

  7. Off Topic. The War To End All Wars. The Glory and The Profit. Yes. No one is speaking out against the military industrial complex today. There is all this pomp and celebration of war heroes and war dead. Why are we in Afghanistan? Why were we in Vietnam?
    For its one, two three…
    What are we fighting for?
    Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn!
    Next stop is Viet Nam!

    And its five, six, seven, open up the Pearly Gates!
    Ain’t no time to wonder why…
    Whoopee we’re all gonna die!

  8. What greater sin is there than Sessions turning the DOJ over to Obama and the “holdover” democrat “deep state” upon the inauguration of President Trump? Jeff Sessions is an abominable and reprehensible traitor – Benedict Arnold with an exponent – to the Constitution and to America. To globalist communists Jeff Sessions is a hero.

  9. The treasonous and corrupt American “deep state” “resisted” the duly elected President and will now impeach him paid for by George Soros and Hollywood. Jeff Session was the key and integral part of that effort.

    Prof. Turley, are you —-ing kidding me? Your bias and subjectivity are beginning to show. Because you disagree philosophically and ideologically with the President you reinforce a scheme to eliminate the power of his office and, thereby, the Constitution. The investigation of President Trump is a fraudulent “malicious prosecution” not dissimilar to Durham AG Mike Nifong’s Duke Lacrosse conspiracy. This generation is witness to the most prodigious scandal in American political history. Did you miss it?

    Peter Strzok, “We will stop him.”

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

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

    Where is Joseph Mifsud?
    ______________________________________

    Sessions, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan,

    Campbell, Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Brennan, Clapper, Farkas, Power, Lynch,

    Rice, Jarrett, Obama et al.

    1. The existence of a tentacular, all-encompassing “deep state” has yet to be proven. It’s largely a partisan answer to the fairytale of Russian influence in the Trump White House, but one fairytale doesn’t justify another.

      Sessions did his best to ground the Department of Justice in the rule of law, and deserves to be honored for that, not fired. His was in many ways a 180-degree turn back to justice and enforrcement of the people’s will though the acts of Congress.

        1. Oh ya, and Whitewater, Uranium something-something, the dead guy in the park, the foreign-sounding chick with some computer stuff, and the Roswell alien at Area 51. Check chief. Now take your meds.

          this is to “they don’t watch my sleight-of-hand in the pill line” spammy

      2. This is an agent of the “deep state” spreading disinformation.

        Next he’ll say there was no conspiracy to assassinate JFK and Oswald was a “lone” assassin.

        And planes caused the Twin Towers to not only collapse but to perfectly descend precisely into their own “footprints” and that the

        bin Laden Gang was not the “patsy” framed by the Israelis to take the blame.

        1. Well, that is how very tall buildings fall down, but no, the structures did not collapse into “their own footprint”. Lots of spillage.

          1. Take it up with the 3,000 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

            I am certain that you are eminently capable of arguing the material physics and prevailing.

  10. Et tu, Jeff?

    The DOJ/FBI, Comey, Obama, Hillary et al. were/are totally corrupt high criminals.

    Jeff was/is a fraud, traitor and coward who failed to stand and hold his ground as a soldier of the Constitution serving at the pleasure of

    the President.

    1. Nothing better than celebrating the armistice of a century ago–a war started by kings and leaders acting out of alliances and old scores–with European leaders who talk about the benefit of alliances.

      The ordinary person did not prosecute the war but ordinary people suffered its consequences.

      Curbing both the ambition for elective wars and unwarranted conflict by unrestrained politicians would do more toward world peace than some posh ceremony for elites to congratulate themselves and further their relevance.

  12. The founding fathers attempted to create a framework that would offset what has become the norm, politicians interpreting that framework when garnering power takes precedence over all. The legal end of the government should not be lapdogs of the Presidency, Congress, or the Senate. The SCOTUS should head the legal institutions and offer up their own replacements to be confirmed by the Senate. The President should have nothing to do with this. A President is but a momentary representation of the political climate, which changes with the times and in the case of the United States, with the influence(s) of the oligarchs and special interests. The institutions were designed to be sacred and long lasting with the understanding that they would sometimes need change. What was understood above all is that the people inhabiting government would not always be able to live up to the ideals of those institutions. A Supreme Court Judge nominated by a President and confirmed by the Senate represents the demands of an elite few, not the people. A SCOTUS designed Supreme Court would not be perfect but would be light years ahead of what we have now. If the Attorney General is appointed by the President then that office should be overseen by the SCOTUS. The Congress, Senate, and President make the laws, change the laws, and often enough break the laws. The protection of those laws and when obtuse enough the interpretation of those laws should be the job of the SCOTUS.

    If ever there was an illustration of what could go wrong when a person overrides an institution it is Trump. Preceding Presidents have trampled the foundations but no one has ever threatened this country as Trump has done, is doing, and will attempt to do.

    1. “SCOTUS should head the legal institutions and offer up their own replacements to be confirmed by the Senate.”
      Under that scenario, you’d have lifetime Supreme Court justices deciding on the nominees to a lifelong appointment.
      So you’re transferring a function of the Executive branch to the judicial branch, and essentially maintaining a veto power by the Senate.
      It looks like a good way to insure perpetuation of an existing liberal or conservative majority.
      Under the current 5-4 majority, it doesn’t take a lot of guesswork to determine the leanings of nominee that Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito would present to the Senate for confirmation.
      If Ginsburg or another justice is no longer serving, and replaced by a Trump nominee, that would be an even more interesting time to have the Supreme Court select the nominees to the Supreme Court.
      So that kind of change in selection process doesn’t seem to have any real advantages, other than fortifying and cementing an existing liberal or conservative majority.
      That can and does happen with nominations from the Executive Branch, but the President doesn’t have a lifetime appointment.

    2. That change in how Supreme Court prospects are nominated would almost certainly require a Constitutional Amendment.
      Isaac can add that to his list of revisions/ amendments needed to “Isaacsize” the Constitution.😉

      1. I watched a comic do his routine and he made a point that is rarely pondered. He said if Thomas Jefferson were to come back to life and see what was going on he would be flabbergasted at the fact that next to nothing has been done to amend and/or rewrite the ‘sacred papers’. He would say that they wrote that almost 250 years ago, with a feather.

        That is the essence of what I am saying. Just like the Catholic Church, some Americans cannot step back and view what is really going on. At this point the country is an oligarchy because the SCOTUS is a result of politicians that are placed in power by oligarchs and special interests, not the people. A SCOTUS that would source itself from among the country’s judiciary without being beholding to one or the other of a polarized political system would be the furthest away from either side and the closest to the Constitution and laws of the US. There would always be faults. However, finding faults in a better system is not a logical reason for not adopting that system. It’s a case of direction and degrees. At this time the US is frozen in a system that is becoming more and more obviously faulty. That is not to say that the original concepts were faulty it is just that that was 250 years ago and written with feathers.

        Regarding ‘Issacsizing’ the Constitution; the second amendment is an example of something that must be revisited. The present day interpretations are the most perverse imaginable. There is no ‘I’ in the second amendment. It is a statement of the society’s obligation and right to defend itself. Again, it was written almost 250 years ago with a feather, about flintlocks.

        After almost 250 years of evolving, what those that believe that the original papers do not pertain to an evolving people are akin to those that believe that which is found in this holy book or that holy book and that do not believe that mankind has the ability to progress to a higher ideal. Most of the world’s troubles come from those that believe that there is only one of these or one of those and that they are the chosen or the one’s who know this.

        1. After you’re done gutting the text of what you’ve called “the sacred Constitution”, what’s your next project, Isaac?
          Having perfected both Canada, then the U.S., a country like Saudi Arabia could be your next challenge.
          Not sure if you could get citizenship there, but you could continue your passion for moving to another country to lecture them how ****ed up they are.
          I know the Saudis would appreciate it if you took on that challenge, and so would many of us.😄😂

  13. The end of Macron’s speech:

    “Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism. Most important: our moral values. The worst is never certain as long as there are women and men of good will.”

    https://www.politico.eu/article/world-war-armistice-100-centenary-emmanuel-macron-leads-centennial-commemoration/

    Excerpt:

    “Patriotism is the opposite of nationalism,” he added.

    “Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism.”

    “The lessons we draw from the great war cannot be rancor and resentment among other nations and it cannot be allowing the past to be forgotten,” Macron said, adding that the end of World War 1 began to lay foundations for the system of multilateral, international cooperation that prevails today.

    “Today, here, people’s of the whole world on this sacred esplanade, the tomb of our unknown solider, this anonymous soldier who symbolizes all those who die for their homeland, see so many of your leaders come together,” Macron said. “Each one of them brings with them so many combatants and martyrs of their own nation. Each one of them represents the face of the hope of which an entire young generation agreed to die.”

    The leaders, he said, represent “the face of a world that is once again peaceful, where friendship between peoples prevails over wars, a world where the words of men must speak louder than arms … where bodies and fora exist allowing former enemies to come to dialogue as a pledge of harmony that at last is possible to achieve.”

    1. The Politico article:

      “Macron takes implicit dig at Trump, denouncing ‘nationalism’”

      “At World War I commemoration, the French president brought contemporary politics to fore.”

      By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN 11/11/18, 12:54 PM CET Updated 11/11/18, 2:53 PM CET

      1. Yes, Macron has made several statements that were implicit digs of Trump and America. His message stops at the point that if it were not for America and its nationalistic pride his speech would have been written in German.

        1. Did he thank us for sending young American men to die in his countryside and thereby saving his countryman’s arse not once but twice?

          1. Maybe Macron should have said those same words like this:

            Patriotismus ist das Gegenteil von Nationalismus

          2. Trump probably got on Macron’s bad side by asking Macron why he kept bringing his mother to all of these functions.
            Wouldn’t have set well with Macron”s wife, either.

            1. Using that logic, Mr. Nash, people should be asking why Trump always has his daughter in tow.

              The age difference is the same, I believe — 24 years.

              1. Trump is wealthy, and a man. So Trump is doubly-entitled to a younger wife. 😉😄 I don’t decide the natural order or make the laws of nature; I just agree and comply with them.

        2. Allan

          It wasn’t America’s nationalistic pride that contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany in WW2. It was America’s sense of duty to contribute to freedom throughout the world. It was ultimately directly initiated by Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, however, in spite of those xenophobic Americans who wished to remain neutral or to even concede Germany’s winning, the majority of Americans knew right from wrong, universal freedom over a nationalistic ‘I’m alright Jack pull the ladder up.’

          As far as the US winning the war in Europe, on the ground the USSR was the deciding factor. The war would have ended later and more of Europe would have fallen under the iron umbrella of the liberating USSR, but when Germany failed to eliminate the British 8th Army and take North Africa and invaded the USSR, they lost; just as when Germany failed to conquer France in their initial attack in 1914, they lost.

          The US defeated Japan decidedly on the seas, however two thirds of Japan’s Army and Air Force was engaged against the Chinese. The US would still have dropped the bombs that ended the war but at a far greater cost if it were not for the Chinese holding down Japanese troops that would have been taking American lives.

          The US contributed massive amounts of material and airmen in the defeat of Germany. If Germany had not surrendered under the threat of the Soviets taking all, if the US had not contributed land forces, if the war had continued longer, the US would have brought to bear a repeat of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

          Nazi Germany and Japan marked the last time nations attempted to ‘take over the world’ with the argument that ‘only they’ could and should govern. The one lesson the world learned even though the Soviets and the West resisted throughout the Cold War, was that the future of the world depends, not on nationalism but internationalism.

          America doesn’t need to retreat into a nationalistic stance to be ‘great again’. America has been great for a long time, continues to be great, and will be greater. Retreating behind cheap slogans will cheapen America.

          1. “It wasn’t America’s nationalistic pride that contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany in WW2. It was America’s sense of duty to contribute to freedom throughout the world.”

            Read your history and start with WW1 where on the floor of Congress it was debated whether we should side with Germany or Britain.

            It was American Nationalism that convinced many young men to volunteer to die on French soil. At 18 the understanding of “freedom throughout the world” is not well understood by most and if that were true we would be in continuous warfare trying to free people all over the world today.

            “As far as the US winning the war in Europe, on the ground the USSR was the deciding factor. The war would have ended later”

            You don’t know what would have happened had the US not enterred the war. This is not demeaning the tremendous efforts by the Soviets who earlier were allied with Germany and later enslaved half of Europe while ruling at the expense of tens of millions of lives lost, outside of war, in order to sustain their leftist and disgraceful regime.

            This was a combined effort of many nations fighting for their own nation’s survival and nationalism played a great part in the final success of the allies. That the enemy Nazi Germany and Japan were nationalistic as well in no way subrtracts from the history of nationalism.

            ” if the war had continued longer, the US would have brought to bear a repeat of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”

            I don’t know if a functional bomb was ready enough at the time, but if we had to use conventional bombings the death toll and destruction would have been greater. The end result would have been the same as far as the defeat of Japan.

            “The one lesson the world learned even though the Soviets and the West resisted throughout the Cold War, was that the future of the world depends, not on nationalism but internationalism.”

            This is your belief, not a fact. Realistically neither nationalism nor internationalism is what the word depends on. There is always a balance of a multiplicity of things that control the future. During the cod war survival was based on nationalism and imposed by MAD at least in part.

            A nation that loses all nationalistic feeling and opens its borders and defenses to all that reside in the world is not a nation that will exist for long unless they are dependent on the “blood, sweat and tears” of another nation that has some semblance of nationalism.

            1. Allan

              ‘A nation that loses all nationalistic feeling and opens its borders and defenses to all that reside in the world is not a nation that will exist for long unless they are dependent on the “blood, sweat and tears” of another nation that has some semblance of nationalism.’

              The US, under previous Presidents who worked with the rest of the world, deported more undesirable aliens than Trump. Tariffs and trade issues have never stopped being addressed, judged upon, complained about, and worked out between the US and its trading partners. The greatness of the US has always come when it joined the rest of the world. The crimes and tragedies such as Vietnam, Iraq, supplying Saudi Arabia, etc, seem to need extreme nationalist sentiments to bear their evil fruit. This Trumpian do or die nonsense is 99.99% BS and lies meant to incite and unite. If there is no enemy, then you make one up. Trump has said than in the books others have written for him. When he was corrected by Trudeau and his own advisors told him that it was Canada that had a several billion dollar trade deficit with the US and not the other way around, Trump just laughed and said, “I just make stuff up.”

              If you take the time and review the past few years you will see that almost everything Trump says ranges from exaggerations to lies, with finger pointing, blame, and nonsense. The immigration problem has been declining from well before Trump came along. The US does better economically with increased international trade. The US has yuge tariffs itself that it imposes to protect its own industries. 25% tariff on importing midsize to large trucks, Airline manufacturers heavily subsidized with military contracts, oil and gas companies buoyed up by subsidies, etc.

              As usual you don’t read too good. I stated that without the US ground troops in Europe the war would have taken longer, therefore the nuclear weapons would have been available, say six months after the end of the war with Japan. Germany probably would have given in earlier with just the threat of being nuked coupled with preferring being taken prisoner by the Allies rather than the Soviets.

              1. “The greatness of the US has always come when it joined the rest of the world. “

                Issac, the rest of the world would have included Nazi Germany and Japan. Later it would have included the Soviet Union so I can’t really make sense of the gibberish you spout. It sounds like it comes from an uneducated individual.

                The US has done good and bad, but in total has been a strong positive for the world. You throw words around in a meaningless way. It’s sloppy and ignorant. One can’t put things into little boxes like you seem to do. When I said ” There is always a balance of a multiplicity of things…” I meant it so I am not enthused with excessive nationalism but I certainly can’t stand by wet noodles that have absolutely no direction or backbone.

                Your write: “Trump just laughed and said, “I just make stuff up.””

                You just created a quote. That was a statement from the WP and you didn’t even quote that correctly. That is your problem. Your understanding of what you read is close to nil. You cannot even quote correctly and then you go on to say that Trump lies. SHOW US THE QUOTE. You cannot be trusted.

                Finally, you write: “As usual you don’t read too good. I stated that without the US ground troops in Europe the war would have taken longer,”

                My response was ” You don’t know what would have happened had the US not enterred the war. “ which is absolutely true. You don’t know and even worse you don’t recognize your own ignorance.

        4. Your screed neglects to mention that the day glo bozo would have sat out WWII–at least until the landing craft of the worldwide Reich were on American beaches.

          this is to “ya, he’s an imbecile, and likely a traitor, but smart people hurted my feelings a lot” allan / allen

          1. Mark M., For all we know you haven’t done a thing for anyone else being the selfish pr… you are and very likely might be the one to run out on his wife and children.

            1. You missed it in your fear and envy; I’ll reboot it so that you can follow along:

              Your screed neglects to mention that were the day glo bozo the president at the time, the United States would have sat out WWII–at least until the landing craft of the worldwide Reich were on American beaches.

              this is to “ya, he’s an imbecile, and likely a traitor, but smart people hurted my feelings a lot” allan / allen

              1. The NPC Marky Mark Mark runs the dayglo bozo script forgetting that the Germans declared war on the United States, not the other way around.

              2. No, Mark M. I didn’t miss anything you said. It wasn’t of any importance and was only Mark M. conjecture, but your selfishness is not. If you wish to discuss WW2 and Trump have at it but the last time you entered into a discussion other than the stupidity you and your wordprocessor throw out you ended up looking silly.

                By the way, idiot you should have used Vietnam as an example for the President. He is too young for WW2.

                1. I apologize. I’m obviously dealing with someone who’s not all there. Even when I explain the point in small words you still miss it. So sorry to have ruminated above your cognitive level.

                  this is to “even ‘challenged’ people should be allowed to participate, too” allen / allan

                  1. Mak M. no need to apologize. Small or large words are fine. It is your content and your lack of intellect that cause your problems.

                    Anytime you want to put your big shoes on to debate a bunch of us are here and willing and ready to do so but we recognize how embarrassing it is for you when these things happen. I take note of our last debate. You did terribly.

                    1. Haha. Fantasy time at the allen / allan hovel. As if.

                      this is to “I am NOT too stupid to be in debate, meanie mark” allen / allan

                    2. Once again we meet Mark M. and find nothing. My earlier description of Mark M.,wannabe lawyer or at least file clerk, says it best, he’s roadkill.

Comments are closed.