“I Answered Them Very Easily”: The Five Most Chilling Words In The Russian Investigation

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on reported completion of answers to the questions given to President Donald Trump by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.  The White House anticipated giving the answers to the Special Counsel before Thanksgiving.  As noted below, that could put the collusion part of the investigation into high gear toward a report to Congress.

Here is the column:

For White House legal counsel, it may be the most chilling five words uttered thus far in the long Russia investigation. President Trump said he has finished working on the questions submitted to him by special counsel Robert Mueller, declaring, “I answered them very easily.”

If there is one universally accepted fact in this political morass, it is that nothing is easy about this investigation, let alone “very” easy. Reports indicate that Trump was given a couple dozen questions that focused on Russian collusion allegations and other matters before his inauguration. That alone defies any “easy peasy lemon squeezy” responses.

It ignores what the questions notably did not include, which is a single query about obstruction of justice. That is an ironic twist, since some of us opposed the appointment of a special counsel after the 2016 election but changed our minds when Trump unwisely fired then FBI director James Comey in the midst of the Russia investigation. That act triggered the obstruction investigation and produced an overwhelming level of support for an independent investigator. Had Trump just fired Comey at the outset of his administration, or waited for the conclusion of the investigation, it is likely that all of this would have been ended long ago.

The omission of obstruction questions can mean a variety of different things, from the mundane to the horrific. It may be that Mueller concluded earlier that obstruction was not a serious allegation, which would explain why Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein did not recuse himself for being a witness in that investigation. Or it could mean that, given White House opposition to obstruction questions, Mueller will leave that matter to the Congress after he issues his special counsel report.

Finally, and this is the most difficult course, Mueller could be prepared to hit Trump with a subpoena to answer the rest of the questions that fall under his mandate. The assumption, or at least the profound hope, is that his statement was signature bravado and that, in reality, Trump is yielding to counsel on the content of his answers. The concern obviously is his penchant for speaking his mind and making impulsive statements. Indeed, the second most scary six words uttered in this controversy followed the first. Trump stated that it “didn’t take very long to do them.”

If Trump believes these questions are really just about whether he personally colluded with the Russians, he has not been paying attention to the developments in the investigation. The list of Mueller indictments shows that collusion is largely immaterial to most of his prosecutions. Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was prosecuted entirely for matters predating the election and separate from collusion allegations. Virtually all of the remaining American defendants were charged with unrelated crimes or with making false statements to investigators.

The point is that it was not easy for them to answer the questions, but it was relatively easy for Mueller to indict them. Lawyers for Trump evidently delayed submission of his answers due to concerns over possible “perjury trap” questions. If Trump answers with any specificity, his responses will be overlaid with the testimony of a host of cooperating witnesses, from former national security adviser Michael Flynn to former Trump “fixer” Michael Cohen. If statements by Trump do not match up, Congress will then be left with a stark choice over who is lying on the issue.

Putting aside that obvious danger, there also is the fact that the answers will have a profound impact on the next stage of this controversy. They will clear the way for Mueller to issue a report on Russian collusion. It also would give him ample reason to separate that report from a report on other potential crimes such as obstruction. That would mean Congress could conceivably receive a report early in the new year. With the House under Democratic control then, that could trigger a flurry of investigations and subpoenas even before an obstruction report arrives on Capitol Hill.

With only two years remaining in his term as president, the Democrats will be rapidly losing runway to get any investigation off the ground, at least if they hope to preserve time for a possible impeachment. This is not to say there is any indication of a serious crime related to collusion linked to Trump. The most serious but least likely allegation is that Trump somehow conspired with Russians to hack the computer systems of his opponent. The timing and structure of that operation, described in prior filings, would seem to undermine such an allegation.

That leaves a second possible allegation that the Russians did not give advance notice of their hacking efforts, but made Trump or his aides a type of accessory after the fact in the use of the purloined emails. That tack appears to have been a focus of Mueller in drilling down on figures like Trump associate Roger Stone. However, there is no crime in Trump celebrating or even inviting the release of hacked emails, as he did on the campaign trail repeatedly and controversially before the 2016 election.

Finally, there could be allegations that Trump offered assurances to the Russians about some quid pro quo in exchange for the release of the Clinton campaign emails. The promise of any official act in exchange for a political favor could raise corruption allegations, as shown by the conviction of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, who went to prison for trying to trading a Senate appointment for campaign donations.

However, using or encouraging the public release of hacked emails is not a crime, absent some direct role in a precursor crime. Hillary Clinton and Democratic leaders were undermined by the hacked emails because those showed they were misleading or lying to the public on various issues. Many critics aside from Trump celebrated the disclosure of such false statements by major political figures. Of course, the disclosures were one sided and clearly calculated to hurt Clinton and help Trump.

Yet, without a quid pro quo, it is hard to discern even a conceivable crime. The most likely crime remains unchanged from my first column on this controversy written two years, which is false statements. Trump is answering questions following hundreds of hours of testimony and millions of pages of evidence gathered from other witnesses. This is why there is nothing “easy” about answering these questions by the president as opposed to the ease of using those answers by a special counsel.

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

244 thoughts on ““I Answered Them Very Easily”: The Five Most Chilling Words In The Russian Investigation”

  1. I’m glad Hilary didn’t win. That way she wouldn’t have to go through all the harassment that Donald Trump is having to endure.

  2. It’s about time for Mueller to $hit or get off the pot. Who gave him the power to be a one man judge and jury, this whole thing has gone on far to long

    1. Paul Manafort stalled for year. Andrew Miller has been stalling since June, IIRC, of this year. Trump is stalling on the open-book take-home test with private tutors cribbing his answers for him. Trump stalled on the sit-down face-to-face interview with Mueller for a year or so. Trump will continue stalling for as long as he can. But it probably won’t be too much longer before Mueller starts rolling out new indictments. At that point it will be Trump who will have to defecate or get off the commode. Whitaker will just stand there flapping his arms helplessly at his sides.

      1. “Paul Manafort stalled for a year”.
        In fact, the FBI had been investigating Manafort since 2014.
        As far as the target of an investigation, or a defendant “stalling”, prosecutors can not always count on cooperation from those under investigation.
        Or the cooperation from those who are criminally charged.
        Granted, it would make the job of investigators and prosecutors much easier if the targets of the investigation, or the defendants, would immediately raise a legal white flag and forego technicalities like consulting with defense lawyers, having trials, etc.
        In the case of the Special Counsel investigation, or the FBI investigation which preceeded it, things would go much faster if those under investigation would immediately tell investigators and prosecutors what they wanted to hear.
        Duh!
        Even when considering the procedures of our legal system, the so-called”stalling”, investigators and prosectors had c. 4 years to convict Manafort ( as one example).
        And the Trump/Russia”Collusion” investigation has been going on since mid-2016.
        They had longer in the case of Manafort, but Manafort didn’t have the added distraction of serving as President while being investigated.
        That distinction is a major reason why the Special Counsel investigation needs to reach some conclusions, and soon, regarding the central questions for which it was supposedly established.
        Or if this saga runs into the next “quiet period”, 22 months from now, we can all keep screwing around and speculating until then about how this all ends.

        1. Ptom, with just a little more extra effort, you could easily combine two or three of the sentences above to wrack up 100 to 150 words in one sentence. Think about it. You can do it. Yes you can.

          P.S. The fact that Manafort and Trump are allowed to stall (e.g. defend themselves) will never prove that Mueller has been dilatory (i.e. stalling).

          P.S.S. Trump will never submit Trump’s written answers to Mueller’s questions. Trump’s lawyers will never allow Trump to submit Trump’s answers to Mueller’s questions.

          1. I did not make the claim that “Mueller was “stalling”, but I always appreciate L4B’s distortions of what others say.
            And her response to an argument that wasn’t even made in the comment she replied to.
            As for L4B’s conclusion that “Trump’s lawyers will never allow Trump to submit Trump’s answers to Mueller’s questions”, I didn’t realize that she has a pipeline into the activities and strategies of the legal team advising Trump.
            We already knew that she is in touch with, and informed of, the activities and plans of the Special Counsel from her confident predictions and conclusions about what will happen.

            1. Bruce says: November 19, 2018 at 10:27 AM

              “It’s about time for Mueller to $hit or get off the pot. Who gave him the power to be a one man judge and jury, this whole thing has gone on far to long.”

              Anonygnash says, “I did not make the claim that “Mueller was “stalling”, but I always appreciate L4B’s distortions of what others say.”

              L4D didn’t say that Ptom said that Mueller was stalling. But it’s good to see that Gnash is finally learning the ropes after all these many months.

              1. That’s my mistake; I thought L4B was replying to my comment when she mentioned there was no proof that Mueller was stalling.
                I didn’t really intend to interrupt her conversation with herself, but that’s why I comment only infrequently on her posts.
                If there’s another reply here addressed to me from L4B, I’ll try to keep in mind that she’ll conduct both sides of the dialogue with herself, instead of actually “replying”.

                1. Maybe you haven’t learned as much as I thought you had. You see, Ptom, because you and Pablo and few others like Squeeky and Allan are so overly reliant on email notification of replies to your previous comment, it becomes, not merely possible, but downright irresistible for those of us who actually read the blawg and follow the threads to mess with your minds in the act of rubbing your noses in your own obliviousness to your fellow commenters right here on this thread of this blawg. You’re using that cell-phone, again. Aren’t you? No? The tablet? No? It’s just a habit you can’t break, then. Right?

                  1. L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – this may come as a shock to you, but I get an email of every comment on every thread. Whether I decide to comment on it or not is up to me. Sometimes you are not worth my time and trouble, however this time I thought you could us some correction. I hope this doesn’t mess with your mind too much.

                    1. Every comment on every thread? No wonder you’re so confused. And you’re worried about messing with my mind? It all makes perfect sense to me, now.

                  2. Lies4 Breakfast,…-The device used to access these threads is not the issue; your chicken**** stunts, like distorting what others have said, is the issue.
                    How much time do you think others ought to spend trying to untangle the mountains of obfuscation you dump on this site every morning?
                    Your lack of integrity and intellectual honesty means that your dialogue with yourself is your best audience.
                    And your best audience squeals to herself, “gee, aren’t I clever”.

                    1. Excellent work L4D. Keep coaching up the gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make. Every life you save from ignorance is a plus.

                      posted to kurtzie’s whining

                    2. Tom,

                      I’d suggest some anger-management work on your part. And the scroll bar is your friend.

                    3. who farted? Oh that was Mark M who opened his bilge of a mouth and some vomit and noxious gas spewed out. nothing out of the norm.

                  3. i personally don’t have any notifications because i dont care about scoring points and surely your incessant garbage will soon reappear on some other topic and allow me convenient rhetorical target practice at my leisure. if I feel like it.

                    hey folks, here is a fun clip I am watching now you may enjoy

            2. Our resident seer confidently declared that “Trump’s lawyers will never allow Trump to submit Trump’s answers to Mueller’s questions”.
              The interesting part will be how L4B will spin this; will she deny ever making that prediction, will she just ignore her bogus forecast and go on to confidently make other predictions, or will she claim that her prediction was “misinderstood”.
              These are three of her favorite dodges in her bag of tricks.

              1. And L4D was/is correct.

                “The president has not, however, submitted his responses to Mueller’s team – Trump said he’s been “busy” – and he conceded that his attorneys would “go over” his answers.

                “As for the idea that the president, and not his lawyers, personally wrote the answers to Mueller’s questions, it’s hard to imagine anyone actually believing this. After the president made the comment, the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman wrote on Twitter, “This is false. A team of his lawyers are writing them.””

                http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-prepares-answers-special-counsel-muellers-questions

                1. Anonymous,…
                  You can keep your half-assed suggestions to yourself😷, unless you feel compelled😯 to dispense unsolicited suggestions.
                  In that case, I suppose that a troll groupie like you will continue to do what troll groupies do.

                    1. A strategic use of the commenter’s Anonymous ploy.

                      I know it’s you, Bournemouth. Your typographical emoji didn’t transmogrify 🙂

                  1. Now hear this: L4D was partly wrong. Trump submitted his answers to Mueller’s question about events prior to November 8th, 2016. However, Trump is preparing to assert an uncanny sort of pre-executive privilege for The President-Elect’s answers to Mueller’s questions about anything and everything that occurred in between November 8th, 2016 and January 20th, 2017–the transition period. That means that Trump refuses to explain why he told Flynn to tell The Russians not to worry about any new sanctions from Obama over the active-measures, informational-warfare operation that The Russians conducted against The United States during the 2016 U.S. election. When Trump refuses to answer, it means that the answer is incriminating. So L4D is not yet completely and totally wrong about everything.

                    1. L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – not so fast there, little Missy. It does not mean it is incriminating, it means he is raising privilege. And it means if Mueller wants an answer he will have to litigate it.

                    2. Executive privilege does not exist before The President-Elect swears The Oath of Office for The POTUS that the founding fathers took special pains to write into The Constitution of the United States of America. The reason for that is that The President-Elect is NOT The Chief-Executive of The United States unless and until that President-Elect has sworn The Oath of Office for The POTUS.

                      L4D calls cheater’s proof on Trump and Emmett Flood.

                    3. “Now hear this: L4D was partly wrong.” -L4D

                      And so I’ll add this:

                      I, too, was “partly wrong.” : )

              2. Tom, when Diane makes a comment that appears illogical, which is typical, then invariably with time she is proven wrong. On the rare occasion she is right she is merely agreeing with everyone else. If one is betting against her predictions they can almost certainly be guaranteed a winning strategy.

                1. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

                  The gambler’s fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future (or vice versa). In situations where the outcome being observed is truly random and consists of independent trials of a random process, this belief is false. The fallacy can arise in many situations, but is most strongly associated with gambling, where it is common among players.

                  [end excerpt]

                  Remember, FUBARAllan: When you bet against L4D, you are necessarily betting in favor of Trump. So ask yourself, “Are the outcomes you observe from L4D’s predictions truly random? Are L4D’s predictions independent trials in a random process?” Then ask yourself the exact same questions substituting the name Trump in place of the name L4D. Once you’ve found answers to those questions, calculate the mathematical expectations for L4D’s bet against Trump versus FUBARAllan’s bet in favor of Trump.

                  P.S. Just because an event hasn’t happened yet, does that mean that that event is not going to happen?

                  1. L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – betting against you is better odds then house odds in Vegas.

                    1. Trump is not the house in Vegas nor in Monte Carlo. Nor is The White House the house in Vegas nor in Monte Carlo.

                      BTW, Trump answered 12 out of the 29 questions that Mueller gave Trump in October of this year. And that’s 12 out of the original 44 or so questions that Sekulow or Dowd leaked to The NYT way back whenever. So Trump answered roughly 40% of the October questions and only 27% of the original Sekulow/Dowd leaked questions.

                      Are you sure you still want to bet on Trump when he’s palming cards up his sleeve?

                  2. Diane, I am glad you looked that up for yourself. jAt least you learned something and now have to apply it correctly. Trump and Diane are not the same. The former has a brain. The latter has very little to offer and is wrong more frequently than right.

                  3. oh boy. Madam somehow i suspect you would get lost in a casino. All those working class folks who want to keep their money and have more of it, and count their quarters and their free sandwiches against their losses, are not consistent with social schemes to fleece the workers. Stay in your lane!

                    1. I am adamantly opposed to gambling (with real money). Monopoly money, however, is fair game. Meanwhile, you Elliptical Drumhead supporters are playing poker with paupers if you seriously think that you’re going to collect the kitty on anything posted here.

                      P.S. I’ve already collected my winnings simply by provoking you. Ha-Ha!

            1. “The president has not, however, submitted his responses to Mueller’s team – Trump said he’s been “busy” – and he conceded that his attorneys would “go over” his answers.

              “As for the idea that the president, and not his lawyers, personally wrote the answers to Mueller’s questions, it’s hard to imagine anyone actually believing this. After the president made the comment, the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman wrote on Twitter, “This is false. A team of his lawyers are writing them.””

              http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-prepares-answers-special-counsel-muellers-questions

              1. Anonymous,..
                – When the dust settles, we can find out which of the conflicting reports on the answeres being submitted/ not being submitted is accurate.
                If they have not yet been submitted, then L4B is right….for today.
                Her statement was that Trump’s lawyers would “never allow” the answers to be submitted
                As for the claim that the lawyers wrote the answers, Trump is responsible ( and on the hook for) whatever was/ is/ will be submitted.
                If your lawyer prepares a statement for you that you not only sign, but claim that you wrote it, then that is “your statement”.

                  1. Trump’s “easy peasy lemon squeezy” responses were not sent to Mueller. The only responses that were forwarded to Mueller were those that were rewritten by his legal team. If that’s not what L4D meant? Then I stand corrected.

                    1. L4D has always presumed that Trump’s “private tutors” [lawyers] would “crib his answers for Trump”. Therefore, L4D prediction was, in fact, partly wrong. Had L4D only polished up her crystal ball more effectively, then L4D could have anticipated the possibility of Emmett Flood cooking up a new-fangled pre-executive privilege for The President-Elect during the transition period. So now L4D has another fishing story about the one that got away.

                      P.S. Emmett Flood’s new-fangled pre-executive privilege for The President-Elect during the transition period will be laughed out of court just so soon as The Solicitor General, Noel Francisco, allows Michael Dreeben for the OSC to appeal that assertion. (Whitaker dare not mess with Francisco.)

            2. I have yet to see a retraction by the dozen or so media outlets that reported that Trump’s answer to Mueller’s questions have been submitted.
              The Washington Post, ABC News, CNBC, Vox, Axios, NBC are among those who have reported that the answers to Mueller’s questions have been turned in.

              1. “Trump said he’s been “busy” – and he conceded that his attorneys would “go over” his answers.

                “As for the idea that the president, and not his lawyers, personally wrote the answers to Mueller’s questions, it’s hard to imagine anyone actually believing this. After the president made the comment, the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman wrote on Twitter, “This is false. A team of his lawyers are writing them.”””

                http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-prepares-answers-special-counsel-muellers-questions

                As noted above, “A team of [Trump’s] lawyers” wrote the final answers.

                Give it up, Nash.

                1. As I said earlier, there are multiple reports from multiple sources that state the answers have been delivered to Mueller.
                  I’ve read or scanned about 15 sources, some of which I have already listed.
                  You might try googling the topic and read and/or quote more than one or two articles.
                  When there are conflicting accounts in reporting, it’s worthwhile to check multiple sources.
                  Either those answers have been given to Mueller, or they have not.
                  With the bulk of MSM reporting that Mueller has been given the answers, those reports are likely to be correct.
                  If they are incorrect, at least some of those MSM outlets will issue retractions or corrections.

                  1. From WaPo of the ridiculously long link addresses:

                    But after months of negotiations with Mueller’s team, Trump’s lawyers have refused to answer any questions about his time as president-elect or president, arguing that the special counsel is not legally entitled to details about executive decision-making.

                    [end excerpt]

                    Mueller gave Trump 29 questions in October of this year. Trump has submitted answers to roughly 12 of those 29 October questions. That means that roughly 17 of Mueller’s questions were about events that took place during the transition when Trump was President-Elect. Those would be questions about Flynn, Kushner, Nader, Prince and anyone else who had back-channel communications with Russia in between November 8th, 2016, and January 20th, 2017. The answers to those questions would presumably go to either the quid or the quo in the old quid pro quo.

      1. ‘Nony………Haven’t talked to you since your lobotomy. Hope the scar is healing well and isn’t too noticeable.

  3. Control the person’s social and/or physical environment; especially control the person’s time.

    One thing is for certain, Turley’s air sandwiches consume a lot of time. Bon appetit!

    A free mind is a wonderful thing. Free minds have discovered the advances of medicine, science, and technology; have created great works of art, literature, and music; and have devised our rules of ethics and the laws of civilized lands. Tyrants who take over our thinking and enforce political, psychological, or spiritual ‘correctness’ by taking away our freedoms, especially the freedom of our minds, are the menace of today, tomorrow and all eternity.
    http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/19/recognize-cult-mindset-others/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=ebd0831323-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-ebd0831323-79248369

  4. That act triggered the obstruction investigation and produced an overwhelming level of support for an independent investigator.

    LOL! He said independent investigator. The idea would still likely have overwhelming support; when are they going to get one?

    This is a classic air sandwich post by Turley. He begins with the bait (bread), adds possibilities (the fixings), he relies on the comments to give it flavor, but in the end.he concludes right where he started:..with nothing.

  5. The issue here is not what Trump said but that he is the quintessential liar and whatever he says will mean nothing, except to his dupes and those trying to read something into it. Trees cause forest fires and California should rake up the dead wood in the state; don’t go asking for money and hey didn’t you all vote Democrat. The CIA and just about everyone else believes the prince ordered the Kashogi murder but Trump knows better. A tax cut where 80% of the benefits go to the top two percent is good for the working stiff. And on and on and on…

    1. issacbasonkavich:

      Your argument:
      Trump’s a lair … blah, blah, blah. Forest Fire management doesn’t exist and isn’t hampered by whacked out environmentalists. The CIA is infallible and right since everybody isaac knows thinks it’s true. The glowing economic news notwithstanding on jobs, production etc., Trump just is helping out his friends with tax cuts.

      Don’t ever wonder why we think you’re daft, issac.

      1. “Trump’s a lair … blah, blah, blah. Forest Fire management doesn’t exist…” Mespo is off to the races.

        That mess that sits atop of Trump’s head might be called a “lair.” And it might be termed a fire trap.

        But carry on…

          1. “Grammar police”???

            It was a joke, mespo. You’re good at laughing at others, I see, but not so much at yourself. Good to know.

            (And what a surprise that Sycophant Cindy would pile on. Not.

            1. Anonymous:
              It’s true, you are hilarious but not for the reason you think. Maybe try a photo of you smashing a watermelon next time so we can tell when you’re making attempts at humor.

      1. Deb, it doesn’t make a difference what real experts have to say. Issac has an ideological opinion and that trumps science and scientific studies.

    2. its not a lie they need to manage the forest better. it’s obviously correct.

      trump could say the sky is blue and some people would think he’s lying about that too.

      just ignore these types

      1. If the sky was blue, then you wouldn’t be able to see The Big Dipper. Obviously the sky is clear. Unless there’s a lot of smoke from a big wild fire. Think about it. You can do it. Yes you cam.

  6. I realize this is swarm of Democratic sharks circling after Trump but I still don’t understand why there hasn’t been any pursuit of the DNC for its ‘trumped’ up bogus FBI file created by a disgraced MI6 agent initiated by Obama despite warnings against doing so by FISA courts and at this late stage it still hasn’t produced ANY clear cut evidence against the president? This seems like another Democratic waste of money and time and should end…or am I missing something?

    1. The Retro Guy – I did here the Mueller’s mandate gave him clearance to go after all things Russian, including the Hillary connection. Part of bringing Whitaker in is to make sure that tree is shaken.

  7. Turley wrote, “The most serious but least likely allegation is that Trump somehow conspired with Russians to hack the computer systems of his opponent. The timing and structure of that operation, described in prior filings, would seem to undermine such an allegation.”

    Admittedly, that would be a most serious allegation. But, then again, it would also be the least likely allegation. So let’s try something on for size that might actually fit. If Mueller can show that Trump knew enough about what The Russians were doing to enter into an agreement to conceal what The Russians were doing, by deceptive and fraudulent means, from agencies of the United States whose legitimate government functions were thereby impeded, so that Trump could benefit from what The Russians were doing, then Mueller can and will allege 18 USC 371 Conspiracy to Defraud the United States against Trump.

    The Republicans in The Senate will then have to decide, by means of hard-nosed political calculation, whether a law that has been on the books since roughly the 1870s or thereabouts, when the Justice Department was still a new-fangled agency of the federal government, should be decriminalized with respect to any and all candidates for elected office in the United States, both Democrats and Republicans, alike, so that foreign powers, both Chinese and Russian, alike, can and will conspire with both Democrats and Republicans, alike, to interfere with, impede, and otherwise defraud the legitimate government functions of The Federal Election Commission, The State Department and The Justice Department in just such a way as more greatly to influence the outcomes of U.S. elections for offices of public trust under The Constitution of the United States of America.

    And then Trump can run for reelection in 2020 with a brand new campaign slogan: The Law is Wrong.

    1. Turley also wrote, “The timing and structure of that operation, described in prior filings, would seem to undermine such an allegation.”

      Refuting the straw-man argument leaves the original argument yet to be refuted. The descriptions of the Russian informational warfare operation given in Mueller’s speaking indictments against the 12 GRU officers and The Internet Research Agency set the stage for charging members of the Trump campaign and Trump associates with Conspiracy to Defraud the United States under the defraud clause of 18 USC 371. IOW, the fact that those Trump campaign members and associates were not indicted under the offense clause of 18 USC 371at the same time that The Russians were indicted under both the offense and the defraud clauses of 18 USC 371 in no way whatsoever exonerates nor exculpates any members of the Trump campaign or Trump associates under the defraud clause of 18 USC 371 Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.

        1. Read the link provided below, Matlock. It’s the ruling from Trump-appointed federal Judge Dabney Freidrich–you poor country lawyer, you!

        1. Excerpted from Judge Friedrich’s ruling linked above:

          In short, a defraud-clause conspiracy requires four elements: “that (1) [the defendants] entered into an agreement, (2) to obstruct a lawful function of the government or an agency of the government, (3) by deceitful or dishonest means, and (4) at least one overt act was taken in furtherance of that conspiracy.” United States v. Kanchanalak, 41 F. Supp. 2d 1, 9 (D.D.C. 999), rev’d on other grounds, 192 F.3d 1037 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

        2. Also excerpted from Judge Friedrich’s ruling linked above:

          Concord is correct that the indictment must identify the lawful government functions at issue with some specificity. And it does. See Indictment ¶¶ 9, 25–27. A defraud-clause conspiracy need not, however, allege an agreement to violate some statutory or regulatory provision independent of § 371.3 Unlike the offense clause, which covers only “conspiracies to commit an offense specifically defined elsewhere in the federal criminal code,” Kanchanalak, 41 F. Supp. 2d at 9, the defraud clause covers all conspiracies to defraud the United States “in any manner or for any purpose,” § 371. Thus, courts have repeatedly acknowledged that a conspiracy to impair or
          obstruct a lawful government function under § 371 need not involve the violation of any substantive provision other than § 371 itself. See, e.g., United States v. Cueto, 151 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 1998)

          1. in other words conspiracy to defraud the US is a statute that seems so broad and wide that you could fly an airliner through it.

            not bound the normal “strict construction” norms that workaday lawyers apply to other criminal statutes, and open to imaginative elaboration by anonymous experts on the internet

            1. L4D had previously said, “And then Trump can run for reelection in 2020 with a brand new campaign slogan: The Law is Wrong.”

              It is inevitable that Trump will claim, as he simply must, that the law does not apply to Trump. It will become the only defense that Trump will have left. And the Republicans will have to run on that campaign theme as well. They will never again be allowed to bloviate in public about The Rule of Law. They will never again be able incessantly to investigate any Democrat for very much of anything that they let Trump get away with. There will never again be another Republican President of the United States.

              And the American people will exclaim: The Law is dead. Long live The Law.

        3. Strunk and White’s criticism of rambling, long-winded, marathon sentences was not the result of a “phobia”.

            1. On second thought, make that “all bigotry is phobic,” instead. It is possible to be prejudiced in favor of something to which one is attracted.

              1. I was fortunate in having teachers who required a lot of writing from their students.
                And who gave good advice on the structure of that writing.
                If they had a criticism of, say, run-on, rambling, marathon sentences, that criticism was not perceived as “bigotry,” or “a phobia”.

                1. Your education preceded the information technology revolution. But you could have, and should have, read James Joyce, who preceded your education.

                  1. L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – I worked on my first computer in 1963 and my first personal computer was a TRS-80 with 4k of memory which was recorded on a tape deck. I had to write my own games so I had games to play. 😉 I was the first in my department to write their thesis on a computer which resulted in the department buying computers for the faculty. I am part of the technology revolution.

      1. Given any lawyer whosoever, if that lawyer cannot even imagine the possibility that his or her client may have committed a crime, then that lawyer is utterly useless to his or her client in a court of law.

  8. “I answered them very easily” and “It didn’t take very long to do them.” is what a five or six year old would say about a test that he had just flunked, when he was promised a cookie for taking the test.

    Someone needs to put together for later generations, a documentary about what it is like to have a country run by an impish six year old…..not that later generations will exist, but just on the outside chance that they do…..

    1. Sam:
      “Someone needs to put together for later generations, a documentary about what it is like to have a country run by an impish six year old…..not that later generations will exist, but just on the outside chance that they do…..”
      ****************
      They did. It’s called the Clinton Affair. Too bad it’s uncut version is X-rated.

    2. Samantha sounds like that impish child she talks about.

      Trump has been very successful, just look at the economy, unemployment, and a whole host of other economic issues along with more appropriate foreign policy.

  9. Again, the same stale assumptions: that everyone must make nice with the lawyers and play by their rules, and that Mueller and Rosenstein have conducted an investigation that merits anyone’s respect. In truth, if there’s any justice, both those men (and a menu of their minions and enablers) end up out on the curb and disbarred.

    1. Miller should have been put on the shelf after mishandling the Hells angels rico trial, or maybe failing to properly oversee and remediate the whitey bulger scandal, or the botched anthrax investigaiton, etc. his career is lauded by journalists but contains some substantial cockups

      but he can still drive this one home to a legit conclusion; we will see how it goes

      1. but he can still drive this one home to a legit conclusion;

        No, he can throw in the towel. His conduct to date has been such we can infer ‘a legit conclusion’ was never his object.

        1. guys like that dont throw in the towel but they can tie off the loose ends and put it all to bed

          look for the Dems to be disappointed in Miller’s final report

  10. Turley wrote, “Yet, without a quid pro quo, it is hard to discern even a conceivable crime.”

    A conspiracy to defraud the United States does not have to come to fruition in order to be charged. All that is necessary is to show that members of the Trump campaign knew enough about what the Russians were doing to enter into an agreement to conceal from the United States, by fraudulent, deceptive, means, what the Russians were doing so that the Trump campaign could benefit from what the Russians were doing and that they took at least one overt act in the furtherance of that conspiracy to defraud the United States.

    The Russians have already been charged under the offense clause of 18 USC 371 in the hacking indictment against the 12 GRU officers. The Russians have also already been charged under the defraud clause of 18 USC 371 in the Internet Research Agency indictment. Several members of the Trump campaign as well as a few Trump associates who may not have been sufficiently detached from the Trump campaign are still at risk of being indicted under the defraud clause of 18 USC 371. If Mueller and his shop have the evidence to charge Trump campaign members and Trump associates with conspiracy to defraud the United States under the defraud clause of 18 USC 371, then that is exactly what Mueller and his crew are going to do.

    And when it does come to that supposedly missing quid pro quo, don’t forget that Flynn, Kushner, Nader, Prince and even Papadopoulos are still at risk for their several efforts at back-channel communications with Russia during the transition period.

    BTW, what kind of a defense counsel exclaims that his clients crime is so indiscernible as to be effectively inconceivable? I doubt that Dershowitz would ever say such a thing. The last I heard, Dershowitz was claiming that the law known as 18 USC 371 is, in and of itself, supposedly wrong. That might actually be a promising defense. You know. But you’d have to forfeit any future use of 18 USC 371 against the campaigns of Democratic candidates. Otherwise, you’d end up with a law that applies only to Democrats but not to Republicans.

    1. L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – even the Russians are innocent until proven guilty. Remember how surprised the Mueller team was that someone showed up to defend the Russians and (damn their eyes) they wanted immediate discovery!

      1. So far Dubelier and Seikaly have had every last one of their motions to dismiss the charges against Concord Management dismissed. Assuming that their clients still want their day in court, they’ll get their jury trial, for sure. You know that Mueller indicted the accountant for the Internet Research Agency. You know that the criminal information on that indictment included emails showing that the troll farm operatives knew that they were violating U.S. law because they said so in their own damned emails. Don’t you?

        1. L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – these motions are just ticking off the boxes for the client. You would not be doing your do diligence if you did not file them. You don’t always expect to win them, although you might sneak one through once in a blue moon. Still, it doesn’t mean the Russians are guilty.

          1. “Still, it doesn’t mean the Russians are guilty.” -Paul

            Says Paul — posting from his troll farm. Where’s that exchange about Netflix? You were in the middle of some food show called “Mekong” something or other. Allan wanted to watch it, too, as I recall, but he couldn’t. Why?

            Because it’s not available for viewing in the U.S.

            And, yes, Paul tried to explain his way out of it…

              1. paul you russian troll. and to think you’re a bot after all this time ya had my turing test spidey sense fooled. i feel so stupid!

                1. Paul knows it wasn’t you, Natacha. But, unlike you, Paul will never apologize for calling anonymous by the name of Natacha.

    2. normal agreements need to have more than one person doing the intending
      normally vicarious liability for higher-ups needs to be premised on some kind of explicit agency to accomplish the illegal enterprise
      normally doesnt matter to a bunch of left wing conspiracy theorists on the internet grasping at straws

      1. Normally, when a lower-down, like Hope Hicks, tells a higher-up, such as Trump, not to worry because “the emails [his son’s] will never get out,” the higher-up’s lawyers are loathe to dismiss the implications of that lower-down’s remark as “vicarious liability” devoid of any “explicit agency to accomplish the illegal enterprise”. That is so because “normally” does, in fact, matter to He Who Will Not Be Deterred, Robert Swan Mueller The Third. Therefore, normalcy must matter to Trump’s lawyers, too.

        Are you sure that Mueller doesn’t already have those emails that would never get out?

  11. Prof Turley is the second genius I have heard weigh in on this. Did it ever occur to anyone that Trump is doing what he does best? Blustering?
    He just dashed of the answrs? Right. Then why has he no submitted them?

    Wake up JT, they are being checked and cross checked by his legal team.

        1. “So what is your fundamental problem?” Asks the self-described “polymath”, Paul.

          Paul, that’s a question that you should ask of yourself.

          “Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service’s (DCPAS) page about the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service describes the medal as follows:

          “This is the highest honorary award presented by the Secretary of Defense to non-career Federal employees, private citizens, and foreign nationals. The Secretary of Defense is the approval authority. This award consists of a gold medal, a miniature medal, a rosette, and a citation signed by the Secretary of Defense. An individual may receive this award more than once. Subsequent awards consist of the foregoing recognition devices and a bronze, silver, or gold palm, as appropriate.

          “Although the Department of Defense (DoD) is part of the executive branch, the President himself does not play a part in the nomination or approval process for recipients of the DoD’s Medal for Distinguished Public Service:

          “The Heads of the OSD Components and Secretaries of Military Departments shall submit nominations by memorandum to the DA&M, OSD, through the Assistant Director for Labor and Management Employee Relations, Directorate for Personnel and Security, WHS. The Secretary of Defense is the approval authority.

          “Previous recipients of the medal include former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Steven Spielberg, and Henry Kissinger.

          “Despite Breitbart‘s statements that commenters were “incredulous at the award,” likened it to “a much maligned ‘participation medal’” and “were skeptical of Obama’s underling giving his own boss a medal,” no similar comments seem to have been noted by Breitbart when President George W. Bush received the very same medal in January 2009, nor did we find any record that Breitbart (or any other source) published a “President Bush Awards Himself Distinguished Public Service Medal” article upon that occasion.”

          https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-obama-award-himself-a-distinguished-public-service-medal/

          1. why, that’s as interesting as a few thousand pages of proposed regulations and public notice and comment selected at random from the federal register. thank you

      1. Anonymous, do you only read headlines? Are inaccurate headlines your safe space? The headline isn’t really true. Trump didn’t give himself anything. He gave an opinion which is different than the transfer of ownership or creating ownership of something.

        “I would give myself an A+,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News Sunday. “Can I go higher than that?”

    1. Get a swivel chair, a base isolator with gimbal rings, some medicine for motion sickness and ear plugs for the elliptical drumhead.

  12. Jonathan Turley never ceases to amaze me with his complete ignorance of the plethora of evidence against Trump, his family and the shower of unsavoury characters that surround him. Read Proof of Collusion by Seth Abramson and the evidence is stacked up in neat bales after the summer harvest. Just open your eyes. Can’t wait till this all comes out, and all these absurd wilfully blind creatures of the right can start their next round of excuses. It is truly appalling what has happened to the Republicans now that their fascist and racist contingent has been given voice by their Dear Leader – whose only admitted reading material was the Collected Speeches of Adolf Hitler kept in his bedside drawer. Oh for pity’s sake someone get Jonathan the smelling salts and a good improving book. LOL

    1. Here we go again, another delusional leftist who’s still clinging to the fact that there was collusion with the Russians and that Muller is going to derail Trump and his presidency. LOL – I copied that LOL from your last comment by the way 😉

      1. Collusion is misnomer and, therefore, a pig in a poke to boot.. Mueller’s case in chief is 18 USC 371 Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. It has already been charged against The Russians under both offense clause and the defraud clause. The fact that it was not charged against members of the Trump campaign at the same time that it was charged against The Russians does not in any way whatsoever exonerate nor exculpate any members of the Trump campaign.

        Stop clinging, John.

    2. Susangalea:

      Of all the bile, unsupported conclusions and stupidity contained in your comment, the line about Trump’s reading habits is the most revealing. To suggest reading someone’s thoughts makes the reader a disciple is a peculiar implication to say the least. Patton read Rommell’s book, Churchill read Hitler’s book and I’ve read your unlettered diatribe. I can assure you that none of us are in league with the author. But I suppose your bleatings are to be expected from the far Left where it is a sin to even explore the other side’s thoughts. Better to ignore, emote and virtue signal with all the name calling. Hitler was a powerful speaker, Rommel knew his way around a tank battle. To acknowledge obvious fact doesn’t mean approval or is that too subtle a point for you.

      Btw, I’ve read Seth Abramson. He should be on everyone’s reading list. Like the Atlantic and the New Republic say, he’s a wonderful conspiracy theorist and writer of fantasy. Take a fact here and a fact there and compose a series of what-ifs and presto changeo you have a criminal conspiracy case. Poet/writer Abramson relies upon a world of make believe to earn a living. However, the rest of us have to rely on provable facts.

      1. mespo – if you are referring to the scene in the movie Patton, they are referring to the book Tank Attacks! which was never written, but which Rommel was accumulating material for while he was in the desert. His famous book, Infantry Attack! was first printed in an abridged edition for the American officer corpse (Obama said this) in 1943 and a full English translation in 1944. All without Rommel’s permission. Patton is reported to have read Infantry Attacks! which is still used in some military academies and is still in print.

        Though I hesitate to use Wikipedia as a source, this is an article I do not think they would screw with.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_Attacks

          1. mespo – in the movie the book Tank Attack is by his bedside the night before he says it, but the book was never written. 😉

      2. Many leftists refuse to consider outside information, and that type of thinking they project onto others. It often is the end result and goal of their handlers who want obedient and useful idiots to accomplish tasks for them–usually keeping them in power or well stocked with money.

        The truly pathetic part is how so many people enslave themselves so willingly into the bidding and thinking of others and refuse to think for themselves. (Because if they did they might have greater independence and respectability in their lives.) Not only must everyone else conform to their groupthink and behavior, they must be punished if they get out of line.

        Most of these people are a lost cause. All we can do as ordinary people is to refuse to comply with their unreasonable demands and do what we can to keep the forces of willful ignorance, submission, and anti-freedom contained.

        1. ” It often is the end result and goal of their handlers who want obedient and useful idiots to accomplish tasks for them–usually keeping them in power or well stocked with money.”

          You have defined the majority of leftists that exist in the US. Simple and too the point.

        2. All that’s well and good (whatever a “leftist” is and what mysterious relevance to the current American political scene such may have), but you also forget that most salient of questions which anyone who supports the criminogenic enterprises of the day glo bozo should consider, which is: “what is that ticking sound?”

          this is to “I just squeezed in the speech I’ve been wanting to make all day” darren

          1. About that ticking sound: Friday November 30th, 2018, is possible for Mueller’s next indictment. However, Friday December 7th, 2018, feels a bit likelier. What happens next after that is . . . still eeksie peeksie.

            1. L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark — do you think Whitaker is going to sign off on any new arrests?

              1. There’s a distinct possibility that Mueller’s grand jury may have returned sealed indictments before November 7th, 2018, when Sessions resigned and Whitaker was appointed. If so, then Whitaker cannot prevent Judge Beryl Howell from unsealing those indictments.

                If not, then Mueller can force Whitaker’s hand simply by bringing new indictments without Whitaker’s pre-approval. If Whitaker fires Mueller for exercising the powers of a U.S. Attorney that the special counsel regulations authorize Mueller to exercise, and which regulations carry the force of law, then Whitaker will be in violation of the law. Do you really think that Whitaker is going to break the law for Trump? Whitaker knows that Trump stiffs Trump’s contractors. Why don’t you know it, Pablito?

                1. L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – unsealing the indictments would be under the purview of the prosecutor, right?

                  1. With the Judge’s approval–yes! But you’re missing the point about the timing, Don Pablo. The indictments would have been sealed before Sessions resigned and Whitaker was appointed to replace Sessions.

        3. Mr. Smith said, “Many leftists refuse to consider outside information, and that type of thinking they project onto others. It often is the end result and goal of their handlers who want obedient and useful idiots to accomplish tasks for them–usually keeping them in power or well stocked with money.”

          Well then, that explains why so very few Leftists wash up on the shores of Turley’s blawg. Doesn’t it? We Southpaws have no interest in considering the outside information that Turley’s own obedient and useful idiots project onto “others” to accomplish the tasks, goals and end results that their “handlers” set before them for the sake of keeping those handlers in power and well-stocked with money.

          What was the other bit? You know. The truly pathetic part. Leftists are a lost cause? With unreasonable demands? Stemming from the forces of willful ignorance, submission and anti-freedom?

          You know what? Mr. Smith has become the foremost practitioner of alter-casting on Res Ipsa Loquitur. Tis an image, and only an image, and never anything more nor other than just an image cast upon the wall of Plato’s cave. To call it preposterous would be an understatement.

    3. So the left is going to play with itself on a non crime keeping the words conspiracy out of the picture until the last second in hopes of a perjury trap.

      Meanwhile the real purpose is to protect and defend not the citizens not The Constitution, not the rule of law, but the real criminals involved in the real conspiracies – plural.

      But they forget the left has no power. Pluglosi can’t indict squat nor issue a subpoena only ask DOJ to do that for them. Brick wall time. In the senate harris, schumer, booker and feinstein beging to look more and more ridiculous.

      But in DOJ the protection afforded by Sessions is gone. Now they can bring in Huma Gotcha Abedin, already submitted for indictment, as the perfect fly on the wall and give her a choice. Diesels or States Evidence.

      1. What evidence…just smoke and mirrors & wannabe stuff so far from the far left at this point. After this much time, nothing of substance which is why Mueller continues to branch off in other directions.

      1. “Anonymous says: November 19, 2018 at 12:30 PM
        feel free to go away if you don’t like the blog and rant and rave elsewhere”

        And you were replying to whom??? You could be talking to yourself for all we know.

        1. if the shoe fits wear it. goes for all complainers who show up on here and bellyache about turley’s stuff. it’s pathetic and ungracious.

          i don’t agree with turley all the time. it’s not necessary to say you agree or not. so why blab blab blab all your objections like some pathetic whiner. the whiners detract. just make your point without whining like a teenage girl

    4. So exactly and specifically what is this evidence you state is proof? And I don’t mean rhetoric and speculation.

      1. she said:”Mueller and his shop have the evidence to charge Trump campaign members and Trump associates with conspiracy to defraud the United States under the defraud clause of 18 USC 371, then that is exactly what Mueller and his crew are going to do.”

        AS IN: I HAVE NO CLUE AS TO WHAT IF ANY PROOF

        And when it does come to that supposedly missing quid pro quo, don’t forget that Flynn, Kushner, Nader, Prince and even Papadopoulos are still at risk for their several efforts at back-channel communications with Russia during the transition period.

        AS IN: THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE SENT TO JAIL BECAUSE THEY TRIED TO TALK TO RUSSIANS. THAT MUST BE ILLEGAL!

        BTW, what kind of a defense counsel exclaims that his clients crime is so indiscernible as to be effectively inconceivable?

        AS IN: I HAVE NO CLUE THAT DERSHOWITZ IS AMONG THE BEST AND HE ALLUDES TO A SIMPLE STRATEGY THAT EVERY CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER HAS UP HIS SLEEVE TO EXONERATE A CLIENT CHARGED WITH AMBIGUOUS CRIMES….

        googe “rule of strict construction of penal statutes”

        1. Dershowitz has excellent rationals behind what you call tricks. I am sure if interested you can Google a piece Dershowitz has written on the subject. I’m not saying his explanations would completely change your mind, but you likely would think differently.

        2. susangalea says: November 19, 2018 at 2:15 AM

          Jonathan Turley never ceases to amaze me with his complete ignorance of the plethora of evidence against Trump, his family and the shower of unsavoury characters that surround him. Read Proof of Collusion by Seth Abramson and the evidence is stacked up in neat bales after the summer harvest.

          Darren Smith says: November 19, 2018 at 3:10 PM

          So exactly and specifically what is this evidence you state is proof? And I don’t mean rhetoric and speculation.

          Mr Kurtz says: November 19, 2018 at 3:18 PM

          she said:”Mueller and his shop have the evidence to charge Trump campaign members and Trump associates with conspiracy to defraud the United States under the defraud clause of 18 USC 371, then that is exactly what Mueller and his crew are going to do.”

          L4D says, “Matlock can’t follow a thread. And the poor country lawyer is not very good at highlighting text for a cut and paste quotation, either. You omitted the “If” before the phrase “Mueller and his shop . . .”

          BTW, are you following this now, Matlock? Mr. Smith demanded proof from susangalea, who had already cited Seth Abramson’s book “Proof of Collusion.” Evidently, you mistakenly thought that Mr. Smith had demanded proof from L4D, whom you then quoted. I know its hard, Matlock. But do please try to keep up.

  13. The reports are that Trump’s answers have not yet been submitted to Mueller.
    If Trump is heading for trouble because of the answers and those “five most chilling words”, then five more words……”The dog ate my homework”…..could be used to avoid the potential hazards involved in turning in the Mueller assignment.😉

  14. One easy catch-all answer is: “I don’t know.” But he’d better worry about Mueller having evidence that contradicts any denials of knowledge.

  15. You continue to claim Congress will get Muellers report, yet the Special council regulations do not allow for Mueler to send the report to Congress, only to the AG.

    1. Mueller’s grand jury information belongs to U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell. She will decide the fate of the summaries of Mueller’s grand jury information. She can and will send those summaries to The House Judiciary Committee the same Judge Sirica did with Leon Jaworksi’s “Road Map” way back when in 1974, IIRC. Beside, Whitaker might not be as eager as Trump is to chuck Whitaker’s future overboard.

  16. JT, you are subsuming that Trump and/or his minions are complicit in the hacking of the DNC emails. There is nothing to prove that. There is more proof to show that someone inside the DNC downloaded the emails. Did Trumps or his minions phish Podesta and get his emails? No way to tell. Podesta was an idiot and could not follow directions. If he had followed directions, the DNC emails would not have been phished through Podesta. Mueller is going to have to connect a lot, and I mean a lot of dots, to make the case that Trump is involved.

    1. Except that that’s not the case that Mueller needs to make. All Mueller has to show is that Trump, or member, of his campaign, or his associates, knew enough about what the Russians were doing to enter into an agreement to conceal what the Russians were doing from the United States so that Trump could benefit from what The Russians were doing. And that they took at least one overt act to further that conspiracy to defraud the United States.

      1. L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – If a frog had wings it wouldn’t bump it’s ass every time it jumped. If only, if only, if only ,,, that is your whole case. Show me the money, baby. So far, all the minions are process crimes and ten year old tax violations.

      2. its not clear they established “the russians did it” in the first place

        the leak probably came from inside the DNC. that’s the more plausible conclusion based on facts than the whole conspiracy theory being spun out by the Dems

        https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/

        Dems just ignore this. They cry lie, they cry fake news, even as they spin out their own fake news and lies to support their post-election coup attempt

Leave a Reply