Trump’s Inclinations and Actions Remain Thankfully Divergent

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedBelow is my column in The Hill newspaper on the reported interest of President Donald Trump in ordering the investigation and prosecution of Hillary Clinton and James Comey.

Here is the column:

The reported demand of President Trump to have the Department of Justice prosecute his 2016 political opponent, Hillary Clinton, and former FBI director, James Comey, is deeply alarming. Such an order would violate long-standing rules separating presidents from such prosecution decisions, particularly when directed against political opponents.

One of the most alarming aspects of the story is its timing. If true, Trump has still not learned basic lessons about the limits of his office, despite two years of self-inflicted injuries caused by his own ill-conceived actions and comments. He is not unique, however, as a president who seems to fit uncomfortably within his office.

Trump reportedly told former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II that he wanted to order the prosecution of Clinton and Comey. McGahn, as he had in the past, pushed back on Trump and explained that such an order would be a fundamental violation of our legal system and would raise a viable basis for impeachment. In doing so, McGahn again fulfilled the most essential function of his office in reminding a president of the navigational beacons of his office. This suggestion was not just outside of those beacons but off the known navigational chart.

What is most distressing is that the president is still even contemplating such actions after he incurred huge costs with missteps at the start of his administration. Like the recent disclosure that Ivanka Trump used her personal email system for official communications, after her father’s vehement campaign against Clinton for such violations, there appears to be a dangerously long learning curve in the White House about basic rules of conduct.

Nevertheless, it is notable that Trump did not in fact give the order. There remains a sharp disconnect between Trump’s rhetoric and his actions. When viewed from his actual decisions, Trump is not dissimilar from prior presidents. While perhaps due to the principled stance of people like McGahn, Trump has adhered to contrary court rulings and has not materially departed from the baseline of prior presidents.

Indeed, other presidents have proven far greater menaces to the Constitution but are, today, curiously celebrated as great leaders with little reference to their constitutional violations.

Consider Abraham Lincoln, who committed an act that is the very definition of tyranny under our Constitution: He unilaterally suspended habeas corpus in the United States.

Referred to as “the Great Writ,” habeas corpus affords citizens the right to challenge their arrests and jailing. It is the right that not only protects due process but checks authoritarian power. The suspension of that right is left to Congress under Article I, Section 9, which mandates that it should not be done “unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Lincoln acted during the Civil War, of course, but he acted alone without Congress’s approval. Moreover, many political opponents of Lincoln, including “Copperheads” (Democrats in the North who opposed the war), were arrested. While Congress later tried to rectify the problem retroactively, Lincoln clearly violated the Constitution.

Similarly, Franklin Delano Roosevelt refused to accept basic limits on this authority. One of the most alarming cases involved the capture of two teams of German saboteurs in 1941 who were supposed to wreak havoc in a secret operation called “Pastorius.”

From the outset, two of the saboteurs (including their leader) intended to reveal the operation upon landing, and did so to the FBI. (Then-Director J. Edgar Hoover would later lie to the public and Congress, claiming that his agents discovered the plan). Roosevelt insisted that all eight men be shot and that Hoover be given a medal. His aides noted that the men deserved a legal process, which Roosevelt refused to acknowledge. When the case went to the Supreme Court, Justice Owen J. Roberts was used to convey to the whole court in its internal conference that FDR intended to have all eight men shot if the court did not acknowledge his authority.

In other words, if the court found that the men had rights, FDR would shoot them in defiance. In one of the most unethical and shameful moments of the court, the justice relented and circumvented a confrontation.

Strangely, former White House counsel John Dean said this week that even Richard Nixon, who resigned just before impeachment, would never have contemplated such an order. Since Nixon carried out the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre” (in which he ordered the firing of a special prosecutor, which led to the removal of the two highest ranking Justice officials who refused to obey his order) — not to mention his misuse of the FBI and CIA for criminal purposes — the moral or ethical clarity suggested by Dean is rather difficult to discern.

Even a liberal icon like Barack Obama flouted the Constitution, ordering the nation to war in Libya without a congressional resolution, let alone a declaration, and repeatedly circumvented Congress in areas such as immigration — the very act that Obama’s defenders now denounce in the Trump administration.

Considering such blatant historic violations, in both peacetime and wartime, presidents are a virtual rogue’s gallery of unconstitutional actors. Ironically, while viewed as someone with authoritarian ideations, if not inclinations, Trump thus far is distinguishable in not actually giving orders to do things like firing special counsel Robert Mueller or demanding the prosecution of his former political opponent.

That does not mean this new account should not be treated as alarming. Trump continues to maintain that he can order the entire investigation closed and fire anyone with impunity. He is wrong, and such an assault on the process would raise serious questions for impeachment. Indeed, it is unnerving to hear any president voicing abusive thoughts. However, this is why the White House counsel position is so vital, and why confidentiality is so important. If we had a transcript of all the ideas raised by presidents in anger or frustration, it would likely chill the public to its core.

None of this excuses President Trump if he suggested such a course of action. His extreme view of presidential power seems indelible and inalterable, despite a series of losses in court and recurring chaos in the White House. We have reason to be concerned.

From a constitutional perspective, Trump remains what a beat cop might call a “suspicious character” who talks boldly of unlawful schemes but, thus far, has a relatively clean record. The greatest irony would be if Trump actually continues this course in complying — reluctantly — with the Constitution while stating a desire to violate it. Conversely, his more polished, circumspect predecessors often voiced fealty to constitutional limits while honoring them largely in the breach.

With McGahn and others gone from his inner circle, and things heating up in Washington, Trump could still yield to his worst inclinations and send his presidency and the country into a constitutional crisis. The fact that he has not done so remains strangely intriguing and even encouraging.

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

123 thoughts on “Trump’s Inclinations and Actions Remain Thankfully Divergent”

  1. Rolly polly, stick in my holey..
    Up my slimey slew!
    I dragged my rawls .. across the hallls…
    I’m one of the sporting crew!

    Oh,,the first old maid..raised up and said…
    My holes big as the sea…
    A ship goes in… a Ship goes out…
    It doesnt bother me.

    etc

  2. FDR also told the DOJ to round up his more outré political opponents and put them on trail on spurious charges:
    https://todayinclh.com/?event=the-great-sedition-trial-begins

    In the midst of World War II, the government prosecuted 30 right-wing individuals on charges of sedition and violating the Smith Act, which made it a crime to advocate the violent overthrow of the government (June 29, 1940). Many people then — and most experts today — believe the trial was politically motivated, urged on by President Franklin Roosevelt, and that it had a very flimsy legal foundation. The record strongly suggests that Attorney General Francis Biddle knew there was no valid case against any of the defendants, but was brow-beaten into bringing the case by the president. The defendants were a mixed bag of extreme right-wing intellectuals, cranks, and oddballs. There was little if any evidence of actions by any of them that met the terms of the laws under which they were indicted.

    The trial, often referred to as The Great Sedition Trial, became a circus, and a mistrial was declared on November 29, 1944, after the judge suddenly died.

    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j042800.html

    The trial had its genesis in early 1941. At the close of a Cabinet meeting, FDR took Attorney General Francis Biddle aside. After the others had left, the President took out a packet and laid on the table a number of pamphlets, newspapers, and leaflets. It was a miscellaneous assortment of literature denouncing the President as a warmonger and calling for his impeachment.

    The President leaned forward in his chair and asked, “What are you going to do about this?”

    “Mr. President,” replied Biddle, “nothing can be done.”

    The attorney general, who came from a distinguished Virginia family – his mother’s ancestors included John Randolph of Roanoke and Edmund Randolph, the first attorney general of the United States – may have been under the illusion that he was still living in a free country. The President quickly disabused him of that quaint notion, shouting across the table: “I want something done about these cases – and you go ahead and do it!”

    THE INDICTMENTS
    For months on end, the President bullied Biddle in Cabinet meetings, demanding to know, “when are you going to indict the seditionists?” The attorney general patiently explained that it was necessary to build a case. As Biddle put it in his memoirs, FDR “was not much interested in the theory of sedition, or in the constitutional right to criticize the government in wartime. He wanted this antiwar talk stopped.” William Power Maloney, a left-wing New York lawyer and ardent New Dealer, was put in charge of the investigation. By the summer of 1941, Maloney began to round up the “suspects” and call witnesses, including Carlson and scores of isolationist and “far-right” activists, from the prominent to the obscure. In the summer of 1942, the President finally stopped badgering the befuddled Biddle: the first indictment was handed down, naming 28 individuals. A second indictment, handed down in January of the following year, expanded the scope of the case, naming five more individuals, 30 publications, and 26 organizations, including the America First Committee, the National Committee to Keep America Out of Foreign Wars, the Constitutional Educational League Bulletin, and Scribner’s Commentator.

  3. Trumpsters. Call em Trumpsters. What kind of people are called Trumpsters?
    Fat kids, skinny kids,…. kids who climb on rocks….
    Rat skids, winny shrids… even kids with chickenpox…
    Are Trumpsters..
    They are Trumpsters!
    The men, God, thought … to flock!

  4. I am not aware that we went to war in Libya… The French and British bombed Libya but US did not; and we certainly didn’t put boots on the ground. Prof. Turley, please clarify.

    1. Gonzalo,
      We not only bombed Gadaffi forces, we fired a large number of cruise missles.
      And Obama/ Hillary were in the lead in the U.N. in the push for a so-called “no fly zone to protect civilians”.
      That “humanitarian mission” was the cover story for the sustained assault by NATO against Gadaffi’s military.
      It didn’t take much to knock out Gadaffi’s air force, then we led the way in going after his artillery, etc.
      The intel we provided helped the anti-Gaddafi forces to locate Gaddafi’s convoy; there’s a video and other info. documenting Gaddaffi’s final moments.

      1. Tom, explain ‘why’ we would have supported Gadaffi. It makes no sense at all! Qaddafi has been an outcast in the world community since the 1980’s. If the Libyan people were sick of him, ‘who’ were we to intervene of Gaddafi’s behalf??? We had to chose sides and it couldn’t be Gaddafi!

        1. Peter, you seem to view the “failure to overthrow Gadaffi” as somehow “supporting Gaddafi”.
          Non-intervention toward the end, or what would have been the end, of the Libyan civil war is not the same as “supporting” Gadaffi.
          By your “logic”, we “supported” Saddam until 2003 when we removed him from power; if you liked the U.S. intervention in Libya, you must have loved the results of Gulf War II.
          Your bizarre statement “that we had to choose sides” can can apply to Syria and any number of places that advocates of blind interventionism like you seem to desire.

        2. PH,.
          It’s not up to me to “explain” why we should not have overthrown Gaddafi.
          It’s up to you to justify our military intervention to overthrow him.

        3. Ill say why

          a– old beefs had been settled. lockerbie was settled with money from Qadaffi. He had desisted from active support of terror activities. this you can find with google, i wont bother digging it out from the memory hole

          b– Qadaffi was sovereign. Nobody gave the US a legal right to remove a foreign despot. that is bull. No war declared by Congress either. Just Hillary policy and I even doubt if Obama fully green lighted all her schemes.

          c– he was actually popular but not with Salafists that is the religious whackos that Saudi loves to give money and arms to abroad. He was a secular Arab tyrant in the mold of Nassar and Assad and Hussein. Or Mubarak for that matter. He kept a lid on Salafist mischief. Look them up if that exceeds your scope of history. All who were the devils that we knew. And not the total nutjobs that we don’t who are in control of Saudis and did you forget they whacked our Ambassador not Qadaffi’s troops

          Saudi scheming using its usual assortment of jihaadist fanatics, that brought America along by the nose– that’s the unwritten history of Libya

        4. stability is important in the world

          insane religious jihaadists are dangerous to the west as 9/11 demonstrated, whatever the elements we don’t understand fully, we understand fully that a lot of them were mostly responsible. in case you forgot.

          NOT Saddam Hussein. a tyrant, an outcast, etc all those bad things you say about Qadaffi. Not Qadaffi. Not Assad.

          many of these jihaadists are actually Saudis like Muhammad Atta; and in control of the Saudis as perhaps some of the 9/11 conspirators were if at some lower level of Saudi bureaucratic mischief…. who knows if anyone else had a hand in that disaster but certainly I will continue to suspect the Saudis until the classified section is fully declassified and then only if it gives them a beaming exoneration which it certainly will NOT.

          and while the Saudis are not our friends, it was a good thing when secular Arab tyrants hemmed in their influence

          The Khasoggi affair is not even a speck on the radar of the bigger issues.

        5. ISIS and the roving gangs of thugs mentioned in the Reuters link were among those who “were sick of” Gaddafi, and who benefited when NATO overthrew him.

  5. LAMEDUCK REPUBLICAN HOUSE SUBPOENAS COMEY AND LYNCH

    FAILURE TO PROSECUTE HILLARY TO BE SUBJECT OF CLOSED-DOOR HEARING

    Former FBI Director James Comey has tweeted that he will ‘not’ attend said hearings unless they are open to the public. Comey calculates Republicans will attempt to distort his testimony through selective leaks.

    https://www.npr.org/2018/11/23/670362400/comey-vows-to-resist-subpoena-from-house-republicans-for-closed-door-session

    1. ” Comey calculates Republicans will attempt to distort his testimony through selective leaks.”

      The leaker himself makes the claim. Peter, you should forget the seasoning and get to the meet. Comey was part of a conspiracy.

      Did you ever hear of the memo “Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI” That is the memo calling for Comey to be fired and it was written by Rosenstein.

  6. “Consider Abraham Lincoln, who committed an act that is the very definition of tyranny under our Constitution: He unilaterally suspended habeas corpus in the United States.”

    Referred to as “the Great Writ,” habeas corpus affords citizens the right to challenge their arrests and jailing. It is the right that not only protects due process but checks authoritarian power. The suspension of that right is left to Congress under Article I, Section 9, which mandates that it should not be done “unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

    – Professor Turley
    _______________

    The singular American failure has been the Supreme Court which should have struck down the tyrannical “Crazy Abe” Lincoln’s unconstitutional denial of the constitutional freedom of secession as the Constitution does not preclude secession and the United States themselves had previously seceded from the British Empire. The Supreme Court should have struck down the tyrannical “Crazy Abe” Lincoln’s unconstitutional suspension of Habeas Corpus as the national condition was not that of rebellion but of secession and not that of invasion as the Confederacy was not invading but merely defending its sovereign national territory.

    “Crazy Abe” Lincoln should have been impeached, convicted and imprisoned for egregious treason agaisnt the United States and its Constitution.

  7. TURLEY IS “ALARMED” BY TRUMP’S SCHEME TO PROSECUTE HILLARY

    YET TURLEY FEELS OBLIGED TO MAKE FALSE EQUIVALENCIES

    Professor Turley reaches back to the darkest days of the Civil War to show that Abraham Lincoln considered an unconstitutional scheme to round-up southern sympathizers in the north. But one imagines that in those first two years of war, when the Confederacy was still a potent threat, Lincoln may have had great anxieties regarding the so-called ‘Copperheads’. He might have thought, ‘There may be no constitution to protect if our effort is undermined by southern sympathizers in the north’.

    Professor Turley then dredges up an example of FDR’s cavalier attitude towards the constitution by citing another example from the darkest days of war. In the period following Pearl Harbor, German submarines were trolling the waters of our eastern seaboard. There was a genuine anxiety that ethnic Germans, raised in the U.S., might engage in spy missions on behalf of Hitler’s government. Those were indeed the circumstances of the example Turley cites; ‘they were German-Americans living in Germany when the war broke out’.

    Historians typically group Lincoln and FDR in the same category of ‘Great Presidents’. But just for good measure, Turley feels the need to mention that “Liberal icon Barack Obama flouted the constitution by ‘ordering the nation to war with Libya without congressional approval”. This analogy could have been made by either a Trumper or a militant Bernie Bro. But did the U.S. really ‘go to war’ against Libya?

    The truth is that Muammar Gaddafi had ruled Libya as an absolute dictator for about 40 years. During that time he was generally regarded as one of the world’s quirkiest leaders. Gaddafi violently suppressed numerous threats to his rule while sponsoring acts of terror abroad. In fact, ‘conservative icon’ Ronald Reagan ‘flouted the constitution’ by ordering U.S. bombers swoop down on Gaddafi’s residence!

    By 2011, the Libyan people had had enough of Mummer Gaddafi. Two generations had grown up knowing only Gaddafi’s rule. Therefore when the Arab Spring swept North Africa, the Libyans naturally felt, “Let’s get rid of Gaddafi”. Gaddafi, and his family, could have taken exile in neighboring African states. But instead of quiting while he was ahead, Gaddafi chose to fight the popular uprising. His choice forced the world community to make a choice: ‘Gaddafi or the rebels’.

    The world ‘had’ to make a choice because Libya is a major oil producer occupying a major strip of Mediterranean coastline. The Arab League wanted Gaddafi gone while France and Britain were willing to aid the Libyan rebels by controlling Libyan airspace. Under these circumstances Barack Obama could hardly take Gaddafi’s side! It would have looked bizarre for a U.S. president to chose a neurotic dictator, like Gaddafi, over a popular uprising. So Obama backed the French-British mission with AWACS and intelligence support. But those actions scarcely constituted “ordering the nation to war” as Turley writes. U.S. soldiers were never committed to Libyan soil. No U.S. planes or ships were lost.

    Therefore Professor Turley has certainly engaged in false equivalencies here by citing two examples of great presidents during the darkest days of war, then claiming a more recent president “ordered us to war” when that was not entirely the case.

    The fact that Turley concocted these false equivalencies on behalf of Donald Trump suggests that the professor is very eager to stay in Trump’s good graces. I suspect that Turley knows Matthew Whitaker will not last long as Acting Attorney General. Turley either wants that position, or the position of Deputy Attorney General.

    1. Peter Shill’s understanding of world affairs is little to nil. I don’t blame Obama as much for enterring the war in Libya because I believe his inclinations led him to stay out but he foolishly yielded to Hillary who seldom if ever did the right thing while getting things right.

      Then our low intellect writer wrongly insults the blog owner and the blog owner’s intelligence claiming a type of collusion between Trump and Turley and then blames Turley’s opinion on his disire to be deputy AG. That is what a low intellect does. It forces the individual to claim collusion that is not true but can not be easily proven to be not true.

      There is no way Trump would take Turley as deputy AG and I believe no way that Turley would accept that position. The two are like oil and water.

      1. ALLEN IS WRITING FROM ALEX JONES’ BASEMENT

        Ever notice how Allen is like this pit bull guarding Trump’s legacy? Whenever anyone disses Trump in any way whatsoever, Allan is the first to respond with turgid insults that could have been written by any loser redneck.

        1. More foolishness from Peter Shill. You can attack Trump all you wish, but when doing so try being accurate. You are a shill so your game strays from the truth to innuendo and outright lies.

          No one has to defend Trump’s legacy. It’s in black and white and makes shills like you look like fools.

          1. Do you even read what you write? What’s next, whatever you throw bounce’s off of me and sticks to you. Allen, you need help with what the truth is.

        2. PETER HILL IS BASED IN HOLLYWOOD.
          ACCORDING TO WSF, ” THE WORST PEOPLE CAN BE FOUND IN:
          #1. THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT
          #2. HOLLYWOOD”
          The complete WSF list can be found on another one of today’s threads.
          IT IS UNCERTAIN IF THE CONSTANT BLARING FROM HHHNN (HOLLYWOOD HILL’S HEADLINE NEWS NETWORK) AFFECTED THE #2 RANKING OF HOLLYWOOD FOR WHERE “THE WORST PEOPLE COULD BE FOUND”; IT’S POSSIBLE THAT HOLLYWOOD WAS FARTHER DOWN THE BEFORE THE ADVENT OF HHHNN.😊😀😂

          1. Tom, you’re stuck in the 1920’s when Hollywood was seen as evil by Evangelicals like Elmer Gantry.

            At present people in the movie & TV industry are much brighter than the public imagines. Those old stereotypes of cigar-chomping hustlers are very out of date. Hollywood executives today are, more often than not, graduates of fine universities. L.A. is generally better-educated than the public likes to think. People in cold-weather places concoct stupid images of L.A. because they are envious.

            1. Peter Hill – I have just watched about 15 hours of video reviews of The Last Jedi and I would have to say that nothing you say about Hollywood is correct. Rian Johnson and Kathleen Kennedy ruined the Star Wars universe. I am not sure if JJ Abrahms can put back together again.

              Now, where Hollywood is doing well is with independents. However, although the tentpoles are making money and doing fan service, they are failing artistically and financially film to film.

                1. L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – citation please.

                  1. “The Decline of The West” by Oswald Spengler (a.k.a. “Mr. Mopey”).

                    “Booga Booga!” by David Steinberg.

                    1. L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – don’t be like your co-dependent Benson and cite the whole book, cite a specific page in the darn book. God, did no one teach you to do simple research?

                    2. Paul

                      Some of Diane’s traits:

                      She cites the Library of Congress as a source
                      She quotes because she doesn’t understand what the words say
                      She uses circular reasoning
                      She draws invalidated conclusions and later uses those invalidated conclusions as evidence.
                      She turns words so awkwardly that even she becomes confused about what she said.
                      She makes statements in one post only to disagree with it in another.

                      All in all you have f—-d up “floozy writer”.

                  2. Diane’s prediction without specifics is meaningless. Entropy always exists so what she is actually predicting is something well known, entropy.

                  3. From the Wikipedia article on “Mr. Mopey”.

                    (Der Untergang des Abendlandes), published in 1918 and 1922, covering all of world history. Spengler’s model of history postulates that any culture is a superorganism with a limited and predictable lifespan.

                    Spengler predicted that about the year 2000, Western civilization would enter the period of pre‑death emergency whose countering would necessitate Caesarism (extraconstitutional omnipotence of the executive branch of the central government).

                    1. L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – so, Spengler read the National Enquirer? What was his take on yeti?

                    2. Paul, there are two Spengler’s of note in that field. Spengler number one is dead. Number 2 was a pseudonym used by David P. Goldman. Spengler was the name he wrote under for the Asia Times. He has published significant writings and books.

            2. Peter Hill,
              I will ( at least temporarily) accept your point that Hollywood is now, in the early 21st Century, a better point of light for the moral guidance of America than it was c. 100 years ago.😊😀😂
              I have seen a number of the recent products of those “graduates of fine Universities ” and will keep that in mind.😂😂😂
              So we’ll see if our “brighter pubic images” will in fact lead us to a better world.
              Being in a “cold-weather place” at present, I will try to control my envy.

            3. Also, Peter, please keep in mind that these were WSF’s rankings of “where the worst people can be found” .
              That does not necessarily mean that I would rate the “Worst People Category” in the same order as WSF.
              Not does it mean that I include you specifically among the “worst people”, in spite of the fact that you dwell in the Land of the Worst People.
              I think that you are merely disguided, but not evil.
              As opposed to L4B/ Diane, who is , in fact, pure evil.😉 😀😂

              1. However . . . Evil is always adulterated–never pure. Evil is also frequently diluted. Evil readily goes into solution with righteousness, for instance. In fact, there are many other solutes available to Evil including tears, laughter and even emojis. And yet, you are correct in that PH is not one of those solutes.

              2. Irv wina,..
                From what I understood of your comment, I can accept your point that my comment labeling L4B as “pure evil” was unfair.
                In the spirit of compromise, I am willing to concede that she is perhaps only “diluted evil”, or perhaps even “delusional evil”.

                1. However . . . All living humans are in solution with Evil as a dissolved solid within them to varying degrees of density or concentration. For Evil does not flocculate and precipitate out of humans until the water content [the solvent] is lower than one percent by weight. Such a severely dehydrated human will have been turned into a pillar of salt long before the Evil flocculates and precipitates out of that deceased humans mortal remains.

                  P.S. The misuse of the term solute, in the previous lecture, to refer to such well known solvents as tears, laughter and emojis was merely mistaken rather than adulterated with evil which is, in fact, the solute.

      1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

        During the presidential race, Mr. Whitaker, a former United States attorney, also said he would have indicted Mrs. Clinton, contradicting Mr. Comey’s highly unusual public announcement that he would recommend the Justice Department not charge her over her handling of classified information while secretary of state.

        “When the facts and evidence show a criminal violation has been committed, the individuals involved should not dictate whether the case is prosecuted,” Mr. Whitaker wrote in an op-ed in USA Today in July 2016.

        [edit]

        Mr. Trump once called his distance from law enforcement one of the “saddest” parts of being president.

        “I look at what’s happening with the Justice Department,” he said in a radio interview a year ago. “Well, why aren’t they going after Hillary Clinton and her emails and with her, the dossier?” He added: “I am not supposed to be doing the kind of things that I would love to be doing. And I am very frustrated.”

        1. Anybody can predict with high confidence that “something will be revealed in the near future.” However . . . Predicting that Don McGahn’s lawyer, Bill Burke, needs to shield his client from a revelation in the near future requires the ability to read between the lines in the story that McGahn and Burke planted in The NYT.

          For instance, did you know that Whitaker was hired as Sessions Chief of Staff in September of 2017? And that roughly a year ago Trump said in a radio interview, “I look at what’s happening with the Justice Department–Well, why aren’t they going after Hillary Clinton and her emails and with her, the dossier? I am not supposed to be doing the kind of things that I would love to be doing. And I am very frustrated.”

          So that’s the shield of sympathy behind which McGahn is trying to hide something else. So the next question is from what, exactly, does that shield protect McGahn?

          1. Whitaker’s appointment as Sessions’ Chief of Staff was championed by Leonard Leo of The Federalist Society. Don McGahn has a long-standing association with both Leonard Leo and The Federalist Society. Whitaker’s appointment as Sessions’ Chief of Staff probably would not have happened without McGahn’s approval. Perhaps McGahn is having second thoughts about Whitaker and wants to distance himself and Leonard Leo from whatever Whitaker does next. So exactly what is Whitaker going to do next? Whatever it is, or might be, McGahn and possibly Leonard Leo are already running away from it.

        1. From Gyspy Woman by Curtis Mayfield

          From nowhere through a caravan
          Around the camp fire light
          A lovely woman in motion with hair as dark as night
          Her eyes were like that of a cat in the dark
          That hypnotized me with love
          She was a gypsy woman
          She was a gypsy woman

          1. FTR, L4D has fewer hairs on her head than Trump has on his. And mine were never dark as night. Maybe Trump should try that look.

  8. The DOJ follows the orders and serves at the pleasure of the President, unconstitutional liberal codes, regulations and protocols

    notwithstanding.

    The Legislative branch is not “co-equal,” has no executive power and redress for the Legislative branch is impeachment and

    conviction.

    The Judicial branch is not “co-equal,” has no executive power and the Judicial branch has no redress or authority to modify the

    Constitution.
    _____________

    U.S. Constitution
    Article 2, Section 1

    “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

  9. There remains a sharp disconnect between Trump’s rhetoric and his actions.

    Indeed, other presidents have proven far greater menaces to the Constitution but are, today, curiously celebrated as great leaders with little reference to their constitutional violations.

    Ironically, while viewed as someone with authoritarian ideations, if not inclinations, Trump thus far is distinguishable in not actually giving orders to do things…

    From a constitutional perspective, Trump remains what a beat cop might call a “suspicious character” who talks boldly of unlawful schemes but, thus far, has a relatively clean record. The greatest irony would be if Trump actually continues this course in complying — reluctantly — with the Constitution while stating a desire to violate it.

    Trump could still yield to his worst inclinations and send his presidency and the country into a constitutional crisis. The fact that he has not done so remains strangely intriguing and even encouraging.

    Is Annie/Inga/L4D now a guest blogger for Turley? Who in their right mind gets alarmed or distressed over rhetoric from someone that has proven time and again to act within the confines of the constitution? This is another air-sandwich. “Oh no! Trump wants to…Trump could…If Trump…but dammit, he keeps reluctantly complying with the constitution.”

    Go find an effing safe space. We citizens are all supposed to be beat cops and we are all supposed to treat everyone in public service as a suspicious character. While you get all hyped about a guy who talks about violating the constitution, yet doesn’t do anything other than fulfill campaign promises, you completely whiff on all the others that talk about honoring the constitution, yet don’t and do nothing about their campaign promises.

    From a constitutional perspective… Yeah, stick to that and then explain why citizen Trump is wrong to suggest Hillary should be prosecuted.

    1. Terrific analysis! Especially the last two lines:

      “From a constitutional perspective… Yeah, stick to that and then explain why citizen Trump is wrong to suggest Hillary should be prosecuted.”

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Thanks Squeek! I’d have responded sooner but for some reason I’m not receiving email notifications of comments after I made all the correct selections.

    2. Chief Olly asked, “Who in their right mind gets alarmed or distressed over rhetoric from someone that has proven time and again to act within the confines of the constitution?”

      Asserting executive privilege over decisions made before having been sworn in as POTUS is neither “rhetoric” nor “acting within the confines of The Constitution.” A President-Elect who begins undermining The Chief Executive decisions of the actual POTUS so soon as the polls close on election day ought to be alarming and distressing to all citizen beat cops, even if that President-Elect’s actions had not been taken for the sake of securing election assistance from a foreign power to which that President-Elect had thereby become indebted.

      Trump’s personal, private business is not the business of America that Coolidge had in mind.

      1. Olly hit the nail on the head when he said “Who in their right mind”;
        and, instinctively, L4B and others recognized who Olly meant.

        1. OLLY says: November 23, 2018 at 11:13 AM

          “Is Annie/Inga/L4D now a guest blogger for Turley?”

          Tom Nash says: November 24, 2018 at 7:28 AM

          “Olly hit the nail on the head when he said “Who in their right mind”;
          and, instinctively, L4B and others recognized who Olly meant.”

          [end quotes]

          One can easily imagine why Mr. Nash would interpret the thread reading and blawg scrolling skills of L4D and her coven of sister-witches as “instinctual,” since Tom is still using a Ouija board to channel the Turley blawg.

          1. I don’t use a Ouija board, nor do I claim to have, on rely on, any psychic abilities.
            But since L4B likely uses psychic devices, she needs to get in touch with tech support to keep them functioning properly. doehttps://goo.gl/images/tsi8Jcs

    3. Olly, Trump has been President for two years and hasn’t ordered any prosecution so Diane’s claims as are the NYT’s moot except one has to think why are they saying this now?

      There are ongoing investigations that involve Clinton and bits of news keep popping up that make it seem as if some news on Clinton might be revealed. If that is so then maybe new evidence against Clinton will be revealed and what the NYTimes is trying to do is blame any potential fallout including a prosecutorial investigation on the President.

  10. The problem with this as a reassurance is that before long the more limiting people will be replaced with Trumpsters. Case in point the acting AG

  11. “The reported demand of President Trump to have the Department of Justice prosecute his 2016 political opponent, Hillary Clinton, and former FBI director, James Comey, is deeply alarming. Such an order would violate long-standing rules separating presidents from such prosecution decisions, particularly when directed against political opponents.”

    There is a difference between talk and action that I don’t think that Professor Turley readily recognizes. Did Professor Turley have such concerns when Obama weaponized the IRS? In Obama’s case he didn’t say he was doing it but he made sure it was done in an effective manner. I’ll bet Professor Turley didn’t recognize it early in the game because I didn’t hear much about it when I was seeing the IRS systematically auditing the right and denying 501 c 3’s.

  12. “There remains a sharp disconnect between Trump’s rhetoric and his actions.”

    I don’t know why Professor Turley always feels so surprised at the disconnect. That is the nature of the President. He is quite transparent so even his thoughts are known.

  13. There was another New Yorkie in the White House 77 years ago. He was a dorky looking humanoid who promoted cigarette smoking and thought his itShay did not stink. After the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor this President rounded up all persons of Japanese descent (and some mistaken for it) and put them in concentration camps not unlike those used by Hitler to round up Jews and Gypsies. FDR did not order them killed but kept them locked up until the War’s end. Some were born in America and were of course citizens. Others came from elsewhere and had obtained citizenship. The Supreme Court upheld this in a decision authored by a recently appointed Justice from Alabama named Hugo Black. Korematsu. Look that decision up folks.

    So. As far as the migrant asylum caravan is concerned: we have bombers and we have to also build some concentration camps on our side of the border to lock up those who make it across and seek asylum. Show em the insane asylum. Thank you Jesus, Thank you Lord, Thank you FDR, Thank you Hugo and hurry up Trump.

  14. “While Congress later tried to rectify the problem retroactively, Lincoln clearly violated the Constitution.”
    *************************
    This is hardly true and history supports no such conclusion. The Constitution is silent about who can invoke the revocation of habeas corpus. The positive powers of Congress are set forth in Article I Section 8 not Section 9 where the suspension of habeas corpus in times of rebellion is authorized. Sections 9 and 10 are what government authority can NOT do — with exceptions. Lincoln took advantage of the drafting ambiguity to fill the political vacuum and save the Republic. The Congress exonerated his actions later. It’s okay to fear a strong Executive as JT obviously does, but it’s not okay to mischaracterize history to vilify the actions of a person that were not deemed pernicious at the time.

    Here’s the Constitutional analysis by author, attorney and historian James A. Dueholm analyzing the state of habeas corpus when Lincoln suspended it. The article is well worth reading in full:

    “In early 1862, Horace Binney published an article that provided strong scholarly support for Lincoln’s claim to a constitutional power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Binney was an eighty-two-year-old Philadelphia lawyer, politician, statesman, and author who had trained in the law under Jared Ingersoll, one of the members of the Constitutional Convention. His article remains the most penetrating analysis of the constitutional power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

    Binney’s article is long and repetitive, but it can be distilled to a few points. Contrary to what Taney says in the Merryman opinion, Binney claims that presidential suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is consistent with, rather than a departure from, English practice. Under English practice, only the House of Commons can authorize suspension of the writ, but when it does so, it leaves the actual suspension to the chief executive, since only the chief executive can determine whether the conditions of suspension are met. Reading the suspension clause as both a limit on and a grant of authority to suspend the writ, Binney argues that the Constitution itself authorizes suspension, and that, as with the English chief executive, the president is the only one who can determine when suspension is called for. His position gives him the capacity to determine whether suspension is required, and he has the power to do so under his Article II powers to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.[18] “

      1. And here is Lincoln’s tour de force defense of his actions in suspending the Great Writ in times of crisis in his famous letter to Erastus Corning and others. Horace Greely called it, “the most masterly document that ever came from his pen. I doubt that Webster could have done better — I am sure he could not have so clearly and so forcibly appealed to the average apprehension of his countrymen….”

        Lincoln really was our greatest President.

        http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/corning.htm

  15. “Nevertheless, it is notable that Trump did not in fact give the order.” Lefty loons/Tramp-haters always ready to go after Trump for what we might have thought about vs what he did or did not actually do. Just like silly Coons-Flake bill to protect special counsel. How dumb is that – they expect Trump to completely surrender his constitutional powers and give unrestrained powers to a special counsel not approved by congress. Trump’s real power lies in the restraint that he has shown so far which drives the Trump hating class crazy.

    1. Trump ran the order up the flagpole to see if anybody would salute it. Nobody did. So Trump was powerless. Whence Mr. Beak Guitar calls Trump’s powerlessness by the name the power of restraint, instead.

      Psst–They all know Trump’s guilty as sin. But they want their Judges so very badly they cannot yet taste the bitter pill they’ve swallowed–hook, line and sinker.

      1. Dear Mizz Late4HotStinky Yoga: Trump got you spinning your wheels by frustrating you all by not acting on YOUR fantasized Trump misdeeds vs. reality. Yes he is wielding his power over you and rest of Trump-hating class. And the beauty of it all is that you don’t even realize it – you all being played Girl.

        1. You didn’t get this from me, either. So don’t you tell anybody, either.

          [Wheeler became convinced that one of her sources had “played a significant role in the Russian election attack on the US” and, last year, went to the FBI with that information, notably a text from the source demonstrating that he or she was familiar with the Trump administration’s willingness to do the bidding of the Russian government in Syria within hours of his election. The text in question, sent very quickly after Trump was elected, reads:

          “Off the record[:] You likely don’t want to hear this anymore than I did, I have it on very good intel (A 1 if you know humint ratings) that Flynn is speaking to Team Al-Assad in the next 48 hours. Obviously that in of itself is disconcerting on a number of levels. You can probably figure out a lot more than I can.”]

          1. OMG Late, you have lost your marbles with all your daily voluminous UFO-like ramblings. Day after Thanksgiving is good day to lace ’em up and go for walk around the block and stop to smell the roses, and cease jamming up this blog with white noise which only serves the purpose of soothing yourself (no enlightenment for anybody else).

            1. The Bouncer ordered, “. . . cease jamming up this blog with white noise . . .”

              The more you fidget and squirm, the more prolonged your suffering becomes.

              The more you prolong your suffering, the greater the pleasure your tormenter derives.

              (See Krazy Kat Rambler’s phantasm about Pure Evil.)

              1. Take note of the fact that I DID consider the possibility that L4D was merely “diluted evil”, or “delusional evil”, rather than “pure evil”.

                1. However . . . The greater pleasure of the tormenter derives from the increasing density of the solute evil as the concentration of the solvent humanity gradually evaporates and dissipates to the atmosphere, thereby lowering the temperature at the interface, such that the solvent humanity condenses as fog shrouding and lessening the tormenter’s previous pleasure.

              2. Late4HotStinkyYoga referred to me as “The Bouncer”. I’ll take that as a tacit admission on her part that she has been over-rambling and perhaps does need to ease up on the gas pedal.

                1. For now I smell the rain, and with it pain, and it’s headed my way
                  Ah, sometimes I grow so tired
                  But I know I’ve got one thing I got to do

                  Ramble on
                  And now’s the time, the time is now
                  To sing my song

  16. Turley wrote, “With McGahn and others gone from his inner circle, and things heating up in Washington, Trump could still yield to his worst inclinations and send his presidency and the country into a constitutional crisis. The fact that he has not done so remains strangely intriguing and even encouraging.”

    OFCOLA! Trump has asserted executive privilege over any and all supposedly “executive” decisions he made as President-Elect beginning the moment the polls closed on Tuesday November 8th, 2016 and continuing on through January 20th, 2017, when Trump took the Oath of Office for President of the United States that actually made his subsequent decisions the decisions of the Chief Executive Officer of the United States. Trump did so for the express purpose of stonewalling seventeen out of the twenty-nine questions that Mueller sent Trump in October of this year. That means that Trump has answered only twelve or so of the original forty-four or so questions that Sekulow or Dowd leaked to The NYT.

    Turley may not see it yet, but that thoroughly bogus assertion of executive privilege for The President-Elect during the transition has already plunged Trump’s presidency and the country into a constitutional crisis. You see, if Trump is correct–which he isn’t, of course, but supposing otherwise–then from November 8th, 2016, through January 20th, 2017, there were supposedly two Chief Executive Officers of the United States: One of whom imposed sanctions on Russia for its active measures campaign against the 2016 U.S. election; the other of whom was secretly undermining the legitimate executive decision of the former through back-channel communications with the very foreign power that had interfered with the 2016 U.S. election for the express purpose of getting that second supposed Chief Executive elected in the first place.

    BTW, The story about Trump seeking the investigation and prosecution of Hillary Clinton and James Comey was planted in the press by Don McGahn and his lawyer Bill Burke. Ordinarily when someone like Don McGahn is trying to make himself look good in the press, you might want to ask yourself exactly why that person, Don McGahn, feels the need to polish his reputation before it gets tarnished. What does McGahn know about upcoming developments that we do not yet know, but which we might as well guess will dull the shine on McGahn’s current public relations effort?

  17. …. “Department of Justice prosecute his 2016 political opponent, Hillary Clinton, and former FBI director, James Comey, is deeply alarming.”

    Yep, deeply alarming to have an investigation and possible prosecution. (especially with overwhelming evidence of criminal activity). Turley had way too much wine with his Turkey dinner.

  18. I believe strongly in an independent attorney general and don’t believe individuals should be subject to a prosecution or investigation where the decision to commence such is entirely for political reasons. Nevertheless a decision to prosecute or investigate Hillary Clinton is in her case warranted. There is a solid ground for establishing reasonable suspicion to investigate her for felony violations of law. On a political level she is about as corrupt as one can get without openly crossing the line where Democrats will not support her. And that has been the only reason she has not been held accountable for her actions.

    Had she been an ordinary citizen, she would already be at least at this stage investigated based on the actions she has taken in the past.

    As for whether President Trump is singling out Hillary Clinton for criminal prosecution based on it being a political goal I did not read of any effort on the part of the president to prosecute Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein. Why? Because those two persons did not raise suspicion to their own culpability in felony criminal matters. (There was the incident during the pipeline protests where Ms. Stein is shown on film spray painting words onto the blade of a bulldozer type vehicle, but that is in my view a minor matter and certainly within the realm of a state court and not the federal system.)

    I recognize that it is possible that a newly elected political leader drums up frivolous charges on the candidate that loses, even in this country. I don’t see that in the case of Hillary Clinton.

    1. Also, the Democrats could have mitigated the possibility of the Clintons being investigated by not foisting corrupt candidates as their anointed dear leader.

      Next time avoid the possibility of such a row, don’t promote crooks into prominence. It’s that simple.

      1. Darren, as a police officer, you should know that the Clintons aren’t criminals.

        No one is a criminal unless convicted by a jury, which is something the “lock her up” crowd doesn’t get.

        If anything is criminal, it’s the order from President Trump to shoot on caravan members.

        US forces cannot engage in law enforcement on US territory, and they cannot shoot unarmed civilians.

        If a US serviceman shoots a civilian who isn’t armed with a gun, he will be court-martialed, even if he is following orders.

        https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/01/donald-trump-suggests-migrants-could-shot-throwing-rocks/1850582002/

        1. ProsecutorMilesEdgeworth – if you assume it is an invasion, you can ask any policeman what makes up a weapon to make someone armed. In fact, check out Red Letter Media’s Best of the Worst as they watch and discuss Defending Against Edged Weapons, a training tape sent to them.

          We sent troops under Woodrow Wilson into Mexico under less provocation. If it makes you feel better, the troops can cross into Mexican territory to carry out their operations, with or without the permission of the Mexicans. Right now I think it would be with the invitation of the Mexicans. Only a couple of right-wing nuts got upset when the Posse Comitatus was violated at Waco, who is going to get upset here? Matthias has complete authority on the border right now and it seems the Central Americans are staying in Mexico.

            1. Excerpted from the Marcy Wheeler interview linked above:

              Obviously I went to Mueller’s office and I said, “This is precisely what I’m going to do.” I was trying to be really careful, and I keep saying, “That text is unbelievable.” Again, I thought that journalists would come out with one of the roles that this person played, and then it would become really poisonous, because this person did real damage to the United States, and this person knew precisely what Trump was doing 14 hours and 15 minutes after the polls closed. That is astounding, and what we’re seeing is whatever it is that Trump and Putin agreed to in that two hours with no minders, including Syria. So, the Syria agreement that Putin and Trump made on Monday is the Syria agreement that Trump was moving to put into place 14 hours after the polls closed.

          1. Just an aside Woodrow was a five times war monger WWI, Mexico, Western Russia, Eastern Russia (Siberia), and the continuing Indian Wars in North Amererica which ended with the last in 1933 (Paiutes under FDR.)

            Our first elected openly Progressive President is aso famous for importing progessivism from Europe in the form of college professors while he was a University President and initiating the take over of the Democratic Party by that group and one other known as the Christian Progressives and being the second President to use the un-Constitutional military conscription system which has continued to this day.

            The name of his movement was quickly changed from progressives to liberals followed by many other sbut continnues to hide camouflaged now unsuccessfully as Democrats as they took over the former Party of Slavery and Jim Crow/Black Laws Party but added anti civil rights. Other names include scientific administrators, populists, farm-labor a populist movement, , Darwinists,Socialists as well as the original Progressives.

            He was the first to use that name as Teddy Roosevelt self proclaimed himself under the populist Bull Moose banner as the first Progressive President.

            Sound confusing. Not really they use whatever name is handy to serve the purpose of the moment except one. Constitutionalists is for bidden. .

            1. “The name of his movement was quickly changed from progressives to liberals”

              Michael, there is no similarity to the Liberal you are talking about and the classical liberal which is a distinct political philosophy. The word was stolen from the previous use of the word liberal and some people will distinguish the Liberal of today from the old liberal (ie John Locke) by capitalizing the L in the stolen word..

          2. There is no proof whatsoever the caravan is armed. The military cannot shoot unarmed civilians.

            A deadly weapon per se is usually defined as a firearm and may include knives of a certain length (usually three inches or longer, depending on jurisdiction). Statutes list weapons such as switchblade, gravity knife, ballistic knife, stiletto, sword, dagger, blackjack, brass knuckles, nunchaku (fighting sticks), shuriken (throwing stars), among others.

            A rock is not a deadly weapon unless the suspect is extremely close. Unless one is a shot putter, people cannot throw rocks more than about 40 feet to cause any bodily damage.

            1. “There is no proof whatsoever the caravan is armed.”

              Nice to know that Turley doesn’t discriminate against the blind.

            2. ProsecutorMilesEdgeworth – ask Goliath about those pesky rocks. BTW, if they are trying to kill or injure you, or you are in fear for your life, you can fire on them. Makes no difference what they are or are not carrying.

        2. ProsecutorMilesEdgeworth:

          “If a US serviceman shoots a civilian who isn’t armed with a gun, he will be court-martialed, even if he is following orders.”
          ******************************
          Let us know what jurisdiction you prosecute in so we can avoid it like the plague. This is about as facile and simplistic a statement of the UCMJ as I’ve read and that includes ones by non-lawyers.

        3. “Darren, as a police officer, you should know that the Clintons aren’t criminals.

          No one is a criminal unless convicted by a jury, which is something the “lock her up” crowd doesn’t get.”

          ********************
          Like OJ after the Santa Monica jury decision, they’re criminals in waiting. Darren obviously was citing the factual status of the perps; you, their legal status. Usually the two coincide, but to claim that Al Capone was merely a tax evader rather than a murderer because that’s what his conviction was all about makes you … well … look pretty silly.

    2. Of course a random blogger on an obscure website has a much better grasp on the evidence discovered by the trained agents of the most professional law enforcement agency in the United States, or relatedly, the prosecutorial discretion exercised in declining to prosecute. By all means, let’s speculate, guess and hypothesize about the evidence and viability of a prosecution, since the shrills at Pravda Faux News “know” she’s guilty, of course. Curiously, the fibbies are manned by persons who for the most part sway decidedly to the conservative side of the American polity—as do most law enforcement types. But since that fact doesn’t jibe with the preconceived notions that “she’s getting away with it!” or “Benghazi!” We will just ignore that truism.

      This is to “I should have applied to the DOJ since I can pretend run the place” Darren

      1. [Sarcasm alert] But, but, but . . . Santa Trump promised . . . repeatedly and loudly promised . . . “The system is rigged. She never should’ve been allowed to run. Crooked H; lock her up.”

        If HRC goes free, then there is no Santa Trump. Except for the reindeer–Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

    3. “I believe strongly in an independent attorney general and don’t believe individuals should be subject to a prosecution or investigation where the decision to commence such is entirely for political reasons.”

      ********************

      An unfettered prosecutor with no executive control is a roving commission with the ability to destroy lives and fortunes without recourse. The POTUS is checked by the threat of impeachment. The prosecutor can investigate and bring charges with no such control over his actions. If you really want such a blight on the public, consider Michael Byron Nifong who ran amuck among the Duke lacrosse community.

      1. One can plainly see that turkey focuses Mespo’s legal mind. However, in this particular case, the executive control is exercised by the subject of the prosecutor’s investigation. One might otherwise suppose that that conflict of interest requires something approximating recusal of the chief executive power from the particular investigation of which the chief executive remains the subject.

        1. So Mr. Smith was referring to Hillary Clinton. Oops. More tukey for L4D, please. In any case, the objection works for Trump versus Mueller, anyhow.

            1. Obfuscation sheds no light. The subject of an investigation can mean the old lady walking by the robbers get-away car driver and remarking “My sonny, what a fast looking car you have. Don’t let the cops see it!”

              1. Actually, what it means is that the DOJ regulations say that Mueller can’t indict a sitting president. So Mueller won’t name Trump as a target of his investigation. The DOJ regulations DO NOT say that Mueller can’t investigate a sitting president. In fact, the special counsel regulations say that Mueller can investigate a sitting president. As for obfuscation, are you suggesting that a grand jury cannot subpoena the subject of an investigation? I ask because, if that’s your true position, then it would tend to remake Trump into an uncanny sort of non-targetable “target” of the grand jury’s investigation.

                1. And Trump can order Whitaker to end any investigation. The DOJ is not an independent agency and Trump can’t be impeached for exercising the prerogatives of his office.

      2. Interesting article about Mueller by Marcy Wheeler, whose name has been mentioned frequently on these threads over the past couple of days.

          1. From the Marcy Wheeler interview linked upstream from here for those who scroll:

            No. As I said, I posted a Signal text that I believe the FBI to have, and I know I did not give the FBI that Signal text. I believe that my phone was the only place that that Signal text existed, so do the math.

            I’m not happy with how the FBI approached me [by telling me they had Signal messages from my phone after I agreed to speak with them about my source], but I recognize that in my case it was the right application [because of the seriousness of threat].

  19. Given that a counter-intelligence probe was started against him while he was a candidate, then President-elect, then President, I think he has good grounds for asking. They also have good grounds for saying no.

    Investigations are not out of order though.

    1. The bumpkins have a saying that applies here: “when you lay down with dogs, you gonna get fleas.” When an election campaign continually plays footsies with pocket-traitors and grifters on the make, don’t be surprised if the investigations of those pocket-traitors and grifters on the make tangentially sweeps up communications with the footsies players.

      This is to “Putin can’t be all that bad since he’s an old white guy” paulie — georgie

      1. The NPC Marky Mark Mark runs the pocket traitors and grifters script making one wonder what the algorithm is set to. It is non-responsive to the comment before it.

        1. Mr. M.’s algorithm is often set to probable cause. However, in the case of a counter-intelligence investigation, the algorithm may recalibrate to substantial and credible information. And, when it comes to the statement of offense that Flynn signed, you have clear and convincing evidence that Trump refuses to explain on the novel theory that somehow, someway Trump became The Chief Executive Officer of the United States the minute the polls closed on Tuesday November 8th, 2016. IOW, we the people supposedly had two Presidents at the same time for a period of Seventy-Two days–according to one of those two, but not according to other one, nor to The Constitution.

Comments are closed.