Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Justice, Lawyering, Media, Politics

Witch Hunt or Mole Hunt? The Times Bombshell Could Blow Up Both Sides

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the recent disclosure that the FBI opened an investigation into whether President Donald Trump was working for Russia after his firing of former FBI Director James Comey. In reading the story, it struck me that the emerging picture from early 2017 looks increasingly like a study in cognitive bias. Indeed, it raises a rather intriguing possibility that both sides may feed each other in reaching the wrong conclusions.

Here is the column:

The New York Times has published another bombshell with a story that President Trump was named as a possible national security threat in a counterintelligence operation that was launched after his inauguration.

If true, this is likely the only time in history that the FBI has investigated whether a sitting president was either a knowing or unknowing agent of a foreign power. However, the real benefit of the investigative story may not be the original suspicion, but rather how it could explain the course that both sides have taken into our current quagmire. What if there were no collusion or conspiracy but simple cognitive bias on both sides, where the actions of one seemed to confirm precisely the suspicions of the other?

There are now two possibilities. The first of those is that Trump really was some “manchurian candidate” placed in the Oval Office by Russia and controlled from afar by Vladimir Putin. Many are unlikely to ever accept any other possibility, though the New York Times story does not suggest that this counterintelligence operation found any basis for the original allegation. Indeed, the problem arose when part of the operation was made public. Such inquiries are usually completed and never disclosed. In this case, various forces led to a partial disclosure that Trump associates were investigated and that Trump himself might have been compromised.

Now to the more intriguing theory that is more consistent with known facts. We have a clear picture of what the two sides saw at the start of the Trump administration. At the FBI, investigators, including then director James Comey, actively considered the unthinkable possibility that the president was controlled by Russia. At the White House, Trump believed that his associates and campaign had been placed under investigation by federal officials with close ties to Democratic figures. What happened next could be a lesson in cognitive bias, and it could indeed explain a lot.

At the start of the Trump administration, the FBI has a dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele and opposition research firm Fusion GPS, alleging a myriad of suspicious financial and personal connections between Trump and Russia. It also had an investigation into the Russia connections of Trump adviser Carter Page. There was Trump encouraging Russia to locate the hacked emails of Hillary Clinton and some evidence of Russia internet trolling and hacking operations. There also was the curious refusal of Trump to criticize Russia, an anomaly within Republican politics.

Soon after the inauguration, Trump started to counterpunch against what he saw as a deep state conspiracy. He asked Comey if he would be loyal and to go easy on resigned national security adviser Michael Flynn. He eventually fired Comey. He lashed out on social media against the FBI. He said in an interview that he had the Russia investigation in mind when he fired Comey. He met with Russians the very next day in the Oval Office and told the diplomats, “I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That is taken of.”

No charges were ever brought against Page, who appears to have been pursuing business interests in Russia. Moreover, investigative journalist Michael Isikoff, who broke the dossier story, admitted recently, “When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them, and, in fact, there is good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false.” Even the New York Times bombshell now reports that “no evidence has emerged publicly that Trump was “secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials.”

However, the FBI back then did not know all of that. From the perspective of the counterintelligence operation, every one of those moves confirmed the concern that Trump may have been working for Russian interests. They understandably began an investigation into whether Trump was acting not erratically but by design to conceal his Russian influence.

Now go back to the same period after the inauguration. Trump had just won an unwinnable election against the establishment. He had expected much of the government to be hostile to his administration. He soon learned that the FBI secretly investigated some of his aides. Then the dossier story hit. The Clinton campaign first denied funding the dossier but later admitted that it funded the effort at a considerable expense, with the money hidden as legal costs by its lawyer and his firm.

From the perspective of Trump, it all fit pattern of a deep state conspiracy of Clinton operatives and establishment officials. Soon, Trump witnessed events that confirmed his suspicions. Key FBI officials like Andrew McCabehad Democratic connections and his wife, Jill McCabe, received roughly $700,000 from a close Clinton ally and the Virginia Democratic Party in her campaign for the state legislature. Then emails surfaced, showing sentiments of clear bias against Trump from relevant figures like McCabe and lead FBI investigator Peter Strzok, including discussion of “insurance policies” against his election and resistance against his administration.

Trump also learned that the dossier was given to the FBI by the wife of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who worked closely with former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. Nellie Ohr was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Everything that Trump was seeing confirmed the theory of a conspiracy of Democratic operatives and deep state figures against his administration.

The result is two separate narratives that fed off the actions of each other. There likely was bias in the initial assumptions, with a willingness at the FBI to believe Trump would be a tool of the Russians, and a willingness by Trump to believe the FBI would be a tool of the Clintons. Every move and countermove confirmed each bias. Trump continued to denounce what he saw as a conspiracy. The FBI continued to investigate his obstructive attitude. One side saw a witch hunt where the other saw a mole hunt.

Of course, neither side can accept at this point that they may have been wrong about the other side. In economics that is called path dependence. So much has been built on the Republican and Democratic sides on these original assumptions that it is impossible to now deconstruct from those narratives. In other words, there may have been no Russian mole and no deep state conspiracy. Moreover, the motivations may not have been to obstruct either the Trump administration or the Russia investigation. Instead, this could all prove to be the greatest, most costly example of cognitive bias in history, and now no one in this story wants to admit it.

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

264 thoughts on “Witch Hunt or Mole Hunt? The Times Bombshell Could Blow Up Both Sides”

  1. “In reading the story, it struck me that the emerging picture from early 2017 looks increasingly like a study in cognitive bias. “

    “The New York Times has published another bombshell” (one of the many rehashes of the same story so the story doesn’t get cold.)

    Instead of cognitive bias what the story might actually be is a coverup for inappropriate actions by the Obama administration, opposition research and then involvement of the FBI indirectly leading to more cover-ups. The original claims made were totally bogus and will almost certainly be shown to be so when the Mueller investigation is over. Yes, Mueller will phrase his statement to make things look bad for Trump but one has to recognize that the entire team against Trump has been working together for years and involved in problems that they had to escape from and if focused on would severely tarnish their images.

    It is likely most, if not all of the important players in the investigation are guilty of inappropriate or criminal action. Some of todays news and persons date back to an article written in the WSJ by Glenn Simpson in 2007. Now that most of the known charges have been discussed, rediscussed and discussed again in the media only to be rehashed time and time again to provide copy of news that is old one has to think why is this still being discussed. Maybe things need more time to be hidden because some of these people are in jeopardy especially since they have worked so closely together and likely have jointly done things they would prefer not be public.

    Trump is innocent of all charges and Turley is once again trying to create more than one scenario without adding new information knowing that the Mueller investigation will reveal what is thought to be hidden but doesn’t exist. I think it is a good time to reread an article written in Dec 2017 . I have posted it above. Then perhaps one will want to read Glenn Simpson’s original op-ed in the WSJ in 2007 which I will post if interested parties come up against a pay wall.

  2. Fascinating article, JT. I always appreciate your perspective. I try to read and watch commentary from people who are more to the right of me, on the political spectrum so that I can avoid the bubble. I always benefit from your insights.

  3. And now a word from a truly lefty, liberal, anti-Trump attorney and journalist, plus he is gay. Eeegads! Brace yourself, his cognitive bias is off the chain!

    “The FBI’s Investigation of Trump as a “National Security Threat” is Itself a Serious Danger. But J. Edgar Hoover Pioneered the Tactic”
    by Glenn Greenwald
    January 14 2019, 11:06 a.m.
    https://theintercept.com/2019/01/14/the-fbis-investigation-of-trump-as-a-national-security-threat-is-itself-a-serious-danger-but-j-edgar-hoover-pioneered-the-tactic/

    “It was a dangerous and shameful moment when J. Edgar Hoover investigated U.S. politicians as potential traitors and stooges because he believed they were too deferential and subservient to Russia, or because their advocated plans for peace with Moscow were “contrary to American interests.” It’s no better when the agency housed in the headquarters that, revealingly, still bears Hoover’s name does the same today.”

  4. Even the New York Times bombshell now reports that “no evidence has emerged publicly that Trump was “secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials.”

    However, the FBI back then did not know all of that.

    Speaking of cognitive bias, how could you possibly know what the FBI actually knew back then? JT, your post seems to be an effort to set knowable facts from either side against each other and then somehow conclude they are equally imaginary. The only way to make those known facts equal is to insert a cognitive bias into the equation; which the bolded sentence above clearly demonstrates.

    If you truly want to draw reasonable conclusions, take all the evidence that is publicly knowable, in the timeline that that evidence occurred, and objectively explain what that evidence demonstrates. The publicly available evidence leans heavily in favor of President Trump and the only way to draw a different conclusion at this point is your cognitive bias theory assuming facts that are not publicly knowable.

  6. There has been little focus on “proper loyalty” in America. The United States is unique in the world because American officials – from presidents to local police officers – voluntarily agree to an “indirect loyalty oath”. Officials don’t pledge loyalty to the nation directly or the people directly or to protect & serve. The supreme loyalty oath – Oath of Office – is to the U.S. Constitution (constitutional rule of law). Since the 1800’s, this supreme loyalty oath has also included “domestic enemies to the U.S. Constitution”. There are few if any “loyal” investigators and judges scrutinizing any of these proceedings. If America has such a loyalty culture, we never would have tortured, destroyed the Geneva Conventions or have locked people up without charge or trial. Why is this absence of proper loyalty not news?

    1. When, as their first act of taking office, elected officials are required to “swear” to (the Christian or Jewish) god, on a Christian (or Jewish) bible that they will uphold the Constitution, they are violating the first amendment which prohibits government requirements respecting religion.

      1. There is no religious test for the Oath of Office or any government position [Article VI of the U.S. Constitution]. The God or Holy book part is optional. Some religious denominations, like Quakers, “affirm” the loyalty oath instead of “swear” to it, since their religious interpretation prohibits swearing. Richard Nixon was a Quaker, so he likely “affirmed” his Oath of Office. Supreme loyalty – in one’s job duties and authorities – is to the U.S. Constitution for 100% of all government servants (local, state and federal). Some Oath-takers pledge loyalty to the U.S. Constitution and essentially include “God as my witness” to show that it is a real solemn promise, not taken lightly – they are not pledging loyalty to a religion. America is based on “religious freedom” [First Amendment], NOT “theocracy” where religion is imposed on citizens. One of the primary reasons for the American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, was that Americans were fighting theocracy [Anglican-Christians persecuting Baptists, Puritans, Catholics and other religion]. Decades later, Abraham Lincoln, founder of the Republican Party, considered “domestic enemies to the U.S. Constitution” to be a far greater threat to America than any foreign power. Lincoln probably would have wanted our national security agencies to focus their resources on these “domestic enemies to the U.S. Constitution”. Unfortunately many of the agencies themselves have been disloyal to the American loyalty oath with programs/tactics like Cointelpro. Cointelpro tactics supposedly lasted from the 1950’s to the 1970’s which were exposed by the congressional Frank Church Committee. The ACLU – which Eisenhower and Truman eventually supported – warned in October of 2001 that Attorney General Ashcroft had created a constitutionally-lawless environment, combined with modern technology, that could create a “Cointelpro On Steroids” if left unchecked. Congress and the Judicial Branch, after almost 20 years, are making small moves at accountability and seem to support these unAmerican practices. Proper loyalty matters and this current investigation doesn’t seem to have it. Mueller was hip-deep in all of these disloyal practices and did little to restore proper loyalty. Mueller could redeem himself by indicting or disbarring the former Bush DOJ torture attorneys.

      2. it prohibits no such things when the founders established it, nor any time since, then it prohibits it not now either. gosh

      3. “they are violating the first amendment which prohibits government requirements respecting religion.”

        Samantha, learn your history. The ammendment is to prevent the federal government from establishing a specific religion. Some states actually had a state religion which the people of the state may have paid taxes towards.

        (Samantha, be careful not to confuse this alias with that of your husband.)

    2. great question, wow!

      because the news comes from a cultural backround which is strictly ideological and liberal-capitalist. loyalty is a concept emanating from the feudal times and ancient tradition and while not outmoded, is a value that is not widely shared.

      loyalty is a concept that relates people and facts in the real world as we are and not just disembodied ideologies. it’s a great question you ask and I am looking into the work of martin heidegger which I think informs a way of living thinking and speaking that credits not just disembodied ideas but real people of flesh and blood thrown as we are into the world as we are.

  7. In reading the story, it struck me that the emerging picture from early 2017 looks increasingly like a study in cognitive bias. Indeed, it raises a rather intriguing possibility that both sides may feed each other in reaching the wrong conclusions.

    Charity is not fantasy, Professor.

    All of this suggests that federal law enforcement needs to be distributed into a menu of departments and auxilliary services, and the FBI in particular needs to be broken up into its component parts.

  9. This wasn’t cognitive bias. It was bureaucratic arrogance coupled with vindictive, reflexive pay back-ism. Trump fired “their guy” and they were damn determined to do something – anything – about it. Couple that with the FBI’s “God complex” about testing the purity of America’s elected leaders in the so-called Public Integrity Section (appropriately acronymed as “PIS”) and you’ve got a recipe for undermining democratic elections. Proof you ask? How about Comey unlawfully leaking to the press via his buddy law professor? Or what about the shenanigans of upper level FBI officials like Ohr and McCabe? Or how does one deduce “good faith” bias error from the emails of Page and Strozk pre-election? No one in the DOJ seriously thinks Trump is a Putin tool as John Dowd explained to us this week. This is a soft coup orchestrated by America’s shadow tyrants in the intelligence community (aka the Swamp) aided and abetted by their unlicensed fools in the corporate media. Any other conclusion attempting to spin it as some Inspector Clouseau mishap is just obscurantism and the denial of real human nature as well as oft-repeated bureaucratic history. See Hoover, J Edgar.

    1. I totally agree. This is the action of an angry public coupled with Legal Agencies that failed to hold Mr. Trump to standards of the Law that the majority of the population must be held to. This man has no standards or respect for the law…or is completely ignorant of it due to his rather priviledged life.

      1. Becka

        Yes, but if you are biased in favor of Trump, the “he did it too -look at both sides” defense sometimes works – especially if the “jury”
        is composed of mainly true believers in the president accused.

      2. Mr Trump has little memory, doesn’t read, has a limited vocabulary, and is a narcissistic sociopath which some view as a “mob” personality, where violence or threats of violence are the first defense. He colluded with Israel in exchange for campaign funds. Russian collusion has always been a hoax.

      4. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/27/president-donald-trump-rips-13-angry-democrats-mueller-twitter/648303002/
        Not “an angry public”; just “13 angry Democrarts😡” + BeckaG +L4B + Natacha = just 16 angry Democrats.
        ( oops, I forgot Rep. Rapida Tlaib and her MF outburst….not sure if she should be counted as being among ” the public”, though; she was a veteran of literally hours of service in Congress when she made that remark, so I’ll compromise and call it 16 1/2 Angry Democrats).😊

  10. So simple a story that even a caveman could figure it out: Trump fires dirty cop Comey and Comey’s loyal cabal (McCabe, Strok, Paige, et al) retaliate with bogus and incendiary investigation of Trump. Deep State illicit retaliation against constitutional authority of the president is not the story line cover by lefty media. Imagine the lefty media coverage if the exact same thing happened to the Messiah Obama.

      1. Becka Gee comes across as some sort of faux intellectual ivory tower liberal and tosses out the term “cognitive bias” instead of stringing together a sentence or two to refute the simple rationale that I set forth. Perhaps she throws out the term “cognitive bias” with pinkie up while sipping tea in hopes of reader succumbing to appeal to authority of her intellectual superiority facade. Becka Gee got no real game.

        1. You called yourself a caveman, Bill. Becka G did not pile on your own inferiority complex.

          Booga Booga!

          1. I did not directly refer to myself as a caveman but left that up to reader to interpret – left myself open to self deprecation (look it up) and at the same time concisely presented a point of view. You Ms. Late4Yoga and Ms. Becka Gee on the other hand resort to faux intellectual buzz words and attacking the messenger. Both Late4Yoga & Becka Gee got no game.

            1. Since you obviously didn’t read Turley’s original post for this thread, allow me to inform you that “cognitive bias” was Turley’s faux intellectual buzz word–not Becka G’s. Consequently, accusing Becka G of Turley’s “intellectual superiority façade” is an instance of attacking the messenger and filling in the blank you had left open for your self-deprecating caveman remark.

            2. Bill M.,
              It doesn’t matter what you actually wrote…..L4D will tell us “what you really meant”.😊😄

          2. No, the inferiority complex was L4B’s; she felt slighted by Bill’s failure to mention cave women as well as cavemen.
            To avoid triggering L4B’s inferiority complex in the future , Bill, it would be better to write “caveperson”, not “caveman”.

            1. I would love for Late4Yoga & Becka Gee to channel their inner cavewoman and get in a world of simple logic. But that is not how lefty diversionary world operates – it has got to be convoluted, shaming, confusing etc to work.

                1. Seems I am getting tag-teamed by a couple of illogical crazy lefty broads…..and “I’m lovin’ it”.

                  1. Incoherent and hysterical Feminazis.

                    They are the true misogynists. They endeavor to appear as men. They hate the natural function of females: Pregnancy, childbirth and nurturing. They commit mortal treason against their nation – national suicide. They fail to produce a population sufficient to defend and grow the nation. They cause the population to be imported and contaminated. They are self-destructive causing the population and the nation to vanish before our very eyes. The American fertility rate is in a “death spiral.” The 19th amendment was the nation’s death warrant.

                    1. More evidence, above, of the primitive mind running amok in the world.

                      And The Caveman, himself, called it “a world of simple logic.”

                      BTW, Woman selected man for tameness, thereby making man the first domesticated species of animal in the history of life on Earth. However, the maladaptive, homozygous-receptive genotypes that grow up to become cavemen like Trump can never be completely eliminated from the breeding population without precipitating the extinction of Woman and Her Daughters.

                      OTOH, training is still possible for cavemen–as is spanking.

    2. Bots use the word “lefty” a great deal and referring to Obama as the “Messiah” make it obvious.

      1. OK Acromion, How about a response to the thought process that was laid out. Typical lefty diversionary tactic on your part. Lefties like you run from simple logic and rely on magic dust, diversion, inference, etc but fear if A and B then C logic like a vampire fears garlic or a crucifix. Mean girl Comey got his ass fired by Trump and Comey’s mean girlfriends retaliated against Trump. Now I have tried to explain it in real simple terms for you and your ilk to understand and in such a way that you do not confuse me with a bot. Hope that clears things up for you. Good day.

  11. L4D, your link to TNYT article about the FBI is of interest but is in the wrong place. Has nothing to do with the wealth of congesscritters.

    Maybe kakistocracy rather than kleptocracy?

    1. I’m trespassing on your turf again, Dr. Benson.

      You already gave me liberty to do so.

      1. Trespass to your heart’s content but in the attempt to have some coherency to the discourse it would be better not to reply irrelevantly.

        Stick to kakistocracy.

  12. If the whole thing turns out to be one big misunderstanding, then that would be fine by me. But I seriously doubt it.

    I first started reading Res Ipsa Loquitur shortly after Trump said out loud in public that he had the power to pardon himself. That got my attention. That was right around July 8th, 2017, when the NYT first reported the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower meeting from a year earlier. That got my attention, too. Then, on Aug 2nd, 2017, Trump signed the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act into law under vehement protest and after having held it in his pocket for 10 days. Evidently the Congressional Republicans must have been reacting to the same cognitive bias adversely affecting me when they tacked Obama’s EO sanctions against Russia on to that bill shortly after the revelation of the Trump Tower meeting.

    I did not come to my current position lightly, nor in any such rush to judgment, nor as a knee-jerk reaction to any cognitive bias. This thing has been building slowly but surely the whole way through. And don’t ever forget who coughed up the Seth-rich-Murder-Leak-Conspiracy-Theory Hairball. What kind of “path dependents” do stuff like that?

    2. “I did not come to my current position lightly, nor in any such rush to judgement, nor as a knee-jerk reaction to any cognitive bias”.
      That has to be one of the funniest sentences L4B has ever written here.😊😀😄😂

      1. The simple fact that you do not know that you are wrong will never prove that you are right.

        1. Do you write the trite found inside of fortune cookies?
          Or are you just plagiarizing what was written on one of the little gems of wisdom you found inside of a cookie?

            1. That comment was not really necessary; I never expect a straight answer from L4B, regardless of the question, or how it is presented.

              1. Your question was crooked. You thereby forfeited any expectation for a straight answer.

              2. “Your question is crooked”.
                That’s the most recent excuse for her failure to give straight answers.
                Be aware that ANY question that L4B wants to duck will be labeled as “crooked” by L4B.

                1. Crooked questions never hit their mark. It’s a poor archer who blames the target for ducking his arrow.

    3. Great, more David and his CIA endorsed “Operation Mockingbird” comments come to light. Paul Krugman is nothing more than an educated shill, who has been debunked, even proven to be an outright liar, so many times, he should be embarrassed to show his face in public.

      But, like you, he believes the propaganda must go on, if there is any hope of saving the Deep State.

      Kakistocracy in action! at least you got that right, but I’m feeling you are working for the most unscrupulous people inside Government and out!

      Kleptocracy, again you are right, when members of congress become wealthy, when presidents become wealthy, just by being in those positions, it doesn’t bode well for the Left. No party has enriched themselves as much as Leftist.

      You would think, by now, you wouldn’t leave yourself so venerable, by the idiotic comments you make. But hey, it takes an enormous amount of propaganda, and shills to disseminate it, to keep wielding power, you shouldn’t have, right David?

      1. Who are America’s Seven Richest Senators?
        Warren Cassell Jr.
        2018 Jan 30
        Investopedia

        3 D
        4 R

        Yawn.

            1. More about the sourcing for the NYT article from the NYT article linked above:

              “Rudolph W. Giuliani, a lawyer for the president, sought to play down the significance of the investigation.”

            2. Yeah, they probably had to realy twist Strzok and McCabe’s arms to “reluctantly” investigate Trump.
              They’d already been investigating Trump since July 2016, when the Steele/ Russian Dossier opposition research was given to the FBI by St. Christopher.

          2. More about the sourcing for the NYT article from the NYT article linked above:

            “. . . according to James A. Baker, who . . privately testified in October before House investigators . . . portions of which [testimony] were read to The New York Times.”

          3. The initial description of the sources for the NYT article from the NYT article linked above:

            “. . . according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.”

          4. Excerpted from the NYT article linked above:

            A vigorous debate has taken shape among some former law enforcement officials outside the case over whether F.B.I. investigators overreacted in opening the counterintelligence inquiry during a tumultuous period at the Justice Department. Other former officials noted that those critics were not privy to all of the evidence and argued that sitting on it would have been an abdication of duty.

            [end excerpt]

            Meanwhile Turley wrote that “…the problem arose when part of the operation was made public. Such inquiries are usually completed and never disclosed. In this case, various forces led to a partial disclosure that Trump associates were investigated and that Trump himself might have been compromised.”

            Sorry, Turley, but I’m not buying it. This story goes back to the unauthorized disclosure of McCabe’s memo about his conversations with Rosenstein that were leaked to the NYT shortly after Whitaker replaced Sessions. Remember? Neither Trump nor Giuliani demanded an investigation into that leak. Neither Trump nor Giuliani are demanding an investigation into this leak. I’m pretty sure that that means that Trump, Giuliani, the NYO of the FBI and Congressional Republicans are responsible for planting this “bombshell” story in the NYT, too. Notice the line above about “. . . vigorous debate . . . among some former law enforcement officials outside the case . . .”

            Yep. This “bombshell” NYT story is just another one of Giuliani’s Statue-of-Liberty, double-end-reverse, razzle-dazzle foobaw plays of the kind that made John Madden’s chalk-board look like a Rorsach test for Tasmanian devils. Trump is not going to “spin” his way out of the Mueller investigation.

            2. The “logic” is that, unless Trump and/ Guiliani “demanded an investigation” into a particular leak, you can be ” pretty sure it means that that Trump, Guiliani, the NYO of the FBI, and Congressional Republicans are responsible for planting this “bombshell” story in the NYT too.”
              So, every time Trump or Guiliani fail to “demand an investigation” into a leak, or some other issue, L4B’s “logic” is that they must be the perpetrators of the leak or complicit in any and all scandals unless they themselves demand an investigation.
              “I’m pretty sure” this means that there is a daily quota she sets for producing specialized, L4B convoluted theories to torturously fit in with her desired conclusions.

              1. https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2017/05/02/losing-your-marbles/
                Well, I did some research, attempting to get better insight into the workings of L4B’s mind.
                There is ample evident that she misplaced something, be it lumber or marbles.
                But there’s no specific, case-by-case explanations that would account for why that happened in her particular case.
                ( will probably post as “anonymous” due to no log-in space), Tom Nash

    4. his 1/14 garbage can column was just full of insults and very little substance. does that wind your clock?

  14. Gee, did the FBI open an investigation when Obama was caught on an open mike:

    “This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility,”

    “I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” said Medvedev, Putin’s protégé and long considered number two in Moscow’s power structure.
    OR
    When Hillary OK’d Uranium One.

    After 2 years millions spent on an investigation looking for something, anything to overturn a legal election and it just continues. When will we see some justice with Strozk, Page, Ohr and all the rest. What do they just quit or get fired and that’s it?

    1. HRC had nothing to do with Uranium One.

      Not that it matters. The world has a superabundance of readily mineable uranium ore.

      I commented on this earlier. Dig for it.

      2. “HRC had nothing to do with Uranium One.”

        David, nothing means nothing so your statement has to be factually wrong. She had to be involved in Uranium One. The only question is how deeply and whether she acted on her own behalf.

  15. Where is George? Ask this software to look at the crowd
    Champalimaud Centre
    2019 Jan 14
    Phys.org

    In case he doesn’t show up here @ Turley’s. 😀

  16. It seems more like a long recap than a “bombshell”. It should have been no surprise that FBI agents were alarmed by the Comey firing, especially after Trump said “because of Russia” to Lester Holt and a couple of Putin operatives.

    2. Paulm.,
      I’ve always felt that the firing of Comey, by itself, would not have necessarily resulted in the appointment of a Special Counsel.
      I think that Trump’s comments to Lester Holt and the Russian diplomats in the aftermath of firing Comey were incredibly stupid, and that making those comments was “just asking” for trouble.
      But looking at circumstances/ conditions unrelated to Comey’s firing, and that preceded his firing, I don’t think that Strzok and other top level FBI and DOJ officials were exactly objective in what they decided, and how they proceeded, in the aftermath of Trump’s upset win over Hillary.
      The statements by Strzok, Lisa Page, etc., even before the election, cast doubt on the motivation for, and the fitness of, people like Strzok being involved in making the call to open up a secret counter-intelligence operation targeting Trump. And then having key roles in the investigation itself.
      The Strzok texts alone ( the ones that that we know about ) should cause concern about having the top federal law enforcement agency secretly targeting a recently elected president who was clearly despised by the “investigators”.
      And there is the additional involvement of people like DOJ’s Bruce Ohr and his wife in this mess.
      At a minimum, this makes the FBI counter-intel operation against Trump look more like a political hit job than a national security imperative.

  17. This country has been run by deep state puppeteers since the military killed JFK. I believe that Comey and friends were thinking two steps ahead. They wanted Trump to win and re-opened the Hillary email investigation. The plan failed when they could not promptly dispose of Trump and elect Pence by default. This country needs a new Church Committee more urgently than a much needed wall.

  19. The question is will the complete fools who have cost this country more than money be charged? Is this why Sessions recused himself? Does the world learn we don’t pass our government peacefully every four years. I am just physically ill. The damage to the country is immeasureable. I want people in jail this time. And soon!!

Comments are closed.