Is The Criminal Collusion Theory Dead?

Below is my column in The Hill Newspaper exploring the current evidence supporting a criminal collusion case against President Donald Trump or his campaign. While clearly not popular to raise, the evidence released to date is rather underwhelming. Indeed, the basis for a criminal collusion prosecution is weaker today than it was a year ago. That does not mean that new evidence cannot be released but this is an attempt at an objective review of past filings and disclosures from the Special Counsel, Congress, and witnesses. That evidence strengthens the case against collusion and certainly supplies ample foundation for a defense against the charge of a criminal conspiracy with the Russians in hacking computer systems. Once again, the column only addresses the basis for a criminal charge based on collusion by Trump or his campaign. The prosecution of Russians for hacking is strong and the fact that Russians wanted to help Trump seems unassailable. The narrative supporting a criminal conspiracy however seems increasing incomplete and incoherent.

Here is the column:

“Whom did Donald Trump Jr. speak to on his phone in between calls setting up the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians?” That is the question the New York Times asked about “one of the more tantalizing mysteries of the whole Russia affair” in a glossy report on the campaign.

Hundreds of stories referenced the “blocked numbers” and speculated that those belonged to President Trump, who wanted an update on collusion efforts from his son. Last year, when asked by Wolf Blitzer of CNN if he was confirming that Trump Jr. phoned his father, House Intelligence Committee member Andre Carson simply said, “Stay tuned.” So we did, until this week, when it was revealed that Trump Jr. apparently phoned two business associates. The mystery over the blocked calls follows a series of overhyped collusion points that failed to pan out.

With the approaching final report from special counsel Robert Mueller, it may be useful to consider the current state of the collusion case. After dozens of indictments and filings, there is much that has been disclosed by the special counsel on Russian linkages and contacts. Congress and the media also have disclosed a fair degree of evidence from witnesses called before the federal grand jury and committees on Capitol Hill.

However, the publicly known case for collusion remains strikingly incomplete, if not incoherent. What is uniformly missing from the cottage industry of collusion theories is an acknowledgment of the threshold requirements of an actual crime. There is no crime in “colluding” with Russians without some cognizable criminal act or conspiracy to commit such an act. While some have dangerously stretched the criminal code to incriminate Trump, the most obvious and viable crime remains hacking into the email systems of the Democrats.

Mueller has thoroughly identified and detailed the Russian hacking and trolling operations to influence the 2016 election. Yet, these filings notably lack any link to the Trump campaign, let alone advance knowledge or support for the Russian operation. Indeed, key links have become even more implausible as part of a conspiracy with Russian intelligence.

First, there is the question of why Russian intelligence would tell the notoriously unpredictable and impulsive Donald Trump about one of its riskiest international operations in decades. Russian spymasters are not known for putting entire operations, or the future of Russian foreign relations for that matter, just one tweet away from utter destruction.

Second, there is the curious pattern of Trump officials trying to find contacts at WikiLeaks to obtain the Hillary Clinton emails. If there was such collusion, why were Trump associates like Roger Stone or Alexander Nix, who led consulting company Cambridge Analytica that worked for the Trump campaign, seeking contacts with access to the information?

Third, even Trump associates like Michael Cohen, who actively sought contacts with Russians about business in Moscow, also seemed to get nowhere. Indeed, Cohen had to try to contact aides to Vladimir Putin through public mailboxes on the internet. Like the Trump Tower meeting, the efforts made by Cohen during the campaign had failed miserably.

The public record reveals more confusion than collusion in the Trump campaign. If this was a grand conspiracy, there is a paucity of American conspirators and a plethora of clueless associates searching for access to WikiLeaks material. Indeed, in his indictments of various Russians, Mueller expressly said that any contact with them was unwitting, which happened also to be point emphasized by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

This all brings us to some type of “post hoc” conspiracy, or in this case, “post hack” conspiracy. The problem with this theory is that it is not a crime to seek access to material from organizations like WikiLeaks or other whistleblowers. If it were a crime, then journalists, campaigns, and public interest groups would be subject to regular criminal prosecution.

Indeed, the Clinton campaign spent massive amounts of money to fund the work of former British spy Christopher Steele and opposition research firm Fusion GPS to seek dirt on Trump from foreign sources, including Russian intelligence. The Clinton campaign then repeatedly denied its connection to that opposition research, until after the election when reporters found evidence that it hid its funding as legal expenses. Was that some crime of collusion or conspiracy before or after the fact? No. Likewise, it did not become a crime when Fusion GPS officials refused to testify before Congress, invoking the privilege against self incrimination.

The absence of a cognizable crime has not stopped conspiracy theories based on key alleged collusion points. There was the Steele dossier, which the Justice Department and FBI during the Obama administration used to secure secret surveillance against Trump aides like Carter Page, who has never been charged with a crime. Finally, there was the Trump Tower meeting. Nothing else fits a collusion theory better than some secret meeting with Russians in Trump Tower. The president reinforced that image by drafting a false account of the purpose of the meeting.

However, the meeting never seemed particularly secretive, let alone exclusive, for a conspiracy. It seems nonsensical for Russian intelligence to arrange a meeting of conspirators in the most iconic location of the campaign, with half the press corps camped downstairs. Yet, the Russians dispensed with the classic hollowed out pumpkins and sought to arrange the whole thing with an email from a music promoter filled with intrigue. Moreover, the meeting seems to refute any prior or existing arrangement.

Indeed, emails had to induce the meeting by falsely promising evidence of criminal conduct by Clinton. If this were a conspiracy, one would think the Russians would do the opposite of promising to talk about adoptions of Russian children but really come to hand over Clinton dirt. The Russians did not even know who would be in attendance. In the end, all witnesses confirmed that the meeting was short and ended when it became clear the Russians wanted to talk about adoptions rather than Clinton crimes.

Finally, there is the long discussed collusion point surrounding Stone and WikiLeaks. While Mueller certainly can add charges, his indictment of Stone was based on overlapping false statements from a transcript that he only recently obtained from Congress. It does not include any collusion crimes investigated over the last two years. Indeed, Mueller does not confirm a meeting, let alone collusion, between Stone and WikiLeaks.

The last two years often seem like a concerted effort to disprove “Occam’s Razor,” the theory that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. As long hoped for links fell through, more complex theories filled the void of collusion. Yet, the simplest explanation still remains most likely, that the Trump campaign, like virtually every reporter and political operative in Washington, wanted to see the WikiLeaks material and any dirt on the Clintons, just as the Clinton campaign paid for any dirt on Trump.

The Russian efforts to influence our elections also is neither novel nor new. Indeed, the United States has engaged in hacking not just our enemies but our allies, as well as intervening in the elections of other countries. There is nothing “tantalizing” or “mysterious” in such an explanation, because it is more factual than aspirational. The boring truth here is that criminal collusion theories are weaker today than they were a year ago. While Mueller has found ample basis to charge people with false statements, the record of these filings shows more confusion than collusion in the Trump campaign.

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

215 thoughts on “Is The Criminal Collusion Theory Dead?”

  1. Should a non crime without evidence ever lead to the mess we have seen? Of course not. We will have the usual haters that forget about things like truth and logic making their decisions based on their political inclinations. That type of person has little intellect or judgement. We have to live with them but try and hope others can stay focused.

    1. Allan writes: “We will have the usual haters that forget about things like truth and logic making their decisions based on their political inclinations.”

      Remember these jewels?

      “I did not have sex with that woman“-Bill Clinton

      “Bill Clinton is an unusually good liar“ – Sen Bob Kerrey of North Dakota

      everything Hillary ever said….just lies and yet she STILL LOST 😘

    2. Alan, 30 indictments doesn’t sound like a ‘non-crime’, no matter how you slice it.

      And your reference to the “usual haters” forgets that Trump attacks people and institutions several times per day with irrational tweets. Many would say that Trump himself foments hatred in this country. Border security is wise but when your ‘only’ issue is throwing out immigrants, that sounds like a hatred to at least half the country.

      So perhaps if Trump didn’t have such a mean-spirited image, there wouldn’t be so many ‘haters’.

      1. Alan, 30 indictments doesn’t sound like a ‘non-crime’, no matter how you slice it.

        Correct-the-Record employee runs the ‘all these indictments’ script, not acknowledging that every last one is (1) a Russian internet troll, (2) a fancied Russian security official in re they’ll never have to put their money where there mouth is, (3) matters irrelevant to Trump and the campaign (meant to induce false testimony). and (4) indictments of people for ‘lying’ to law enforcement &c. (not that any sword statement was ever signed and not that any interviews were ever recorded).

      2. “Alan, 30 indictments doesn’t sound like a ‘non-crime’, no matter how you slice it.”

        That may or may not be true, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether Trump was involved in any of them. He wasn’t and the indictments show that he wasn’t involved.

        What Weissman is doing is trying to force people to testify against Trump whether or not he is forcing them to lie. That is what he did to the Merrily Lynch guy who he destroyed even though that guy was willing to go to jail for a crime he didn’t think he committed. My understanding of his crime is that he provided an opinion of a telephone conversation he was not a part of and they didn’t like the opinion. To get another opinion from the same person they locked him up in solitary confinement for I think 2 weeks and then put him among the worst criminals. I believe he was eventually released after the decision of his guilt was reversed. He was in that jail for a couple of months less than a year. WE are seeing all of this repeated. I don’t personally like Manforte but I think he was put in solitary confinement. I have judgement one way or the other about Stone, but Muellers use of force against him on his arrest appears to be the same type of incentive for people to provide the story Mueller wishes to hear, true or not. Over and over again we are seeing terrible abuses by the justice department and the Special Prosecutors office that do not belong in our country.

        If this is what you consider justice, Peter, then I can understand your advocacy of killing babies and your fascist inclinations that make you appear somewhat like a Nazi.

      3. “And your reference to the “usual haters” forgets that Trump attacks people and institutions several times per day with irrational tweets.”

        Sometimes Trump says things that aren’t nice. However, he hasn’t tried to torture innocent Americans like has been seen from those you trust. He never abused his powers to weaponize the justice department or FBI. His words make a lot of people mad but his actions haven’t broken the law and have made the country better off.

        So far your big complaint about Trump is what he says in some of his tweets isn’t nice. Congratulations Peter. You finally provided an action of Trump’s that is true.

        1. “However, he hasn’t tried to torture innocent Americans like has been seen from those you trust.”

          How do you know???? He is good friends with a turd that threatens to disappear peoples pets and G*d knows what other violence to control them….I’ve been on the receiving end of that sort of BS and it was in Trumps backyard. You don’t know what he keeps secret….I hope Mueller does and I hope if it is anything that he has the balls to throw him where he belongs.

          1. Becka, since Peter can’t get any further than mean tweets, why don’t you help him out? Give us your list of crimes with the evidence. Oh, you don’t have any? What does that make you? A braggart, much like you accuse the President of. The only difference being is he has something to brag about.

      4. “Many would say that Trump himself foments hatred in this country.”
        And I’d agree — with Winston Churchill: “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”

        1. Mespo, there’s a difference between political enemies and ‘needless’ enemies.

          Take the shutdown, for instance. That shutdown alienated most federal employees. And polls show the public holds Trump accountable for the shutdown. That’s an example there of ‘needlessly making enemies’.

          1. The shutdown didn’t alienate federal employees.

            The Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, signed by Trump on 1/16/2019, required all federal employees furloughed (or required to work w/o compensation) during a shutdown to be compensated at the earliest date possible after the shutdown ends, regardless of their scheduled pay dates. In addition, those who were required to work during the lapse in appropriations are allowed to use leave.

            It was the same sort of bill that was passed after previous shutdowns ~ and federal employees were aware this would happen. They were also aware of the many banks, unions, etc that were offering interest free loans to federal employees during the shut down.

            1. Anonymous ‘who’ are you??? Your post reads like a sock puppet!

              If you’re trying to suggest that Federal workers weren’t stressed by the shutdown, that’s such naked denial it sounds satirical. Especially that part about loans and credit unions. Trump backed-off the shutdown after his Commerce Secretary foolishly made that argument.

              1. Peter, whomever that Anonymous is, that Anonymous makes you look like the fool you are.

                I don’t think Peter Shill ever worried about the jobs lost due to bad policy of Obama and those people had not such protection. The shutdown only occurred over a political play by Democrats. Trump wanted a barrier and the Democrats wanted to scr-w Trump so they withheld something they were in total agreement with.


                This video was taken at Georgetown law where Professor Turley is. I wonder if Professor Turley was at that talk. I expect the Washington Post and NYTimes will be providing a text of Schumer’s remarks as soon as they can.

                    1. “Weissmann, as deputy and later director of the Enron Task Force, destroyed the venerable accounting firm of Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs worldwide — only to be reversed several years later by a unanimous Supreme Court.”

                      85,000 jobs, that is nothing to Democrats whose power depends on kickbacks or handouts

                      “Next, Weissmann creatively criminalized a business transaction between Merrill Lynch and Enron. Four Merrill executives went to prison for as long as a year. Weissmann’s team made sure they did not even get bail pending their appeals, even though the charges Weissmann concocted, like those against Andersen, were literally unprecedented.

                      Weissmann’s prosecution devastated the lives and families of the Merrill executives, causing enormous defense costs, unimaginable stress and torturous prison time. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the mass of the case.”

                      Elsewhere: “The ruling on August 1 by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversing the conspiracy and wire fraud convictions of four former M L executives raises an even more significant question: Is the government being over zealous and improperly criminalizing conduct which should be dealt with in a legislative or regulatory context? See U.S. v. Brown, No. 05-20319, 2006 WL 2130525 (C.A. 5 August 1, 2006).”

                      We should not forget some of the torture inflicted on some of the convicted that were found not guilty.

                      Anyone who thinks the Special Prosecuter of today should have hired Weissman is crazy and since Mueller was involved here and elsewhere tainting his independence one has to be crazy to think Mueller should be in this position. He is better suited as a prosecutor in a third world country where justice isn’t a primary concern.

              2. Peter Shill has a fixation on the identities of posters. Figures. How much does Brock pay you to slime us? That Brock makes a sheet load of money. Memo to AOC: tax that bitter shim

                “Liberal Operative David Brock Pitches More Dirt on Howard Schultz”

                Brock’s group amps up research as Dems fret Schultz could play spoiler

                A group led by liberal operative and Hillary Clinton loyalist David Brock is frantically compiling and pushing opposition research hits on former Starbucks chief executive Howard Schultz, as Democrats fear the billionaire could ensure Donald Trump’s re-election if he enters the 2020 presidential race.

                American Bridge 21st Century, a Washington, D.C.-based political action committee with an affiliated foundation, began digging into Schultz as soon as he floated a potential presidential bid and started pitching the research to publications.

                The Daily Beast reported last week that Bridge sent the publication a file hitting the former chief executive on his family foundation, mainly focused on $400,000 the foundation had spent on furniture and a $21,000-per-month salary its executive director collected during the 2016 tax year, an annual salary of $252,000.

                Despite Bridge hitting the salary of the executive director at Schultz’s foundation, Brock himself collects more than that amount from almost every foundation he oversees, including American Bridge.

                Bridge’s most recently available tax forms, covering the fiscal year ending in 2016, show that Brock paid himself $275,000 in salary and other compensation. Brock took in more than $230,000 from Bridge’s PAC throughout the entirety of the 2016 election cycle, according Federal Election Commission filings.

                Brock also pocketed $292,649 in salary and other compensation that same fiscal year from Media Matters for America, and received nearly $170,000 from Correct the Record’s PAC, an entity that was used to push back on “disinformation” on Hillary Clinton during her failed presidential run.

                CNBC additionally reported on Monday that Bridge had pitched them on a separate research file hitting Starbucks over its history of settling lawsuits with its employees.

                Liberal billionaire George Soros is one of the top donors to American Bridge, giving $380,000 to the PAC during the 2018 election cycle on the heels of the $2 million the financier sent to the PAC during the presidential cycle.


        2. Tell me the communist below didn’t just praise 800,000 parasites working feverishly to conclusively nullify the Constitution and fully implement the principles of the Communist Manifesto as Central Planning, Control of the Means of Production (i.e. unconstitutional regulation), Redistribution of Wealth and Social Engineering.

          1. Awesome. Please post more materials Just. Like. This. I get a kick out of the mental picture of you buried in your stack of clippings from obscure, long-defunct wackjob-wingnut neo-nazi publications looking for the turn of the phrase–that if you could only find it–you could post it and convince everyone that you’re not really bat-sh*t crazy. Persevere in you quest.

            this is to “I’ve got something on bats around here somewhere” georgie – paulie

  2. There is evidence in one arena: Northam in black face or KKK regalia right next to his bolded name in his 20s in the 1980s. Yet, he and his defenders say there is no evidence since he denied it the day after he apologized for it. Such is the climate in politics. It isnt about facts but about situation ethics, convenience and raw adulterated power just like Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, communist Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and so forth

    The russia, Russia, RUSSIA drumbeat is about overturning the US Constitution and a coup de etat via brute force of raw power. The US cant handle this much longer and we already see the effects on our culture: isolation, immunity / stealth and a tipping point.

    Northam….the fall is coming.

    Northam agrees not to attend William & Mary celebrations

    1. Virginia Lt Gov Justin Fairfax is being accused by a woman of sexual assault.He first denied it now says it was comsensual. Hoh boy! LOL

      Always believe uppity women, Senator Pocahontas says.

      Northam is down. Fairfax is next. 😜

      No wonder the Dims and establishment DNC want to have Mule-r-us pursue russia


      Fairfax Admits Encounter With Accuser; Claims It Was Consensual
      By Luke Rohlfing Feb 4, 2019

      As first reported by Big League Politics, a woman has come forward with accusations of sexual assault in 2004 from Virginia Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax, who was then a campaign staffer for Presidential candidate John Kerry.

      Now today, after denying the accusation, Fairfax tells reporters that he did indeed have an encounter with the woman in 2004, but that everything was consensual.

    2. The burden of proof is on the investigators. After 30 months of investigations, we keep hearing about “what Mueller knows”, that there is “more evidence”, etc.
      So a candidate-later-President is “thought to have” or “believed to have” done this or that thing.
      And you have a mute Soecial Prosector extending a state of investigative limbo.
      At a bare minimum, Americans are entitled to know WTF Mueller is doing, and where he is at on the central purpose of the investigation.
      If you are wondering why Trump and Guiliani’s attacks on the investigation as a “witch hunt” find traction, it is that Mueller, Rosenstein, and others have handed Trump that ammunition by the way they’ve gone about conducting this circus.

      1. Tell me one person the Special Counsel has charged that has been found innocent. Just counting the Americans (Trump associates) everyone that has gotten to a conclusion has either pleaded guilty, or been found guilty. Manafort tried not cooperating and lying, Mueller brought 800 pages of documentation of his lies (albeit mostly redacted). This investigation has lasted less time than Benghazi or Watergate, the burden is on the prosecution who have cut through lies and more lies to find the truth. Just think, they have all of Donald Trump’s financial records and the cooperation of his CFO.
        You haven’t seen the evidence against Trump yet because Mueller is working his way up the chain which is what any prosecutor would do. Which of the upper echelon including Trump would you be willing to bet are innocent men? Don Jr, Jared? They all think they are above the law and will soon find out differently.
        I confess it’s wishful thinking bthat Trump will actually see Justice. Whether he pardons himself or cuts a deal or is pardoned by the next President. He probably will walk, but in disgrace.

        1. Find me one person charged with a serious crime which had anything to do with Trump or the campaign.

          1. Thanks for saving me the trouble of pointing out the same thing, absurd.
            This goes back to the central purpose of the FBI and OSC investigations, which was ostentibly to determine if there an illegal conspiracy involving Trump-Russia in the 2016 campaign.
            The “let’s just leave that one question hanging in the air” mentality about the central purpose of investigations is one of the dumbest ways of handling it.
            In the meantime, the infinite guessing games and bogus predictions continue, fueled by Mueller the Mute and others.

            1. Tom, while Mueller pisses taxpayer money away and the Dims continue their apoplectic trance going on 2+ years, their house is raging with flames. Clearly their boomerang is coming after them. Virginia will surely become Republican…..Northam and Fairfax are done.

              The Dems are having their asses given to them by their own dishonest, nasty tactics. Let Mueller play in the sand while Dim leaders have their scalps handed to them



              Washington Post Displays Glaring Double Standard When Reporting Sexual Assault Claims

              The Post’s standards seem to change based on whether or not the alleged perpetrator is a Democrat or a Republican. This is bad for us all.

              It is now apparent that The Washington Post’s standard for reporting on cases of sexual assault is dependent upon whether the accused is a political target of their choosing.

              Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax issued a statement Monday morning denying accusations of sexual assault from 2004. Fairfax said the allegations were investigated by The Washington Post last year, who found, “significant red flags and inconsistencies within the allegation.” Now, The Washington Post is pushing back with a story of their own, revealing more details of the alleged incident and on their decision not to report the story when the victim first came forward.

              “The Washington Post, in phone calls to people who knew Fairfax from college, law school and through political circles, found no similar complaints of sexual misconduct against him. Without that, or the ability to corroborate the woman’s account — in part because she had not told anyone what happened — The Washington Post did not run a story,” the newspaper reported on Monday.

              This is quite the opposite of the standard the Post applied when reporting on allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh last year. The Washington Post reported Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations against Kavanaugh despite no evidence and no corroboration of Ford’s account. The Post claims the fact that Fairfax’s accuser, “had not told anyone what happened,” is a reason for not running the story — something that Ford did not do either until Kavanaugh was listed as a potential Supreme Court pick.

              Fairfax’s accuser provided specific details to the Post, including a date, time, location, and details of a “sexual encounter that began with consensual kissing and ended with a forced act that left her crying and shaken.” In the Post’s reporting on Kavanaugh, Ford was unable to recall or provide any similar details of her encounter with Kavanaugh, but that did not prevent them from publishing her accusations. Additionally, details of Ford’s testimony changed several times throughout the reports and hearings.

              After interviewing contacts of both Fairfax’s and his accuser, The Washington Post was unable to corroborate either accounts of their sexual encounter. Through his lawyers, Fairfax admitted the encounter did happen but was consensual. In contrast, multiple friends and supposed witnesses of the Kavanaugh-Ford story, were indeed able to corroborate Kavanaugh’s version of events, but not not Ford’s.

              As for Fairfax, he is fervently relying on The Washington Post’s decision not to run the story as evidence that the allegations are false. “The fact that they’d run a story on an uncorroborated allegation from 15 years ago tells you exactly what the smear is all about,” he said this morning. “This person, a year ago, came to the Washington Post with this very same allegation. They investigated it for several months, and they made the decision not to publish the story because it was not credible.”

              Throughout the lengthy Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, and in the time since, media figures and celebrities alike have embraced the mantra, “Believe All Women.” The Post’s handling of the Fairfax allegations now reveals that it is in fact not about believing all women, just the women whose stories are politically expedient.

          2. Two different qualifiers; “serious crime” and “having to do with Trump and the campaign.” Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to Campaign Finance Violations “at the direction of the President.” He’s already an unindicted conspitator in that crime. Michael Flynn’s lies were related to Russia and actionsn that could only be undertaken by Trump (removing saqnctions). Keep in mind the following individuals have made deals with Mueller, presumably because they have information on someone higher up who in some cases would mean Trump; Michael Flynn, Rick Gates, Allen Weisselberg, and Michael Cohen. The Roger Stone indictment indicates activities directed by someone high up in the White House.
            Since you asked me for names, tell me one person in the Trump administration that has not lied about Russia?

              1. Besides Cohen’s words, he has documents and tapes. The tapes I’ve heard back him up about the Campaign Finance Laws being “directed by the President.” Ask yourself, how did Trump react when Cohen’s offices and home were raided? Guilty much?

                1. ” he has documents and tapes. The tapes I’ve heard back him up about the Campaign Finance Laws being “directed by the President.” ”

                  Enigma, since you heard those tapes you should be able to produce them here on the blog. Understand I don’t doubt that you heard Cohen say all sorts of things but you didn’t hear Trump say anything criminal. It’s just more hot air coming from your mouth.

                  PRODUCE THE TAPES!

            1. Well you see, Enigma, in the right-wing media bubble all those men are somehow irrelevant to Trump and his campaign. They’re just random, ‘incidental figures’ who coincidentally crossed path with Donald Trump.

              1. Peter:
                Yeah just like all those Clinton expose seekers who turn up dead. Well you see if you buy Trump is guilty then you have to conclude that Clinton is likewise guilty. Trouble is that guilt by association just doesn’t play well except in uneducated circles.

              2. More of the standard Brock Bull**** about the “right-wing media bubble” from our resident Brock disciple, Hollywood Hill.

                1. Nash, it’s ‘you’..?? Posting under ‘Anonymous’..?? What a cheap stunt! I honestly thought you were cooler than that.

                  1. Well, you’re wrong on the “cooler than that” part.
                    I forgot to sign that one, but it was pretty clear that it was from me by the language and the context.
                    About 10% of the comments that I post do not have a space to log in that shows on my “smart phone”, so they will post as “anonymous”.
                    The others posting as anonymous are all suspected. by PC Schulte of being Natacha.

                    1. Tommy said, “The others posting as anonymous are all suspected. by PC Schulte of being Natacha.”

                      Allan countered with “Tom, they could also be Anonymous Diane.”

                      Tommy, PC Schulte and Tom: The three stooges are babbling again.

                    2. “Tommy said, “The others posting as anonymous are all suspected. by PC Schulte of being Natacha.
                      Allan countered with “Tom, they could also be Anonymous Diane.””

                      This anonymous sounds like anonymous Diane, not too bright.

            2. Enigma,
              I have considered all of the things that you mentioned to “keep in mind”.
              The allegations concerning Trump, (some arising from a few of these indictments), continue to remain just that….allegations, and kindling for endless speculation and hundreds of episodes of the Adam Schiff series.
              First it was Gen. Flynn who was going to blow this thing wide open and “do in” Trump.
              Then it was Papdoufesusous who was to be “the key”.
              Then Gates, then Manafort, now Cohen.
              Given all of this susposed “evidence” and firepower, where is the wrapup, or at least a reasonable update on where this investigation is?
              Mueller served 3-4× as long as Comey, and kept a much lower profile.
              Comey managed to become more “famous” ( as FBI Director) in a fraction of the time.
              Leaving aside FBI Director Mulluer’s ingrained preference for privacy and secrecy, it’s a bad idea for a Special Counsel to leave these issues and allegations against an administration– ANY administration– hanging and unresolved for an extended period, from the time of candidacy, then to and beyond the mid-point of an administration’s term.

            3. What a fool. Michael Cohen is an unrepententent liar proven so over and over again. Some people are foolish enough to trust liars.

              Michael Flynn is another one of those who likely is innocent of all charges and likely was set up. His guilty plea sounds as if the screws were being tightened on him or his family so that he would say what Mueller wanted, not what was true. This type of aberrant behavior by Mueller and Wessman has been seen before and innocent people have been destroyed in their wake but some sociopaths don’t care.

          3. Tabby, Paul Manafort was the Campaign Manager! To say he had nothing to do with the campaign is absurd. Is that why you call yourself ‘absurd’..??

            1. Paul Manafort might have acted criminally in the past but that has nothing to do with Donald Trump or Trump’s campaign. Manafort was dismissed and no actions of Manafort have implicated Trump despite the fact that Manafort like some other people who were innocent was placed in solitary confinement which is a type of torture generally reserved for violent criminals. The same people utilizing torture today used it in the past but our Liberal/ Progressive friends believe that such torture is OK for non violent Americans but complain if murderous terrorists are exposed to music that is too loud.

            2. Paul Manafort worked for Trump for five months. His conviction was in re to tax charges the Justice Department had taken a pass on years earlier. The evidentiary basis was a set of wire transfers, few of which had taken place after 2013 and none of which had taken place after 2015. Just what does any of that have to do with Trump or the campaign?

          4. Enigma can’t find such a person for such a person doesn’t exist. When dealing with Mueller and Weissman we are dealing with people bent to decimate innocent lives. I still am not quite sure what Papadopoulous did that was criminal. I thought he was going to fight but he probably realized what happened to other innocent people so he settled for a couple days which essentially means no crime was committed. We are dealing with bad dudes, worse than I ever thought.

            1. Papadopoulos destroyed evidence linking him to Ivan Timofeev, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs official (MFA) described in Papadopoulos’ plea agreement. Mueller gave Papadopoulos a very generous deal for pleading guilty only to the false statements charge. You might want to wonder why Papadopoulos served only 14 days in jail. You might want to look at the sentencing memo in which Papadopoulos’s lawyers argue that Papadopoulos should receive no jail time for offering “active cooperation” to the FBI by attempting to record telephone calls with other members of the Trump campaign. You also might want to consider the possibility that Papadopoulos could still be charged with destroying evidence. Finally, you might want to consider that one of the rules for sealed indictments is to protect an actively cooperating witness while still exerting leverage over that actively cooperating witness.

              Did you know that every last false statement charge that Mueller has charged thus far is also an overt act to conceal by deceptive or dishonest means from an agency of the United States information that that US agency needs to perform a legitimate governmental function? Thus, the number of false statements charges that Mueller has brought thus far is also a running tally of overt acts taken by members o the Trump campaign and Trump associates in the furtherance of their Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. So much for Turley’s beloved “process crime” thesis.

              1. “Papadopoulos destroyed evidence linking him to Ivan Timofeev”

                Prove that occurred and an illegality along with where on the indictment this was stated as a criminal action.

                Papadopoulos’s indictment was for lying to the FBI and at best it was a process crime. We don’t even know if he intentionally lied. He was more likely shown how another young man was thrown into the worst prison and placed in solitary for I think two weeks. I think 8 months later his conviction was reversed. He too didn’t seem to have committed a crime.

                “You also might want to consider the possibility that Papadopoulos could still be charged with destroying evidence.”

                We already know that to get what he wanted Weissman put a lot of people in jail for NON crimes and virtually all of one group were released (between 1-2 dozen). We know the FBI was dirty dealing and we know Weissman knew about the Steele Dossier and was involved in a lot of the tangential operations before being placed as head honcho for the Special Prosecutor. We saw how the arrest of Stone was abusive.

                All these actions make us worry about the truthfulness of things being done. We need proof and we need tapes of the FBI interview but there are none. Why not? Is it so the FBI has the upper hand and can intimidate people to keep them quiet or provide evidence that didn’t occur? The reasons we have a lack of trust in the FBI is because of the misbehavior of those on leading the FBI.

                No proof. Therefore no guilt for Papadopoulos may have lied or he may have been intimidated by lawyers that used intimidation multiple times in the past. We have more proof that Weissman used intimidation than we do that Papdopous lied and Weissmans crimes are much worse. Throw Weissman in jail.

                “Did you know that every last false statement charge that Mueller has charged”

                Did you know that most of the crimes supposedly committed by those working for Trump were either committed before Trump ever dealt with the individuals or were created by the FBI and Mueller. The charge couldn’t even exist without the investigation into a supposed crime that was never dilineated and never occurred.

            2. Well, that’s your opinion, to which you are allowed no matter how uninformed. My opinion, much like the vast majority of my fellow American patriots, is that Special Prosecutor Mueller is a dedicated American war hero, law enforcement professional who’s moral and ethical as the day is long; and who is bent on serving the ends of justice and the American people. So sorry for your loss.

              this is to “oh, hannity didn’t ‘splain it like that to me” allan / allen

              1. “Special Prosecutor Mueller is a dedicated… hannity didn’t ‘splain it like that to me”

                Here is Hannity himself explaining it to you with small words along with the Hill’s Solomon. Starts at 31:25

                Mueller hauled before FISA Court: 75 times

        2. This investigation has lasted far longer than Watergate.
          The breakin was in June 1972, and Nixon was forced to resign in August 1974.
          I don’t “bet on” what evidence will or will not produce. I had expectations that he would get to the point of why the OSC was established, but that may be wishful thinking as well.
          The FBI investigation targeting Trump started in July 2016, and Mueller piggybacked that investigation ( and earlier investigations, e.g., Manafort) on to his investigation.
          We are at the 2 1/2 year mark of investigating candidate-then-President Trump.
          You mentioned elsewhere Trump’s reaction when Cohen’s office, residence, and hotel room were raided.
          I’d say his reaction was comparable to what Hillary’s reaction would have been if her State Dept.Chief-of-Staff ( turned Hillary attorney, later on) had her home and office raided.
          I’m sure she would have been real understanding and supportive of those tactics😒.

          1. “The breakin was in June 1972, and Nixon was forced to resign”

            The break was an attempt to garner information. Does anyone think that the survailance and unmasking along with the special Prosecutor isn’t essentially the same thing?

    3. And yet some refuse to even consider “the unthinkable” alternative; that Mueller does not have more evidence.
      It’ll be one or the other, if and when Mueller wraps this thing up.

      1. Yes! Given the man in question and his stupidity, it’s impossible Mueller has no additional evidence. In the event there is none, imagine the long ass apology I’ll have to write?

        1. At the hearing for setting Roger Stone’s trial date based upon Stone’s pretrial discovery request, Mueller’s office said that they had terabytes of evidence that is voluminous and complicated. Since Stone’s case was also listed as related to the hacking case, the Judge accepted Mueller’s designation of Stone’s case as a “complex case.” And that means that the Speedy Trial Act was set aside in Stone’s “complex case.”

          It also means that Stone has to stop trying to try his own case in the wing-nut press. No more tip-offs to co-conspirators. Except for Corsi’s book. Mueller is going to use Corsi’s book to squeeze the truth about Ted Malloch and Julian Assange out of Corsi. Ha-ha!

          Mueller requested October of 2019 for Stone’s trial date. Once Stone’s lawyers get a feel for the terabytes of voluminous and complicated evidence against Stone, they will probably request an even later date for Stone’s trial. Did you know that Mueller doesn’t have to file a report with the AG until after all investigations and prosecutions have concluded?

          1. The question remains if L4B is as certain of all of these things as she is that Mueller issued a sealed indictment against Trump Jr. in the Nov. 2018 to Jan. 2019 time frame.

            1. There’s no way for any member of the general public to be certain that there is, or is not, any sealed indictment until that indictment is unsealed or until the special counsel says that there is no sealed indictment against So-and-so nor What’s-his-name. However, it was reported in the press in October of 2018 that an unusual number of sealed indictments had been filed in The District of Columbia.

              1. Well, since you “knew” that Trump Jr. would be indicted sometime in the Nov.-Dec.Jan. time frame you said, it must be an unsealed indictment.
                If there is no unsealed indictment, that brings up the remote possibilty that you didn’t know what the hell you were talking about, and were dead wrong; both in the prediction itself, and in having the hubris it takes to confidently make statements like that.

                1. I just explained you that it’s not possible to know what you’re claiming that I supposedly knew. So now you’re claiming that I didn’t know what I was talking about when I said that there could be a sealed indictment against Don Jr. BTW, there could still be a sealed indictment against Don Jr. You can’t know that there isn’t one until Mueller says that there isn’t one. Moreover, if there is a sealed indictment against Trump Jr., then it will not be unsealed until William Barr takes over as Attorney General and sends Matty Whitaker packing back off to the same sort of wing-nut welfare gig from whence he came.

                  1. I get it….you never really said what you said in October 2017.
                    I’ll try to dig it up for you again.
                    You have a history of distorting what others say, then revising your own idiotic statements and/ or pretending that you never made the statement to begin with.
                    Someone might be successful in explaining to YOU that “it’s not possible to know what” YOU actually claim to know.
                    You are pretentious and arrogant enough to often pretend that you are “in the know” about what evidence Mueller has, who (and when) there will be indictments, what the Trump legal team knows, etc.

          2. Late4Yoga acting like a busy fruit fly hovering around this crumbling piece of Shiite of an “investigation” aka witch hunt.

            1. When Mueller says that his office has completed the special counsel’s investigation, then Mueller’s office will have completed it’s investigation. Until Mueller says so, it is not yet thus and so. Any opinion to the contrary is just that–mere opinion.

              1. OK Ms. Late4Yoga, then based on the facts and circumstances as revealed to date, my opinion is that you are like a busy fruit fly hovering around this crumbling piece of Shiite of an “investigation” aka witch hunt.

                1. So your current opinion is also a demotion from your previous opinion that L4D is a dog chasing its own tail. Unless you consider fruit flies to be higher animals than dogs. Simple logic–eh, Beaky G?

                  1. Dear Ms. Late4Yoga: I am a dog lover and my comparing you now to a fruit fly is indeed a demotion from comparison to playful dog chasing tail. Madam Fruit Fly – I wish you luck in finding an intact kernel of corn in crumbling piece of Shiite of an “investigation” aka witch hunt. Bon appetit.

        2. No apologies will be necessary, Enigma.
          Now if you give us specific dates, say within a c. 2 1/2 month timeframe, when that additional evidence would surface, and that did not mateialize…..and you tried to minimize the prediction you made, or deny that you made that particular ( hypothetical) prediction……there would still be no apology necessary, but I’ve been known to hound people here who do that.☺😊😃

          1. Have you heard the little ditty that goes “Mueller’s wrapping up?” There’s a remix version that goes “With the approaching final report from special counsel Robert Mueller . . .” I just so happen know someone posting on this blawg who might otherwise call those sappy pop tunes by the name of “(hypothetical) predictions” with “specific time frames,” too. How is anyone going to minimize that prediction if it does not materialize? And who should be hounded for attempting to minimize that hypothetical? I just so happen to know somebody else who posts pictures of dogs chasing their own tails right here on this blawg. When is a hypothetical prediction not a hypothetical prediction?

            1. Question#1. No
              Question #2.they can’t, but some like L4D will always try, with Dianese and Doublespeak.

              Question #3. YOU should be

              Question #4. You made it “retroactively hypothetical”.
              There was nothing “hypothetical” about your statement of fact that Trump ,Jr. would be indicted in the time frame that you specified
              You NOW say, well, that was only hypothetical.
              Your second weasel tactic is to imply that there is might be a an,”unsealed indictment” that might bear out your idiotic forecast in October.
              You often compound your original set of lies by laying additional sets of lies on top of them.

              1. About Krazy Kat Rambler’s continual carping complaints against “Dianesian Doublespeak”: Picture in your imagination a Slinky toy descending a staircase. Now picture Krazy Kat Rambler getting his retractable claws stuck in the carpeting on top of those stairs while the Slinky toy skips right over Krazy Kat’s head to the next step below. Did the Slinky toy pluck out one of Krazy Kat’s whiskers along the way? Yeow! That’s gotta hurt.

                1. If that is L4B’s way of drawing attention away from her foolish analysis and fortune telling, I suppose that her well-practised, well-worn deflections and obfuscations will continue to grace/ clutter these comment threads.
                  I have noted previously that she habitually speaks out of both sides of her mouth, but that understates her obsession with and dedication to muddle any kind of orderly exchange in her Prof. Irwina Corwin manner.
                  At least we have someone with her great expertise here to tell us what Mueller knows, his next step, which indictments are coming and when, the response from Trump’s legal team, etc.
                  And when she makes these bogus forecasts, and is occasionally called on it, she either denies making the forecasts or goes into her slinky toy tongue maneuver ing.

          2. Within 2 1/2 months, Donald Jr will be indicted with lying to the FBI at minimum, Donald will then engage in even more public obstruction than ever before. The problem with your timeframe is that when Mueller touches certain untouchables like Junior, Jared, and Ivanka. He has to be pretty much completed with everything because the blowback from the blowhard will be severe. The distraction from that might be to blow up Venezuela (or Montenegro) or someone else that can’t fight back. Although Montenegro is a NATO member and unlesss Trump has withdrawn already, we might be required to defend them against us.
            If it were me instead of Mueller? I’d indict Don Jr at about 6PM Eastern time today and watch Trump unravel at the SOTU, but that’s just me.

              1. When the big dogs fall, and they will, it will happen all at once to block the obstruction that we know is coming (and the pardons). Thye charges will not be limited to the felony charge of lying to the FBI. The bar has now been lowered to the point where we now have process crimes we’re led to believe don’t count.
                I think the 2 1/’2 month limit is still too soon for the finale. The just issued subpoenas into the foreign contributions into the campaign, they have yet to get the information from Corporation A, wholly owned by a foreign government. They just got “terrabytes of data” from Roger Stone’s devices. Everything seen thus far in the Manafort trial and other public documents indicate they have gathered plenty of information. The people that know which terminal the Russians were sitting at, know everything about Trump’s finances including fraud and money laundering. You need only ask two questions:
                1. Do you believe that Trump is guilty of any crimes?
                2. Do you believe Mueller has found them?
                The only problem is those people (like yourself) that will refuse to believe anything about The Donald (even though they were convinced Obama was a Nigerian Muslim) or believe it and don’t care.
                In case you’re one of those who think anything besides Russia doesn’t count. I asked someone else, “Name one person in the TWhite House that hasn’t lied about Russia?” I got no answer. I offer you the same chance. Why is that?

                    1. They’ve had two-and-a-half years and a functionally unlimited budget. There’s a reason you haven’t gotten what you want. Not that you can bear to acknowledge it.

                    2. I’m getting what I want. I wouldn’t have taken a break during the midterm elections but that’s just me. I wouldn’t be blocked by a guideline saying you can’t indict a sitting President, so there’s that. Otherwise… I’m good. Literally every day there’s more insight into the criminality of this President, past and present.

                    3. ” Literally every day there’s more insight into the criminality of this President, past and present.”

                      This is the insight of a person with no insight. Every day and every indictment demonstrates that Trump is innocent. That is why the indictments fail to indicate that Trump was involved with any of the things people were indicted for. Secondarily one has to wonder if some of the people indicted were indicted for crimes they committed or for crimes set up by the FBI.

                      The timelines of the rest have little to do with Trump.

                    4. Literally every day there’s more insight into the criminality of this President, past and present.

                      If fantasy helps you get through the day, fine.

                1. Enigma,..
                  – I don’t know everyone in the White House, but my understanding is that the cooks, custodians, tour guides,
                  maids, etc. have not lied about Russia.😉😊😂
                  I’ll try to get some names for you instead of just naming these groups of people.

                    1. Every last single false statement charge or lying to Congress charge that Mueller has already brought, or will bring, will also be submitted as evidentiary exhibits showing the numerous overt acts taken by Trump associates or campaign officials in the furtherance of the Trump campaign’s Conspiracy to Defraud the United States by agreeing amongst themselves to conceal by deceptive or dishonest means from an agency of the United States information about the illegal foreign campaign contribution that Russia made to the Trump campaign through its hack and leak operation during a US election for the purpose of electioneering communications.

                      IOW, the so-called “process crimes” are “overt acts” in the furtherance of the conspiracy. Likewise, one of these days, the Trumpa Lumpas will realize that the word “collusion” was also another red herring specifically chosen to distract them from the conspiracy case that Mueller’s office has been patiently and diligently building against the Trump campaign–just like the red herring distraction caused by the words “process crimes.”

  3. The criminal collusion theory was never alive. It was known to all that this was fabricated “opposition research” fiction. This hoax contained merely skewed, hypothetical counter-intelligence operations. The final enigmatic piece of the puzzle to be placed and characterized is the insidious mission as betrayal and treachery of Jeff Sessions – was he a “handled,” capable assassin or “…a dupe which will live in infamy?”

    The “deep state” Feminazi Gestapo perpetrated the Obama Coup D’etat in America as the greatest abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history by politicizing and weaponizing the entire government, including the DOJ, FBI, CIA, DNI, IRS et al., and deploying it against political opponents – a capital crime of high office.

    The co-conspirators are:

    Sessions, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Obama et al.

    America’s Most Corrupt Hour.

  4. I suggest the Collusion charge is also on the level of the “I have the right without explanation to all your rights without exception” used in the ‘money is free speech’ fallacy and the two ought to be equally ridiculed.

  5. Professor Turley, Let’s ask Mike Nifong, of Duke Lacrosse notoriety, and the court that convicted him of “malicious prosecution” if the criminal collusion theory is dead.



    In the early 1990s, Mr. Trump’s hotel and casino properties declared bankruptcy four times, leaving prominent banks, including Citicorp and Manufacturers Hanover, with painful losses. The real estate mogul was all but excommunicated from Wall Street.

    Deutsche Bank, which was eager to gain a foothold in the lucrative American market and more tolerant of risk than many of its rivals, filled the void. In 1998, it lent Mr. Trump $125 million for renovations on a Wall Street skyscraper. The relationship blossomed, and over the next 17 years, Deutsche Bank lent or participated in loans to Mr. Trump and his companies totaling more than $2.5 billion.

    Then, just as the first votes were being cast in the Republican presidential primaries, Mr. Trump’s lender of last resort got cold feet.

    The funding of Mr. Trump’s golf empire has been something of a mystery.

    In the decade before he was elected president, Mr. Trump’s company spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying or renovating about a dozen clubs and resorts around the world. Despite Mr. Trump’s self-proclaimed fondness for relying on debt, the Trump Organization has reported that it used its own money for most of the acquisitions and upgrades.

    A prominent golf journalist, James Dodson, said Mr. Trump’s son Eric had told him in 2013 that the company’s golf properties were funded by Russians. Eric Trump has denied making the comment.

    Mr. Trump did borrow money for some of his golf properties. In 2012, Deutsche Bank lent the Trump Organization a total of more than $100 million to finance the 72-hole Doral resort near Miami, home to the famed Blue Monster course.

    The relationship between Mr. Trump and Deutsche Bank had survived some rocky moments. In 2008, amid the financial crisis, Mr. Trump stopped repaying a loan to finance the construction of a skyscraper in Chicago — and then sued the bank, accusing it of helping cause the crisis. After that lawsuit, Deutsche Bank’s investment-banking arm severed ties with Mr. Trump.

    But by 2010, he was back doing business with Deutsche Bank through its private-banking unit, which catered to some of the world’s wealthiest people. That unit arranged the Doral loans, and another in 2012 tied to the Chicago skyscraper.

    Mr. Trump’s go-to in the private bank was Rosemary Vrablic, a senior banker in its New York office. In 2013, she was the subject of a flattering profile in The Mortgage Observer, a real estate magazine owned by Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who was also among her clients. In 2015, she arranged the loan that financed Mr. Trump’s transformation of Washington’s Old Post Office Building into the Trump International Hotel, a few blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House.

    In early 2016, as Mr. Trump was lending tens of millions of dollars to his campaign, his company contacted Ms. Vrablic about getting money for Turnberry, said two of the three people familiar with the request, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly. The proposal was to expand Deutsche Bank’s outstanding loans backed by the Doral by well over $10 million and to use the proceeds for work on Turnberry, the people said.

    Edited from: “Trump Sought A Loan During The 2016 Campaign. Deutsche Bank Said ‘No'”

    THE NEW YORK TIMES, 2/2/19

    1. RE. ABOVE:

      Amid the Ralph Northam controversy, this story was over-shadowed. But it raises questions about the viability of Trump’s finances during 2016. Why did Deutsche Bank, Trump’s main lender of 20 years, hesitate to approve a loan?

      1. It seems like an “on again, of again” relationship with Deutsche Bank.
        The late 1990s loans to Trump from Deutsche Bank happened well after the major bankruptcies of Trump projects in the early 1990s.
        So they were aware of that history, but they weren’t burned like the banks accountable to their shareholders like the major American banks are.
        Goldman Sachs is often listed as one of the major lenders to Trump, so it is not true that Trump was totally shunned by Wall Street.
        Ladder Capital, a NYSE list finanacial company, is also mentioned as a significant lender to Trump.
        I have pointed these things out to Peter before, but it didn’t seem to “take”; if he doesn’t want to hear or retain that information, that’s primarily his problem
        If Deutsche Bank had continued loaning money to Trump throughout the 2016 campaign, I guarantee that some would jump on that as “evidence” that Deutsche Bank was directly or indirectly funding Trump’s campaign.
        We would likely see HHHNN headlines like:
        as if it were some big scoop, and suspicious activity.

        1. Tom, can you show me a credible source that says Goldman Sachs loaned Trump money in the ‘recent’ past..?? I don’t doubt they loaned Trump money at one time. But ‘how recently’, I wonder.

          But aside from Goldman Sachs, the N.Y. Times article reminds us again that so-called businessmen with far-reaching interests are not well-suited for the White House. They have too many conflicts. And it doesn’t help that Senior Advisor Jarod Kushner has a host of conflicts himself unrelated to Trump’s conflicts.

          For these reasons, career politicians are better suited for the presidency. Their conflicts are easier to track.

          1. I’ve already done that Peter, and fairly recently in links that I posted.
            If you don’t read, or remember what you don’t want to see or hear, don’t repeat the same stupid questions that I’ve already answered.
            That crap gets real old real fast.


      In the early 1990s, Mr. Trump’s hotel and casino properties declared bankruptcy four times, ”

      Peter likes news that is spun and makes sure only that type of news appears. He frequently can get such spinned news from the NYTimes or WaPo.

      In this instance they wanted to make believe that the loan was rejected because of concern over money. Did they tell us what Trump was willing to use as security? No. Does Peter know? No. Maybe Trump could have used the golf course as collateral making the loan a good investment for the bank but no matter how much collateral Trump had the bank also had to consider the political climate and the fact that Trump created a lot of hysteria. Take note now many companies refuse to take adds or deal with many solid, respectable and polite right wing people. They don’t do that because they don’t want the money, rather they are afraid of the left wing fascists that can be violent. We have seen such happenings over and over again so it doesn’t have to have anyting to do with financial risk and can have more to do with the trashy fascists that promote this type of garbage.

      Peter Shill’s posting seem to closely adhere to the facists on the left. Perhaps that is why instead of condemning baby killing he tries to shift discussions away from what people actually said and seems to laugh in the faces of dead babies.

  7. Is The Criminal Collusion Theory Dead?

    Was The Criminal Collusion Theory ever truly alive?


    Was/is The Criminal Collusion Theory a case of political character assassination based upon innuendo, gossip and half-truths?




    Fusion GPS’s work researching Trump began during the Republican presidential primaries, when the GOP donor paid for the firm to investigate the real estate magnate’s background.

    Fusion GPS did not start off looking at Trump’s Russia ties but quickly realized that those relationships were extensive, according to the people familiar with the matter.

    When the Republican donor stopped paying for the research, Elias, acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, agreed to pay for the work to continue. The Democrats paid for research, including by Fusion GPS, because of concerns that little was known about Trump and his business interests, according to the people familiar with the matter.

    Those people said that it is standard practice for political campaigns to use law firms to hire outside researchers to ensure their work is protected by attorney-client and work-product privileges.

    The Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in “legal and compliance consulting” since November 2015 — though it’s impossible to tell from the filings how much of that work was for other legal matters and how much of it related to Fusion GPS.

    At no point, the people said, did the Clinton campaign or the DNC direct Steele’s activities. They described him as a Fusion GPS subcontractor.

    Some of Steele’s allegations began circulating in Washington in the summer of 2016 as the FBI launched its counterintelligence investigation into possible connections between Trump associates and the Kremlin. Around that time, Steele shared some of his findings with the FBI.

    After the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports.

    Edited from: “Clinton Campaign, DNC Paid For Research That Led To Russia Dossier”


    Two things stand out in article above:

    1) Steele’s research was originally funded by a Republican donor.

    2) The Clinton Campaign paid Perkins Cole $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016 and the DNC paid Perkins Cole $3.6 million since November 2015. “Though it’s impossible to tell from the filings how much of that work was for other legal matters and how much of it was related to Fusion GPS.

    Based on this article, it appears that no journalist can pinpoint the exact amount of funding that went from the Clinton Campaign and DNC to Christopher Steele. What’s more, Professor Turley makes no effort to tell us what a normal amount of funding should be on opposition research.

    One must note that Trump was the first Presidential nominee in history to have absolutely no government experience. Yet Trump ran an international business empire that by its own admission had taken substantial investment from Russian billionaires. Trump was also the first presidential nominee in 40 years to refuse to show his Income Tax returns.

    Therefore one has to ask, “What should be a normal funding rate for Opposition Research regarding an international businessman who takes substantial foreign investment and refuses to show his tax returns?”

    1. For whatever reason, there are a number of people who feel it necessary to blur the distinction between the domestic opposition research done for Trump’s primary opponents, and the foreign Steele Russian Dossier foreign opposition research funded by the DNC and the Hillary Campaign Fund.
      If I’ve gone over this 20 times and if people still compelled to lie about who funded the Steele Russian op. reseaerch, obviously they feel a strong need to do so, and justification for lying for “a greater good”.
      Peter claims that “two things stand out” in the article, including the bogus claim that “Steele’s research was originally funded by a Republican donor”.
      The article and the facts simply do not support that claim.
      Opposition research using domestic sources is standard; op. research using foreign actors is not.
      Everyone who was in an uproar about the Trump Tower meeting talk out both sides of their mouth when giving the Steele Russian Dossier a pass.
      One reason the “exact amount is hard to pinpoint is because the oppositio, research was not itemized as such, and that is in violation of FEC rules.
      The op. research was all rolled into the “legal fees” expense.
      The revision use of several intermediaries made it difficult to determine the source of funding for Steele’s Russian Dossier; it took about a year to show that it was funded by the DNC and Hillary Campaign.
      And denial from key Democratics of any knowledge continues, so failing investigation, it has been left as “the DNC” and Hillary Campaign ORGANIZATIONS, with individuals who authorized funding and approved the project unnamed.
      The two propaganda machines we have here can spit put lies and distortions faster than others can untangle them, but every now and then its a good idea to call out these lying sacks of ****.

      1. Tom, maybe right-wing media never mentions Steele’s research was originally funded by a GOP donor. But I have seen that in mainstream media accounts for about two years. If you think it’s a lie, than show me a credible account that debunks that claim. Otherwise ‘you’ are the liar!

        And your claim that foreign opposition research is ‘not’ standard might be true for most candidates. Most candidates for high office have public careers that even journalists can track.

        But again, Trump was the first major nominee in history to have ‘no’ experience in public office. Yet his foreign business interests were, and ‘are’ extensive. Therefore it was necessary to research those foreign ties. And even the FBI felt that research was necessary.

        Tom, Trump defenders like you would have us believe that billionaires, with no experience in public office, should have a right to run for president while keeping their business interests completely secret. Explain ‘why’.

          This crap gets really old when there are a couple of clowns here who keep churning out the same BS without regard to accuracy, then put others in a position of spending more time sorting and shifting through their lies.
          By October 2017, the DNC and Hillary Campaign Fund were finally tracked down as the parties who funded the Steele Russia Dossier.
          Here is the article that Peter the Propagandist was supposedly referring to.
          A basic understanding of the English language should make it clear what that WaPo article and others made clear by October 2017; that the Steele Russian Dossier project was initiated after the DNC and Hilkary Campaign Fund hired Fusion GPS.
          Because of all of the intermediaries and denials ( and apparent lack of interest), exactly who approved this funding and how closely involved they were in coordinating witb Steele remains unknown.
          “Deniability” is a real advantage when there are a number of intermediaries involved; that’s why it took about a year to know for sure who even paid for the Steele Russian Dossier.

          1. Tom, GOP donor Paul Singer first engaged Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research. I don’t know why this point should be a lightning rod. During the Republican primaries Trump was considered a fringe candidate. Back then the GOP establishment really didn’t know to make of Trump. At the time they were totally behind Jeb Bush.

            1. Paul Singer’s hiring of Fusion GPS to do opposition research on behalf of Trump’s opponent(s) is not in question, nor is it the issue.
              That point isn’t “a lightning rod”, and I have pointed that out 10-20 times here
              The issue is the false claim that Singer paid Fusion GPS to hire Steele for the Russian Dossier.
              That was done after Trump locked up the GOP nomination in April-May 2016, and Singer no longer continued using Fusion GPS.
              He had no reason to once Trump had the nomination in hand.
              This isn’t a matter of being a “Trump defender”; it’s a basic question of accuracy.
              Had Paul Singer been complicit in funding the Steele Russian Dossier, I’d have no problem acknowledging that.
              It just doesn’t happen to be true, which does not stop you and others from repeating it.

              1. Tom, if that’s the distinction with Paul Singer, why didn’t you make that distinction before..?? Instead you just chose to call me a ‘liar’ because that compliments your typically OUTRAGED point of view.

                1. Maybe because I HAVE already made that distinction about 20 times in the past, and it gets to be like listening to a three year old who keeps asking “why” when you’ve already, repeatedly explained the same thing over and over.
                  You are a waste of time, Schill.

        2. “Tom, maybe right-wing media never mentions …”

          Peter, most of us enjoy a good lively debate which is why we are here. but your comments follow the same drumbeat with attack, insult and the usual Saul Alinsky rules that David Brock employs. Given what happened to David Benson, enjoin us using a different playbook since many of us see Trump as an aberration as well but we extend that contempt to Hillary, Nancy, Schumer and your employer

          game on man otherwise your contributions here are just action items to keep your employer on their payroll and one suspects eventually blocked like DBB

          your move….estovir

          1. Estovir, it seems your only contribution to this thread is claiming I am paid by David Brock. It’s like you’re a parrot who keeps squawking, “David Brock..!” Does repeating that name over and over somehow make you ‘streetwise’?

            1. What does David Brock think?

              Meanwhile the Daily Beast lives up to the hysteria of Borking, Kavanaughing choose your cognitive dissonance Ralph Northam. Oh well…..


              “Ralph Northam’s Cluelessness Isn’t Just About Him. It’s About Southern Whiteness Going Back Generations”

              The Virginia governor obviously hasn’t come close to processing his own experience with race. It’d be nice to say this makes him unusual in the South.”



              Gotta love it. They are eating their own. Maybe they aborting Northam after he was born? 😉

          2. Estovir,…
            If someone repeatedly chants “right wing media bubble” or “Fox News”, is it fair to mention their David Brock-like content and methods?
            I don’t think that either one of us has suggested that Peter Schill was paid by David Brock.
            I think he’d gladly do Brock’s bidding for free.

    2. First your only source is unacceptable as a credible source and as usual leaves you sitting at zero.

      Second if we make breathing equal to collusion how many can we jail or fine? If you apply the principles or lack thereof of the Greens then everyone is a criminal.

      Third you insist on your right to break laws in demanding that which is protected.

      Fourth as we read the news today the same bunch are calling ‘wealth’ evil yet themselves are looters, moochers and grubbers and cannot or will not define either money or wealth. Worse apply religious dogma while tring to stamp out religion except the secular kind.

      Money is a medium of exchange of the value of work.

      Wealth is money in excess of current needs most often a way to set aside current excess for retirement, times when unable to work or eduction of one’s ghildren cite two very common uses.

      Finally you offer nothing that a prudent ‘citizen’ would accept as evidence, probable cause to investigate much less indict or convict while ignoring or watering down the open evidence such as Clinton and DNC paid 150 million to have that documemnt written and accepted payoffs and bribes and openly sought or demanded payoffs for political favors.

      So tell me loser, will you openly open up your tax returns? And if you do will theyu be missing certain key areas of employment such as was recently done by Lizzie Borden Warren?

      1. Michael, an objective visitor to those blog might seriously question your sanity.

        1. Peter, it is not a matter of sanity. It is a matter of how you conduct yourself. Your actions are those of a coniver but not a mover, just a parrot that regurgitates what others want you to say. For the most part I don’t think you are able to comprehend what you talk about and you certainly can’t defend what you say.




      We may not know the exact cost to the Clinton campaign but we do know that the Special prosecutors office knew about the problems with the Steele Dossier. Weissman had some involvement with that Dossier at the FBI so he already knew about some of the problems surrounding it.

      How could he be the number one honcho in Mueller’s investigation unless the investigation already determined what the outcome should be? The entire investigation smells and we are seeing an abusive prosecutorial office.

    4. “Two things stand out in article above: 1) Steele’s research was originally funded by a Republican donor.”

      Though Peter has said this many times and proven wrong he continues to make the statment over and over again. I think that makes him into a liar and anyone that believes anything he says into a fool. Below is what was said:

      “Fusion GPS’s work researching Trump began during the Republican presidential primaries, when the GOP donor paid for the firm to investigate the real estate magnate’s background.”

      The GOP never worked on the Steele Dossier or research.

      Just like he didn’t state the truth here he mislead people on what was said with regard to baby killing. I guess that means Peter is in favor of baby killing until he liesd about what was said and how it was said.

      Peter is too ignorant to have any shame.

    5. “2) …One must note that Trump was the first Presidential nominee in history to have absolutely no government experience. ”

      Based on Trump’s successes both eonomically and in foreign policy maybe we need more Presidents like him. When we look at the last President we find very little that he did that was lasting or positive.

      Was Obama’s major success taking ISIS the terrorist JV team and making it metastasize all over the world or was it the lousy stagnant economy we were developing?

  9. “Conspiracy”. The topic regarding high federal officials needs to be discussed more on this blog. One topic or aspect which I have suggested being discussed is the role of J. Edgar Hoover in killing President Kennedy, his brother Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. I have suggested that blog readers here Google topics like the COINTELPRO or Counter Intelligence Program set up by Hoover and the head of the CIA, Alan Dulles.

    Yesterday I was in an airport and there was an article on the cover of some magazine which I think is called National Examiner which brings out new evidence of the role of J. Edgar Hoover in these killings. I read the article briefly in the store at the airport.

    Folks if any of you see any more info on this topic then please chimne in on this blog.

  10. “While Mueller has found ample basis to charge people with false statements, the record of these filings shows more confusion than collusion in the Trump campaign.”

    Nancy Pelosi, Chucky Schumer, the entire Anarchist Fascists Resist TDS group are testimony why the Founding Fathers believed the citizens should be informed with reason not emotions. The Dims and fake news MSM outlets peddle fear, raw unbridled emotion and calumny. Yet Americans have become wise to not trusting the MSM as well as Dems in Congress.
    The Fedral Courts are being stacked with Trump appointees and SCOTUS will soon have an open seat when Ginsburg resigns.

    Truth is winning. Look at Ralph Northam! 😜

    Alexander Hamilton: “The people commonly act more from their feelings than from their understandings.”

    John Adams: “Evil, in humankind lies in the lack of governance by reason over the passions.”

    1. “Every man has in politics as well as religion a right to think and speak and act for himself… I must judge for myself, but how can I judge, how can any man judge, unless his mind has been opened and enlarged by reading? A man who can read will find… rules and observations that will enlarge his range of thought and enable him the better to judge who has and who has not that integrity of heart and that compass of knowledge and understanding which form the statesman.”

      – John Adams

      link above

  11. Gov. No-Clue here in VA is exploring the possibility that the Russians hacked his 1984 yearbook and inserted that racist photo in blackface with klan accompaniment. I hear Mueller is all over it. He’s wants to know if Trump had any yearbook publishers in his empire.

    1. In his defense, the governor denies that is him in the KKK/blackface photo but does admit to putting on black face to impersonate Michael Jackson in dance contest. Michael Jackson’s Thriller album crossed racial lines and was big hit with all colors of people back then. At that time, putting on black face and doing moonwalk would have been honoring MJ and nobody Black, White, Pink, Polka-Dot would have taken offense. Different time and context to which somebody should not be vilified for today.

      1. Bill:

        They had an article in the Richmond paper today about the method used to design the yearbook page. According to the designer, the pictured med student submitted 3 photos in a sealed envelope that were opened by the staff and marked on the back and on the layout sheet with the name and number. When asked if they could have gotten switched with another student he said: “In my experience, the most likely thing is he submitted that picture. … Is it possible somebody could’ve switched the pictures after the fact? Yes. Is it probable? No.”

        Northam is dead man walking whether he resigns or not.

        1. See Gateway Pundit. The youth in blackface has been tentatively identified from his trousers. Pictures of him appear in other (standard-issue) photos in the yearbook (in the same hideous plaid trousers). He also appears (in his trousers) in standard-issue photos with Northam in the frame. One curio is that the other pictures of him with Northam show Northam to be the taller one. One single best guess from the blackface / Klansman photo is that the fellow in the Klan costume is several inches shorter than the fellow in the blackface costume. That the fellow in the Klan outfit is not Northam is a real possibility.

          (This whole controversy is humbug. We live in an unserious world).

        2. Good thing that nobody in the first 90+ years of Eastern Washington University holds office today. The school mascot prior to the early 1970s was “The Savages”. I guess to some people all of the graduates were racists by their inclusion in the year books then.

          1. Darren,..
            Great pizza, pool and beer at “The Savage House”, which was a quick walk down from the campus.
            Don’t know what became of it after the 1970s; doubtful that the same owners are running the same establishment.
            Even IF they were, there would certainly have been a name change.
            I always thought the mascot “The Savages” referred to some of the wild guys that I knew from Omak😉😊

        3. The things we would have to believe to accept his Northam’s story at face value:
          1. He didn’t submit the pictures
          2. He never saw his med school yearbook
          3. He was unaware of his nickname, “Coonman.”
          4. No one else he was in med school with ever said anything to him about the yearbook picture.
          5. He suddenly realized that it was only another time he dressed in blackface (assuming he wasn’t in Klan attire) and took back his apology from the night before.

        4. “Northam is dead man walking whether he resigns or not.”

          Just like the healthy babies he was talking about.

          It looks like this Northam thing will come to a head pretty soon, and it doesn’t look good for him.
          I think the denial that it was him in the photos came somewhat late in this story.
          Will the defensive denial tactics exhibited in the video work in Northam’s favor at this stage?

      2. But…there is the complication of the Virginia Lt. Gov’s “MeToo” problem…that he and the Democrats were able to keep quiet and out of the news with the help of The Washington Post who spiked the story due to ‘red flags’ and ‘inconsistencies’ in the woman’s accusation against him.

        Imagine that. They shouted loudly during the Kavanaugh hearings to “Believe all women!” — unless, of course, the accusation is against a Democrat? Is that what they meant? Like, say, what about the women who accused Justin Fairfax, or Keith Ellison? or Sen. Bob Menendez’s kiddie prostitution accusations? It’s good to be a Democrat, isn’t it?

        Did you hear the Washington Post’s new $5 million slogan?

        “Fake News Dies in Sunlight”

        1. As a refresher…here are some enormous ‘red flags’ and ‘inconsistencies’ in the Christine Blasey-Ford accusation against Brett Kavanaugh….but that didn’t stop the presses, did it? were these red flags thoroughly investigated before the WaPo, et al ran with it? No? Huh? That seems rather biased, does it not? Yeah, well you see, it’s because Democrats BELIEVE ALL WOMEN, we’re told. Please.

          “Each Kavanaugh accuser’s story had “significant red flags” that should have merited further investigation or at least a modicum of skepticism. Ford couldn’t remember how she got home after the party (and no one came forward to say they were the one who drove her home) and her claims of being traumatized today all fell apart. She didn’t have a fear of flying, she didn’t have a fear of confined spaces, and the second door on her house was part of renovations, not some need to escape.”

      3. ” At that time, putting on black-face and doing moonwalk would have been honoring MJ and nobody Black, White, Pink, Polka-Dot would have taken offense. ”
        At no time including Al Jolson’s did some people not take offense at black-face. I almost never talk about white privilege, but the presumed ability to dictate what is and isn’t offensive is the epitome of it.

        1. Once upon a time long, long ago I grew up in a virulently racist family that included my own father, all of my uncles, most of my aunts and roughly half of my cousins on both sides of the extended family. They would all sit around at the holidays and other family gatherings spouting racist nonsense in the manner of a parlor game the object of which was to see who could outdo the previous outrage.

          Racism was, and still is, a culture; where culture is defined as a pattern of learned behavior transmitted from one generation to the next–with the emphasis on the words “learned behavior.” Once one sees with one’s own eyes how the culture of racism both stems from and feeds right back into the political and economic power structure that produces that racist culture, there’s a chance to step outside of, and make a break with, that culture of racism. Unfortunately, the underlying political and economic power structure that produces racist culture remains in place to such a degree and extent that one cannot easily step outside and make a break with the real roots of racism. Those persist.

        2. At that point in time, the INTENT would likely have been to honor MJ – moonwalk transcended racial lines. The Thriller album was tremendous and did more to soothe racial tensions in this country than any of today’s “progressive” politicians could dream of coming close to. I think Northam is a knucklehead for his current day views on abortion and would rather see that be the focus. I am against the scouring of Northam’s 1980’s year book as cheap tactic by those on right, same as I am against left scouring Kavanaugh’s 1980’s yearbook.

    2. “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

      – William Casey, CIA Director

    3. He has or had a friend in the publishing business who had the opportunity to collude with such yearbook publishers… is that enough?

  12. Yes, The Criminal Collusion Theory Is Dead, It died with nonthingburger indictment of court jester Stone. That was cherry on sundae of Muler investigation, equivalent to Geraldo Rivera finding a couple of broken beer bottles in Al Capone’s vault on live TV in the 1980s. In the immortal words of Porky Pig: “That’s All Folks”.

    1. Terabytes of data, voluminous and complicated, related to GRU hacking indictment, complex case waiver of Speedy Trial Act for court jester with dark money connections measured in terabytes. Probable trial date October of 2019. Outside longshot chance: Stone enters plea deal with Mueller coughs up Corsi, Malloch, Assange and who-knows-who-all-else–Check Oilco calls court jester Rat.

  13. I call BS. No one except Mueller’s team has all of the facts. Period.

    In Mueller I trust.

      1. What’s amusing about this is that over a period of 30 months and change from June of 1972 to January of 1975 the U.S. Attorney’s office and a special prosecutors office managed to secure convictions of 16 people for burglary, espionage, and obstruction of justice in the service of concealing just who was responsible for the burglary and espionage. The defendants included the quondam attorney-general, the president’s quondam chief of staff, the one-time chief of the president’s domestic policy staff, the deputy director of his re-election campaign, the quondam general-counsel of his re-election campaign and the same official at the president’s office. Also convicted was the president’s personal lawyer.

        The interminable Iran-Contra investigation by this point had secured indictments of all consequential participants, all of whom were negotiating plea agreements or awaiting trial. Plea agreements of secondary characters were secured with people who had participated in and admitted to criminal acts. (E.g. Oliver North’s secretary shredding documents). Lawrence Walsh was an unscrupulous character who generated a mess of shady process-crime indictments, but he didn’t need them. He had real crimes to investigate.

        The Whitewater investigation at this point had secured convictions of Billary’s business partners (for bank fraud), Hellary’s law partner Webb Hubbell (once Associate Attorney-General of the United States), and Jim Guy Tucker, erstwhile Governor of Arkansas.

        All you’ve got right now are a bunch of people who have to fight harassment indictments for ‘crimes’ which have arisen out of their conversations with law enforcement. Then Mueller grabbed at tax charges against Paul Manafort that the Justice Department took a pass on years ago. Then you had the U.S. Attorney rummaging around in Michael Cohen’s tax returns and taxi medallion holdings. All matters irrelevant to the President.

            1. Didn’t bother my goat, but it does make you seem to have some feelings of insecurity concerning your own intellect.

              1. No, it gets your goat, so it ‘seems’ I’m bla bla bla. It’s an ordinary English word. If you prefer some other word, use it in your own posts.

      2. Me thinks you have E. coli poisoning from the nothing burger you keep binging and purging 🤮

    1. Marco,do you trust the way he and Weissman tortured American citizens that turned out innocent?

      1. Torture? Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that Mueller and Weissman are torturers? Perhaps the word you were really looking for was torment–not torture. If not, then your use of the word torture is an instance of hyperbole and you can be diagnosed with Irritable Male Syndrome–the counterpart to Pre-Menstrual Syndrome. Trump has Irritable Male Syndrome.

        1. Yes, they created new law by combining two other laws together leading to a whole bunch of innocent people being jailed at a time when American people were angry at everyone having something to do with Enron. Almost all the convictions were later reversed. They took one employee at Merril Lynch and pushed to the brink. He pled guilty and wanted just to go to jail. He didn’t say what they wanted him to say so they saw to it he was locked in solitary confinement and when released placed in a jail full of killers, rapists and the like. His conviction was finally overturned. There is more but you prefer your fanatasies to reality.

          1. Article 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is the internationally agreed legal definition of torture:

            “Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”

            Repeated for emphasis: “Torture . . . does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”

            [end excerpt]

            Allan’s use of the term torture in the context of The Arthur Andersen Case does not meet the legal definition of torture. However, the ordinary lexical definition of torture does include anything that causes mental anguish. All the same, since Allan is alleging torture in a case involving the due process of law, therefore Allan’s use of the term torture is still an instance of hyperbole.

            1. ““Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,…”

              Yes, it qualifies. A young man with very young children railroaded into jail for a white collar crime that he didn’t commit along with being placed in solitary confinement for no reason (except to break him and make him testify outside of his knowledge and then be placed in a hardened facility with murderers and killers is torture and I believe a criminal act by the prosecutor.

              Then again for a person whose political platform mimicks NY and Virginia with regards to abortion maybe Diane goes by the slogan, Kan Kill Kids and torture them as well

  14. Turley asks, “If there was such collusion, why were Trump associates . . . seeking contacts with access to the information?”

    That cannot possibly be as serious question from Turley. [Paraphrase] “If they had conspired with one another before the fact, then why would they be talking to one another after the fact?” Turley simply must be blushing sheepishly whenever he types that sentence (it’s not the first time). [Paraphrase] “Given that they were talking to one another after the fact, it follows that they had not conspired with one another before the fact.” No! That does not follow. And neither does Turley. Helpful hint: “Ongoing. ongoing, ongoing . . . . conspiracy.”

    1. Helpful hint: “Ongoing. ongoing, ongoing . . . . conspiracy.”

      LOL! “Ended, ended, ended…conspiracy over.” It’s as though the real conspiracy to defraud the United States will begin and end with those directly responsible for establishing the Mueller investigation.

      Nicely done. 🙂

    2. Please explain why Trump associates would need to go to Wikileaks for information of hacked emails if they were conspiring with the Russian hackers? Why not communicate with your good buddies that did your bidding?
      Remember the allegations against Trump Jr. of illegally trying to establish a back channel to The Kremlin after the election? That too seems silly if Putin was the puppeteer that the libs claim.
      Turkey seems very apologetic in writing this article. Therefore he needed to insert some digs that were not inspired by facts.
      One more thing. We have heard a lot that the Russians did what they did because they liked Trump and wanted him to be president. Much like Obama hated Netanyahu and used taxpayer money to assist his opponent. Logical thinking does not always apply. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I firmly believe the Russians had one goal; chaos. They organized (and sucked in liberal politicians) “not my president” marches and protests immediately alter the election. They knew what was in the fake dossier because Russian intelligence agents fed it to Steele. They were very successful. The country has suffered from chaos as a result of Russian actions for 2 and 1/2 years as a result. The liberal media and useful idiot democrats have either knowingly or unknowingly participated.

      1. The Irritable Male Syndrome Patient asked, “Please explain why Trump associates would need to go to Wikileaks for information of hacked emails if they were conspiring with the Russian hackers?”

        In late April and early May of 2016, The Russians told George Papadopoulos that they had the ability to disseminate thousands of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos has said that he does not remember whether he told anyone else at the Trump campaign what the Russians told him about disseminating the emails. Papadopoulos’ lawyers made a big deal in their sentencing memo out of Papadopoulos’ willingness to provide “active cooperation” to the FBI by recording telephone conversations with members of the Trump campaign. Papadopoulos received a rather light sentence of just 14 days in jail even after having fed a conspiracy theory to Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller in weekly installments over the course of several months. The exact sort of thing that would establish Papadopoulos’ “loyalty” to Trump.

        Did you know that one of the purposes of a sealed indictment is to protect an informant providing “active cooperation” in an ongoing investigation while still exerting leverage over that “actively cooperating witness”?

        Stop posing stupid questions, IMS Patient.

  15. Trump is a caring, hard working christian and family man. All of these allegations that he’s an agent for Russia are still just claims by the left. They should just leave him alone. He’s got a big, beautiful wall to get built. Despite what the haters say, the work goes on, the wars endure, and the coup plotters are closing in on all that oil Maduro seems reluctant to turn over to Rex T. and associates. MAGA.

  16. Turley recited the catechism,”With the approaching final report from special counsel Robert Mueller . . . ”

    Sez who? Hemming and hawing Matty Whitaker? Trump’s mouthpiece, Giuliani? Has William Barr said that Mueller’s final report approacheth?

    Did you know that the pertinent regulations state only that when all investigations and prosecutions have ended . . . Huh? What? Yeah! That’s right. When all investigations AND PROSECUTIONS have ended, the special counsel shall issue a report to the Attorney General explaining all prosecution and declination decisions. Now a fair number of prosecutions have been handed off to various United States Attorneys. So the Attorney General can get direct reports from US Attorneys anytime the AG wants. But Mueller doesn’t have to report his prosecution and declination decisions to the Ag until all investigations and prosecutions conducted by Mueller’s office have concluded.

    Any third-grader in any Middle school anywhere in America can plainly see that Trump is overly eager for Mueller to report whatever Mueller has at this juncture and before Mueller gets the testimony of Andrew Miller against Roger Stone and Stone’s dark money connections, the testimony of Dr. Jerome Corsi against his connection to Wikileaks and the bank records from a foreign-owned bank that has moved to quash Mueller’s subpoena for those bank records. In sum, there’s no shortage of perfectly valid reasons for Mueller to hold off issuing a final report until Mueller has actually finished his work. Mueller is nothing if not diligent and thorough. And that’s why Trump et al are in such a big fat hurry.

    1. Mueller could issue a report on “all things Russian” immediately. There appears to be no ongoing investigations of Russian collusion and there are no indictments for such to be prosecuted. The multiple indictments for process crimes can easily be handled by the DOJ as no conflict of interest exists to do so.

      1. You are just plain flat out wrong. There are numerous ongoing investigations. There are two indictments against Russians for conspiracy against the United States. The Russian Troll indictment alleges conspiracy under the defraud clause of 18 USC 371. The GRU hacking indictment alleges conspiracy under both the offense and the defraud clauses of 18 USC 371. There are several descriptions of unindicted co-conspirators in both of those indictments. One of the unnamed persons described in the GRU hacking indictment is Roger Stone, another is Julian Assange and still a third is widely suspected of being Ted Malloch.

        Your entire procedure is nothing but abject denial piled atop abject denial. Your argument to date is aptly paraphrased as folllows: Mueller has not yet made his case-in-chief; therefore Mueller never will make his case-in-chief. Please stop making me feel sorry for you, Llyna. You’ve done nothing to earn any sympathy from anyone ever.

    2. What makes you think the report is ‘approaching.’ If he does and leaves the job less than half done he’ll deservedly look like a fool and co-conspirator.

    3. “Trump et al” are not neccessarily “in such a big fat hurry” for “Mueller to report” his findings.
      In fact, 2025 would
      probably be an OK time for Mueller’s report to come out as far as Trump is concerned.
      Trump is 72, and I think Mueller is a few years older than that.
      One or both may die of age age before there’s a Mueller report.

  17. Turley re-typed, “What is uniformly missing from the cottage industry of collusion theories is an acknowledgment of the threshold requirements of an actual crime.”

    According to Trump appointee Judge Dabney Friedrich the elements of Consipracy to Defraud the United States [paraphrased from memory] are 1) the conspirators have to enter into an agreement 2) to conceal by deceptive of dishonest means from an agency of the United States 3) information that is necessary to fulfill the legitimate function of that federal agency and 4) take at least one overt act in the furtherance of that conspiracy.

    At this stage of the special counsel’s investigation the missing puzzle piece appears to be evidence showing that members of the Trump campaign knew that Russia was disseminating thousands of emails through Wikileaks that would illegally contribute to a campaign [the Trump campaign] during a US election [the 2016 presidential election].

    If the special counsel’s office has that kind of evidence showing that kind of knowledge on the part of members of the Trump campaign, then the case-in-chief for ConFraudUS will be alleged against those members of the Trump campaign. Don’t forget that there may be a possible case for solicitation of a bribe against Trump, himself, depending upon the timing of whatever gratuities Trump may have promised Putin in exchange for either the illegal foreign campaign contribution from the hack and leak operation or the lifting or easing of sanctions to get financing for the Trump Tower Moscow deal.

    Either way, the special counsel’s investigation is not over until Mueller says it’s over.

    1. There are other ways that the Mueller investigation could end other than Mueller saying that it’s over.

        1. There is a possibility that Trump might have Mueller fired, if that’s what L4B
          meant by “Jump, Trump”.
          That is not the only possible way the Mueller investigation ends beside Mueller saying it’s over.

    2. “At this stage of the special counsel’s investigation the missing puzzle piece appears to be evidence showing that members of the Trump campaign knew that Russia was disseminating thousands of emails through Wikileaks that would illegally contribute to a campaign”
      Dissemination is not a crime. Knowing ahead of time is not a crime. Publishing information is not an in-kind political contribution. Just like the value of a foreign endorsement, say the president of France, is not an illegal foreign contribution and its value does not need to be reported to the FEC. SO, the other missing piece is a failing to enumerate a crime which was supposed to have been done BEFORE the appointment of a Special Counsel.

      1. The members of the Trump campaign as well as Trump himself, will, of course, have ample opportunities to defend themselves against a charge of Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. They can defend themselves on the facts. They can defend themselves on the application of the law to those facts. Or they can defend themselves on the basis that the law, itself, is supposedly unconstitutional under any given set of alleged facts.

        Dershowitz has been arguing option three for decades, already. Turley may very well end up arguing that the defraud clause of 18 USC 371 is unconstitutional under any given set of alleged facts. Unfortunately, the existing case law says otherwise. And if the defraud clause of 18 USC 371 were to be declared unconstitutional, then no one–not even any Republican appointed special counsel–will ever again be able to investigate and indict anyone else–including any Democratic candidate for any elected office of public trust–for Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.

        Beyond that point, there will be no law against illegal foreign campaign contributions in US elections. It will be open season on foreign powers buying the foreign policy of the United States. And any Republican who publicly utters the words “The Rule of Law” will immediately become the laughing stock of American politics.

        BTW, Rosenstein is a Republican who was appointed by a Republican. Mueller is a Republican who was appointed by a Republican who was appointed by a Republican.

        1. Mueller, a close professional and personal associate of James Comey, was appointed as SC right after Comey was fired by Trump.
          Mueller stacked his team with aggressive, mostly partisan Democrats……one of whom has a reputation for pushing or crossing the line of prosecutorial ethics.
          The SWAT-style raids of those targeted, including the raid of Trump attorney Cohen’s residence, office, and hotel room, are unprecedented in the history of Special Prosecutors, Independent Counsels, or Special Counsels.
          If Mueller is a Republican, it is irrelevant.
          The factors that I mentioned are relevant is you want to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest and political vendettas.
          I don’t expect L4B or others to be bothered by any of this.
          Nor do I expect them to consider the possibilty that there is, at least, a sizeable minority of Americans that view the handling of these investigations as suspect.

          1. Ptom says that Gnash does not expect L4D to consider the possibilities that Gnash and his cohorts post on this blawg every day now since whenever. Yep! That’s why we gluttons for punishment keep coming back every day now since whenever so as studiously to ignore every last cry of foul-play that the sizeable majority of Trumpa Lumpas on this blawg post every day now since whenever. We just can’t get enough of that whiny cry-baby stuff.

            Bring them their paddles of burning wood.
            Bring them their lashing straps on fire.
            Bring them their rules, no wrists withstood.
            They shall not cease from verbal flight.
            Nor shall their rods spare us our hands.
            Till they have spanked Jerusalem,
            But good in MAGA’s walled in land.

            1. It’s missing one line–line four. Insert between line three and line five.

              Bring them their nothing-burger desire.

              1. I wonder how well it works in everyday life for someone like L4B to carry around a big pail of mud in one hand, to muddy up the waters and coat her previous stupid comments….
                and a giant eraser in her other hand, attempting to completely undo her ridiculous psychic forecasts.
                That’s tougher to do here, given that she can’t erase comments she’s made that are on the record and preserved in the archives of previous columns.
                That’s when the pail of mud comes out and forms a coat of senseless prose, as in the example of her post above.
                These gimmicks might work better for her in everyday life, unless those who interact with her wear a wire and actually have a recording of her muddled, contradictory statements.

      2. (“Dissemination is not a crime.”) Hacking is a crime. Solicitation of a bribe is a crime.

        (“Knowing ahead of time is not a crime.”) Concealing one’s knowledge of hacking by deceptive or dishonest means is a crime; namely, fraud.

        (“Publishing information is not an in-kind political contribution.”) Publishing information that was hacked by a foreign intelligence service and disseminated to the publisher for the purpose of electioneering communications designed to harm one candidate while favoring the other candidate is, in fact, an illegal foreign campaign contribution that had to have been concealed by deceptive or dishonest means from the FEC in order for the favored candidate to have benefitted from the hacked and leaked information.

        It is in the nature of conspiracies that the conspiratorial acts have to be shown and seen in connection with one another in order to compromise a conspiracy. That some of those conspiratorial acts are criminal when seen in isolation from other conspiratorial acts that would not be criminal when seen in isolation from the former criminal acts does not mean that the latter conspiratorial acts are not criminal. It only means that you’re not looking at the way that the conspiratorial acts are connected to one another.

        That disjointed mode of defense against conspiracy charges has been tried and has failed repeatedly in the history of American jurisprudence. But if you want to give it one last try for good measure, then go for it. You still have two alternative defenses available. 1) That the law does not apply to the given set of alleged facts. 2) That the law, itself, is unconstitutional under any given set of alleged facts. In the meantime, no clear and convincing facts have yet been alleged that would establish that members of the Trump campaign knew that Russia was disseminating hacked information through Wikileaks.

        1. I think most understand that if Trump is not charged with a crime, all of this speculation about this defense strategy is just that.
          If Stone or others actually go to trial on charges of “Conspiracy to Defraud the United States”, their defense strategy remains to be seen.
          I followed the Bundy family’s trials in Portland and in Las Vegas.
          These were interesting, well publicized incidents that got them arrested and charged with multiple crimes.
          I suppose that I followed those cases more closely than most people because I have frequently driven through both the area of the Oregon incident ( Burns, Oregon) and the previous Nevada incident ( near Mesquite, I think, by I-15 about 80 miles NE of Laz Vegas).
          Both of those cases looked very strong for the prosecution; while I thought that the Bundy defendants might escape conviction on some of the charges, it was very surprising that all of the Bundys escape conviction on all charges in both cases.
          So IF there are trials for those curreny charged or who “might be” charged, we’ll see what happens.
          Maybe someone can also speculate on whether there is a sealed indictment against Carter Page as a result of the FISA warrent and the unverified allegations of his activities.

  18. Not collusion, conspiracy and of all people you should know the difference. I damn well do having once been jailed for it thanks to the tricky dicky regime, until the Supreme Court said “set those men free”. The Steele document was not started by the clinton campaign, damn her and her ilk, it was started by repugthuglicans. While I realize you like to play the “devil’s advocate” professor and I enjoy it, this may not be the time. We have a madman in office. Keep GitMo open for those that belong there, the trump crime family and all their associates.

    1. The Steele Dossier was started weeks after Trump clinched the nomination and the Republicans who backed those opposing Trump no longer retained Fusion GPS to do further opposition research.
      There is no dossier-related payment except for the DNC and the Hilllary Campaign Fund. Fusion GPS may have collected twice on the existing opposition ( paid for primarily by Paul Singer/ Washintom Free Beacon) research, by reselling that same research to the Democrats.
      The DNC and Hillary Campaign Fund paid for Christopher Steele’s Russian Dossier when it was decided to do foreign-based opposition research.

    2. sgtsabai, you must be one of those that has difficulty reading the written word so you rely on Shill for the news. You say, “The Steele document was not started by the clinton campaign, damn her and her ilk, it was started by repugthuglicans.” , but the Steele was started by the Clinton Campaign. Fusion GPS is an organization that has been hired by both the left and the right. Before they started working for the Clinton team they worked for the Republicans to gain information on Trump but that was NOT on the Steele Dossier. There is a difference. Peter relies on the very ignorant to spread his misinformation. Try not to be one of them.

Comments are closed.