WSJ: National Enquirer Publisher Asked The Justice Department If It Should Register As Saudi Agent

We have been following the seedy legacy of American Media CEO David Pecker and his National Enquirer tabloid. Pecker is a cooperating witness with Special Counsel Robert Mueller after using his publication to pay off a former Playmate model who reportedly had an affair with President Donald Trump. Pecker and the newspaper previously denied the arrangement to help Trump by buying and killing the story of Karen McDougal.  AMI was also recently implicated in an effort to effectively blackmail Washington Post owner and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos with the threat to release embarrassing photos. Bezos suggested that AMI was acting at the behest of Saudi figures upset with the Washington Post investigation of Saudi influence. Now, the Wall Street Journal has disclosed a letter confirming that AMI considered filing papers as a Saudi agent. The letter would seem to reinforce the AMI-Saudi connection referenced by Bezos.

The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that AMI wrote to the Justice Department to ask if it believed that the company needed to file under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The redacted letter is from DOJ’s Foreign Agents Registration Act unit and references a magazine printed by the company that heaped praise on Prince Mohammad Bin Salman before his visit to Washington in March 2018. The Crown Prince is widely believed responsible for the gruesome murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

The fawning publication titled “The New Kingdom” reflected what a close relationship between AMI and the Saudis that has led to considerable speculation over the influence of the Saudis. AMI hired an advisor to the Saudi government to help write the article. That influence has been denied by both parties. However, the letter says that the publication was written to “coincide” with the visit and that AMI believed that its ties might require it to register as a Saudi agent. The DOJ ultimately concluded that it did not.

It is a measure of the dubious ethics and practices of both AMI and Pecker that it would even have to consider registering as a foreign agent. It then appears to have moved from pandering to the Kingdom to virtually extorting Bezos.

Now “Enquiring minds want to know” how Mueller can effectively immunize Pecker as a cooperating witness while AMI is allegedly blackmailing Bezos while hiding its dubious association with the Saudi Kingdom.

For its part, the Saudis have denied a connection to the AMI threats. Of course, the Saudis are also still denying facts in the Khashoggi murder but, if you cannot believe the Saudi Kingdom, who can you believe?

165 thoughts on “WSJ: National Enquirer Publisher Asked The Justice Department If It Should Register As Saudi Agent”

  1. I agreed with the article up until the penultimate paragraph.

    The National Enquirer was asking the Department of Justice if they had to register as a foreign agent. When they were informed that it wasn’t necessary for them to do so while publishing the referenced article, they weren’t hiding their relationship with the Saudi government.

    So how much disclosure is really required?

    If they weren’t deemed in violation of the law, then they probably didn’t have a further obligation of disclosure.



    The combined wealth of Charles and David Koch, about $40 billion each, is roughly in the neighborhood of Bezo’s $100 fortune. George Soros, for comparison’s sake, is in a lower class: at about $20 billion.

    Certain Libertarians on this thread deny the Koch Bros head a political funding network. One presumes that’s a funny joke to Libertarians. But we know the Koch Brothers are major funders to Republican political candidates all across the country.

    The Koch Bros Network of Political Donors sponsor School Board candidates in various cities. They seek to make America a laboratory for Libertarian ideas. In 2012 the Koch Bros and their deputies were the subject of a Frontline film for PBS. “Climate of Doubt” reported on the Koch Bros successful effort casting doubt on Climate Change.

    The Koch Brothers and their deputies were cheerfully cooperative in hosting Frontline. They proudly admit their efforts were successful. Polls taken at the time revealed that skepticism had risen significantly since George W took office.

    The term “Climate Change” began with George W. The Bushies preferred ‘Climate Change’ to ‘Global Warming’.

    But during the Bush years, and Obama’s first term, the Koch Brothers waged an organized effort to DENY Climate Change. During that 12 year period, 2000-2012, the number of Climate Skeptics grew. The Koch effort was successful. They had turned back the clock on Climate Change acceptance!

    This film, from October of 2012, captures the Koch Bros at their Tea Party prime. They, and their deputies, glow with confidence before Frontline’s camera.

    “Climate of Doubt” is truly disturbing. Two aging multi-billioniares fund an organized effort to hold America back! The U.S. has now lost about 20 years.

    During these past 20 years we could have planned for rising seas and hotter summers. We could have made substantial headway towards clean energies. But, “No, the Koch Bros wouldn’t let us!” It wasn’t good for ‘their’ business. And they were rich enough to fund a big campaign.

      GOP= BAD👿

      1. Tom, your overuse of emojis betrays likely autism. That’s a reflection on ‘you’, not ‘me’. A first-time reader to this site will think Tom Nash is a simpleton of sorts. And your highly disgruntled tone reinforces that impression.

        You sound like someone’s insecure younger brother. He’s been in Special Ed and his potential is limited. So he’s lashing out with bitterness at the normal kids.

        1. I will be mindful of Hollywood Hill’s observation about emojis, and will endeavour to change that flaw, through a period of long, difficult😫 withdrawal from that that which disturbs 😖 and concerns 😥him.
          I pledge to try to do better, in keeping with my high regard and respect 😋 for his integrity and fairminded contributions here.

        2. Mr. H said,”Tom, your overuse of emojis betrays likely autism.”

          No! No! No! At the very worst, Ptom has a Borderline Contact Disorder. Gnash has not yet crossed over that borderline. And the emojis may be the very thing holding Ptom back. Please don’t take Ptom’s sunshine away.

          1. I take the diagnosis and the advice about “normal kids” from Hollyweird with all of the seriousness that it deserves.
            I previously learned what was “cool” from Hollyweird Hill, and the political leanings of the “cool kids.
            Propagandists and liars are not my favorite people, irrespective of whether they live in Hollywood or whether they are a coven’s most visible and most published member.
            And at some point, after months of gasbags like you and Hollywood Hill making nuisances of themselves, I’ll probably mention that I’m not fond of liars and propagandists.
            It’s a straightforward and valid observation that does not require psychobabble from L4B or Hollywood Hill, our two Experts in All Things.

            1. This blawg is your blawg. This blawg is my blawg
              From Hollywood Hills to the D. C. swamp fog;
              From the headline forest to emoji peat bogs.
              Please don’t take your blawg-shine away.

                    1. Mr. H is the one who has been doing most of the Heavy lifting around here since Mr. Basonkavich has still not returned from his Winter vacation.



    Senate Republicans are fuming at President Donald Trump for telling lawmakers he would disregard a law requiring a report to Congress determining who is responsible for the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

    The uproar among Republicans is just the latest example of their deep discontent with the president’s foreign policy. It could prompt even more defections in favor of a Democrat-led resolution coming before the House and Senate this month to cut off U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen’s civil war.

    “It’s not a good way to start the new Congress in its relationship with the Foreign Relations Committee,” said Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a Republican on that panel, in an interview. “It violates the law. And the law is clear about those timelines. I’m urging them and I expect them to comply with the law.”

    Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado, a vulnerable Republican who faces re-election in 2020, said “the administration needs to submit the report,” adding: “There’s no excuse. They must submit it.”

    On Friday, the Trump administration said it reserved the right to decline lawmakers’ demand under the Magnitsky Act that the president report to Congress with a determination of who is responsible for Khashoggi’s October slaying inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.

    Edited from: “GOP Livid With Trump Over Ignored Khashoggi Report”

    POLITICO, 2/11/19

      1. So what? Trump always has people that are angry at him and then the GDP goes up and unemployment goes down.

    1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

      Last year, then-Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and his Democratic counterpart, Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, used the Magnitsky Act to trigger a 120-day investigation, aiming to force the administration to determine who is responsible for Khashoggi’s murder and possibly impose sanctions. Friday’s deadline came and went, with a senior administration official saying Trump “maintains his discretion to decline to act on congressional committee requests when appropriate.”

      [end excerpt]

      Thanks for the tip, Mr. H.

        1. One tiny but interesting excerpt from the article linked above:

          How, if at all, Russia can compel Iran to scale back its growing grip over Syria, one which it paid for dearly in blood and treasure, is unclear. Mr Netanyahu may now be realising this first hand as Iranian proxies continue their push towards Israel’ borders despite reported Russian assurances to the contrary.

        1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

          As an inducement for Putin to partner with Gulf states rather than Iran, the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia started making billions of dollars in investments in Russia and convening high-level meetings in Moscow, Abu Dhabi, Riyadh, and the Seychelles.

          It is unclear whether M.B.Z.’s preëlection proposal came from Putin himself or one of his confidants, or whether the Emirati leader came up with the idea. But the comment suggested that M.B.Z. believed that turning Putin against Iran would require sanctions relief for Moscow, a concession that required the support of the American President. If Hillary Clinton had won the election, the idea of accepting Russian aggression in Ukraine would have been a nonstarter, current and former U.S. officials told me. But Trump promised a different approach.

  4. Another Media Story!



    A man in a red Make America Great Again cap violently shoved a BBC cameraman and shouted profanities during President Trump’s rally in El Paso, Texas, Monday night, in a startling moment that briefly interrupted the president’s speech.

    The BBC’s Ron Skeans was working in the area of a raised camera platform at Trump’s campaign event when, he says, a “very hard shove” came out of nowhere. At the time, Trump was touting recent economic numbers to a roaring crowd in the El Paso County Coliseum.

    Skeans’ colleagues say the apparent attack came after repeated verbal assaults on the media during the event. The BBC says it is “clearly unacceptable for any of our staff to be attacked for doing their job.”

    “I didn’t know what was going on,” Skeans said, according to the BBC, describing the moment when his camera suddenly skewed down and away from the stage. Video footage showed a Trump supporter yelling obscenities as he was restrained and taken away from the area.

    Edited from: “Trump Supporter Violently Shove BBC Cameraman At El Paso Rally”

    Today’s NPR

    1. RE. ABOVE:

      We know why that Trumper attacked the BBC cameraman. Trump has been demonizing mainstream media for about 3 years at this point. In the minds of yahoos at Trump rallies, BBC is an “enemy of the people”; a phrase Trump has used describing mainstream media.

      Therefore indifference by Trump supporters towards Kashoggi’s murder is hardly surprising. In their minds, anyone linked to The Washington Post is an ‘enemy’.

      1. ” demonizing mainstream media for about 3 years ”

        The mainstream media has been demonizing Trump for 3 years and before that Bush and they even demonized Reagan so cut the cr-p. The left is violent as seen on college campuses, at rallies etc.

        I saw Trump stop his speech when that happened and before he restarted his speech he sincerely asked if everyone was OK. Later he condemned the action of the person wearing the MAGA hat. Of course we don’t know who was wearing the hat and district attorney apparently decided not to prosecute at that time. Could it be the incident wasn’t as significant as portrayed or the person wearing the hat was a nut or even a leftist? There were tens of thousands of people there and no violence ( I heard 35.000 along with thousands outside). One doesn’t need many left wingers to have violence occur. Stop pretending.

        1. The neutered main stream press are merely corporate PR agents. Bent on distraction and outright lies they ignore the existential threats to our freedom and privacy by their robber baron bosses. I have no respect for any of them.

          1. Mespo, is Rupert Murdoch ‘not’ a robber baron boss? Or is he just the very one exception?

            By the way, Murdoch is not really an American. He was born in Australia and spent most of his adult life in London. In fact, Murdoch still maintains a London residence and is there much of the time.

            1. Murdoch’s left wing children and daughter’s in laws are seeing to it that the Fox brand turns left and by doing so will destroy the network. The problem is that the Internet is replacing TV.

              1. Murdoch is another robber baron and he is turning Fox blue. But as you point out, news is now disseminated from many outlets and the MSM is passe.’

                1. ” news is now disseminated from many outlets ”

                  Mespo, Peter’s brain appears to be disseminated as well especially from the areas most people use to disseminate waste products.

    2. Peeder Ho Hum is more boring than Al Bore talking about the none existent global warming scam/

    1. Please explain exactly when the Ku Klux Klan admitted women into the KKK. Does George know about it? What about Squeeky?

      1. Diane, are you dense? The picture represented sarcasm and considering Democratic history it represented the past and a symbolic metaphor of the present.

        1. Sarcasm is last refuge of a propagandist. And your shameless misinterpretation of history is aggressively stupid.

          1. “Sarcasm is last refuge of a propagandist.”

            I wouldn’t argue with that fact. Offhand I think of Jonathan Swift. You probaby think of Stalin.

            “And your shameless misinterpretation of history is aggressively stupid.”

            What shameless misinterpretation of history is that? Didn’t the Democrats own slaves and after the Civil War create the KKK. Today don’t the Democrats go crazy mad when the African American moves off the Democratic plantation? I think of people like Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas (there are many more examples.) Have you ever read a book by Thomas Sowell?



    If only Republicans could isolate the national discussion regarding inequality and the outsize power of billionaires. If they could somehow wall-off that conversation so that it never strays beyond Jeff Bezos, America could have a ‘real discussion’. Bezos is worth possibly more than both Koch Brothers combined. That’s very disturbing to loyal Trump supporters. Trump himself is only a ‘petty’ billionaire in relation to Bezos.

    Bezos’ plan to build an Amazon headquarters in New York City’s Queens borough was contingent on $3 billion in tax subsidies. Which raises the obvious question of ‘why’ a company the size of Amazon needs tax subsidies. In another time, the 1950’s, for instance, no politician in their right mind would have agreed to tax subsidies for a rich corporation. And to their credit, the people of New York City are raising serious questions about this scheme. The Amazon headquarters plan now appears on the verge of unraveling.

    Wisconsin engaged in similarly ridiculous scheme to lure Foxconn, the Taiwanese maker of computer screens. They were offered $3 billion in tax subsidies by Scott Walker, the recently departed Wisconsin governor. The deal was championed by Paul Ryan, the recently departed House Speaker. Donald Trump was so eager to celebrate the deal that he attended the groundbreaking ceremony for Foxconn’s new plant. Said facility will be three times the size of the Pentagon if completed as originally envisioned.

    The Foxconn deal would have worked out to a subsidy of about a quarter million dollars per employee had Foxconn gone on to hire the 13,000 workers originally envisioned. The plant, however, is not yet complete and already Foxconn is scaling back projections of how many employees it might hire in Wisconsin. Their revised estimates were ‘so’ scaled-back that Trump himself placed a phone call beseeching Foxconn’s executives to stick with their original plans. Foxconn half-heartedly agreed but their commitment to Wisconsin is now a matter of serious question.

    If the Foxconn plant is built as envisioned, three times the size of the Pentagon, one has to ask what becomes of that site when Foxconn eventually leaves. The village of Mount Pleasant, population 26,000, is the municipality in question. Mount Pleasant is 30 miles south of Milwaukee and 60 miles north of Chicago. Can a town that size possibly find other uses for the Foxconn plant when Foxconn eventually leaves? How many companies need a site three times the size of the Pentagon? Questions like these certainly give one pause with regards to massive subsidies for rich corporations.

    Currently Republicans are ridiculing the so-called ‘Green Deal’ proposed by freshman congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio Cortez. Said deal remains somewhat vague in its scope; a national plan for Climate Change accompanied by proposals for socialistic programs to address economic inequalities. However vague the scheme, it is certainly no less ridiculous than massive tax subsidies for rich corporations. But one can see, by their early responses, that Republicans have no intention of seriously discussing Green Deal proposals.

    This brings us back to my original contention: ‘Conservatives are concerned about extreme wealth as long as the discussion begins and ends with Jeff Bezos’.


    1. Ha. A few months ago you were criticizing us for harping on George Soros another trouble making Trump hating billionaire.

      Actually the Kroch bros hate Trump too according to what I have read. There’s an uneasy alliance at best.

      Hey let me see if I can think of another. Oh, Bloomberg, ever heard of him? Big gun grabber. Here’s a short list but it can get longer really fast.

      1. Mr. K.,
        It would be interesting to go back through the threads over, say, a year or so, or just about any time frame one might select at random, and see how many times the clowns like Peter mention the pure evil of the “bad money😈” on politics, without batting an eye at the tons of left-wing, 😇good money in politics.
        “The Kochs” would dominate those exchanges by far, because the Joseph Goebbels wannabe knockout propagandists like Hollywood Hill have the “dedication” to pull that crap non-stop.
        I think that dedication should occasionally be recognized.
        (excuse me), I meant to write:
        BE RECOGNIZED!😇😇😇

        1. “It would be interesting to go back through the threads over, say, a year or so, or just about any time frame one might select at random, and see how many times the clowns like Peter mention the pure evil of the “bad money😈” on politics, without batting an eye at the tons of left-wing, 😇good money in politics.

          Tom, Peter is near pure hypocrite.

            Yeah, I know….he has some company there, too.
            Another area that would require special ized software to calculate is how many times phrases like “Fox News”, “Hannity”, “right-wing media”, etc. are thrown around as if those phrases score big debating points.
            The ones obsessed with Fox News, the ones bringing it up probably thousands of times here, are not the conservatives.
            And many conservatives don’t even watch Fox News, but the “magic” of the “accusation” that conservatives or Republicans are somehow brainwashed and programmed by Fox News is what what they’re after.
            The link is about the women’s branch of the KKK..I don’t know where that exchange was ( on this thread?), so I placed it here.

            1. Meant to be sure that you saw the advice from Hollyweird about appearing to be abnormal or “a simpleton” by frequent use/ overuse of emojis.
              I think the cool kids now use CAPITAL LETTERS indiscriminately, following the lead of HHHNN.😒😊😉😀😂
              ( But emojis are out, uncool)


      The movement (in the broader use of conservative) is concerned with all extreme wealth that can create a monopoly over a product, service or idea. Jeff Bezos is certainly one along with the many high tech Billionaires that control the media and might blacklist people.

      Let me provide another example that recently occurred. They are small and don’t control people’s access like some of the larger companies do but I thought I would mention it here. Spotify the music streaming company used by many is blacklisting certain groups and not permitting them to advertise on their site (I don’t claim illegality). They recently blacklisted PragerU which is conservative but very peaceful and most definitely not racist. I terminated my premium subscription with them because this is a dangerous thing to do in our free society (I am not claiming it is illegal) I think anyone on either side of the aisle should think of the dangers of large companies snuffing out ideas and I encourage people to terminate Spotify and spread the word.

      Of couse media like Facebook are much more dangerous because they are much bigger, but any of the media doing that type of thing should be criticized. Even local newspapers have been known to block peaceful and respectful advertising from peaceful and respectful groups. They too desrerve to lose their readership and some have.

      So yes, I agree with an idea Peter proposes though done awkwardly and incorrectly. We have to be careful of extreme wealth when it becomes monopolistic..

      The Kock brothers are considered “conservative” but many conservatives have expressed deep disagreement with them on certain issues while they may agree on specific issues that Liberal’s agree on.

      Peter, you are just too ideological and that prevents you from any clear thinking.

      1. He isn’t ‘too ideological’. He’s too cretinous. The Koch brothers are promoters of libertarian ideas. Sometimes that dovetails with the conventional starboard, sometimes it doesn’t. This isn’t that difficult.

        1. Yes, DSS, cretinous as well, but how can one determine how cretinous a person can be when their ideology makes them so blind.

        2. Tabby, the Koch Bros political organization rarely, if ever, funds non-Republicans. What’s more, Republican candidates are effectively obliged to agree with Koch Bros policies; or the Koch Bros will almost certainly fund an opposing candidate.

          Furthermore, Koch Bros proxy groups have their tentacles in local politics all over the country. The American Legislative Exchange is a must-join for Republican legislators in almost every red state. Said legislators are even required to take an oath to uphold ALEX policies.

          So your contention that the Koch Bros aren’t really connected to Republicans is totally disingenuous.

          1. funds non-Republicans. What’s more, Republican candidates are effectively obliged to agree with Koch Bros policies; or the Koch Bros will almost certainly fund an opposing candidate.

            They don’t fund Democratic candidates, Peter, because almost no one in the Democratic Party favors any kind of libertarian program. (though some favor the adolescent component of trashing the drug laws).

            You fancy there is some caucus in Congress of Koch lickspittles who successfully primaried some other Republican? Who’s in it?

            In regard to organizational contributors during the 2018 election cycle, Koch Industries ranked 30th. Of the top 30 contributors, 20 give most of their dough to Democratic candidates and one other (the National Assn. of Realtors) split its donations down the middle.

            There’s nothing all that remarkable about Koch’s political activities, it’s just that partisan Democrats fancy any organized opposition is illegitimate.

            1. Tabby, you’re totally disingenuous! We’re not talking about political funds distributed by ‘Koch Industries’, the conglomerate. And you know we’re not.

              We’re talking about a vast political organization headed by the Koch Bros that doesn’t necessarily go by any particular name. It’s usually just referred to as “the Koch Bros network of political donors”. They have annual summits in Palm Springs that are widely covered by the media. Everyone who follows American politics knows who they are. To pretend they don’t exist is the most obnoxious of lies.

              1. We’re talking about a vast political organization headed by the Koch Bros that doesn’t necessarily go by any particular name.

                IOW, we’re talking about something you’ve conjured out of your imagination.

                1. “IOW, we’re talking about something you’ve conjured out of your imagination.”

                  DSS, nice pithy comment that describes Peter.

                2. TIAx2:

                  Leave Peter and his fantasies alone. Last time they got together he was going to sue Allan for defamation. Whatever happened to that case?

                  1. “Whatever happened to that case?”

                    It turned into a TV series that is broadcast out of Peter’s amygdala.

                    1. “It turned into a TV series that is broadcast out of Peter’s amygdala.”
                      Or another appropriate organ a little further south and aft!

              The theme of the discussions in these threads about the influence of mega-rich political donors usually comes down to this:
              Koch Money and Influence:
              = EVIL 😈

              Soros Money and Influence
              = GOOD 😇

              Preferably, you’d have something closer to Zero $ Dollars of lobbyist, unions, professional organizations, extremely wealthy individuals
              ( there are billionaires far less famous than either Soros or Koch who are heavy donors) involved and financially influencing the political process.
              In the real world, there are massive amounts of money backing candidates and causes, and those amounts seem to get bigger with every election cycle.
              That seems unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
              But it’s not as if one side or the other has gained the upper hand in influencing ( buying) votes.
              There are some individual races where one candidate vastly outspends the opponent…e.g., the 2-to-1 spending of the Hillary campaign, or the 5-to-1 spending advantage of the Doug Jones campaign in the Alabama Senate race.
              But overall, it’s probably a wash.
              This massive spending on candidates and issues is theoretically opposed by the media, but has become a major cash cow in political advertising revenues.
              So their idealistic or theoretical position isn’t necessarily aligned with their actual wishes.
              As the linked chart partially demonstrates, it’s difficult to keep track of who is funding what organizationsor candidate or cause.
              But any honest discussion of the impact of money in politics needs to involve more than griping about the “bad money”; the money going for causes that one happens to dislike.

              1. Tom, the Koch Bros Network includes many lesser known billionaires. And they strongly desire to stay ‘lesser known’.

                George Soros, however rich and active, is primarily an individual with regards political donations. He doesn’t head a major network with numerous proxy groups.

                    1. Tabby, what’s up with you today??? You’re just playing a charade where the Koch Bros Network doesn’t exist..???

                      From the article:

                      An estimated 500 Koch donors — each having committed at least $100,000 annually — gathered for the weekend “seminar” that featured a handful of elected officials and high-profile influencers. As is customary for the bi-annual meetings, guests were required to give up their cell phones during some presentations. And while The Associated Press joined a handful of media organizations allowed to witness some activities, photos and videos were strictly prohibited.

                      Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn, both Republican Senate candidates, led the list of elected officials on hand. Senate Republican whip John Cornyn of Texas, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin were also on the guest list.

                      Koch Brothers running ads in Wisconsin for Rep. Grothman
                      The money behind the Kochs’ push to transform education, philanthropy, immigration, health care, tax laws, courts, government regulation, prisons and the economy has long been cloaked in secrecy.

                      Koch officials have vowed to spend between $300 million and $400 million to shape the 2018 midterm elections. But there’s no way to verify how or where the money is spent because most of its organizations are registered as nonprofit groups, which aren’t required to detail their donors like traditional political action committees.

          2. the Koch Bros political organization rarely, if ever, funds non-Republicans.

            Peter Hill rarely, if ever, supports his National Enquireresque reporting with facts. So which is it, rarely or ever?

    3. So what? It’s the Constitutionalists that are important. The one’s that controlled the 2016 election and destroyed the blue piddle

    1. What a stupid question, Alan, what makes you ask?

      Times coverage of the Mueller Probe is arguably hostile to Russia. Times coverage of Chinese authoritarianism is not flattering to that country. The Times has also reported frequently on systematic corruption in Mexico. That coverage is not a vote of confidence.

      But Alan will respond with convoluted arguments about Hillary’s uranium deal and the Times’ unsympathetic coverage of Trump’s border wall. These issues, Alan will insist, are proof that the New York Times should be held to the same standards as the National Enquirer. What’s more, Alan is inviting our Loyal Trumpers to chime in with replies that the N.Y. Times is ‘also a tabloid’, no more respectable than the Enquirer.

      Alan’s lame attempts here are another illustration of how right-wing media dumbs people down. Never mind that his argument has no serious logic. In the right-wing media bubble it ‘sounds’ perfectly logical.

      1. Stupid, Peter?

        Apparently you don’t know your history with regard to Russia. You also don’t know that the Chinese pay for an insert to the NYTimes and a major portion of the newspaper was or is still owned by a foreign national (Mexico) who is quite poltical.

        You go right back to stupid Peterisms presenting articles that were written but that is not why or why not the question was asked. It was a serious question one that seriously be considered because of the question about registering the National Enquirer or do you only think that news should only be questioned if it doesn’t agree with your foolish opinions? I don’t know that any of them should be registered except for the NYTimes which has a Chinese insert which appears to likely be involved in propaganda. Even that is something I would closely review (along with other things) before concluding in the positive.

        “Times coverage of the Mueller Probe is arguably hostile to Russia”

        That should clearly exculpate Trump since he has taken significant military and economic measures against Russia but somehow you warped mind can only see the former while it blocks out the latter.

        1. Alan, I’m not positive what you’re really saying here. It’s not that coherent.

          1. Peter, it is probably too complex for you and shows your hypocrisy so I understand that you didn’t get it.

            Was the phrase ” should clearly exculpate Trump” too difficult for you?

            Is “Chinese insert which appears to likely be involved in propaganda. ” something you know nothing about?

            Perhaps DSS is correct and ideology has little to do with your intellectual dullness and that his referral of you as “cretinous” is more exact.

            1. Alan, any ad placed in The New York Times is clearly labeled as “Advertising”. They don’t let China just pay for bogus news stories. Times readers would be outraged if they discovered that.

              We know what advertising inserts are. They’re common in many news and trade papers. Only the stupidest readers would mistake them for real news.

              1. “any ad placed in The New York Times is clearly labeled as “Advertising”.”

                A lot of the NYTimes readership are quite dull and didn’t recognize it as an advertisement. It’s an insert brought to you by China.

                1. Alan, those ‘dull’ reader don’t read The Times at all. They just watch cable news.

                  1. “Alan, those ‘dull’ reader don’t read The Times at all. They just watch cable news.”

                    OK. Peter, you think they pay for the NYTimes and don’t read it.

          2. Peeder Ho Hum belongs to which Programmers list of robo clones fro The Collective of The Socialist Machine? Answer Any of the the two or three that want to use it to pin a false identity on the left as if they were really human, or really citizens

              1. Petey, you need to get a refill of your first generation anti-psychotic meds. The second generation are just way too benign, You would look fabulous with extrapyrammidal side effects, much how liberals are acting right now about their Democrat leadership in VA
                With Democrats like Cuomo, Northam, Fairfax, Rep. Ilhan Omar, et al, clearly the Russians arent the enemy. Dims are.


                “Impeach Justin Fairfax”


                Of the three top Democrats currently in peril in Virginia, Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax seems in the most trouble. He is the only one who has so far faced an impeachment bill, brought for the allegations of sexual violence levied against him by two women, Dr. Vanessa Tyson and Meredith Watson.

                Tyson alleges that Fairfax forced her to perform oral sex on him during an encounter at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. (Though the allegation was first reported on February 4th, Tyson did not come forward publicly until two days later.) On February 8th, Watson called on Fairfax to resign when she accused him of raping her in 2000, during their undergraduate days at Duke University. Fairfax has denied both accusations. Regarding Tyson’s allegation, he said in a statement: “I cannot agree with a description of events that I know is not true”; of Watson, he claimed that her allegation is “demonstrably false” and that “I have never forced myself on anyone ever.”

                Following pressure from the state’s legislative black caucus, Patrick Hope, the white Democratic lawmaker who had threatened to file the impeachment bill, pulled it back early Monday morning. Democrats were reportedly worried about the optics of impeaching Virginia’s lone black statewide official at a time when Gov. Ralph Northam and Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring have been in hot water for their past dalliances with blackface. Northam and Herring engaged in racist behavior, which isn’t against the law — and so therefore is not legal grounds for impeachment in Virginia. Sexual assault is.

                It is a shame that Hope’s effort was thwarted, if only because the impeachment process offers exactly what Fairfax and his accusers have been requesting. The lieutenant governor’s accusers have both agreed to testify under oath in any such proceedings, and Fairfax would be able to make his case openly before his colleagues without fear of criminal penalty. Whether or not a simple majority of the Virginia House of Delegates eventually impeached him and the Senate then actually removed him with a two-thirds vote, all parties would have their say, under oath.

                Resisting calls from local and national Democrats to resign, Fairfax continues to plead for due process. He told The Root in an interview published Monday that he is confident that “an impartial investigation by the FBI” would clear his name. Based upon my conversations with intelligence experts, it is unlikely that the FBI would get involved in sexual assault cases that were not perpetrated on federal lands. (The FBI itself did not return Rolling Stone’s request for comment.) I believe that Fairfax calling for that kind of inquiry appears to be more about him delaying justice than him seeking it.

                Impeachment cuts to the heart of the matter. Though Watson’s attorney, Nancy Erika Smith, tells Rolling Stone that criminal charges “might be something we have to consider,” she has encouraged a fair hearing of the allegations before the Virginia Legislature and Senate. “He wants due process? An impeachment hearing is due process!” Smith says.

                Fairfax may be relying, consciously or not, upon the fact that men are more readily believed than women when they are accused of sexual violence. I have found Fairfax difficult to believe thus far. Unlike his accusers, the lieutenant governor has yet to present one person to support his version of either event. While on the one hand he has stated, “Even when faced with those allegations, I am still standing up for everyone’s right to be heard,” NBC News reported him saying privately, “fuck that bitch” about Tyson. In his initial statement, Fairfax wrote that the Washington Post rejected her story in 2017 after discovering “significant red flags and inconsistencies within the allegations.” The Post quickly refuted that, saying that isn’t why the paper didn’t publish her account. His attempt to erode Tyson’s integrity backfired; he is the only one who has shown evidence of a credibility gap so far. (Neither a call nor an email to Fairfax’s attorney requesting comment were returned. Fairfax’s office reached out to Rolling Stone prior to the publication of this column, but did not respond to questions concerning the allegations.)

                For her part, Watson alleges that prior to her incident with Fairfax, she had confided in him — whom she says she considered a friend — about her claim of being allegedly raped by former Duke basketball player Corey Maggette in 1999. (Maggette denied the allegations, but Duke Basketball is reportedly investigating Watson’s claim.) In a second statement from Watson’s attorney published online, she describes Watson’s encounter with Fairfax after he’d allegedly raped her: outside a fraternity party where she says Fairfax followed her. She then says she confronted him. From the statement:

                She turned and asked: “Why did you do it?” Mr. Fairfax answered: “I knew that because of what happened to you last year, you’d be too afraid to say anything.” Mr. Fairfax actually used the prior rape of his “friend” against her when he chose to rape her in a premeditated way.

                “Neither that night nor other times I saw her on campus did she give me the impression that it was anything but consensual,” Fairfax told The Root about his encounter with Watson. However, both women have given statements in which they describe avoiding Fairfax consciously after their respective alleged attacks. But even if they had later worked with him, dated him, laughed it up at parties with him, none of that would have been proof Tyson and Watson had said “yes” to what they allege happened those nights.

                In the days since, Fairfax has been asked to step down from a board position at his alma mater, been placed on leave at his law firm and has seen a number of key staffers depart since these allegations came about. Despite all this, Watson’s attorney suspects that Fairfax will try to ride this out. “The plan is delay, let things die down, let people forget. Move on to the next crisis created by [President] Trump and push things into secrecy,” she says. “The horrible thing here is the intersection of race and sex, which shows that black women are so at the bottom of the totem pole.”

                If he refuses to resign, submitting himself to a public impeachment hearing is the best way for Fairfax to show us that he is the man that he says he is, and to restore a bit of faith in the system he tells Virginians he is still qualified to run.

                1. Estovir, I don’t live in Virginia. I never voted for Justin Fairfax. The fact that you’re confronting me with Fairfax shows what a doofus you are.

                  This is what I was writing about just the other day. You seem to think commenters on this thread are obliged to apologize for people they have no connection to. It’s just ‘you’ being a nerdy weasel.

                2. ” would look fabulous with extrapyrammidal side effects, ”

                  Estovir, maybe Petey stopped his meds because of his extrapyrammidal side effects and that is why he appears so jerky.

    2. Well, no. If the anointed get caught, they get an admonitory letter of the sort sent to John Podesta. If the benighted get caught, they get the treatment Mueller meted out to Manafort. So, American Media’s legal counsel will advise them differently than NYT’s legal counsel. The full force of the law is meant for deplorables.

      1. Mueller has evidence that Manafort literally sold Tony Fabrizio’s $767,000 worth of detailed, sophisticated, in-house Trump polling data to the GRU for $2.4 Million worth of consulting fees from a Ukrainian oligarch with whom Manafort and Fabrizio had worked back in the good old Party-Of-Regions days and in exchange for foisting a Ukranian Peace Plan on the Trump campaign that amounts to sanctions relief for Russia.

        And, instead of denouncing Manafort as a Russian mole implanted in the Trump campaign who sold Trump down the river to Vladimir Putin of The Russian Federation, partisan Republicans hacks such as Doubly-Absurd decry the unequal protection of the law that Mueller meted out to the man who literally sold Trump down the river to Putin for personal financial gain.

        In the immortal words of Nancy Kerrigan: Why? Why? Why?

        Well, according to Roger Stone, Trump doesn’t pay for anything. So Manafort and Fabrizio had no choice but to sell their services to paying customers, who just so happened to be connected to The GRU, who, in turn, just so happed to have hacked thousands of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton and disseminated those hacked emails through Wikileaks.

        Whence tomorrow’s mantra: Cheapness is NOT a crime.

    3. No. Nor have they filed as a foreign agent for the falsely labeled DNC aka Socialist Regressive Fascists Party and their Antifa black shirts.

  6. It is a measure of the dubious ethics and practices of [Insert Name Here.]

    No one in their right mind would expect to find any measure of ethics with Pecker, Bezos and the Saudis. And for that matter, if it weren’t for dubious ethics and practices the wheels of government today would grind to a halt.

  7. It is mind-blowing that a member of the press, namely AMI, would think it might be a violation of law to publish something so that it needs an opinion from the government first. Apparently, there was good reason for it to think so. But what really messes this thing up is that the DOJ okayed it. To pursue a federal extortion case now makes the DOJs earlier decision very material.

    1. AMI did not ask The FARA Registration Unit if AMI had to register as an extortionist for The POTUS, Trump.

  8. If a male grabs another pecker then he is queer. This makes Trump : The Queer of The Year!
    You heard it from me: Trump is resigning on March 4th.

  9. Turley wrote, “Of course, the Saudis are also still denying facts in the Khashoggi murder but, if you cannot believe the Saudi Kingdom, who can you believe?”

    Turley is having way far too much fun. That instance of aporia–“Who can you believe?”–is the distilled essence of Trump’s legal strategy. One could, of course, substitute other names in Turley’s sentence cited above and arrive at essentially the same distillation. For instance . . . The Trump White House is also still denying the facts in the Khashoggi murder but, if you cannot believe Trump, who can you believe?

    If Trump says that Pecker and Howard at AMI are just trying to save their own skins by testifying against Trump on the campaign finance violation, can you believe Trump? If Trump says that Pecker and Howard at AMI extorted Bezos at the direction of an assistant to The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Muhammad bin Salam, can you believe Trump? If Pecker and Howard at AMI say that they extorted Bezos at the direction of Trump, much the same as they violated the campaign finance laws at the direction of Trump, can you believe Packer and Howard at AMI? If you can’t believe Pecker and Howard at AMI, who can you believe?

    So there you have it: Trump’s legal strategy in a nutshell: You can’t believe anybody! Turley is enjoying himself way far too much.

  10. Turley wrote,”Now “Enquiring minds want to know” how Mueller can effectively immunize Pecker as a cooperating witness while AMI is allegedly blackmailing Bezos while hiding its dubious association with the Saudi Kingdom.”

    Mueller has not immunized David Pecker. Robert Khuzami, the Acting US Attorney for SDNY, has immunized David Pecker. When it comes out–(and it will come out)–that The POTUS, Trump, instructed Pecker to extort Bezos for the express purpose of provoking Khuzami to scrap SDNY’s grant of immunity to Pecker, the legal jeopardy facing Trump will be increased–not diminished. Prosecuting Pecker for both crimes–the campaign finance violation and the extortion–makes Pecker a codefendant with Trump on both crimes–the campaign finance violation and the extortion.

    The notion that Trump can defend himself by accusing all of his business associates of being criminals is . . . oh-so-very special.

  11. “It is a measure of the dubious ethics and practices of both AMI and Pecker that it would even have to consider registering as a foreign agent. It then appears to have moved from pandering to the Kingdom to virtually extorting Bezos.“
    I think most of the corporate media should register as foreign agents. Their reporting definitively shows their interests lie in direct conflict to the interests of the American people. Note the fawning over philanderer Jeff Bezos and the incessant smearing of Trump and even his family. Shameful.. The press doesn’t do journalism anymore. It does corporate PR. Maybe Amazon’s a new type of country.

      “It is a measure of the dubious ethics and practices of both AMI and Pecker that it would even have to consider registering as a foreign agent”.
      There is a history of non-enforcement/ selective enforcement/ sporadic enforcement of FARA.
      Given the recent history of the Special Counsel adding FARA violations to other assorted charges, it is also a measure of publishers, lobbyists, etc. concerns that they might be now be targeted for enforcement of FARA violations.
      I included an example of an equally respected and influential publisher/advocate with a history of pro-Russian, pro-Putin bias.
      These media political powerhouses, like the National Enquirer and Weekly World News, need to be closely monitored and held accountable for their subversive advocacy of foreign leaders and governments.

    2. And Trump cares so much about the American people!? We need robust journalism. We do not need lobbyists or entire corporations or a president who represents his own interests and the interest of which ever country will result in more profit or perks for his family.

      1. We need consistent enforcement of FARA laws.
        If those laws are only to be “weaponized” at certain times/ certain targets, it just another official nod to uneven, selective enforcement.

      2. “who represents his own interests ”

        If Trump is representing his own interests we need more of such interests because his accomplishments demonstrate interests that parallel the interests and needs of America, in particular the working class American family. We need not look at all the crazy bickering on both sides of the aisle. All we need to look at are his acomplishments that dwarf many presidencies.

    3. “…. and the incessant smearing of PHILANDERER Donald Trump… ” Your welcome.



    In comments to come, our Loyal Trumpers will respond with annoyance and, or, very labored indifference. This is the second time in so many days that Turley is featuring Khashoggi.

    By 7:00 am, one of our Loyal Trumpers will change the subject to abortion with outraged references to “infanticide”.

    A sample comment will go like this :

    “Why should we care about a Saudi trouble-maker when millions of babies are murdered every year??”

    The idea is that only Trump-hating baby killers care about Kashoggi.

    1. PH:
      One has to wonder why you care about the circumstances of the demise — in another country — of a Hamas supporting shill. Maybe you detest the end of his ideology more than the end of him.

      1. Mespo is unconcerned about the fact that The POTUS, Trump, and The Crown-Prince of Saudi Arabia, Muhammad bin Salman share the same tabloid publicist, David Pecker, who performs the same “public relations services” for both of those clients–including even extortion. So now MbS will claim that Trump ordered Pecker to blackmail Bezos, while Trump will claim that MbS ordered Pecker to blackmail Bezos. And that will give Pecker an opportunity to pick and choose exactly which of those two clients to testify against when the Acting US Attorney for SDNY, Robert Khuzami, compels that testimony from Pecker. So far Trump has only ever dreamed of killing journalists. MbS has actually done the deed. Gee. I wonder which of his two clients Pecker will testify against. Life or death is such a tough call, sometimes.

        1. L4D:
          I’m really wondering why you care about mid-life crazy, sweatshop running Bezos. Poor Jeffy, if only he had the resources to defend himself. Lol

          1. You know damned well what I care about. Ergo, your guess at my “concern” is intentionally incorrect. Just like Turley’s false attribution of Pecker’s immunity grant to Mueller and the SCO instead of Khuzami and the SDNY. The shameless transparency of these parlor-game ploys is truly clueless. I do hope that your enjoying it as much as Turley surely is.

        2. Now L4B is claiming that MbS will claim that Trump ordered Pecker to blackmail Bezos, and that will give Pecker an opportunity to pick and choose exactly which of those two clients to testify against when the acting US Attorney for SDNY, Robert Kazami, compels that testimony from Pecker.
          The hard-core conspiracy theorists and hobbiest can, at times, provide the best unintentional humor in these threads.😉😊😂

          1. Get your jollies while you can, Krazy Kat. If there are any leftover jollies, put them in a freezer bag and store them in the freezer compartment for those dismal days in the offing when fresh jollies are out of season.

            1. does that “dismal day” mean that L4B will at some point stop posting comments?
              While her departure would put a dent in the early AM comedy hours here, there are likely a thousand or two L4B comments that can always be reviewed for “jollies”.

                1. Ha-ha! Now I’ve got you talking to yourself out loud in public right here on this blawg.

                2. No, I pass. I’ll let your two great minds tackle the complex, off-topic questions.

              1. The complex question (a.k.a. a loaded question) presumes that there exists a natural state for the subject in question, when everybody and their mothers’ uncles who are not named Allan know that the signifier is NOT the signified.

                1. Diane, you make things overly complex. The only question is whether on the video above that green thing is Diane?

      2. Mespo, the truth is that both Trump and Kushner value Saudi investment in their businesses. In that regard the Kashoggi murder is just a big annoyance they would rather not address. Which illustrates how conflicted this administration is. We not only have Donald Trump’s extensive web of conflicts, but Jarod Kushner’s as well.

        Having businessmen in the White House is just ‘not’ a good idea.

        1. Peter, you really have to learn how to think. Our relationship, good or bad, with the Saudi’s has to do with oil which therefore represents the auto industry, the transportation industry, the food industry, the electrical industry, the plastic industry, etc. etc. all the way down to the individual that uses electric, heat, cooling, refrigeration, travelling to work etc. etc.

          You are a very dull thinker.

          1. When public officials commit official acts for personal financial gain the law calls that bribery. When elected officials enact laws to prevent the bidness men in the White House from selling the foreign policy of the United States for personal financial gain, the former are doing the latter a tremendous favor for which those bidness men, being natural born ingrates, must remain eternally ungrateful.

            Money is the original false idol.

        2. Having businessmen in the White House is just ‘not’ a good idea.

          If only we had the means to determine if our President was faithfully executing the laws of this country. We could add in some objective measures like unemployment, GDP, trade, etc. that might prove helpful in determining the effectiveness of the current administration’s policies. That way, we’d be able to look at a peanut farmer, actor, lawyer, doctor, community activist, real estate developer or career politician and readily gauge what is or is not a good idea. That’s if you’re interested in that sort of thing.

          Given the term limits of the President, we really need to examine more critically those that make laws in the first place. They aren’t term limited. Many have arrived in congress coming from the various professional fields mentioned above. What isn’t a good idea is to focus so much attention on potential conflicts of one term-limited office and ignore the potential conflicts of 535 offices. Before you know it, they’ll become professionals in one thing, politics. The Peter Principle is alive and well in that body and without term limits, they do tend to stay there.

          1. Mespo, ‘professionalism is bad’..?? Go figure. In most fields it’s considered an attribute.

        3. Harry Truman for example. Well, he had his faults, but being a businessman wasnt one of them.

        4. The Khashoggi murder would be seen as an ancillary matter by anyone influenced by reasons of state. Because liberal politics consists of striking attitudes, liberals don’t get that.

    2. By 7:00 am, one of our Loyal Trumpers will change the subject to abortion with outraged references to “infanticide. Why should we care about a Saudi trouble-maker when millions of babies are murdered every year??

      LOL! No need. They’re so inside your head you’ve done it for them.

      1. So far, Olly, there are only three comments by three people that “”changed the subject”.
        None of them are “Trumpers”.

    3. “our Loyal Trumpers will change the subject to abortion with outraged references to “infanticide”

      Peter, you just changed the subject to the killing of babies born alive. Then you blame someone else. Even your argument displays a tie in with infanticide that needs no quotation marks around it.

      You write: “The idea is that only Trump-hating baby killers care about Kashoggi.”

      It is not a matter of the trouble maker Khashoggi (there is an h after the K) rather the fact that we seem to care so little about all the peaceful people that are being killed without notice by the infanticidal bretheren we are faced with on this blog. They don’t even pay much notice to the Killing of minority children in our Democratically run cities.

      I don’t like the Saudi’s, but I love America so sometimes personally I will not find significant complaint about actions I find disturbing when to do so injures American foreign policy and security.

    4. I definitely have some belabored indifference to this.

      However, I want to keep this fun for you. So, I note again for your Peter, that on one issue I am really coming your way. I am becoming pro choice on the theory that it’s mostly Democrats terminate their offspring. This will help with the demographic struggle. Did you get my drift on that yet? If New York suddenly had abortion restrictions like Iowa, the mess would get worser, faster.

      As for the rest of it: Khashoggi: one rich and ruthless camel riding princeling of the burning sands, that outpaces the rest. I hear his thugs sawed up one up of his rivals. I bet it wasn’t just one, we hear about the one because he wrote for the wapo rag.

      Pecker: a weird guy, not sure I care what happens to him. I don’t care, actually.

      Bezos: great business, bad ideas. Lots to hate about the Wapo and Foreign Policy magazine.

      also read this for some giggles:

      1. People without much intelligence deride the National Enquirer which is somewhat of a rag but has revealed groundbreaking news while rags such as the Washington Post were asleep at the wheel.

        1. Yes. And, while the NE prints a lot of bogus stories that read like this: “So and So says the following outrageous thing:…..” which is a dodge that avoids slander and defamation suits, guess what? Regular newspapers do exactly the same thing! Read them closely and watch for this and you will see what i mean.

  13. If you want the truth of the matter, ask the Trump administration. They will give you ten different versions in the next few weeks if they follow the example of the Khashoggi murder.

    1. And to think that they used to call the circular finger-pointing game by a far deadlier name–the old circular firing squad. But that was back in the day when gangsters could still shoot straight. I swear. Every last cooperating witness against Trump has practically bent over backwards in his attempt to undermine his own credibility as a witness against Trump. And now we have a publisher and an editor who were granted immunity committing the fresh crime of extortion for the express purpose of invalidating their grant of immunity. Pecker and Howard are on the verge of becoming The New Susans MacDougal.

      Except for one thing: SDNY can use Pecker and Howard’s proffer and interview statements against them. Susan MacDougal never gave Starr any proffer nor interview statements that could be used against her. Instead, she was convicted of Contempt of Court for refusing to talk even after she had been granted immunity for crimes about which she never proffered any testimony. So Pecker and Howard are NOT the new Susans MacDougal.

    2. Sometimes sovereign states take people out. I wonder if you high and righteous folks think think the US has ever murdered a journalist?

      Here’s a potential maybe for you. Gary Webb. Investigated the Contras and Cia connection. Committed suicide by shooting himself in the head, twice. Amazing, huh? That was in 2004 when Bill Clinton was president. Prolly just a coincidence. Now supposedly Clinton helped out with the Contras by providing Mena Arkansas landing strip for protected importation of coke. But that’s probably just a lie huh.

      Maybe you have heard of Freeway Rick Ross. Most people haven’t but he’s an interesting figure.

      1. I see Clinton’s name, did you somehow forget Ronald Reagan and Oliver North when discussing the Contra’s and the CIA. Regarding reporters, Woodward & Bernstein got multiple death threats while investigating that Nixon fellow. Just trying to keep your view from being so one-sided.

        1. No i didnt forget them. Those are your evil Republicans. And Demmocratic saint Bill Clinton was right along in the scheme with them. Isn’t that interesting?

          It’s not my view that’s one sided. I am realistic. You are one of those who come here moralizing like a pious preacher. Oh, terrible Donald, has investments with Saudis. Oh terrible Donald, has a friend who prints fake news. Oh Terrible Donald, pays as little taxes as he can. Do you think he’s very different from Democrats? Hell I always thought he was a Democrat until the last election.

          Yes, I remember Reagan. That reminds me. If Prince were alive he might like the Donald for talking to Putin. Remember this one?

          “Ronnie Talk to Russia Before IT’s too late, before the blow up the world”

            1. I have tried to follow your objections but mostly it just sounds like anti Donald cheerleading from a list of DNC talking points.

              But do you as a person a real thinking human being with your own opinions, do you have a specific list of policy differences?

              For example, do you favor illegal immigration by would be migrant workers who will work for pennies on the dollar compared to an american born unskilled worker?

              Do you favor belligerent actions which endanger the security of the US by further provocations with Russia in regional flashpoints like Syria? Or do you favor antagonizing Russia over Donetsk region which sits on its very borders so that Ukraine can join NATO? Does that seem wise or good for Americans considering Russia has nuclear annihilation aimed and deliverable to us here by ICBMs in a half hour?

              Do you favor continued “free trade” with China that allows its steel companies to pollute freely, operate with zero no labor protections and have currency manipulating favors and other subsidies to boot? Are you in favor of socalled free trade that makes American companies compete with that kind of state favoritism?

              If your answer is No to all of those, then maybe you might like Donald Trump! Give him a look./

              1. Trump has very few actual policies. He’s mostly against everything done before him, particularly iif Obama did it. He’s against NATO, the TPP, NAFTA (which he got changed minutely band touts as a big new deal), the Iran Treaty, Russiqan Sanctions. His Trade Wars are hurting more than helping and his rhetoric is dividing the nation. He has no real policies because he doesn’t understand much. I’m not saying he can’t read, he can stumble through a passage, he doesn’t read. He’s intentionally unintelligent, which anyone listening to him for more than a few moments can ascertain. And then he’s a criminal that believes everyone else is too stupid to notice.

                1. Enigma, ignorance seems to be your strong suit.

                  “He’s against NATO”

                  He is for NATO paying their fair share. He is not for ending NATO.


                  He got a better deal.

                  “Iran Treaty”

                  He doesn’t want Iran to get nuclear weapons insured by the Iran treaty and he is depriving Iran of funds with the boycott that is working.


                  A work in progress

                  “Russiqan Sanctions”

                  You are schizo. You take both sides. HE has deprived the oligarchs and Putin the use of their funds and continued with Russian sanctions

                  ” His Trade Wars are hurting more than helping ”

                  His trade wars are working and China has started to concede. In the meantime lots of money is coming into our treasury. His ultimate main goal is to stop Chinese theft of intellectual property

                  All of these things were neglected by Obama.

                  “his rhetoric is dividing the nation”

                  If one listens to you one can easily see where the rhetoric comes from that divides the nation. It isn’t Trump who is doing a fabulous job.

                  You are an idiot.

        2. “Woodward & Bernstein got multiple death threats while investigating that Nixon fellow.”

          How does Enigma know about the death threats except for possible self-promoting talk? How does he know who made the threats? It seems Enigma is quite superficial in his evaluations of things of this nature. I am sure when buying a house for himself Enigma looks deeper for problems than the recently applied paint.

          1. Death threats. LOL. I have been threatened plenty. Worse was the times when somebody snuk up on me.

            So what are death threats, legally speaking? It varies and sometimes not even legally actionable. Here read up on it the “countours of the law.”


            Generally if somebody intends to kill, they do NOT threaten, because they do not wish to spook the game. So don’t worry too much about threats. Worry about those who do not threaten only act.

            Anyhow Woodward, he’s a boring writer, in spite of being quite creative.

            1. Much of Woodward’s work is not adequately documented so sometimes one might think he would be placed in the fiction category instead of non fiction. In that category I don’t think his books would sell. He is creative but not creative enough. I ahve read a number of his books and don’t find him very good in either category.

          2. I never heard about death threats received by Woodward and Bernstein, but I suppose it’s possible.
            In some recent examples where “threats” were given as THE reason for cancelling a press conference, or Congressional testimony, I never saw the words “death threat”.
            In cases where the there is an anticipated, long-awaited appearance or testimony, a nebulous reference to “threats” seems to be a sufficient and acceptable excuse for those who really need to believe in some kind of conspiracy to silence the terrified victim or witness.
            I don’t know if anyone ever bothers to report these alleged threats to the authorities; maybe the “threat” included a warning not to report it to law enforcement, but to only proclaim it publically.😒
            For those inclined to believe the targets of the alleged threats, it’s an easy “fill-in-the-gaps” step to assume a. that there actually were threats, b. that they were “death threats, and c. that the alleged threats, and only the “threats”, is what prevented an appearance or testimony.

        3. Did they have anything to do with anything? If not why not spit it out with the references instead of making things up?

      2. Matlock, the humble country lawyer said, “That was in 2004 when Bill Clinton was president.”

        Well then, I suppose that proves it. Whatever “it” is. It’s not immediately clear whether or not it even matters what the blazes Matlock, the humble country lawyer, was trying to get at. Beat me.

        1. I would never shrink from being compared to Andy Griffith or Matlock. Indeed i have a seersucker suit to fit the bill.

          I was referring to rumors such as were reported in the Wall STreet Journal many years ago, that Bill Clinton was complicit with rogue CIA orchestrated Contra financing drug smuggling into Arkansas via Mena airport. Entiendes Usted?

          1. In what year did Bill Clinton stop being President?

            Who was President in the year 2004?

            1. geo bush was president
              79-81, 83-92 bill clinton was gov of arkansas

              you don’t get it, but i didn’t spell it out well either.

              1. Mr Kurtz says: February 12, 2019 at 12:35 PM

                Gary Webb. Investigated the Contras and Cia connection. Committed suicide by shooting himself in the head, twice. Amazing, huh? That was in 2004 when Bill Clinton was president. Prolly just a coincidence. Now supposedly Clinton helped out with the Contras by providing Mena Arkansas landing strip for protected importation of coke. But that’s probably just a lie huh
                Mr Kurtz says: February 12, 2019 at 5:17 PM

                geo bush was president 79-81, 83-92 bill clinton was gov of arkansas you don’t get it, but i didn’t spell it out well either.

                There is precisely and exactly just nothing to be gotten from what Mr. Seersucker Suit wrote. And that’s the whole and sole unreason that Matlock didn’t spell it out at all, let alone very well, either.

                1. Perhaps, someone in here is in the “know” and can explain the contents of the notes, as others would like to “know.”

                  Okay. Thank you.

                  1. I don’t do rabbit holes. If you want to experience the Velveteen caress of the Nerf mallet, you have to pop your head up from out of a Whack-A-Mole hole.

                    1. The toy rabbit cries, a real tear drops onto the ground, and a marvelous flower appears. A fairy steps out of the flower and comforts the velveteen rabbit, introducing herself as the Nursery Magic Fairy. She says that, because he has become Real to the boy who truly loves him, she will take him away with her and “turn [him] into Real” to everyone.

                      The fairy takes the rabbit to the forest, where she meets the other rabbits and gives the velveteen rabbit a kiss. The velveteen rabbit changes into a real rabbit and joins the other rabbits in the forest. The next spring, the rabbit returns to look at the boy, and the boy sees a resemblance to his old velveteen rabbit.

                    2. I found the Velveteen rabbit, soaking in a tub.

                      Last known location: somewhere in Asia.

Comments are closed.