Fight or Flight: Why An Obstruction Case Against Trump Is Likely To Fail

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the known basis for an obstruction case against President Donald Trump. While much more has been learned since the appointment of the Special Counsel, there remains considerable doubt about a prosecutable case for obstruction.

Here is the column:

“The wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are bold as a lion.” Like all proverbs, this well known saying is often better understood in the abstract. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between “flight” and “fight.” From the perspective of his critics, President Trumpevidences guilt at every turn and in every tweet. For Trump, his moves are merely the result of being a “counter puncher” who attacks when he is threatened.

The question of perception goes directly to the heart of the obstruction allegations leveled against him. Indeed, for someone approaching these questions as a criminal defense lawyer, disputes over perception can be the death of a prosecution. Crimes must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. They cannot be purely matters of perception. That has been the case regarding the obstruction allegations made against the president.

recently explored the status of the public evidence of collusion based crimes. It is now time to look at the status of obstruction of justice from information revealed in court filings, congressional investigations and witness statements. While special counsel Robert Mueller could offer new incriminating evidence in his final report, the evidentiary record remains strikingly anemic as a basis for criminal obstruction charges.

The issue is not optics but intent. Trump could not have created worse optics in his various actions and comments. He also acted inappropriately i reportedly pressuring officials to intervene either with Comey or to push to clear his name publicly. One of the most inappropriate moments came when Trump reportedly pushed Comey to go easy on Trump’s former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. However, that incident is an example of how the same conduct can have widely different explanations. Trump can easily defend his statements as showing compassion for someone who had already resigned in disgrace. He was not reportedly asking for an end of the investigation.

Thus far, obstruction remains the bomb that never went off. Mueller has not been fired, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker did not move to limit the investigation, and Trump has not pardoned key witnesses or associates before they could cooperate or testify. More importantly, any obstruction case must meet the elements of an obstruction crime, which usually involves obstructing a grand jury or destroying evidence. As I previously discussed, there are significant problems in shoehorning these facts into the criminal code and serious implications of stretching such definitions for future cases. Here are the most cited obstruction theories.

The firing of the FBI director

Before Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, some of us opposed the appointment of a special counsel absent a cognizable crime. The firing in May 2017 changed all of that. The result was predictable and catastrophic. Many of us, including some Republican congressional leaders, called for a special counsel to open an investigation. The president had supplied the very criminal allegation that had been missing in the collusion theories.

However, the obstruction theory tied to firing Comey has not improved with time. There were ample independent reasons to fire him. As the memorandum by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had detailed, Comey was denounced by several former and current Justice Department officials for his poor judgment and violation of standard FBI procedures.

While former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe wrote that Rosenstein felt pressured to write the memorandum, Rosenstein has stood by his assessment of Comey and the basis for his termination. Moreover, after the firing, Trump took no action to stop or curtail the investigation and appointed Christopher Wray, who is widely praised for his independence.

Russian meeting and interview

The political damage from firing Comey was magnified the next day when Trump met with Russian officials in the Oval Office. This was followed by perhaps the most disastrous press interview in our modern presidential history. The May 2017 interview with Lester Holt of NBC News would do little for an obstruction case. Yet, Trump began by giving his reason for firing Comey as a “grandstander” who left the FBI in “turmoil.” It was only later that Trump made the infamous statement, “I said to myself, I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story.”

However, Trump already said that he had made up his mind on Comey. He declared, “I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it.” Indeed, he said he knew that the timing “will confuse people” and that he might “lengthen the time” of the investigation. These comments can be defended as obfuscation rather than obstruction. What Trump said to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak present more of problem. He told the Russian diplomats the very next day after firing Comey, “I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That is taken off.”

There is no question that Trump tied his firing of Comey to his desire to reduce pressure from the investigation. However, the statement would not be difficult for a defense attorney to address. Trump met with the Russians to restart relations between the United States and Russia. He can easily claim that he was trying to show that he would not be negotiating from a weak or vulnerable position. Trump will likely claim that he was assuring the Russians that he could cut any deal and was not in anyway hamstrung in going forward. Moreover, if Trump had sought to end the investigation, he failed to act along those lines in appointing the successor to Comey.

The Trump Tower statement

The Trump Tower meeting statement drafted by the president on Air Force One was yet another example of taking a hammer to his own head. He falsely suggested that the meeting was arranged to discuss the ban on Russian adoptions. It was, in fact, arranged for the express purpose of getting some promised evidence of criminal conduct by Hillary Clinton.

The statement, however, does very little to show obstruction. First, the question is, to obstruct what? The meeting took place in June 2016, long after the Russian email hacking operations were launched against the Democrats. It has no apparent connection to any collusion. Second, it does not constitute a crime to receive this kind of evidence from foreign sources or governments. No such evidence has been reported.

Finally, and most important, the obvious defense and likely truth is that Trump was “spinning” a negative story. He is not the first president to do so. The falsehood was the description of the purpose rather than the content of the meeting. Witnesses agreed that it ended shortly after it began when it became clear that the Russians only wanted to talk about adoptions. That is not worth much as evidence of obstruction of justice.

The tweets and attacks

The final evidence often cited is the litany of hostile and conflicting public statements made by Trump on Twitter and in interviews. Trump seems to encourage witnesses like Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, and Roger Stonenot to cooperate with Mueller while attacking every negative disclosure. Trump has continued to make damaging comments despite the universal view among his lawyers that he only harms himself and his administration.

The problem is that these controversial statements are his political modus operandi, not just with the Russia investigation but on trade, immigration, foreign policy, and virtually every sensitive topic in the news. Trump also believes in a “deep state” conspiracy against him, a suspicion fueled by internal FBI emails showing open bias against him and his election. Trump proceeded to counter punch his way into an obstruction investigation, but these public comments would make for a poor prosecution against him.

For now, the obstruction theories against the president far outstrip the available evidence of the crime. Yes, Trump could not have worked harder to build a federal obstruction case against himself. Yet, as baffling as his conduct and comments have proven over the course of this investigation, Trump appears more guilty of obsessive rather than obstructive conduct.

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

322 thoughts on “Fight or Flight: Why An Obstruction Case Against Trump Is Likely To Fail”

  1. Yeow!! Outstanding work L4D.

    BUT!!!….was it ‘gag me with a spoon’ lame??

    Because…as you explained elsewhere…”Gagging someone with a spoon is typically done to induce vomiting” So…this one’s for you darlin’…nyuk, nyuk, nyuk… 🙂

      1. Doh! Looks like Darren deleted the other post instead of this one. This was supposed to be a reply to L4D’s comment on the previous page….ah well…

        But….now there’s an idea….a cup of good ol’ hemlock tea…hey, it worked for Socrates… 😉

        1. So you tore your Achilles tendon instead of pulling your hamstring stretching for a lame joke about the acronym LGBT.

          (Were you wearing stiletto heels at the time, T-Bob? Those things are dangerous, you know. Stick to ARMY boots. They’re safer.)

          1. Yeow! you’re slipping, L4D…seriously, this is NOT your best work…as they say in the ARMY: BE ALL that you CAN BE, darlin’ 😉

  2. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/16/senate-panel-probing-meetings-between-russians-and/

    Senate panel probing meetings between Russians and Obama economic officials

    The Senate Finance Committee is probing meetings reportedly held in 2015 between two of former President Barack Obama’s top economic officials and Maria Butina, a Russian national who later pleaded guilty to conspiring to covertly influence U.S. foreign policy, the panel said Friday.

    Committee leadership published letters sent to the current heads of the U.S. Treasury Department and Federal Reserve raising concerns over reports that Ms. Butina, a 30-year-old gun-rights activist, met with officials from the agencies during the Obama administration.

    “The Senate Finance Committee has a constitutional responsibility to engage in vigilant oversight of entities and government agencies within its jurisdiction,” wrote Senators Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, and Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, the committee’s chairman and ranking member, respectively. “A critical issue facing the Committee and the country is the extent to which the Russian government engaged in efforts designed to undermine our political system and governmental policy through obfuscation and manipulation.”

    Reuters first reported last year that Ms. Butina and Alexander Torshin, a former top official for the Russian Central Bank, met in 2015 with Stanley Fischer, then-Federal Reserve vice chairman, and Nathan Sheets, then-Treasury undersecretary for international affairs, to discuss “U.S.-Russian economic relations during Democratic former President Barack Obama’s administration.”

    Mr. Torshin was sanctioned by the Treasury Department in April 2018, and Butina was arrested three months later and charged with acting as an unregistered agent of the foreign government. She subsequently pleaded guilty to a related count of conspiracy and is awaiting sentencing.

    “Given what is now known about them from public court filings, it is concerning that Ms. Butina and Mr. Torshin were able to gain access to high-level administration officials to reportedly discuss U.S. Russian economic relations,” Mr. Grassley and Mr. Wyden wrote in letters seeking details about the meetings.

    “Furthermore, it is imperative to understand the substance and extent to which Ms. Butina and Mr. Torshin lobbied other administration officials in an effort to change U.S. policy toward Russia or other countries and whether decisions were made as a result of these meetings,” the senators wrote.

    The letters were sent Thursday to Steven Mnuchin, the secretary of the Treasury, and Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve. Messages seeking comment from both agencies were not immediately answered over the weekend.

    A third letter was sent to Dimitri K. Simes, the president and CEO of the Center for the National Interest, a nonprofit group Reuters credited with organizing the meetings. A representative for the center did not immediately respond to a similar inquiry.

    Butina attempted to infiltrate groups including the National Rifle Association as part of a secret effort to “establish unofficial lines of communications” between D.C. and Moscow, according to prosecutors. She pleaded guilty to conspiring to act as an unregistered foreign agent but has denied acting as a spy for the Russian government.

    Moscow leaders have condemned the case and labeled Butina a “political prisoner.”

    A former politician, Mr. Torshin, 65, served as deputy governor of the Central Bank of Russia from 2015 through 2018. Federal prosecutors allege he effectively served as Butina’s handler prior to her arrest.

      1. Evidently Estovir is oblivious to the avatars in front of the comments.

        That’s hardly the only thing that’s lost on Estovir.

    1. Mr Assault and Battery Hypocrite

      https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/alec-baldwin-pleads-guilty/

      Alec Baldwin Pleads Guilty

      NEW YORK – Alec Baldwin pleaded guilty to a second-degree harassment violation stemming from the assault and battery incident when he punched a man during a dispute over a New York City parking spot late last year.

      The hotheaded actor appeared Wednesday morning in a Manhattan courtroom, where he agreed to the district attorney’s recommendation that he attend a short anger management program as part of his plea, reported FOX News.

      Moreover, the prosecutor said at the hearing that they were able to go over video and complaints. Since Baldwin, 60, didn’t have a criminal record, they recommended a violation charge of harassment in the second degree.

      As part of the sentence, Baldwin will also have to pay a mandatory surcharge of $120 and provide proof of payment and completion of the anger management courses by March 27. Consequently, photographs and video evidence of the incident will be destroyed upon disposition of the case.

      Alec Baldwin, the hotheaded actor, will be required to attend an anger management course as part of his plea agreement. (Gage Skidmore)
      The actor’s lawyer had no comment as he left the New York City courtroom.

      Baldwin previously denied punching anyone in the Nov. 2 clash. However, police said at the time that Baldwin and the man started arguing and pushing each other after the man parked in a spot that the actor said a family member was holding for him.

      Although the D.A. said Baldwin did not have a criminal record, the New York dustup was not his first run in with the law for the notoriously tantrum-prone star. Baldwin was cuffed in 2014 after he became “belligerent” with a police officer who stopped him on his bike after he was riding in the wrong direction.

      NYPD told Fox News at the time that Baldwin, who had no identification on him, “refused to [identify] himself, became belligerent, cursing and yelling. He was then placed in handcuffs.”

      Baldwin went on a Twitter rant after that arrest, posting the arresting officer’s name and badge number. The actor tweeted that he was taken into custody while “photographers outside my home ONCE AGAIN terrified my daughter and nearly hit her with a camera. The police did nothing.”

          1. “Baldwin just happens to be the messenger, Estovir.”

            Baldwin is the messenger of the theory that it is ok to beat your wife, wear black face and rape women as long as one supports the left. You sound pretty screwed up.

            1. WHY DO WE HAVE TWO ANONYMOUS’..??

              Seriously, this is annoying. It’s like one sock puppet talking to another. Then we get this dumb debate regarding Alex Baldwin that seems to spring out of nowhere.

                1. Mr. H, if you’re reading, the Anonymous directly above this post is the one and only original anonymous, who used to have a two-toned green avatar of the same colors as, but a different pattern than, Paul C. Schulte. It’s possible that the colors assigned to the avatars might be like unto “vintages.”

                  I can’t think of a clear way to explain how to tell the several Anonymous commenters apart. Except that the brown and gray Anonymous avatar occurs when you don’t fill in the user name field. But, if you type the name Anonymous in the user name field, then you get whatever avatar color pattern was originally assigned to your email address–or something.

                  Meanwhile, you should be able to tell the difference between, say, Tom Nash versus Mark M., for instance, just by analyzing the writing style. As for the one and only original anonymous, the positions she takes on the issues at hand are a helpful hint–if you can remember them. Otherwise, try to notice how quickly The Nasty Boys heap the coals high atop my sister’s head. They seem to be reading her loud and clear, Mr. H.

      1. the hero of the Left, wife beater Alec Baldwin…

        https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/alec-baldwin-due-in-court-on-charges-he-punched-over-parking/ar-BBSCtre

        Alec Baldwin pleads guilty to harassing motorist

        NEW YORK — Alec Baldwin has pleaded guilty to harassing a man during a dispute over a parking spot last fall.

        The 60-year-old actor appeared in a New York City courtroom Wednesday.

        Actor Alec Baldwin arrives in a New York City court, Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2019, for a hearing on charges that he slugged a man during a dispute over a parking spot last fall. He’s charged with misdemeanor attempted assault and harassment, a violation.

        Baldwin has denied punching anyone in the Nov. 2, 2018, clash. The former “30 Rock” star’s lawyer says he’ll be vindicated by “incontrovertible video evidence .” (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan) © The Associated Press Actor Alec Baldwin arrives in a New York City court, Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2019, for a hearing on charges that he slugged a man during a dispute over a parking spot last fall. He’s charged with misdemeanor attempted assault and harassment, a violation. Baldwin has denied punching anyone in the Nov. 2, 2018, clash. The former “30 Rock” star’s lawyer says he’ll be vindicated by “incontrovertible video… He agreed to complete a one-day anger management class to resolve the criminal case.

        The charge is a violation, the lowest level of offense. If he completes the class, the case record will be sealed.

        Baldwin was accused of trying to punch another driver during a Nov. 2 argument over a parking spot in front of his Manhattan apartment building.

        The former “30 Rock” star’s lawyer had said Baldwin would be vindicated by video evidence.

        Baldwin only spoke a few words during the court hearing, mostly answering short questions from the judge. He wouldn’t comment afterward.

          1. Pope Pius VI never rode his bicycle in the wrong direction. Or if he did, he never got handcuffed for it. Or if he did, he never became belligerent with . . . Actually, I’m not so sure about that last incomplete sentence.

            No. Wait. I’ve got it. Pope Pius VI never beat his wife. (Gee. That took too long to figure out. Sorry.)

            1. “That took too long”

              You were never accused of being quick thinking on these forums, nor for that matter, a thinker

                1. Maybe Estovir was riding in The Cash Cab and took a Call Out or a Shout Out to Ralph Adamo–or something.

                  How else does one get information about Pope Pius VI on short notice? Don Pablo Eschoolbus? Hmmm.

  3. Repeat From Lower Thread

    THAT 20 MILLION NUMBER AGAIN

    Here the hated Shill responds to Tom Nash regarding that 20 Million estimate from the Yale Study.

    Tom, I don’t remember the Professor addressing that. Whatever. If you want to go with that 20 million it means more came in the 90’s than we calculated then.

    But the study says their numbers haven’t grown significantly since the Great Recession. Which explains why farmers and ranchers report labor shortages.

    A demographic surge was hitting us back in the 90’s. A Baby Boom of Mexicans born in the 1970’s. That surge peaked around 2000. At that point enrollment peaked at L.A. Public Schools. 2000 was also a peak year for Border Apprehensions.

    The ‘Real Border Crisis’ was in the 1990’s. And that’s why Bill Clinton started the fence back then. Which George W improved on after 9/11. By the time Obama took office, the border was relatively stable.

    All this means Donald Trump has America arguing over a crisis that peaked 20 years ago. Putin must be laughing.

    The current crisis is Climate Change. We must prepare for rising seas and hotter summers.

    Smart planning could mean growth industries. But lack of planning will catch us flat-footed; overwhelmed as storm damage bankrupts too many.

  4. The idea that trump wanted comey to go easy on Flynn could be explained as “showing compassion” is laughable when one considers trump’s track record. I have no doubt that a jury would convict Trump of obstruction based on the totality of his actions. Turley makes the mistake of an academic who analytically dissects a case without seeing the big picture, which a jury would surely do.

    1. JF Palmer,…
      If you “have no doubt that a jury would convict Trump of obstruction”, why do you think it is that the House does not impeach if it’s a slam dunk?
      The threshold for the amount of proof needed for the House to impeach is actually less than the level of proof a jury is supposed to have before convicting someone.
      So if there supposedly is proof of obstruction, what’s the holdup on impeaching Trump?

    2. I have no doubt that a jury would convict Trump of obstruction based on the totality of his actions.

      Well, you’re going to be disappointed.

    3. ” laughable when one considers trump’s track record. ”

      John Palmer, why don’t you provide the proven track record that brings you to this conclusion?

      I think I have asked this or a similar question over a dozen times and for some reason I never hear an answer. Perhaps that means those making this type of statement do so for emotional reasons rather than factual ones.

  5. The SCO shows us a tiny tad more about those terabytes of voluminous and complicated data as excerpted from a hearing for Roger Stone’s request for a different judge:

    In the course of investigating that activity [the GRU hack and leak operation], the government obtained and executed dozens of search warrants on various accounts used to facilitate the transfer of stolen documents for release, as well as to discuss the timing and promotion of their release. Several of those search warrants were executed on accounts that contained Stone’s communications with Guccifer 2.0 and with Organization 1.

    [end excerpt]

    Dozens of search warrants on “various accounts used to facilitate the transfer of stolen documents for release . . .”(?) Would those be ISP email accounts that the GRU used to ex-filtrate the hacked emails from the rented routers in Illinois and Arizona? And that’s where the SCO found Stone’s communications with Guccifer 2.0 (a.k.a. the GRU) and Organization 1 (a.k.a. Wikileaks)? Doesn’t it make you wonder what else the SCO found in the dozens of warrant returns that presumably add to the “terabytes of voluminous and complicated data”? For instance, communications between Julian Assange and The GRU? Or communications between Julian Assange and Ted Malloch? Or communications between Ted Maloch and Dr. Jerome Corsi? How about communications between Stone and Guccifer 2.0 on the subject of the DNC data analytics that the GRU hacked from the Amazon Web Services cloud storage on September 24th, 2016? Are we sure, really sure, that the indictment and trial of Roger Stone is the end of the line for Mueller’s special counsel investigation???

  6. Our guy didn’t win, so now we have to get this guy out office. No, there’s no such thing as a deep state.

    1. As I’m sure you know, Mike Pence won that election, too, I-Bob. Getting Trump out of office puts Pence in that office. Putting Pence in Trump’s office does not overturn the election result. In fact, that outcome would only reconfirm the 2016 election result.

  7. Repeat From Lower Thread

    ALAN CONTENDS UNDOCUMENTED COUNT COUD BE 20 MILLION

    Alan, I mentioned before that I live in Los Angeles. We know where immigrants are living. City officials are aware of what’s happening in districts. It’s not like millions hide in plain sight.

    Cops know which districts speak the most Spanish. Building inspectors know which districts have the most violations. Social Workers know which districts are neediest.

    American cities have several measures of estimating population counts. By cross checking statistics on charts, cities can measure a number of activities indicating ‘where’ people are.

    Crime, Medical Emergencies, Water & Power Usage, Sales Tax Revenues, Vehicle and Foot Traffic, Trash Collections, Postal Deliveries, Parking Violations & Tows, Public Transit and most notably School Enrollments indicate ‘where’ people are.

    It’s true across America: Texas, Chicago, New York and Miami. Municipal officials ‘know’ where activity is. Cities employ Spanish Speaking officials to learn where immigrants are.

    So this idea that ‘No one knows how many illegals are here’ presumes every city is totally ignorant of common indicators. Like no one keeps statistics. Like city employees never visit the districts they serve.

    And I guess if you’re a Republican you might presume everyone in government is dumb. That would justify your ‘Starve The Beast’ perspective.

    So maybe in that context one could say “Cities are dumb”. “They don’t really know who’s living where”. But that’s a dumb assumption.

    1. Sluggo (that’s Allan) is the poster-boy for “never letting the facts, nor reason, get in the way of a perfectly gross exaggeration for the sake of rousing the rabble.” (See: Socialist Baby-Killers in Blackface, for comparison).

      1. Diane, you never have been good with numbers so let us hear what number you think is correct and how that number was calculated.

        1. I’m perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that the 16 Million figure might be correct. I am not, however, willing simply to assume that it is correct. Consider this: If the actually enumerated figure were 11 Million, then the 16 Million figure would entail 5 Million undocumented immigrants who had not actually been enumerated. 5 Million goes into 330 Million 66 times. I’m willing to concede that 1 in every 66 people currently residing in the US might be more easily hidden from the demographers than any of the numbers of hidden people that Sluggo/Allan has assumed.

          1. “I’m perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that the 16 Million figure might be correct.”

            Diane, how about the 29 million figure that is equally correct?

            The rest of the comment represents the thinking process of an inmate in a state mental facility.

            We know Diane that you can add, subtract, divide and multiply, but that sounds like the extent of your mathematical knowledge so to many on this blog the numbers you are throwing out sound extremely ignorant.

        1. I forgot about that Sluggo. I was thinking about The Classic Sluggo at the link below. Besides, Allan is obviously a claymation figurine. Oh!Nooooooo! Wait. Make that a Larry Klaymanation figurine, instead.

          https://blog.retroplanet.com/mr-bill-pop-culture-icon-of-the-1970s/

          Jul 2, 2008 … His homemade movie – a parody of bad animation – won a contest held … Mr. Bill’s enemy, another clay character named Sluggo, inflicting the …

        2. Peter, it isn’t really important. Demented people frequently remember things from earlier times and believe they remain sharp when in fact they are quite dull.

    2. Peter, your ignorance is astounding. The reason the numbers of illegals in this country are estimated between 10-20 million is precisely because no one knows for sure and people use various methods to get to their numbers. Based on estimates of this nature from what I have seen the higher numbers are likely more accurate.

      The one person that might have an in depth understanding of how the various totals are being calculated is DSS. Ask him.

      1. Alan, ‘I’ know population numbers. It’s been my favorite subject since grade school. I know the populations of U.S. cities going back to 1790.

        The U.S. Census Bureau ‘has’ been keeping track of undocumented numbers. But ironically the Trump Administration wants to sabotage those counts. Trump actually wants to make it ‘harder’ for the Census Bureau to gage those estimates. There’s a lawsuit going on right now regarding that matter.

        Trump doesn’t want accurate counts of big cities; especially in California. He wants to punish California by under-counting its cities. That way we’ll be getting ‘less’ money from the Federal government. This story has been widely covered in mainstream media. Trump’s Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, has been at the center of this story.

        For years the U.S. Census Bureau’s estimate of undocumented people has ranged between 10-12 million. That number has been somewhat stagnant because large numbers of Mexicans went home during The Great Depression. And we know they never returned because farmers and ranchers throughout the west have reported labor shortages since the recession.

        It wasn’t until Trump had trouble getting wall money that we heard this ’20 million’ figure. I never heard this number until just this week. And I have yet to see this number in mainstream media. I think this number is actually coming from Trump himself. And almost all Trump’s numbers regarding this matter come from far-right sources. Trump actually prefers far-right sources to official government agencies!

        The controversies surrounding Trump’s numbers illustrates why half the country hates Trump so much. Trump never has command of facts! That’s what makes Trump such a polarizing figure; journalists can never substantiate his claims on much of anything. Which leads to endless arguments regarding the real facts.

        1. “Alan, ‘I’ know population numbers. It’s been my favorite subject since grade school. I know the populations of U.S. cities going back to 1790.”

          Peter, memorizing things doesn’t mean much in my book. It doesn’t help in the mathematics, statistics and logic nor does it provide any degree of wisdom.

          I don’t want to go into all your issues except you have too much reliance on what people tell you without recognizing that people tell you what they wish you to know. They have you eating out of their hand while they praise you for being able to memorize numbers.

          Your major beef seems to be Trump wants a census to be accurate as far as the number of American citizens and is placing the question of citizenship back onto the census form something that used to be done.

          ” He wants to punish California by under-counting its cities. That way we’ll be getting ‘less’ money from the Federal government.”

          Why shouldn’t we know how many citizens reside in California? Why should California’s representation increase because they invite illegal aliens to reside there? That is California’s problem that California is pushing onto the rest of the nation. These illegals should be applying for citizenship just like others have that became citizens legally and are now losing a portion of their vote while being taxed to provide for ILLEGALS!

          Trump is merely disclosing the truth, something you wish to hide yet want to blame on Trump. You are a funny guy.

        2. Peter, you heard it before because I brought that study up back in october or something when i first caught wind of it. you explained it away at the time, I don’t remember how.

          you just forgot

        1. Tom, this study is interesting, but not helpful to Trump’s claims. Here are key passages:
          …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

          There are key areas of agreement between this paper and the existing survey numbers. Both methods found that the greatest growth of the undocumented population happened in the 1990s and early 2000s. Both found that the population size has been relatively stable since 2008.

          “The trajectory is the same. We see the same patterns happening, but they’re just understating the actual number of people who have made it here,” says Fazel‐Zarandi. In his view, that suggests the survey method doesn’t effectively reach a group with incentives to stay undetected. “They are capturing part of this population, but not the whole population.”

          “The population today is equal to the initial population plus everyone who came in minus everyone who went out. It’s that simple.”

          In fact, some of the relevant data sets have only recently become available, so this approach might not have been possible for this particular puzzle, even a few years ago. Fazel‐Zarandi notes that 2015 was the first time that data on visa overstays was collected by the Department of Homeland Security.

          The paper examines the years 1990 to 2016. The initial population is a key component of all subsequent years’ calculations; Fazel‐Zarandi explains that the team chose 1990 as a starting point because it fell between the amnesty President Reagan offered for undocumented immigrants in 1986 and the rapid growth of illegal immigration in the 1990s.

          While the findings are startling, they aren’t describing a new situation. “We wouldn’t want people to walk away from this research thinking that suddenly there’s a large influx happening now,” says Feinstein. “It’s really something that happened in the past and maybe was not properly counted or documented.”
          Kaplan adds, “What we’re saying is the number has been higher all along.”

          Edited from Yale Study above.
          ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

          This study actually supports my claims that the main influx occurred during the 1990’s. Border Apprehensions reached their peak in 2000 and have fallen by 76% since then. So the real question is: “How many undocumented immigrants entered in the 1990’s?”

          1. MORE FROM TOM’S YALE STUDY (but not helpful to Trump)

            “One of the most common arguments in favor of a tougher immigration policy is that undocumented immigrants are coming with a lot of criminality,” Kaplan notes. But paradoxically, the new findings may undercut that argument. He points out that previous studies, based on the widely accepted total of 11.3 million undocumented immigrants, found that the rate of serious crimes committed by these immigrants is lower than for U.S. citizens. The new findings suggest that the rate is even lower than previously believed: “You have the same number of crimes but now spread over twice as many people as was believed before, which right away means that the crime rate among undocumented immigrants is essentially half whatever was previously believed.”

            With respect to the idea that undocumented immigrants take job opportunities from citizens, Kaplan points to different possible interpretations of the new findings. “The fact that there are actually more people here than we thought before might explain that, but you can also look at it the other way: whatever job displacement there has been happened with twice as many undocumented immigrants as we thought. That causes you to rethink just how much pressure there is.”

            1. Tom, you did the right thing by coming forth with this research. Any time you can find good studies like this, share them with us.

              Thanks

              1. Peter, I don’t here you apologizing for your nasty comments about my 20 million number when their number was actually higher. I am waiting for an appology.

                1. I forbid it. Sluggo can wait till hell freezes over and still not earn an apology from Mr. Hand for anything–not ever.

                  1. When Stalin forbid people from doing something such an action would lead to death or at least the gulag. Is that how you feel about Peter apologizing Diane?

                    Diane doesn’t like to admit the truth either.

                    1. Sluggo demanded an apology from Mr. H.

                      Sluggo is the Stalinist, here.

                      I hereby forbid anyone to capitulate to any of the unruly demands of the Stalinist, Sluggo.

                    2. “Sluggo demanded an apology from Mr. H.

                      Sluggo is the Stalinist, here.”

                      Diane, as a probable red diaper baby you accepted Stalin as a great leader. You will say anything and do anything if it satifies your ends. That is what a Stalinist is, at least in part. Your viewpoints and twisting of the truth is also the way Stalin managed things. Anyone who understands Stalin can see the characteristics of yours that would match Stalin’s supporters.

            2. Peter, you base the opinion of criminality on numbers not calculated by the authors. They used some else’s numbers that may or may not be correct.

              The same problem of hidden people exist when calculating the number of criminals in the illegal population. When a criminal has a false idendity that shows him to be an American he might not be counted as far as the number of criminals in the population. Additionally, the border wall is concerned with keeping new people out. The relationship between the amount of criminality in the old population vs the new population may be very different so don’t hang your hat on what you think is good logic. Too many holes and very poor logic.

          2. “Tom, this study is interesting, but not helpful ” (I didn’t see this posting until after I wrote my earlier one.)

            But Peter you were trying to claim that my 20 million people was rubbish and that the number was only 10 or 11 million. Somewhere I think you asked for credible proof.

            “ALAN CONTENDS UNDOCUMENTED COUNT COUD BE 20 MILLION”

            You even told us above how wonderful you were with population numbers. You failed.

            “” We know where immigrants are living.”

            Apparently not. You even take credit that this article proved you right on something no one disputed.

            The important thing is your rhetoric and how so easily you dismissed the 20
            million number which the study calculated to be as high as 29 million. You were totally wrong but can’t seem to admit it. One can see the ignorant arrogance of your opinions based on what you wish not reality. That is a major problem every time you write a post.

            I wait for your admission that you were wrong about the 20 million not being a reasonable number without trying to justify your error.

            1. 20 Million divided by 330 Million equals 6.06 repeating percent, or roughly 1 in 17 people.

              29 Million divided by 330 Million equals 8.78 repeating percent, or roughly 1 in 11 people.

              8.78 per hundred minus 6.06 per hundred equals 2.72 per hundred, or roughly 1 in 37 people.

              Exactly how easy does Sluggo think it is to hide 1 in 37 people?

              1. Also, is it easier to hide 1 in 37 people than it is to hide 1 in 26 people?

                Well, if you assume that those people exist, and if you can’t actually enumerate those people, then they simply must be easily hidden in the very act of assuming their existence in the first place. Eh–Sluggo?

                  1. 330 M divided by 29 M equals 11.379 blah blah blah. That’s 1 in every 11 people currently living in the US, Sluggo. Please explain how it might be possible in the first place for demographers to miss–as in overlook–1 in every 11 people currently living in the US.

                    1. Diane, you are repeating crazy logic again and again. You need some sleep.

                      I’ll repeat my prior answer.
                      “These people are only hidden from those that don’t want to know.or hidden if they break other laws such as steal identities.”

                    2. I think the migration from India is huge now. Just enormous. Then again, there are tons of Africans here now too.

                      If you talk about how do the foreigners look in big thronging masses that can be seen in the midwest, I think there are a lot more people of central asian origin here now, ie, Indians or Pakistanis, based on appearance. i found a study that seems to support my speculation
                      http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/03/india-is-a-top-source-and-destination-for-worlds-migrants/

                      I hear that shetou in Asia are still charging what they used to.
                      like 20-40K equivalent to USD. For decades now and still are charging this, for travel expense, visa, lodging and work opportunities on arrival in the US.

                      If there was supposedly a surfeit of migration coming during the “Great Recession” then I am not sure how it is that they are still charging that much for people to migrate. Demand would have collapsed. But it did not.

                      My sources for the prices now, are word of mouth, but this article confirms that was the price back in 1993 as well

                      https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/04/24/the-snakehead

                      Now right now they say the average Chinese worker makes around $12K or so USD equivalent a year. So that would imply, to me, that people are willing to pay the price of their gross expected salary for 2-4 years for the chance to migrate. Which means they generally plan to make a lot more than that, in the time in which they are confident they can stay.

                      It interesting, of course, that in this time from of two or three decades, the average household income for Chinese has gone up a lot, but apparently the price of a migration has been in the same range. one would think demand would have fallen off, and price might have slackened. So perhaps here economic opportunity is not the main driving factor. At least not for Chinese.

                      I speculate demand for migration from China is going to continue to be high, because of all the terrible oppression of the people by corrupt officials of the totalitarian Chinese government. These will lead to genuine reasons for asylum: fear of going home due to oppression for political and social factors. So, while it was one child policy before, maybe it will also be oppression of Chinese Muslim minorities, or Christians, Falun gong adherents, anti-corruption activists, whatever. China will keep on supplying the US with plenty of genuine asylees is my prediction. And America would be smart to take them especially if we think war is coming with China, these people will be assets, on the whole.

                      This all reminds me of the fact that in general, entry into the US is very easy. That is part of why some Democrats and people are dubious about “the wall.” The wall is not going to keep out millions of visa overstays who fly in on airplanes in the first place.

                      The wall is definitely aimed at staunching central american migration. I personally have no problem with that. It needs to be staunched. It is among the most problematic sources of migration we have.

              2. These people are only hidden from those that don’t want to know.or hidden if they break other laws such as steal identities.

                1. Deducing the existence of 29 Million hidden people from the assumption that at least one hidden person might actually exist is an impermissible use of tautology.

                  1. Apparently you don’t understand what a study is. This report of a Yale study by those that thought the ten million to be a correct number used methodologies far beyond your understanding to come to their conclusion that 16-29 million illegal aliens with a mean of 22.1 live in this country illegally.

                    Tell us what they did that causes you to disagree? Don’t tell us Stalin never needed proof and therefore they are wrong. We know that is the way you think.

        2. Thank you Tom. I wonder if Peter has any idea of what the following sentence means.

          “After running 1,000,000 simulations of the model, the researchers’ 95% probability range is 16 million to 29 million, with 22.1 million as the mean. ”

          Peter, are you going to add this set of numbers to your memory bank?

          Tom, it has long been suspected by many that the hidden illegal was not being counted. There was evidence taken from small counts and verifications.

          Peter you asked for credible information and Tom provided an exact citation to researchers. Now you have to let us know if this study is acceptable to your standards and what study is its equal that demonstrates a different number? Don’t walk away after someone went to the trouble of providing you what you asked for.

          1. Alan, the statistics say ’20 million’ is their highest hypothetical. They honestly don’t know if 20 million are really here. But the study says the more likely number is 16 million.

            But again those studies say the vast majority entered the country in the 1990’s. Which confirms what I have said. It also says there has been no significant increase since The Great Recession. Which confirms what I have said.

            So where is the ’emergency’..???? Answer: ‘There isn’t one’.

            Furthermore, the study says that if 20 million are really in the country, then crime rates among the ‘illegals’ is actually quite low. Which completely contradicts the claims Trump has made!

            In summation, this study is ‘not’ the least bit supportive of Trump.

            1. Mr. H, by analogy, Sluggo is demanding that you should prove that the unicorn population has not been under-counted on the assumption that the population of four-legged animals has been under-counted. I recommend requiring Sluggo first to prove that the four-legged animal population has been under-counted before assuming the existence of any number of under-counted unicorns. Savvy?

                1. At least one hidden person exists. Therefore 29 million hidden people exist.

                  That’s your argument from ignorance in a nutshell, Sluggo. It’s the same argument from ignorance that keeps the glitter on the unicorn population.

                  How many “hidden unicorns” illegally voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election?

                  1. Again Diane you are repeating some stupid thoughts. I will repeat just one answer to this bizarre response of yours.

                    Apparently you don’t understand what a study is. This report of a Yale study by those that thought the ten million to be a correct number used methodologies far beyond your understanding to come to their conclusion that 16-29 million illegal aliens with a mean of 22.1 live in this country illegally.

                    Tell us what they did that causes you to disagree? Don’t tell us Stalin never needed proof and therefore they are wrong. We know that is the way you think.

            2. 29 Million minus 16 Million equals 13 Million.
              13 Million divided by 330 Million is 4 percent, or 1 in 25 people.
              Sluggo is claiming that as many as 1 in 25 people might be undocumented immigrants, because . . .
              Because Sluggo assumes the under-counting of undocumented immigrants . . .
              Which does NOT prove the existence of any number of under-counted, undocumented immigrants.

              1. Diane, the Yale study was pretty good and done by those that were surprised the numbers were so high. You have trouble understanding such numbers because they exceedthe number of toes you have.

                1. Sluggo says that the people who did the Yale study have a 95% probability of sporting somewhere between 16 Million and 29 Million toes with the average being 22 Million toes. But, since Sluggo likes the 20 Million figure best, one should assume that Sluggo sports 2 Million fewer toes than average that the people who did in the Yale study sport.

                  1. Diane, you sound more and more ignorant with every post I read. I doubt very much you understand what the 95% means. You should also learn how an average differs from a mean.

            3. 16 Million is 55 percent of 29 Million.
              13 Million is 45 percent of 29 Million.
              13 Million is also 81 percent of 16 Million.
              The difference between the high number versus the low number is . . .
              four fifths of the low number and almost half of the high number.

              Exactly how incompetent would the demographers have to be to miss 1 in 25 people–assuming that those people actually exist because the demographers have thus far failed to confirm the existence of those people???

            4. “Alan, the statistics say ’20 million’ is their highest hypothetical. They honestly don’t know if 20 million are really here. But the study says the more likely number is 16 million.”

              Despite the article being readily available Peter can’t get it right. The authors state ” the researchers’ 95% probability range is 16 million to 29 million, with 22.1 million as the mean. 22.1 is higher than my number of 20 million that you derided. You were wrong the first time and wrong again now, but you can’t accept it. Tom provided a credible article. There is no way Peter can accept with grace that he was wrong. In future posts he will use the 16 million rather than accept the 22.1 million mean number.

              Peter goes on trying to justify himself. “the vast majority entered the country in the 1990’s.” No one disagrees. In fact at least in the past there was agreement that during the recession under Obama it was less likely for migration across the border. The recession is now over and it appears, based on numerous accounts from the border that large numbers of illegals are starting to enter again. Trump has obtained some cooperation from Mexico to break up the caravans but tent cities sit outside our border waiting to enter. More caravans are approaching. It is likely a new onslaught of illegals will be crossing and according to all the experts on the border a border wall will make it easier to stop and safer for the agents protecting the border.

              Then Peter jumps past what is known “then crime rates among the ‘illegals’ is actually quite low. ”

              That is a wrong conclusion to draw from the article. They didn’t study crime rates rather they provided a statement that actually didn’t belong. Just like many illegals were hidden from the count many criminal illegals likely are hidden and therefore not counted as illegals who are known to use false identification so likely when being arrested they are being identified as American instead of illegals.

              Peter can’t accept real numbers unless they agree with his ideology. Peter cannot admit when he is wrong which is most of the time.

              An appologiy is still pending.. You demonized my 20 million number and the mean number according to the article was 22.1 million. I will wait for an apology.

              1. Alan, if you want to go with 20 million or ’22 million’, that means the undocumented population has crime rates significantly lower than the national average. So where is the case for deporting them? Where is the ’emergency’?

                If you want an apology from me, you have to admit there is ‘no emergency’. That Yale report largely undermines most of Trump’s claims.

                If I was a Trumper, I think I’d rather stick with the more official number of 10-11 million. But even there the crime rates are relatively mild.

                1. “Alan, if you want to go with 20 million or ’22 million’, that means the undocumented population has crime rates significantly lower than the national average.”

                  Again, your logic fails Peter. This study was undertaken by people that thought the number of immigrants was much lower but this study found a 95% chance that the number of illegal immigrants here are as many as 29 million. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

                  The same poor measurements were used in figuring out the number of illegals here as the measurement of crime. The likelihood of crime being much greater than reported is very high. Ilegals assume American identities and are thought to be American when arrested.

                  The first problem with illegals is they break our laws just by crossing the border illegally so all of them are essentially criminals and should be treated that way even though I have fondness for many of them.

                  “If you want an apology from me, you have to admit there is ‘no emergency’. That Yale report largely undermines most of Trump’s claims.”

                  Rubbish. Only those ignorant of how studies are performed would draw such a conclusion and you seem to be one of them. One has to study of who is crossing the border today and one has to descern how many illegals have successfully hidden their illegal identity. Then one has to study drugs, sex trafficking and the deaths of many that would not have tried to come if our border had been secure.

                  You were wrong on the numbers just like you have been wrong on almost everything. This is documented in page after page of our discussions.

                  “If I was a Trumper, I think I’d rather stick with the more official number of 10-11 million. ”

                  Peter, that is the difference between you and me. I care about the truth something you don’t give a dam- about.

                  1. Alan, where does the study say ’29’ million..?? Highlight that part and paste it here. I didn’t see that number.

                    Your responses to this study have been alarmingly misleading. You pretend it references higher numbers than I saw. Yet you’re clearly dismissing the sections that undermine Trump’s case.

                    You’re creating spin to cast the report as a Trump-friendly document. It isn’t that at all. And now I’ve begun to seriously question your integrity.

                    What’s more your assertions on crime pretend that fingerprint files don’t exist. Like suspects can give any name to confuse the cops.

                    This Yale report, Alan, becomes a turning point. It makes me think you’re more devious than I previously imagined.

                    1. There’s a reason that Doubly Absurd is not backing Allan’s play on the number of undocumented immigrants. Doubly Absurd has been down this road with Sluggo on several occasions in the past. If Allan’s numbers were any good, then Doubly Absurd would not hesitate to defend Sluggo’s numbers. Given that Doubly Absurd is not defending Allan’s numbers, it’s a reasonable inference that Sluggo’s numbers are substantially make-believe.

                    2. “There’s a reason that Doubly Absurd is not backing Allan’s play on the number of undocumented immigrants. ”

                      Diane, I can’t believe how stupid you sound. Why would DSS (Absurd) enter the picture when we are dealing with article about a study referred here as the Yale study? The study seems credible and I am not providing the numbers the studies authors are and that has been repeated in an article. You have shown yourself to have another area of complete ignorance that I didn’t note before.

                      Learn what a study is. I cannot believe that you and Peter are so ignorant on the subject of studies. You have never learned how to derive or gather facts.

                    3. “Alan, where does the study say ’29’ million..?? Highlight that part and paste it here. I didn’t see that number.”

                      Of course you didn’t read the number. You are blind to facts and logic that disagree with your preconceived notions. Go back and look. It is quite clear. They gave a 95% probability (their study) that the number was between 16 million and 29 million with a mean of 22.1 million.

                      “Your responses to this study have been alarmingly misleading. You pretend it references higher numbers than I saw. Yet you’re clearly dismissing the sections that undermine Trump’s case.”

                      Not so. I am dealing with the logic and with the way studies are supposed to be read. It might be hard for you to understand the meaning of a study because that is not something you were trained to do. But you weren’t trained to be ignorant either so instead of rolling around in your ignorance look at what I said and you can see I am not dismissing anything except the cr-ap that you spew on a regular basis.

                      “You’re creating spin to cast the report as a Trump-friendly document. It isn’t that at all. And now I’ve begun to seriously question your integrity”

                      Quote exactly what I said that questions my integrity. Nothing. Your integrity doesn’t exist at all. I am solely dealing with the article about a study and dealing with what a study tells us. You are trying to impune another by making accusations with nothing to back those accusations up. You stated the number of illegal immigrants at around 10 million. I stated I thought the number was around 20 million or more. You wanted proof from a credible source and you got it. 16 million to 29 million with a mean of 22.1 million and all you have done since is try to prove my statement wrong and show how correct you were even though you were proven wrong.

                      “You’re creating spin to cast the report as a Trump-friendly document. It isn’t that at all. And now I’ve begun to seriously question your integrity. ”

                      You obviously know less than you think you do. You are ignorant when it comes to facts and even ignorant when it comes to population numbers where you bragged about your expertise.

                      “This Yale report, Alan, becomes a turning point. It makes me think you’re more devious than I previously imagined.”

                      Right. The authors of the report created it solely to back up my statements.

                      Anyone after reading your comments on this issue that doesn’t realize how dumb you sound needs to go back to grammar school. You have proven your intellectual dishonesty.

            5. That’s a matter of perspective. I think it’s plenty fair to characterize the country on Earth that takes the most migrants as the one which, if any, has an emergency.

              But relative size matters too. in the wake of the civil war in Greece, there were a million ,migrants arriving in a country the size of ten million. Greece was in big recession and totally unprepared for the migrant invasion.

              But consider the relative size was in that around 10% range. That is yet less than the amount of foreign born residents in America which is supposedly about 33.4 millions.

              Of course America is a big country and Greece a little one. Density is a factor. but i think and for sure many Americans think yes there is an emergency with the number of people decamping and moving to America.

              This is one of the biggest and migrations of history, certainly the rapidest, happening in decades what previously took centuries. And probably the only ones of comparable size and speed, was the waves of horse peoples out of the asian steppes, into the middle east and Europe. Oh, and from Attilla to Chinggis to Timur the Lame, that did not go so well for the natives.

              Who today has heard of Kwarezmia? They were reduced to mountains of skulls. By “migrants.”

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

              at the end of a migration if a native population is displaced, then to dead and displaced, it doesnt matter so much if the migrants right horses and swing swords or if they come in thronging masses of the feeble, sick, seemingly week. Auguste Comte said, “Demography is destiny”

              Look at the native American people. Maybe if they had taken a more belligerent posture towards peaceful European migrants like the Puritans, their fates might have been better off.

              1. i meant to say refugees into Greece from the civil war in Syria, that got omitted from above post.

                then again it reminds me that a lot of Greeks got kicked out of Turkey too, during the “population transfer” that happened in the wake of World War One and formation of the Turkish republic, yes, right around the Turks exterminated the Armenians, they ethnically cleansed huundreds of thousands of Greeks as well

                1. i guess if you know about history and have a strong identification with a people, then you may take a dimmer view of migration, and be more fearful of migration. Here’s another wall, that had varying levels of success, but definitely was a warranted effort at the time

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

                  and we can’t even have a damned fence?

        1. Tom, I don’t remember the Professor addressing that. Whatever. If you want to go with that 20 million it means more came in the 90’s than we calculated then.

          But the study says their numbers haven’t grown significantly since the Great Recession. Which explains why farmers and ranchers report labor shortages.

          A demographic surge was hitting us back in the 90’s. A Baby Boom of Mexicans born in the 1970’s. That surge peaked around 2000. At that point enrollment peaked at L.A. Public Schools. 2000 was also a peak year for Border Apprehensions.

          The ‘Real Border Crisis’ was in the 1990’s. And that’s why Bill Clinton started the fence back then. Which George W improved on after 9/11. By the time Obama took office, the border was relatively stable.

          All this means Donald Trump has America arguing over a crisis that peaked 20 years ago. Putin could be laughing.

          The current crisis is Climate Change. We must prepare for rising seas and hotter summers.

          Smart planning could mean growth industries. But lack of planning will catch us flat-footed; overwhelmed as storm damage bankrupts too many.

          Post repeats at top of thread for more discussion space.

          1. “Whatever. If you want to go with that 20 million ”

            No Peter, according to the article the number is a mean of 221. million. Try remembering that number.

            Changing the discussion to climate change doesn’t change the need for a wall.

            That many more entered than previously thought in the 1990’s doesn’t change the need for a wall.

            Relative stability is not determined by lower numbers.

            The threat that appeared before does not mean the threat doesn’t exist today

            Wbat we learned was our politicians didn’t follow through after somewhere in the vicinity of 10 million illegals were pardoned. That means according to the study we have just under 40 million illegals though 25% received a pardon. Enough is enough.

        2. Tom, intentionally or not Peter makes up a lot of his data. It is almost pathologic. I don’t think he recognizes that the ability to remember numbers doesn’t provide the ability to understand or calculate numbers that many on the blog have to be able to do in their life’s work.

  8. Off Topic but Deliciously Schadenfreude-y:

    America’s least favorite lawyer, Michael Avenatti, has gotten himself more free publicity. This time it’s in the LA Times but he might not like the reviews from the Bankruptcy Court or his partners who accuse Trumps’ moralizer of hiding assets from creditors in bankruptcy proceedings. Lawyer heal thyself! Karma must live in California during the winter months.

    https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-avenatti-bankruptcy-20190212-story.html?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true

        1. ROFL…Foghat…On fleek. On fleek.

          I see someone else is posting as “Anonymous.”

          I will subsume a new handle now.

    1. I’m not sure but Avenatti still has an excellent reputation if you only compare it to people like the Clintons, Obamas, Mueller & Co, the leadership of the DOJ/FBI, Dinos/Rinos…..

      LOL;)

    2. Mespo, Avenatti became a nuisance to everyone when he tried to muscle in on the Kavenough hearings. His client wasn’t all that credible and Avenatti’s appearance benefitted Kavaenough.

      Still Avenatti put the spotlight on Michael Cohen who needed to be illuminated. So it doesn’t matter if Avenatti is ever heard from again. By spotlighting Michael Cohen Avenatti made us realize Trump’s lawyer was a ‘man on the make’.

      1. I fail to understand how Trump went from a Roy Cohn type to a Michael Cohen?

        I’m unsure how this works. Regardless if one starts from the DOJ/FBI illegaly spying on Trump since 2004 or the other start date date of illegal spying started in mid/late 2015, All of the spying, John Roberts’ FISA court’s spy Warrants remains Illegal.

        I think it must mean anything/ charges brought by Mueller & Co are still illegal.

        I’m not sure how Mueller & Co wrap this pile of crap up & put a bow on it?

    3. “Avenatti denied wrongdoing.

      ““Every dollar has been properly accounted for and reported as required and as previously set forth in numerous accountings,” he said. “This is much to-do about nothing.””

        1. “This is a big nothing. We haven’t been using this firm in any significant way for well over a year,” Avenatti told the Washington Examiner. “This isn’t even the firm that we presently operate out of. Nothing improper occurred. Who cares?

          “And further, the motion claiming wrongdoing was withdrawn in its entirety by order of the court together with all of the exhibits,” Avenatti said. “Within hours.”

          1. As I’m sure you know, Trump had another really, really, truly, truly bad day yesterday. And there weren’t even any new indictments announced. Just Fifty-Three minutes of Trump talking like a Valley-Girl in front of cameras and microphones. Grotty to the max. I’m like, Trump’s the ultimate Queen Bee from Ridgemont High. Gag me with a spoon. Totally.

            1. Lateedah4Din “Gag me with a spoon. Totally.”

              On that point I am certain we all agree, Precious. Gagging yourself with a spoon might be your best option. It would reduce much Entropy and CO2 emissions

              1. Gagging someone with a spoon is typically done to induce vomiting. I strongly suspect that the bacteria in the regurgitate would have had their CO2 emissions eructed anyway. Otherwise . . . well, you get the picture.

            2. What you call a bad day for Trump is a bad day for the country. More drugs, more ms 13 more crime, more sex trafficking, lower salaries for the middle class worker etc. What do you care”

              Actually the Dems are sealing the 2020 election. O’crazyo has her Green Plan that will be voted on. The plan is totally ignorant of reality. The middle class American worker is seeing his salary going up and finding more jobs available. The minorities might be waking up and recognizing the elites in the Democratic party don’t care at all about them.

              Will Trump win in the Supreme Court? Probably though Congress should have pushed for the security of the American people. AS long as Democrats have power in Congress the American people will be short changed.

              1. sex trafficking is the canard in all this. that is not really a big or even a small issue, not once they get here. plain old crime is an issue, drug smuggling is an issue, and to be totally honest as I have noted, plain old demographic annexation is an issue too.

                i think they just say sex trafficking to try and scare women from the suburbs. who lack common sense in the first place so they need a little scaring. lol

                the sexual misuse of women is mostly a problem in the third world hellholes where people come from, not once inside USA. like the abuse of migrants transiting mexico, especially.

                women are a veritable privileged class here compared to the rest of the world.

      1. How did those paid for certified CPA’s work out for Paul Manafort???

        They sold his azz out to Mueller’s mafia in a heartbeat on a decade old plus tax deal to cover their own azzes.

        1. I grew up as a teenager with the scam against Nixon on the tube everyday. I’m just thinking decades later one of these days we have to get rid of all these weaponized govt agencies or our enemies will recognize what puzzies we are & over run us…. Oh wait. LOL;)

          1. It’s days like this that really make me miss the inimitable Mark M. poking at them through the bars on their cages.

            Maybe I can find one of his gems in the archives and copy and paste it here. It’s not possible to plagiarize Mr. M. And even if it were, possible, I just couldn’t bring myself to do it. Except for this: Ha-ha!

            1. https://goo.gl/images/hUR1ss
              L4B might be able to track down her fellow troll if she can find out where his other peers, classmates, and fans go to
              school with him.
              When there’s a limited audience who appreciate the hundreds of repetitive cutting and pasting, repeating the same corny phrases, the search has to be narrowed to a select group who really lap up all that real sophisticated stuff.
              So if L4D can learn where these two guys hang out, they might be able to hook her up with her favored humorist.
              If they all get together and brainstorm, they’d form a real like-minded quartet of similar quality.

      1. Anonymous:

        “(Just what one would expect from him.)
        Michael Avenatti takes a victory lap after prosecutors recommend ‘substantial’ prison time for Michael Cohen”
        ******************************
        Good. And if those bankruptcy charges pan out, Avenatti will have company — and another jail house lawyer — in the joint. Allegedly, of course. Their debates in the Yard ought to be taped for TED.

      2. And since we’re in a musical mode, this song always seems to remind me of my good friend, Anonymous The Lesser (above and as opposed to the newly-minted, Alice in Wonderland nee Anonymous the Greater):

        1. I’m certainly not listening, but you’ve got your fans in this toxic space.

          What does Avenatti say?

          ‘I’m not going to let the basta.ds get me down. F–k the haters’

          1. Now have fun on your little playground. Other people are actually out there doing something.

            “Schadenfreude-y”

            You’re such a good Catholic, mespo. Think about it, the next time you go to church with your family.

            1. Anonymous:

              “You’re such a good Catholic, mespo. Think about it, the next time you go to church with your family.”
              **********************
              I do swing by St. Somebody’s biannually (love the bells at Christmas and pageantry at Easter) and we recovering RC’ers like to chew the fat about our run-ins with the 42 rogues we all likely encountered as altar boys. My parish had two of the now infamous accused 42 pederasterers at the same time and I don’t mind telling you, I’m a little offended no one approached me. Not for the sex, of course ( I could see your mind churning – it’s unnatural) but who wouldn’t, at age 17, want to thrash some creep – vestments or not. We were indestructible you know. As an aside trying to shame me for some affiliation works better if the affiliator (?) has more moral authority than some 80s Frisco bathhouse.

              https://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-nws-richmond-catholic-priests-abuse-allegations-0213-story.html

              I have represented some victims of clergy abuse and even considering my obvious bias, these pervs are space aliens deserving of immediate, equipment-free return to the nether regions of the galaxy whether they wear a Roman collar or not.

                1. P.S.

                  “You’re such a good Catholic, mespo. Think about it, the next time you go to church with your family.”

                  Retracted.

                  (So much toxic tripe in the comments section of this blog, but please enjoy your time here.)

                    1. “Trump had another really, really, truly, truly bad day”

                      Diane, you are repeating youself from less than 10 hours ago. Actually Trumps chances of winning in 2020 are climbing with all the dumb actions by Democrats.

                    2. L4D:

                      The bully-boys, mespo and Allan, are tripping over themselves, I see. Mark M. will be back, hopefully, to give them their due and the grief they so richly deserve.

                      Too bad, so sad about Trump’s terrible, horrible, very bad day. By 2020 or 2024, at the latest, it will be over, but at what cost?

                      How’s my sister doin’?

                    3. “The bully-boys, mespo and Allan”

                      I don’t know what gripe Anonymous can have against Mespo or why she needs armies to defend herself on a blog. Pretty low self esteem, I guess. Then again her low self asteem is justified.

                    4. The real Elaine’s gout flares up whenever Trump speaks on the teevee. Other than that she’s hanging in there as well as anybody else. I’ll send her your best wishes.

Leave a Reply to Peter H. Cancel reply