“I Don’t Care. I Believe Putin”: McCabe Levels Shocking Claim Against Trump

“I don’t care. I believe Putin.” Those six words could be the focus of serious congressional oversight in the coming weeks. Former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe stated that President Donald Trump refused to accept intelligence on North Korea’s missile program and instead that he would rely on what Putin told him. It is a shocking claim, but what makes this claim so notable is that McCabe is suggesting that it was made before witnesses other than himself. That means that it should be capable to confirmation or refutation. However, this could have the makings of a massive privilege fight between the legislative and executive branches.

McCabe says that in the meeting discussing U.S. intelligence “The president launched into several unrelated diatribes. One of those was commenting on the recent missile launches by the government of North Korea. And, essentially, the president said he did not believe that the North Koreans had the capability to hit us here with ballistic missiles in the United States. And he did not believe that because President Putin had told him they did not. President Putin had told him that the North Koreans don’t actually have those missiles. Intelligence officials in the briefing responded that that was not consistent with any of the intelligence our government possesses. To which the president replied, ‘I don’t care. I believe Putin.'”

As alarming and outrageous as it would be, there is nothing unlawful about a president taking the work of a hostile dictator over that of our own intelligence professionals. A president is allowed to have bad judgment and not to listen to his own government. So what is the oversight claim?  Congress cannot allege a crime on this allegation and oversight is not designed for probing the judgment of presidents. However, it would be so bizarre and dangerous that it would be worthy of congressional inquiry. That is likely where this will be heading.

Frankly, I have been highly critical of McCabe — as was the internal investigation into his conduct.

311 thoughts on ““I Don’t Care. I Believe Putin”: McCabe Levels Shocking Claim Against Trump”

  1. refreshing piece coming from NY Daily News

    “For anyone hoping that McCabe would reveal some super-secret intelligence that backs up his theory of Trump being compromised by Russia, the book tour has been a disappointment. McCabe has repeatedly denied that any such non-public intel exists. Instead, he has cited Trump’s tweets. That’s right: the tweets.”

    ###

    https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-democrats-should-stop-thoughtlessly-cheering-on-mccabe-20190222-story.html

    Democrats should stop thoughtlessly cheering on McCabe: Blinded by Trump, they are effectively endorsing a revolt by federal law enforcement against an elected President

    Andrew McCabe, the former acting director of the FBI unceremoniously fired last year by Donald Trump, is in the midst of a whirlwind book tour, with TV hosts nationwide eagerly lining up to hear his take on what it was like to be at the center of so much political and legal turmoil. McCabe lays claim to having personally made the blockbuster decision in May 2017 to open a counter-intelligence investigation on Trump, on the grounds that Trump himself — the sitting president! — could pose a “national security threat” to the United States. You don’t get much more incendiary than that. Adding to the spy-thriller level intrigue, McCabe has also revealed that he and Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, plotted strategies for removing Trump from office, from “wearing a wire” in the White House to initiating an effort to invoke the 25th Amendment. It’s jaw-dropping stuff.

    But predictably, reaction to McCabe’s extraordinary claims have fallen along tedious partisan lines. Democrats, for one, display a chronic lack of curiosity about what it portends that the senior-most law enforcement officials in the country took it upon themselves to strategize President-toppling schemes. True, no coup actually transpired. But you can bet that if there was such a concerted move by the highest echelons of the national security apparatus against the elected leader in, say, Uganda or Belarus, this would be depicted by U.S. media (with much justification) as a thwarted coup attempt — the mark of a rapidly disintegrating society.

    And while it’s also true that the FBI and Department of Justice alone could not have fully enacted their 25th Amendment plans — that would’ve required the acquiescence of the Cabinet and Congress — it’s equally true that they were the ones to instigate the plans in this scenario, which is alarming enough. The 25th Amendment does not obviously sanction a removal scheme that originates within the security state bureaucracy. And just because the Amendment is located in the Constitution (thanks, Captain Obvious) doesn’t mean the McCabe/Rosenstein plot would’ve been constitutional. People try to justify hairbrained schemes all the time by appealing, unsuccessfully, to constitutional authority.

    Even if they were legitimately disturbed by Trump’s sudden firing of FBI Director James Comey — which would be reasonable enough — it is remarkably presumptuous for these two officials to presume that the responsibility to retaliate rested with them, rather than with Congress (through impeachment) or the electorate (through the ballot box).

    Typical of their short-sightedness in the Trump era, Democrats look at Fox News and conservative firebrands screaming “Deep State!” and roll their eyes, oblivious to how the FBI and DOJ secretly seizing such awesome powers could easily boomerang on a future President who seeks to implement some left-wing policy agenda. Consider the not-too-farfetched scenario where a small cabal of hostile officials unilaterally decide to deem President Bernie Sanders a “national security threat” for reasons shrouded in secrecy, and then plot ways to neutralize this threat using dubious interpretations of Constitutional law. Maybe only then will “progressive” media give a hoot about the FBI expanding its jurisdiction in such an extreme manner, but by then it’ll be too late. Democrats will have allowed the temporary excitement of Trump being in the crosshairs to cloud their overall thinking about what it means that federal law enforcement authorities have behaved in this unprecedented fashion.

    Trump and his GOP enablers also err when they depict McCabe as some kind of hatchetman for angry Democrats, or as the ringleader of a partisan “witch hunt.” This doesn’t accurately describe the political orientation of either official in question. McCabe and Rosenstein are both better understood as “institutionalists” — men fully ensconced in the prevailing ideology of the national security and law enforcement apparatus, which is what led them to react so histrionically to Trump’s alleged friendliness toward Russia. (And their histrionics proved misplaced. Far from extending friendly overtures to Russia, Trump has frequently acted counter to Russia’s interests on the world stage.) Just look at his current attempts to engineer the overthrow of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, Russia’s most important ally in the Western Hemisphere.)

    On “60 Minutes,” McCabe described Russia as “our most fearsome enemy” — a subjective and politically loaded claim, but one he probably perceives as a neutral reflection of reality given how deeply instilled anti-Russia animus is among his bureaucratic cohort. However, there is by no means consensus as to whether Russia is actually such a fearsome enemy of America. Trump likely takes a different view, and as the duly-elected commander-in-chief — whether you like it or not — it’s his prerogative to determine what constitutes a national security threat. Not some law enforcement official acting in secret.

    But McCabe just blows past all questions of democratic oversight, and basically assumes that it’s the proper role of the FBI to supersede the foreign policy priorities of the President.

    For anyone hoping that McCabe would reveal some super-secret intelligence that backs up his theory of Trump being compromised by Russia, the book tour has been a disappointment. McCabe has repeatedly denied that any such non-public intel exists. Instead, he has cited Trump’s tweets. That’s right: the tweets. It’s an incredibly flimsy premise on which to base a counter-intelligence investigation of such explosive magnitude, and sets a harrowing precedent. With the FBI’s well-documented history of severe overreach in domestic political affairs, both Democrats and Republican should set aside the petty partisan wrangling and start to seriously examine what really happened here

  2. TRUMP SIGNED LETTER OF INTENT..

    TO BUILD TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW..

    MONTHS AFTER ANNOUNCING PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

    Rudy Giuliani on Wednesday said President Trump had put his John Hancock on a letter of intent to develop a real estate project in Moscow — an about-face from a weekend interview in which he said the document had not been signed.

    The president’s personal attorney told CNN on Sunday that “no one signed” the letter to proceed with negotiations to build a tower in the Russian capital.

    But he reversed course in an interview with Reuters after CNN reported late Tuesday that it had obtained a copy of the letter, dated Oct. 28, 2015, signed by Trump, who had announced his candidacy in June that year.

    “If I said it, I made a mistake,” Giuliani said of his earlier denial about the president having signed the letter. “There’s nothing wrong with his signing it. When he did it, he wasn’t president yet.”

    The document set the stage for negotiations to build a Trump Tower — a project the president did not reveal to the public during the 2016 presidential campaign.

    Trump’s former “fixer” Michael Cohen has admitted that the Trump Organization was secretly hashing out a deal to build the property as the president was preaching for warmer US-Russian ties on the campaign trail.

    “It was a real estate project. There was a letter of intent to go forward, but no one signed it,” Giuliani told CNN on Sunday when asked about the non-binding letter.

    The document also is signed by Andrey Rozov, owner of I.C. Expert Investment Co., the Russian company that would have been responsible for developing the project for condos, a hotel and commercial property, according to CNN.

    The project — which was eventually scrapped — would’ve yielded the Trump Organization a $4 million upfront fee with no upfront costs, as well as a percentage of the sales.

    During a guilty plea in federal court, Cohen said he had pursued the deal to build the property on Trump’s behalf — and had repeatedly briefed the president, his family and others on the progress of the effort — until June 2016.

    He had earlier told Congress the deal went belly up that January.

    On Sunday, Giuliani indicated that Cohen may have pursued discussions up to November 2016.

    Trump, repeatedly on the campaign trail and since, has denied having anything to do with Russia, assailed special counsel Robert Mueller and his team and denied any collusion with the Russians,

    The president has argued that he was allowed to continue seeking business opportunities during the 2016 campaign in the event he ended up losing the election.

    “We had a position to possibly do a deal, to build a building of some kind in Moscow,” Trump told reporters before leaving for the G20 summit in Argentina.

    “There would be nothing wrong if I did do it. I was running my business while I was campaigning.”

    The Trump Organization had also raised the possibility of offering a $50 million penthouse suite to Russian leader Vladimir Putin, according to BuzzFeed, which reported in May that the president had signed the letter.

    Trump still owns his organization but said he would step away from day-to-day operations after taking office and leave its management to his sons.

    President Trump signed a letter of intent to proceed with negotiations to build a tower in Moscow — despite a weekend claim by his attorney Rudy Giuliani that “no one signed” the document, a copy of which was obtained by CNN.

    The letter, dated Oct. 28, 2015, which bears the president’s signature, set the stage for negotiations to build a Trump Tower in the Russian capital — a project he did not reveal to the public during the 2016 presidential campaign.

    Trump’s former “fixer” Michael Cohen has admitted that the Trump Organization was secretly hashing out a deal to build the property as the president was preaching for warmer US-Russian relations on the campaign trail.

    “It was a real estate project. There was a letter of intent to go forward, but no one signed it,” Giuliani told CNN on Sunday when asked about the non-binding letter.

    The document also is signed by Andrey Rozov, owner of I.C. Expert Investment Co., the Russian company that would have been responsible for developing the project for condos, a hotel and commercial property, according to CNN.

    The project — which was eventually scrapped — would’ve yielded the Trump Organization a $4 million upfront fee with no upfront costs, as well as a percentage of the sales.

    During a guilty plea in federal court, Cohen said he had pursued the deal to build the Moscow property on Trump’s behalf — and had repeatedly briefed the president, his family and others on the progress of the effort — until June 2016.

    On Sunday, Giuliani indicated that Cohen may have pursued discussions up to November 2016.

    Trump, repeatedly on the campaign trail and since, has denied having anything to do with Russia, assailed special counsel Robert Mueller and his team and denied any collusion with the Russians,

    The president has argued that he was allowed to continue seeking business opportunities during the 2016 campaign in the event he ended up losing the election.

    “We had a position to possibly do a deal, to build a building of some kind in Moscow,” Trump told reporters before leaving for the G20 summit in Argentina.

    “There would be nothing wrong if I did do it. I was running my business while I was campaigning.”

    Entire Article from: “Giuliani Says Trump Did Sign Letter Of Intent For Moscow Project”

    THE NEW YORK POST, 12/19/18
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    Commenter Alan keeps calling me a ‘liar’ regarding this matter. According to Alan, anyone who criticizes Donald Trump is a ‘liar’. Alan, for the record, is what’s known as a ‘False Flag Liar’. That is he willfully lies in false claims that others are ‘lying’.

    Regarding this letter of intent, Trump had announced his candidacy for President on 6/16/15. However this letter of intent was dated 10/28/15. Therefore, Trump entered the presidential primaries with this Moscow deal officially still active. That’s a big conflict of interest for a U.S. presidential candidate.

    For those unaware, The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the same billionaire who owns Fox News.

    1. “Commenter Alan keeps calling me a ‘liar’ ”

      Because you are a liar, a serial liar at that. You lie all the time as example the headline lie I pointed out in an earlier reply. Your headline said one thing having little to nothing to do with the article and you made it seem your headline was part of the article. That is what you do all the time.

      Maybe as others suggested you are paid to write on blogs. That would be a good reason for one to persist in lying and making headlines seem as if that is what the verified article said.

      Here is a more sophisticated mistruth based on omission. You write: “TRUMP SIGNED LETTER OF INTENT.. TO BUILD TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW..” but left out the fact that the letter is NON-BINDING. You also have left out the fact that you can’t reproduce the letter and what you showed was a video where one couldn’t read the letter and the signature was on a seperate page. That signature page could have come from anywhere.

      I don’t even believe that such a non binding letter even if signed by Trump means anything, but take note the headline was Peter’s not the post even though he makes it appear to be the post headline. This is an indication that Peter is paid to slur enemies of the left.

      Take note the billionaire who runs Fox News turned that job over to one son who is a Liberal and the running of another item, perhaps the Post, to his other son also a Liberal.

      1. Alan, you are getting loopier. I’m honestly not sure what stage you’re at. And I say that with concern for older seniors.

        This article, presented in its entirety, is from The New York Post, a paper whose readership trends conservative. I invite you to google the subject. You’ll have many sources to choose from. And most are from the day I referenced, 12/19.

        Guiliani made that statement. He admitted there was such a letter. Michael Cohen referenced it in official proceedings. That’s how the issue arose.

        But the bigger issue is ‘you’, Alan. Lately your comments are divorced from sincere discussion. You’re playing instead to conservative readers; telling them up front that Peter Shill is lying again! To poison the discussion and make sure it goes nowhere.

        In that regard, Alan, you represent a historic stereotype: The Outraged Republican who’s really smearing people. The McCarthy-Nixon types posing as respectable. They’re ‘great patriots’, or so they always tell us.

        1. “This article, presented in its entirety, is from The New York Post,”

          The article is but the headline isn’t. The headline you last used made it seem as if the article was talking about undocumented immigrants
          “UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS ARE ASSIMILATING PRESENCE LIKELY TO DRIVE FUTURE ECONOMIC GROWTH”

          The subject matter was completely different. You tried to tie your rhetoric to a potentially good story.

          Check it out starting February 18, 2019 at 5:03 PM
          https://jonathanturley.org/2019/02/18/why-trump-will-win-the-wall-fight/?replytocom=1826950#respond

        2. “But the bigger issue is ‘you’, Alan. Lately your comments are divorced from sincere discussion. You’re playing instead to conservative readers; telling them up front that Peter Shill is lying again! ”

          I’ve had multiple discussions with you as have others and when facts are brought to the table you run away and repeat the lie over and over again. Why do you think people call you Peter Shill. There is a reason you are known as the Shill which is a synonym for swindler.

          Any time you want to leave the lies behind I am ready to debate you with the facts, but that is something you will never do.

          1. It’s not just me, Alan. FishWings, Diane and Enigma are routinely the subjects of your ‘liar’ allegations. A ‘liar’ is anyone critical of Trump.

            And I can post my ‘own’ headlines as long as I note the original headlines. Which I always do.

            Again, Alan, you’re a mean-spirited McCarthy type. You don’t want a sincere discussion. You don’t want ‘any’ discussion that muddies right-wing talking points. And I first noticed that my first week on this blog.

            I noticed Alan didn’t want any views veering from accepted Fox News spin. And anyone breeching that line was going to be called a ‘liar’.

            1. Over a period of 4-5 years, I’ve read the comments of maybe a thousand or two thousand different people here.
              And I’ve exchanged comments with hundreds of different people.
              I have called three of those people liars.
              One has not commented here for years, and two of them are also active as this site’s propagandists.
              So we have the early AM propagandist L4B, and the later shifts covered by the other liar and propagandist flooding the site with the crap from the HHHNN media outlet.
              The reason these two individuals are called liars and propagandists is because they are liars and propagandists.
              That is not a conclusion that I draw or an accusation that I make lightly.
              They have to really “earn” that distinction by repeatedly lying and spouting propaganda.
              In Hollywood Hill’s case, those who call him out on it can reliably count on Peter pulling out the lame “Fox News/ Right-Wing media” accusation, as if the media is responsible for somehow “programming” those whose views differ from the sanctimonious St. Peter.
              It”s not surprising that, eventually, some will tire of that and throw the “Brock Boy” and “Soros Stooge” right back in his face.
              That’s a risk he and others take when they repeatedly pull the tired “Fox News, Right-Wing media” stunt.
              And getting that turned around on him , as inevitable as that is, seems to surprise and offend him.
              That’s another risk that he takes when he’s repeatedly thrown out the Fox News, etc.
              “argument” to discredit others.

              1. Tom, as I said, we can’t separate Trump from Fox News. This is the Fox News Presidency.

                And like Alan, you’re a McCarthy-Nixon type. Anyone critical of Trump is a ‘liar’ in your comments.

                Furthermore I’ve noticed that since Trump lost the shutdown fight Trumpers on this thread have been angrier than ever. It seems to freak them out that Pelosi is in a position to argue with Trump.

                1. Peter Hill pulls out the big guns again, with the feared😧”Fox News”/ McCarthy etc.” accusations.
                  That’s where any “debate” or “exchange” with that fool inevitably ends up.
                  If the real content of what was actually said is awkward for him to deal with, St. Peter does what any dedicated two-bit hack and propagandist does and goes with a stupid, lame remark involving Fox News, right-wing media, etc.
                  That Hollywood Hill routine is so predictable and common that it gets really boring.😴😴

                    1. For someone who has been already posting for hours, commenting about being “Up all night” seems a bit ironic.
                      But as a bonus, we’re treated to one of her many clever and irrelevant quotations, about as on target as the predictions she makes her.

                2. “And like Alan, you’re a McCarthy-Nixon type. Anyone critical of Trump is a ‘liar’ in your comments.”

                  That is a lie.

                  You can criticize Trump all you want, but when the proof shows you are wrong you shouldn’t run away only to repeat the same criticism of Trump later down the road. There have been criticisms of Trump that most conservatives agree have a some validity.

            2. Peter, when I say something is a lie, I point out where the lie exists and why I think it is a lie. You can prove me wrong and if you do I will thank you because you will have taught me something. I may have called fishwings and Diane liars but I don’t think so. I characterize their statements as fictional because they can’t help but fictionalize the truth or just make foolish comments.

              Enigma is not the most truthful person all though more recently his erroneous statements aren’t as eggregous as in earlier times.

              You, Peter, on the other hand will take a lengthy valid article from a site and place your title on top so it looks like their title. Your title is what you want people to think the article says but sometimes there is no relationship to your title and what is written in the body of the work.That is pretty cheesy. You also state things that aren’t true. When facts demonstrate that what you said is not true and you keep repeating those facts then the statement initially an intentional or unintentional mistatement of fact becomes a lie.

              “And I can post my ‘own’ headlines as long as I note the original headlines. Which I always do.”

              You are physically able to do that but what you are able to do is not always the right or ethical thing to do. What you appear to be doing is making people believe those are statements from the article. They aren’t. One has to ask themselves why would they put their own words in such a place making it seem to be a part of the article? Why don’t you answer the question? There is only one reason. You are trying to promote a lie at least with regard to the article. That is something people have been trained to do on specific hit sites along with other manipulations of data.

              “I noticed Alan didn’t want any views veering from accepted Fox News spin. And anyone breeching that line was going to be called a ‘liar’.”

              What I want is honesty and if possible true debate. Don’t expect nice nice when you play your little tricks. Fox news isn’t bad for the news, but don’t confuse the news with those that are providing opinion.

              1. Alan, with all the energy you waste trying frame me for ‘lies’, you could be engaging in a sincere discussions. But that’s not in your DNA.

                No supporter of Donald Trump can possibly engage in sincere discussions regarding Donald Trump. Because Trump is never sincere!

                This presidency has quite literally been a lie since Trump’s first full day in office. That’s when Kelly Anne Conway tried to introduce “Alternative Facts” on Meet The Press. That one moment became a preview of everything we have seen.

                1. “Alan, with all the energy you waste trying frame me for ‘lies’,”

                  No one has to frame you. You are quite obvious to anyone looking at what is true and what is not.

                  “you could be engaging in a sincere discussions. ”

                  That is far beyond your abilities and temperment.

                  “Because Trump is never sincere!”

                  That incencere President kept his campaign promises better than any recent President. Your emotional opinions are worthless. Estovir was right. Anything you see goes directly to your amygdala and out again devoid of intellectual thought.

                  Trump will win in 2020 because of the stupidity you represent.

  3. OT: Steele’s dossier was the opening salvo. A document sent to the State Department by Clinton proteges Cody Shearer and Sidney Blumenthal was another. A thumb drive given by Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman to FBI general counsel James Baker was a third. Simpson’s thumb drive given to Bruce Ohr was a fourth. And Nellie Ohr’s thumb drive would be a fifth. At least three of those work products — those from Steele, Shearer/Blumenthal and Nellie Ohr — resemble what many people might consider a dossier.

    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/430717-the-family-secret-bruce-ohr-told-rod-rosenstein-about-russia-case

  4. Donald Harris, the California Democratic senator’s father, was not happy about how she portrayed her Jamaican roots and issued the following statement:

    My dear departed grandmothers (whose extraordinary legacy I described in a recent essay on this website), as well as my deceased parents, must be turning in their grave right now to see their family’s name, reputation and proud Jamaican identity being connected, in any way, jokingly or not with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker and in the pursuit of identity politics. Speaking for myself and my immediate Jamaican family, we wish to categorically dissociate ourselves from this travesty.

    Harris is a retired Stanford University professor”

    I guess Kamala worries about every heritage except her own.

    1. Kamala Harris isnt a black American. Full stop. Her mother is a Tamil Indian, her father Jamaiacan. Black Caribbeans loathe Black Americans. Kamala has nothing in common with Black Americans

      If you havent already read Dr Condoleezza Rice’s “A Memoir of My Extraordinary, Ordinary Family and Me”, do. Her cultural pride runs deep as a black American woman and frankly her recollection of her family and cultural roots in Alabama was incredibly moving. I damn well cried when I finished her book and promoted it to several family and friends.

      Then there is the trash book by Barack Obama “Dreams From my Father” which I returned to Audible before I threw up. Kamala Harris strikes me like Obama….a total opportunist as to his skin color and as Black American as I am Russian, but dont tell Peter H that

      Kamala brings to mind Geraldine Ferraro’s comment on Obama

      “if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.”

      “And if he was a woman he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept,” Ferraro said.”

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-ferraro-idUSN1216129120080312

      1. Black Caribbeans loathe Black Americans.

        Rubbish. West Indians and native blacks recognize that they differ. That’s a different sentiment than mutual loathing. They commonly socialize and inter-marry.

        Harris grew up in Toronto with her East Indian mother. She had little experience of black Americans until she elected to enroll at Howard University (and later took to fellating Willie Brown). She’s childless, and married quite late in life to a white man.

  5. One of the main claims leveled against North Korea one year ago was that our government, via the CIA, did not have actionable intelligence about what goes on inside the country, that it was like an information black hole.

    Now we get the statements of a former Deputy Director of the FBI that they have more information than does Vlad Putin about the inner workings of North Korea.

    In between, we have to note that Russia and China are both actively trading with North Korea. We also have a case where President Trump, who has devoted his entire career with having to evaluate people one-on-one so he knows what to expect when he negotiates with them, is saying that he has a level of trust in Putin that no one else has.

    But some questions do arise out of this:

    1. President Obama trusted Iran, when their leadership encouraged open hostility toward the United States. What was McCabe’s opinion about that?

    2. Is there some requirement, legal or otherwise, that makes it mandatory that the United States and Russia take up different, usually opposite, positions on every issue?

    3. Where did the CIA and FBI gain this vast treasure trove of intelligence about the inner workings of North Korea within the past year, intelligence that they admitted was lacking in January, 2018?

    Based upon the way the top levels of both the CIA and the FBI have been acting, I don’t have much personal trust in either of them to tell the truth.

  6. One of these nut jobs is trying to hock a new book

    “McCabe says ‘it’s possible’ Trump is a Russian asset”
    https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/430696-mccabe-says-its-possible-trump-is-a-russian-asset

    while the other nut job faces reality:

    “Mueller report may be ‘anti-climactic,’ says ex-intelligence director”
    https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/430720-former-director-of-national-intelligence-mueller-report-may-be-anti

    Bring all of these “intelligence” directors and G-men on charges of Treason and Coup de etat movements, then send them to Venezuela….pronto!

    1. Lawd have mercy…not draw a conclusion. She actually said that.
      What a whopper

      “I think the hope is that the Mueller investigation will clear the air on this issue once and for all. I’m really not sure it will, and the investigation, when completed, could turn out to be quite anti-climactic and not draw a conclusion about that,” Clapper said Wednesday on CNN.

    2. so there you have it: it’s all in his loins! his inner feelings…..a stream of consciousness evoked by a place, person, song, color, smell, sight, food, taste, texture, picture, video, scene or vibe parallel to an unforgettable moment in the past

      Thus Spoke Zarathustra!

      “The strange thing I think that has bothered a lot of people both in and out of the intelligence community is this strange personal deference to Putin by the president. I’ve speculated in the past that the way Putin behaves is to treat President Trump as an asset,” Clapper said Wednesday.”

      For this he was paid big bucks to be a top dog in the Intelligence agency.

      no wonder we are screwed

  7. Turley asked, “What is the oversight claim?”

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47274182

    Senator Lindsey Graham said the claims were an “attempted bureaucratic coup”. …. Trump Russia affair: Key questions answered · Who’s who in the drama to … Mr McCabe said he was “very concerned” about the Russia case, and wanted to …

    Earth to Turley: Graham wants to grill McCabe over an “attempted bureaucratic coup” involving a legal review conducted on a constitutional process for removing a President from office. I repeat: Graham wants to accuse McCabe of having plotted an attempted coup d’état simply by asking a group of Justice Department lawyers to review the 25th Amendment to see if it contained any provisions applicable to a President suspected of being a Russian agent.

    McCabe then told Sixty Minutes the story about Trump telling his intelligence chiefs, “I don’t care. I believe Putin.” Now here’s the kicker: The chance that McCabe has more stories of a similar nature to tell about Trump in just such a way as to warrant the Justice Department review of the 25th Amendment is fairly high. So ask yourself, Professor, exactly when is Graham going to subpoena McCabe to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the Justice Department’s supposed “bureaucratic coup attempt”???

    Extra credit: Would an attempted bureaucratic coup be a national emergency if Trump declared it to be thus and so?

    Extra special credit: Does the National Emergency Act of 1976 authorize the POTUS, Trump, to declare any Justice Department review of the 25th Amendment a national emergency?

    Can you hear me, Major Jon?
    Can you hear me, Major Jon?

      1. More quotations from McCabe, also excerpted from the article linked above:

        “The discussion of the 25th Amendment was simply [that] Rod raised the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort,” he said.

        Mr McCabe also said Mr Rosenstein was openly “counting votes, or possible votes” and that he was “very concerned” about the president “his capacity and about his intent at that point in time.”

        [end excerpt]

        If it’s true that Rosenstein was “counting votes, or possible votes” needed to invoke the 25th Amendment, would that be, as Senator Graham and Trump, himself, have suggested, an attempted bureaucratic coup d’état against Trump? Keep in mind that the 25th Amendment is an Article in The Constitution of the United States. And so the question becomes, “Is the 25th Amendment a constitutional process for attempting a bureaucratic coup d’état???”

    1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

      The justice department says Mr McCabe’s account is “inaccurate and factually incorrect”.

      It also denied Mr Rosenstein authorised any recording or considered invoking the Amendment.

      1. “It also denied Mr Rosenstein authorised any recording or considered invoking the Amendment.”

        ‘Of course I didn’t authorize any recording. I may have talked about how and why I could have worn a wire but I never authorized it.’ ‘I didn’t consider invoking the Amendment. I may have discussed under what conditions it could be used and what each member of the cabinet thought and what attorney’s thought and spent a lot of time thinking about it but I never authorized it. ‘Maybe I discussed killing my wife. I never authorized it. She is dead now.”

      2. well the IG says McCabe is a proven liar but in this instance i suspect he is correct that Rosenstein was part of the illegal coup discussion

    2. You have to be totally uninformed about the 25th amendment not to get this.

      Any law enforcement person from a beat cop to a lawyer or judge knows this. If you practiced law you might be aware that in the first part of an affidavit an affiant will swear they are “under no physical or mental incapacity”

      that’s what it’s about. the word used is inability but they are practically synonymous. There was zero reasonable suspicion that Trump was not able. Unable means he had a stroke or severe cognitive impairment due to senile dementia or something like that. Not that a foreign leader was influencing him.

      Foreign leaders influence each other. Stalin influenced Roosevelt. Roosevelt was not unable. Roosevelt had paralysis in his legs but he was not unable. Trump is not and was not unable, clearly not. Just Get over it!

  8. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19TH..

    A DAY OF INFAMY FOR JONATHAN TURLEY’S COMMENT THREAD

    On this day a discussion developed in which most of our conservative commenters came out as admirers of Vladimir Putin.

    Yes, Vladimir Putin is a fitness maniac and looks great for an older guy. But Putin dreams of restoring the Russian-Soviet Empire surrounded by passive neighbors. Putin began his career as a KGB Agent stationed in East Germany.

    However fit and awesome Putin wants to destroy the traditional western alliance. That’s part of his dream in reviving the Russian Empire. Putin wants an empire with no western rivals!

    Anyone following world affairs these past 50 years remembers the Soviets as bellicose and cynical. Seldom were the Soviets playing a positive role in events of the day. Yet Putin is very keen to restore Russia as a superpower.

    The average American on Main Street has no interest in seeing a New Russian Empire. Such an empire could mean authoritarian regimes gain ‘respectability’. China will be, of course, a major global player for decades to come.

    China will be a superpower with an authoritarian regime. If Russia is equally powerful then the west will face ‘two’ authoritarian powers. No sane American should want a world like that.

    China is already a superpower-to-be. We don’t want a second threat from Russia. A situation like that could mean trillions wasted on Defense. Exactly what we don’t need. Again, China by itself is more than enough.

    So this idea that we should empower Vladimir Putin because Donald Trump likes him should makes us question Donald Trump. In a logical America people would say, “Wait! ‘Why’ is Donald Trump so peachy with Putin?”

    That was the logic ‘Deep State’ Actors had; Steele, Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein and Mueller. They all wonder why Donald Trump is so peachy with Putin. Anyone with sense wonders the same.

    1. They are stuck in denial, Mr. H. They cannot move on to the bargaining stage of the process. Because the acceptance stage of that same grieving process remains utterly inconceivable to them. Therefore they must defend Putin in the same breath as they defend Trump, which, in turn, is the same breath with which they accuse McCabe and Rosenstein of having plotted an attempted coup d’état against Putin–strike that–Trump, by conducting a legal review of a constitutional process for removing President Putin–strike that, again–President Trump from office. And all because Trump said, “I don’t care. I believe Putin.” Ergo, they don’t care, either. They believe Putin, too. One wonder how Russians say “Mission Accomplished.” Maybe Kurtz will give us the skinny on that.

      1. More from McCabe’s interview with CBS anchor Scott Pelley:

        Andrew McCabe: Rod was concerned by his interactions with the president, who seemed to be very focused on firing the director and saying things like, “Make sure you put Russia in your memo.” That concerned Rod in the same way that it concerned me and the FBI investigators on the Russia case.

        If Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein listed the Russia investigation in his memo to the White House, it could look like he was obstructing the Russia probe by suggesting Comey’s firing. And by implication, it would give the president cover.

        Scott Pelley: He didn’t wanna put Russia in his memo.

        Andrew McCabe: He did not. He explained to the president that he did not need Russia in his memo. And the president responded, “I understand that, I am asking you to put Russia in the memo anyway.”

        When the memo justifying Comey’s firing was made public, Russia was not in it. But, Mr. Trump made the connection anyway, telling NBC, then, Russian diplomats that the Russian investigation was among the reasons he fired Comey.

      2. One last excerpt from McCabe’s interview with CBS anchor Scott Pelley:

        Andrew McCabe: …publicly undermining the effort of the investigation. The president had gone to Jim Comey and specifically asked him to discontinue the investigation of Mike Flynn which was a part of our Russia case. The president, then, fired the director. In the firing of the director, the president specifically asked Rod Rosenstein to write the memo justifying the firing and told Rod to include Russia in the memo. Rod, of course, did not do that. That was on the president’s mind. Then, the president made those public comments that you’ve referenced both on NBC and to the Russians which was captured in the Oval Office. Put together, these circumstances were articulable facts that indicated that a crime may have been committed. The president may have been engaged in obstruction of justice in the firing of Jim Comey.

        Scott Pelley: What was it specifically that caused you to launch the counterintelligence investigation?

        Andrew McCabe: It’s many of those same concerns that cause us to be concerned about a national security threat. And the idea is, if the president committed obstruction of justice, fired the director of the of the FBI to negatively impact or to shut down our investigation of Russia’s malign activity and possibly in support of his campaign, as a counterintelligence investigator you have to ask yourself, “Why would a president of the United States do that?” So all those same sorts of facts cause us to wonder is there an inappropriate relationship, a connection between this president and our most fearsome enemy, the government of Russia?

        Scott Pelley: Are you saying that the president is in league with the Russians?

        Andrew McCabe: I’m saying that the FBI had reason to investigate that. Right, to investigate the existence of an investigation doesn’t mean someone is guilty. I would say, Scott, if we failed to open an investigation under those circumstances, we wouldn’t be doing our jobs.

          1. “Indeed, Diane. After Comey was fired, Trump probably figured he could walk all over McCabe.”

            Very thin Peter, very thin. 8 days later Mueller was appointed and subsequently hired mostly Democratic donors, lawyers and supporters to help him “investigate”. McCabe was in the thick of things and the President had already been warned by Admiral Rogers.

            1. If McCabe appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the questioning will be different from those of a Scott Pelley 60 Minutes interview.
              McCabe had a virtually uncontested platform to launch the promotion of his book, and to try to convince viewers that he and others in the FBI and DOJ were simply trying to defend America by targeting a candidate ( later a president) they disliked.
              The Senate JC questioning won’t be a Powder Puff interview providing soundbite “exerpts” for our early AM propagandist.

              1. Tom, McCabe could say things under oath that Republican committee members don’t want to put on record. It’s actually a risky scheme by Lindsey Graham. They might open a discussion they didn’t intend to open.

              2. Outside of your little cabal of likewise goggle-eyed rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make, everyone–and I mean everyone–thinks that the dedicated law enforcement professionals in the Justice Department are heroes and American patriots as they work to ferret out the crimes committed by the grifters and con-men who latched onto the criminogenic day glo bozo and his klown-kar administration. Pro tip: your little pocket of addle-brained, wackjob wingnuts won’t be able to elect the deputy dogcatcher of B.F.E. come 2020. So sorry for your loss, and your condition.

                this is to “but hannity will still shill for the deputy dogcatcher if he’s a traitorous, crazy imbecile also” tommie

                1. The internet can always use more anonymous self-proclaimed lawyers doing their routine trolling, and repeating the same phrases over and over again, hundreds of time.
                  Whatever satisisfaction Markypoo derives from repeatedly going out of his way to prove what an ******* he is seems to be worth it to him, and I don’t doubt his claim that his act appeals to a certain select group of dumb-ass troll groupies.

                  1. On the contrary, I have never claimed that my contributions here appeal to anyone but me; as I have stated repeatedly, my humble missives here are meant to please no one but my only important constituant–that person is me. You are sorely mistaken if you imagine I give two f*cks about anyone else’s opinion regarding my nuggets of wisdom and wit. Pro tip: hate the game, not the playa. Let me be the first to offer condolences for your loss and condition.

                    this is to “I don’t need no facts, I usually just make up sh*t for the hell of it” tommie

                    1. I never disputed that Markypoo, for whatever reason, takes enormous pleasure and satisfaction in repeatedly proving what an ******* he is.
                      So there is really no disagreement about his purpose whenever he makes his stellar appearances here.
                      In the distance days before the internet, someone like Markypoo was limited to scrawling anonymous missives on bathroom walls.
                      In this post-internet world, Markypoo can anonymously reach thousands, maybe more,
                      as a dedicated, low-life, keyboard troll.

    2. Peter’s lies:
      1) “On this day a discussion developed in which most of our conservative commenters came out as admirers of Vladimir Putin.” Not true. The conservative commenters discussed the reality of the situation rather than the lynchpins of your emotional bias.

      2)”However fit and awesome Putin wants to destroy the traditional western alliance. That’s part of his dream in reviving the Russian Empire. Putin wants an empire with no western rivals!”

      Putin might want to destroy the western aliance but what he is really looking for is the validation that Russia is a major power that has interests that should not be stepped on. That is why negotiation with Russia could actually have a chance of working and make the world a more peaceful place. The Democrats have preferred to play politics and put us on a perilous course against a nuclear power. On the other hand along with trying to maintain our superpower status the US could try to deal with Russia like we did with China decades ago to weaken their eastern alliance.

      3)- infinity. I leave the rest of the post for others to think about. Your thinking both conflates and conflicts the ideas you present. They are a shallow representation of your mind in action.

      1. Alan, you admit my point right here: “Putin might want to destroy the western alliance”.

        ‘Yes’, Alan, Putin wants to destroy the western alliance. That alone makes Putin toxic to any American who cares about traditional western values.

        The United States has historic ties to western Europe that go back 200 years. Those countries are like extended family to us. Our ties to those nations gives America control of the North Atlantic.

        Why should we abandon those friends because Donald Trump gained the White House through an odd, Electoral College victory?? Trump, the playboy with a fetish for Slavic women. The self-proclaimed “King of Debt” whose company has taken large investments from Russian oligarchs. We’re supposed to let ‘him’ alienate our historic friends so he can please his Russian creditors..???

        Trump deserves to go the way of Benito Mussolini.

        1. “Alan, you admit my point right here: “Putin might want to destroy the western alliance”.”

          What you are doing is intentionally distorting what the actual sentence said.

          That is a form of lying.

          I gave credence to the idea that Putin MIGHT WANT, but that is conjecture that would have to be discussed in greater detail. Then I provided my point “but what he is really looking for is the validation that Russia is a major power that has interests that should not be stepped on.” Being stepped on might be the major reason for Putin to have such feelings about the western alliance. WE have similar feelings about any alliance Putin might have with China. We also have related feelings about pipelines from Russia going into Germany. Your type of shallowness is not good for a discussion of this kind as it leads to sillyness on your part.

          “The United States has historic ties to western Europe that go back 200 years. Those countries are like extended family to us. Our ties to those nations gives America control of the North Atlantic.”

          They are not family though we are tied into Britain through a common language and much of our law and political thought. They are different nations with different desires. That we sided with Britain and France in WW1 wasn’t a certainty. We could have sided with Germany and that was discussed in Congress. We function based on what is good for us. They function based on what is good for them and since the US and the former Soviet Union were the superpowers they chose the one least likely to cause them harm. When there were severe differences there was conflict. Two major wars and at least one other minor war or conflict with Britain, at least one conflict with France under Napoleon.

          None of this should have a significant part in our dealings with Russia except where it is good for the United States. Right now our allies have not offered consistent support and Trump had to push them so that they support NATO according to their ability. If they chose not to support NATO then there is no reason for Nato to exist.

          “Why should we abandon those friends because Donald Trump gained the White House through an odd, Electoral College victory?”

          We are not abandoning them. They are abandoing us and have their hands out. Trump won and is his foreign policy is more in line witth the former foreign policy of the Democratic party of yesteryear. The Democrats have become the party of the diaper where most of them haven’t yet been toliet trained. Regarding Russia, they would rather cause a war than permit Trump to do what he was elected to do. The Democrats keep crying because it was an electoral college victory, but that is the law and had the law been winning by a popular vote chances are Trump would have won as well. If there was no fraud there is a good chance that the popular vote would have changed in Trump’s favor.

          “Trump deserves to go the way of Benito Mussolini.”

          The problem is that Trump functions like an American not like a fascist and not like Benito Mussolini. The left is fascist of the Mussolini type and some of the left could be equated to a Nazi equvalent or a Stalin equivalent. All three, Nazism, facism, Mussolini fascism are moving in the same direction taking the natural rights of people away and creating a state that rules over these natural rights. Break down the various systems and you will find classical liberalism (nothing to do with the modern day Liberal /Progressive) runs in the opposite direction. If you wish you can try and prove I am wrong by dissecting the principles of all the ideologies.

          1. Alan, I’m not seeing any persuasive argument here for supporting Vladimir Putin. Again, it all comes down to Trump. If it weren’t for him, and his personal connections to Russia, none of us would arguing this.

            And just today I learned that Trump signed a letter of intent to build Trump Tower Moscow on October 28, 2015; just two months before he kicked-off his presidential campaign. So obviously Trump entered that campaign with conflicts of interest regarding Russia and its Putin-connected oligarchs.

            It’s only blind support of Trump that makes conservatives like you present these contrived arguments that Putin is worthy of admiration. Had Jeb Bush been elected, no one on this thread would be praising Vladimir Putin.

            1. “And just today I learned that Trump signed a letter of intent to build Trump Tower Moscow on October 28, 2015”

              Can you get us tickets for a suite overlooking Red Square?
              Caviar and high end Vodka would be фантастика

              1. The truth is, Estovir, part of that Trump Tower deal included a free penthouse for Putin. That was a ‘sweetener’ to facilitate the deal.

              2. “Can you get us tickets for a suite overlooking Red Square?”

                What? Weren’t you invited for the opening Estovir?

                1. Nyet!

                  I have never been to Russia….just too damn cold for me but St Basil’s Russian Orthodox Cathedral in Red Square has always fascinated me

                  1. Go. It’s an eye opener. There are those attached to the government or the oligarchs. Then there are the rest.

                    China is a lot nicer and warmer.

            2. Am I no one? Maybe so. As Odysseus said, I am Nobody…. Οὖτις

              I always liked Putin, never liked “Jeb,” and had given up on Republicans and “democracy” altogether before Trump. As had many of my friends. Credit to Trump!

              1. “I always liked Putin”

                I know many women who get really hot and wet when they see pictures of Putin shirltess riding that horse

                Then again Peter spits on womyn who get nauseous when they see pictures of Hillary

                so there you go

                1. Admiration. What is the difference between admiration and fascination? Who were the worst mass killers in history — whether that was Chinggis Khan or Mao Zedong, you could debate, Chinggis if you consider relative size of population, Mao if you want raw numbers. Do I admire or are they merely fascinating? I am not sure. But i am presently reading “Red Star over China” by Edgar Snow, a book the pinkos in the US used to really love, as it glowed with adoration of the CPC leadership

                  I can understand a lot of it; they were nationalists and patriots in their own way, even though they called themselves communists, and they were opposed to the nationalists. But who was the more genuine force for the Middle Kingdom people in the estimation of those people? The verdict of the Chinese were clear, and they sent Jiang Jieshi packing to Taiwan. Well, history is hard on Mao, and Taiwan is arguably a much better place today than the PRC, but that is with the clarity of hindsight.

                  It’s easy to demonize the Other. Today, patriots and nationalists are the demonized other, and globalist tree hugging NGO working human rights whiners are the self appointed Inquisition to tell us whom we may admire or not.

                  So, Peter says Putin is bad, and I am bad to admire him. Thank you for your opinion Peter and I celebrate your right to express yourself even though I do not agree! And I will not condemn you for holding your own opinions, as you do to me.

            3. “Alan, I’m not seeing any persuasive argument here for supporting Vladimir Putin.”

              Peter, you are very dense and your lies confuse you. I didn’t make an argument for supporting Vladimir Putin. I made an argument for supporting the United States of America. You make arguments that have little to do with supporting the United States of America. Your arguments are based on ideology and opposition to Trump.

              I and Trump wish to support the US by making deals with Putin that benefit both nations. We have more interests in common than we do interests of opposition.

              “And just today I learned that Trump signed a letter of intent to build Trump Tower Moscow on October 28, 2015; just two months before he kicked-off his presidential campaign. So obviously Trump entered that campaign with conflicts of interest regarding Russia and its Putin-connected oligarchs.”

              True or not it is of little importance except to an ideological fruitcake. I would, however, still like to see a copy of that letter. Post the http where a copy of that letter can be found. Neither I nor my conservative friends support Trump without reason to do so. You complain about him all the time but when asked for a list of complaints with proof you are unable to do so. Every attempt you have made to date failed and I showed you where you were wrong and then you ran away. Did you collect your check anyway? Is it more than minimum wage?

              1. Alan, here’s that letter of intent story as was featured in “The Hill”, Professor Turley’s longtime showcase. Just google, “Trump’s letter of intent to build Trump Tower Moscow”. Several entries pop up from a variety of sources; including “Fortune”, I noticed.

                The letter was dated 10/28/15. Trump, for the record, had actually announced his presidential campaign on 6/16/15.

                So again, Trump entered the presidential primaries with at least one, glaring conflict of interest.

                The Hill story below is from this past December.

                https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/422009-trump-signed-non-binding-letter-of-intent-for-moscow-trump-tower

                1. Peter, thanks for sharing. Now let me share with you a late breaking story of courage and freedom and the successful private use of guns by an elderly woman to defend against criminal home invasion.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Do86RPoPO0

                  Join me Peter in celebrating our great country and the important freedom secured by our Second Amendment!

                2. Peter, this is not important. It is a letter of intent that is NON-BINDING. Do you know what that letter means? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

                  Additionally, you didn’t show us the letter. All we could see was a page held up and a signature on a second page. It is of no matter but what makes you so sure the signature on the second page pertained to what is written on any other page.

                  Assuming this NON-BINDING letter of intent was actually signed by Trump what does it mean? How did this help the people that received the letter? The only reason for Trump to have provided such a letter is if he thought there was a chance the people recieving the letter were as dumb as you.

                  1. I got a feeling Peter has never seen a Letter of Intent or understood its lack of legal ramificaitons or been involved in negotiating a deal. Don’t be too hard on him.

                    1. The only question I have is did Peter have any negotiations on his salary or did he just accept minimum wage.

    3. First off the Russian Empire historically was not a bad thing per se even if it impinged on other rivals. That is not our concern now however.

      You mention China. Well. A weak Russia could be a bigger disaster than a strong Russia, because of China.

      Roll that over in your head a little. Think about thousands of miles of Russian Siberia, thinly populated but rich in resources, near the enormous population centers of Dongbei aka Manchuria. Think, think.

      Ok done thinking? A weak Russia allows China to grow even faster. A strong Russia can limit their ascent.

      One of the luckiest things that happened for the US in the cold war was the “Sino Soviet Split.” Right now excess diplomatic belligerence against the two of them, risks driving them closer together, and will not help the US’ strategic situation.

      Nor will it help Trump in his current negotiation with China if he looks weak. Thankfully, right now, he is loooking better. He looks a hell of a lot stronger than he did before McCabe spilled the beans about the failed coup attempt.

      1. Kurtz, this is what you wrote: “Think about thousands of miles of Russian Siberia, thinly populated but rich in resources, near the enormous population centers of Dongbei aka Manchuria”.
        ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

        If China wants to invade Siberia, their troops have to cover thousands of miles of cold and thinly populated terrain. Good luck with that!

        And you’re saying we need to alienate our historic friends to keep China out of Siberia..?? What nonsense, Kurtz! Just absolute nonsense!!

        1. not nonsense peter, but maybe people who do not think much about that corner of the world, do not appreciate how strategic it has been over the past century or more.

          two examples. first the russo japanese war. which saw the rise of japan.

          then at the collapse of japan– right after– the communists in china would not have won the civil war against the nationalists, if the japs had not been whipped badly by the russians, left their gear in place, and the russians hadn’t have turned it over to the communists.

          vladivostok is and remains a key seaport for Russia and very close to china. very key and very close to china and its ample assets in the region, and massive population.

          here are some other thoughts on the topic you may find less offensive than moi-meme

          https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/china-russia-ties–more-rivalry-than-allaince.html

          1. Kurtz, so what..?? We don’t have to kiss Putin’s ass to keep China in check. That’s nonsense, as I said.

            We don’t want a strong Russia menacing Europe. We don’t want the Russian Navy active on the seas. We don’t want their submarines just off our coastlines.

            As I was telling Alan, this admiration for Putin is all because of Trump. Had Trump not gotten the White House, conservatives like you wouldn’t be praising Putin.

            It’s just one of many stupid arguments Americans are having ‘because’ of Donald Trump. TRUMP HAS DUMBED-THIS-COUNTRY-DOWN.

            1. You have a short memory Peter. As I pointed out yesterday, Patrick Buchanan has been explaining the merits of a closer and more cooperative relationship with Russia long before Trump.

              Perhaps you prefer today’s news that the US is being threatened with hypersonic nukes. That really could destroy America and a lot of anti-Russian rhetoric has helped deteriorate relationship and diplomacy thus endangering us all. Shame on you Peter! You talk like a war monger

              Ease up on the paranoia Peter! try this old movie for a laugh

            2. “We don’t want a strong Russia menacing Europe. We don’t want the Russian Navy active on the seas. We don’t want their submarines just off our coastlines.”

              Peter, you need to take a break from trolling this forum because you are sounding more and more like a conservative Republican ala Pat Buchanan

                1. the thought of the USA returning to Cold War days with USSR/Russia was denounced by Barack Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary….until she lost her 2nd Presidential Election to Trump and then she became “Nuke the Ruskies”

                  Nuke the Clintons Russian Uranium gained ASSets

                  “Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 in 2010 to give a speech to a Russian bank with ties to the Russian government. The U.S. government eventually approved the deal in 2010.”
                  https://www.businessinsider.com/everything-we-know-about-the-hillary-clinton-russia-uranium-scandal-2015-4

                  1. Obama were right in rejecting a return to the Cold war mentality. I think Hillary was just doing her job reading from Obama’s script. She is a war monger and anybody will do. Look at how the Democrats are now eager to stir up trouble with Russia at any price just to try and “get trump”

                    Trump should avoid the urge to repeat again and again how “he is tougher on Russians than x y z”
                    that is tiresome and it makes him look like a me-tooer in this time of resurgent Russophobia

            3. “It’s just one of many stupid arguments Americans are having ‘because’ of Donald Trump. TRUMP HAS DUMBED-THIS-COUNTRY-DOWN.”

              Peter, you are just plain stupid.

    4. Peteless Hilless “A DAY OF INFAMY”

      путин тролли лучше тебя
      (Putin trolls better than you)

      “wants to destroy the traditional western alliance”

      The Left did that on Jan 22, 1973 with their fateful ruling of Roe v Wade, not that matters of life, decency and value of creation concern you

    1. What was the predicate of a crime that was used to start a criminal investigation against Trump that started at least by Dec 2015 according to the OIG’s report on the matter?

    2. “so it’s not a stretch that he said it in private.”

      Paulm, what I find amazing is that over and over again you see politicians coming out of a meeting smiling and saying nice things to each other when you know the meating was a brawl.

      The certainty of your conclusion is not based on anything more than emotional bias.

  9. McCabe speaks!

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccabe-slams-loretta-lynch-in-new-book-says-clinton-probe-should-have-gone-to-special-counsel

    McCabe slams Loretta Lynch in new book, says Clinton probe should have gone to special counsel

    McCabe wrote in “The Threat,” released Tuesday, that “the tarmac meeting was a horrible lapse in judgment by Loretta Lynch.”

    But McCabe said Lynch, after the outcry over the meeting, should have stepped away from the probe – which was code-named “Midyear Exam” by the FBI.

    “She should have recused herself from Midyear at that point,” McCabe wrote. “She did not—she made things worse.”

    “It was a fatal choice. Had there been a competent, credible special counsel running Midyear Exam independently—the way Bob Mueller’s Russia investigation has been run – I think circumstances might have been very different, and we would not have been where we ended up in July,” McCabe said.

    McCabe argued that for Lynch and Yates, “Recusal would have been a reasonable and, I would argue, better decision for those political appointees to have made.” He added, “I don’t know why they didn’t do that.”

    “Somehow, they saw the investigation of Hillary Clinton – former first lady and former secretary of state, current candidate for the presidency, likely nominee of the Democratic Party, who was being supported by the president of the United States, to whom they owed their jobs – as a case they could handle without prejudice,” McCabe wrote.

    McCabe also said FBI agents mocked Lynch’s insistence to Comey to characterize the probe as a “matter” instead of an “investigation” – an apparent attempt to downplay the seriousness of it.

    “This became a running joke whenever anyone at the FBI felt like Justice was dragging its feet,” McCabe wrote. He said agents would joke, “What have we become, the Federal Bureau of Matters?” Still, McCabe said Comey was concerned about it.

    “The matter of the ‘matter’ did have a serious effect on the director,” McCabe said. “It planted the question, Was the attorney general trying to minimize what we were doing? The question festered. He’d heard that the Clinton campaign was trying to avoid the word ‘investigation,’ too.”

    Like Lynch, McCabe’s involvement in the Clinton case has also come under scrutiny. Trump himself has suggested McCabe was in the tank for the Clintons, drawing attention to how McCabe’s wife, Jill McCabe, received donations from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s super PAC while she ran for a state Senate seat in Virginia in 2015. McAuliffe is a close Clinton ally. McCabe did not recuse himself from the Clinton investigation until a week before the election

    In the book, McCabe denied a conflict of interest, and dismisses the accusations as a “conspiracy theory.”

    “As for my own firing and the ostensible reasons behind it, the demands and risks of an ongoing legal process put tight constraints on what I can say, although I would like to say much more,” McCabe said. “I am filing a suit that challenges my firing and the IG’s process and findings, and the unprecedented way DOJ handled my termination. I will let that action speak for itself.”

  10. Why not falsely consider Putin. US intelligence agencies were openly hostile to the President, and have a long history of huge failures. The president is within his right to decide. And trump has always used his wit to throw his opponents off guard. Trump likely set a trap on McCabe and his co-conspirators. What trump said is no more outrageous than the garbage coming from Brennan, Comey, Clapper and the rest of the traitors.
    McCabe and his gang of traitors must be prosecuted with the same vigor and prejudice as Mueller is demonstrating in his Gestapo like hunt to assist Hillary to frame the President for collusion with the Russians for an act yet to be proven.
    What is proven are Hillary’s crimes of the Uranium One give away and her secret server, open cell phones, secrets stored on Weiners laptop, and the horrible actions to abandon the Americans in Benghazi.
    The voters elected Trump even in an election rigged by democrats to steal votes. Now there are government forces that working outside the law to deny Americans their lawfully elected choice of president. That shouts revolution. And if a revolution is going to happen then bring it on now.

    My money is on Red Blooded American Patriots.

  11. It’s past time for the grand jury& fair trial & get that scaffold built again down at Fort Smith Arkansas .

    “President Trump unleashed on the coup plotters Monday morning.

    TRUMP: Wow, so many lies by now disgraced acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe. He was fired for lying, and now his story gets even more deranged. He and Rod Rosenstein, who was hired by Jeff Sessions (another beauty), look like they were planning a very illegal act, and got caught ”

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/02/president-trump-rips-dirty-jeff-sessions-another-beauty-and-doj-for-illegal-and-treasonous-acts/

    1. yep, look at Jeff Sessions. Look hard. Ratface Rosenstein and Sessions– without their complicity it was all DOA

  12. There is fear in the ranks of the cult today. Attack, try to discredit, deflect, gang-up, and just think what they will do when they are caught with the short end of the stick. And Trump will leave his followers high and dry, holding on to nothing. It’s becoming quite entertaining to watch their version of democracy sink in the swamp of their own making. To bad the rest of the country has to watch, my thoughts and prayers are with you,

      1. Estovir why don’t you send Fishbrains a toy with holes that are square, round and triangular, so he can spend his time learning to put the right piece into the right hole?

    1. FishWings said, “There is fear in the ranks of the cult today.”

      I swear, I can smell it exuding from the computer screen. They know that McCabe has plenty more where this one came from. Just wait till Rosenstein starts talking. (The poor schnooks.) Just listen to Oky1, [paraphrased], “Trump never should’ve been investigated in the first place.”

      1. If L4B’s computer screen is smelly, it’s “highly probable” that it is reacting to the words she’s typing.

    1. And about 10% of the Democrats who post comments here are propagandists.
      If they were any good at it, they might be effective.

    1. Arrest them too for being so humorless

      Cue Karl Lagerfeld (RIP) humor:

      “[Critics] are fat mummies sitting with their bags of crisps in front of the television, saying that thin models are ugly.”

      “There was once a designer in Paris who said, ‘My dresses are only for intelligent women.’ She went out of business, so maybe there were only idiots. In fact, it was not clever for her to say that. I design for the people who like. There is no age group because age group is a racism in a way, too.”

      “Sweatpants are a sign of defeat. You lost control of your life so you bought some sweatpants.”

      “Life is not a beauty contest, some ugly people are great. What I hate is nasty, ugly people. The worst is ugly short men. Women can be short, but for men it is impossible. It is something that they will not forgive in life — they are mean and they want to kill you.”

      “Those social networks, there’s something sad about them … It’s like a talkative mirror where people talk to themselves. And what I hate most in life is selfies.”

      “Trendy is the last stage before tacky.”

      https://pagesix.com/2019/02/19/karl-lagerfeld-dead-his-most-controversial-quotes-over-the-years/

        1. ““Trendy is the last stage before tacky.”

          Peter: When you think of left wing ideas think of trendy, pushed by the media and Hollywood into young empty minds that were left empty by academia. Think of the Green Deal as the most trendy of all recent left wing ideas.

          Tacky=poor taste but many filled with superficial ideas might say I’d rather be dead than tacky.

          Trendy leftist ideas are the last stage before tacky or the destruction of a nation.

          I think Estovir’s point is right on target but you think tacky is trendy.

          1. Peter H is a paid troll and his goal is to knock anyone and everyone on these forums who disagree with her

            Ignoring PH, L4B, Fishbreath, Anonymous/Dianne, et al is the worst thing you can do to them, then call out their inconsistencies when they get sloppy…. and they are usually sloppy…..Drives them nucken futts

            1. Estovir: Almost every post of theirs contain inconsistencies and mistruths. Peter goes one step further and adds his dialogue to legitimate articles so one might think those statements were copied from the article. Sometimes he removes ideas out of context. One can’t trust anything Peter writes or copies.

            1. “what does Karl Lagerfeld have to do with Trump”

              Peter, think of what Cemex has to do with your brain.

              You think in terms of trendyness rather than wholesomeness. The next step from trendyness is the garbage heap. I can’t be sure of what is in Esotvir’s mind because it appears to be quite open to ideas of “Liberal diversity” (being worldly) and seems to have a desire to look at things in a humerous way especially when faced with individual minds that are so closed to anything out of their comfort range.

              Why don’t you ask Estovir?

            1. Now that Bernie has thrown his hat into the Democratic race, and Howard too, and Trump, one wonders…

              How will David Brock afford to pay more attack trolls on so many candidates who are anti- Dem establishment?

              Fun tip:
              We read on JT’s blog that Panera Bread is hiring, Peter Shill. Run your job application by us to check your English grammar…because we care 4 ewes. 🐏🐏
              😉

            2. I dont know who the tweeter was, but she was posting a clip of Laura Logan a CBS reporter with a South African accent, and a nice bust, who is apparently well known for her Afghanistan reporting, denouncing the press for being propagandistic.

              https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettabrown/2019/02/18/cbss-lara-logan-says-media-is-mostly-liberal-its-coverage-of-trump-is-a-distortion-of-real-life-n2541659

              if you would have clicked the link it would have been obvious but you didn’t bother i guess

  13. “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t

    take that risk,” Strzok texted on Aug. 15, 2016. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

    – Peter Strzok to his paramour Lisa Page in the office of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
    __________________________________________________________________________

    Peter Strzok to Lisa Page, “We’ll stop it.”

    Lisa Page to Peter Strzok, “POTUS (Obama) wants to know everything we’re doing.”

    Lisa Page to Congress, “The texts mean what the texts say.”
    ________________________________________________

    The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history.

    The Obama Coup D’etat in America co-conspirators are:

    Sessions, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan,

    Campbell, Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas,

    Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Obama et al.

    1. The “Obama Coup D’etat…”

      The one started and orchestrated by the Trump administration and the DOJ, and career Republicans FBI officials…

      okie dokie.

        1. Brennan and Clapper, certainly, but who knows who else. Hillary or Obama maybe, but why would Obama bother or care?

          Let’s see who took over after JFK. LBJ. Ah, he hated JFK, and could deliver the legislative goods that JFK could not. I see a motive in LBJ green lighting a plot against JFK, “IF SUCH A THING EXISTED” since I am purely speculating about that.

          Ask who is next in the COG succession. Pence. Ok, not a likely plotter at all. Who is number 3?

          Paul Ryan. Take a look at that possibility. That is worth a gander by some real investigators from FBI who should be looking into their own former disgraced honchos who explored the false constitutional basis against the lawful president.

          Maybe it was Republicans who organized this coup attempt. Go where the evidence leads.

          1. Let’s see who took over after JFK. LBJ. Ah, he hated JFK, and could deliver the legislative goods that JFK could not. I see a motive in LBJ green lighting a plot against JFK, “IF SUCH A THING EXISTED” since I am purely speculating about that.

            You’re circling back to your obsessions, which have nothing to do with the matter at hand.

            Paul Ryan. Take a look at that possibility.

            Why? The perps exposed to date have been Justice Dept. lifers (Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, McCabe, Sztrok, Page). Obama’s discretionary appointees (Yates), and people in the interstices between them (Priestap, Ohr). And, of course, Ohr’s wife works for Fusion and McCabe’s wife is an auxilliary of Clinton bagman Terry McAwful. What’s Paul Ryan got to do with any of that.

            1. I just said look at the evidence. We know a little but it is probably an iceberg visible with a hidden underbelly that is far bigger.

              It’s a coup attempt and it should be treated that way. Rosenstein was eager to do the deed and I bet there are plenty others. I would not know who I just say let this be investigated thoroughly

            2. What was the endgame for their removal? To appoint Pence? who would come if not Pence? Oh, Ryan. Who would want Pence or Ryan over Trump? That these feckless bureaucrats thought all this nefarious mischief up with no benefactors seems rather more bold than a lot of desk jockeys would normally be. I suggest treating this like a coup and not just calling it that. Investigate. not me but some real investigators with guns on their hips and warrants to seize information and documents and computers and so forth. And arrest the plotters and throw them in cells and give them the fifth degree.

              who knows, Maybe THEY are connected to foreign powers too.

      1. The ‘Trump administration’ started and organized nothing. The only verifiable Republican in this crew is Rod Rosenstein. You people just cannot stop lying.

        1. 🤣🤣🤣

          These liars are going to shift all of their neurosis to

          “Bernie Sanders enters 2020 presidential race: ‘Complete the revolution’”
          https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/bernie-sanders-enters-2020-presidential-race-complete-revolution-n972906

          and

          Howard Schultz running as an Independent

          Trump is the least of their problems.

          Donald Trump will never be defeated with Bernie, Schultz and Kamala/Booker/Pocahontas et al in the race vs Trump

          Hysterical

        2. Who knows. it’s a coup attempt and who knows who is behind it. All the names you mentioned may only be some of the names. Don’t make a conclusion, call for an investigation and let it roll.

          1. The humble country lawyer counseled, “Don’t make a conclusion, call for an investigation and let it roll.”

            The humble country lawyer also concluded, “it’s a coup attempt and . . . the names you mentioned may only be some of the names.”

            It’s a little known fact that humble country lawyers are exempt from heeding the unsolicited advice that they so freely give to humble country lay persons.

            1. try and make a clear point rather than a clever one, or you will just remind us all again that you are a smart aleck.

              anyhow I think jeff sessions is in the woodpile so to speak, to be a little more clear myself.

Leave a Reply