Rosenstein’s Revenge: Trump To Fight 100 Duck-Sized Horses

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on how President Donald Trump may be facing a changing threat as the Special Counsel moves closer to submitting his final report and new allegations of criminal conduct have been raised by Michael Cohen and the Southern District of New York. There are viable criminal allegations raised with regard to Donald Trump’s business practices as well as his payment of hush money to alleged former mistresses. However, some of these claims present their own challenges as criminal theories.

Here is the column:

As special counsel Robert Mueller prepares his final report and Congress ramps up its own investigations, we soon will have answers to questions over collusion, obstruction, and Russian influence. Yet, President Trumpmay answer one of the most intriguing questions of all: Is it better to fight one horse-sized duck or a hundred duck-sized horses? New developments make it likely that Trump will fight a hundred duck-sized horses, in the form of alleged collateral crimes rather than collusion. None appears life threatening in their own right, so the real question here is what they will represent collectively during the next two years of this administration.

When Mueller was appointed, Trump faced a horse-sized duck in the form of Russian collusion allegations. That duck has yet to materialize over the course of dozens of “speaking” indictments and filings. One indictment stated that any contact between Trump officials and Russians was done “unwittingly,” and not one filing or witness has established a link between either Trump or his campaign and Russian hacking of Democratic emails. At most, there is evidence that Trump associates like Roger Stone, as well as Trump himself, wanted to see that material. But many journalists and political operatives were trying to obtain the same material, which had already been teased as forthcoming by WikiLeaks. That itself not a crime.

Trump also faced a horse-sized duck with the obstruction allegations. The problem is that there is still no clear obstruction by Trump, despite a litany of inappropriate comments. He did not fire Mueller. He did not order the end of the special counsel investigation. He also has not been accused of destroying evidence. He has tweeted aplenty but that is more obnoxious than obstructive. None of that changed with the testimony of Michael Cohen, who expressly said he has no evidence of collusion. He offered little more on obstruction beyond saying that he believed Trump wanted him to lie about Trump Tower in Moscow, without Trump ordering him to lie. There is still far more duck than horse in obstruction theories.

Instead, Cohen in his testimony became a virtual wrangler of duck-sized horses, including portraits bought with charity funds, insurance claims with inflated damages, a bid for a National Football League team with inflated assets, hush money for mistresses, even false medical claims to avoid the draft. Many of these little equines are coming from the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, rather than the special counsel in Washington. Yet, these pint-sized horses would make a poor case for impeachment even in the aggregate. Many occurred before Trump became president, and most would fall short of the constitutional standard. Even as criminal matters, presumably in prosecutions after Trump leaves office, this herd is even less threatening than it appears.

Hush money

Of the various legal horses, the most formidable is the allegation that Trump knowingly participated in a violation of campaign finance laws. Cohen produced checks signed by Trump after he became president that were reimbursement for hush money paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal. Federal prosecutors had treated the payments as a criminal matter when charging Cohen for his role in this violation. Under the same theory, Trump was also a party to the crime.

Justice Department policy, wrongly in my view, maintains that a sitting president should not be indicted. Prosecutors could pursue a charge on the payments against Trump after he leaves office but this is no easy case to make. The Justice Department failed in such a prosecution against former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards. The signing of these checks and the alleged directions given to Cohen make the case stronger, but Cohen may have weakened the chances for the prosecution. The most obvious defense for Trump is that he was motivated in making the payments not by the campaign but by his marriage and reputation.

Cohen gave Trump a major lift in that defense in two respects. First, he testified that Trump never thought he was going to win the 2016 election. Many others did not either, and even Trump himself said he continued to pursue business deals in anticipation that he might lose. Second, Cohen recounted how Trump had him speak to the first lady about the payments, to assure her that the stories of affairs were untrue. That would support a defense that Trump was worried about his wife finding out and may have been protecting his marriage and his reputation. This all comes down to motivation, and Cohen supplied Trump with a much stronger defense.

Financial fraud

Cohen has been charged with bank fraud, as has former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Cohen implicated Trump in both insurance fraud and bank fraud in the inflation of damages and assets. Those, too, could be charged as crimes. In business, however, assets often are exaggerated. For example, Trump reportedly gave Deutsche Bank figures on his worth that jumped in one year by $4 billion. Yet, the list of liabilities and assets on the “summary of net worth” seems like a fairly preliminary document.

It might not constitute the type of accounting data that would trigger a fraud claim. The $4 billion is also explained as “brand value.” That might be dismissed as a tangible value for accounting purposes, but Trump clearly indicated the source of this claimed value. Inflated insurance claims can be a cut and dried criminal case if they are outside the range of valuation. However, that is a big “if” as businesses often claim the highest potential value or damage when they seek insurance coverage.

Charity fraud

The best example of the scourge of tiny horses is the controversy over a portrait of Trump. Most of us were transfixed by the notion that Trump would rig an auction with a straw buyer to make sure that his portrait was the most expensive purchase. That is not a crime but he allegedly used money from his charity to buy the portrait, then hung the painting in one of his properties. In July 2013, Trump tweeted about his portrait being the most valuable item. The date is important, since most forms of fraud have a statute of limitations lasting five years. The statute on fraud involving financial institutions can be as long as 10 years. However, these violations are rarely prosecuted criminally anyway. In the worst cases, the charity is disbanded, which is precisely what happened to the Trump Foundation.

These are all examples of why fighting a hundred duck-sized horses is easier but can take more time. Trump will be answering questions and subpoenas on these allegations for the next two years. It is unlikely to be lethal, absent false statements or obstructions, but it is likely to exhaust him and his presidency. His mounting troubles are likely to rekindle his anger at Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who will leave the Justice Department in coming weeks. It was Rosenstein who ordered the referral of the Cohen criminal case to the Southern District of New York.

At the time, I wrote that the move made more strategic than legal sense. It made little sense for Mueller to pursue Manafort on unrelated fraud and other crimes but then to send similar claims against Cohen to New York. If anything, Cohen is linked more closely to Trump, as recently shown. Yet, in doing so, Rosenstein has insured that any forced closure of the special counsel investigation would not end all investigations. In other words, if the horse-sized duck toppled in Washington, a stampede of duck-sized horses was coming from New York. Now we will see which one is worse.

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

187 thoughts on “Rosenstein’s Revenge: Trump To Fight 100 Duck-Sized Horses”

  1. (*Just reposting this here as a reminder on why we elected President Trump. And why we support him and know that all he is doing is for the good of the country he loves, unlike the last president.)

    1. First President to be photographed smoking a joint.

    2. First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

    3. First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

    4. First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.

    5. First President to violate the War Powers Act.

    6. First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

    7. First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

    8. First President to spend a trillion dollars on “shovel-ready” jobs when there was no such thing as “shovel-ready” jobs.

    9. First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

    10. First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

    11. First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

    12. First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

    13. First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.

    14. First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.

    15. First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.

    16. First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

    17. First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

    18. First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.

    19. First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

    20. First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

    21. First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

    22. First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).

    23. First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

    24. First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.

    25. First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.

    26. First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in office.

    27. First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.

    28. First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

    29. First President to go on multiple “global apology tours” and concurrent “insult our friends” tours.

    30. First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.

    31. First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

    32. First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

    33. First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.

    34. First President to repeat the Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

    35. First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states (Mexico vs. Arizona).

    36. First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they “volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences.”

    37. Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.

    from: You’ll Be Stunned When You Read This List of Obama’s Accomplishments
    posted by Mark Simone – Feb 16, 2019


        “Whatever infractions Acorn may be guilty of, Nadler said, “it ought to be vetted or sanctioned by the appropriate administrative agency or by the judiciary.

        But Congress must not be in the business of punishing individual organizations or people without trial.” He cited a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from Acorn’s general counsel, Arthur Schwartz, pointing out that this was the first time in Congressional history that a group had been so singled out.

        “I was just offended by the whole notion,” Nadler told the Voice last week. “Congress is not supposed to be prosecutor, judge, and jury. It is fundamental. Any unpopular group can be killed.”

        1. Congress doesn’t need a court decision to cut subsidies to a program. This piece shows how stupid Jerry Nadler actually is and how blind the writer for the Village Voice was. ACORN was caught all over the nation on tape.

          “I was just offended by the whole notion,” said Nadler. That demonstrates what a political hack he is.

          Some of you guys can’t stand the light of day. It shows how you stink.

          1. YNOT, are you able to verbalize what I said that was dumb? Are you able to explain why? This type of comment that you make over and over again (instead of intelligent dialogue) might be acceptable for a slow 5 year old, but I think you are older than that.

  2. Tuesday’s Development:


    New York state regulators have subpoenaed President Trump’s insurance broker, following testimony from former Trump attorney Michael Cohen that Trump exaggerated his wealth to insurance companies.

    That subpoena — acknowledged Tuesday by broker Aon PLC — signaled another line of inquiry into Trump’s private business, this time by New York’s Department of Financial Services.

    “As is our policy, we intend to cooperate with all regulatory bodies,” Aon spokeswoman Donna Mirandola wrote in an email. She declined to answer further questions, saying, “We do not comment on specific client matters.”

    The past few days have accelerated the probes into Trump’s past and present, particularly following testimony by Cohen, once Trump’s self-described “fixer.” Cohen spent seven hours telling a House committee about the inner workings of Trump’s company.

    At one point, Cohen said Trump used exaggerated statements of his own wealth to impress journalists, reassure lenders and persuade insurance companies to lower his premiums.

    “When we were dealing . . . with insurance companies, we would provide them with these copies so that they would understand that the premium, which is based sometimes upon the individual’s capabilities to pay, would be reduced,” Cohen testified.

    “And all of this was done at the president’s direction and with his knowledge?” asked Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.).

    “Yes,” Cohen said.

    That testimony preceded the subpoena from New York’s Department of Financial Services, which regulates insurance in the state. The Trump Organization is headquartered in Manhattan.

    The department sent Aon a nine-page subpoena, according to the New York Times, which first reported that it had been issued. The department asked for all communications between Aon and Trump or the Trump Organization, as well as internal documents in which Aon employees discuss Trump.

    Two people familiar with the subpoena said the Times’ description was accurate.The Department of Financial Services did not respond to requests for comment. The scope of the inquiry and the department’s focus are still unclear.

    Edited from: “N.Y. Regulators Subpoena Trump’s Insurance Brokers As Probes Of His Campaign, White House And Business Multiply”


      1. Can you imagine if this was a private citizen, and the government targeted you, and every person close to him? They subpoenaed every financial document he ever touched in his lifetime, spending thousands of man hours sifting through it to find something, anything.

        You name the man and I’ll name the crime.

        This isn’t justice. This is abuse of power. Have Leftists already seized our government, preventing any conservative from holding high office ever again?

        This isn’t how our justice system is supposed to work. Subpoena every person and document looking for any crime they can find on anyone. This was supposed to be about Russian collusion.

        Hillary Clinton blatantly engaged in pay to play. Foreign governments paid her millions of dollars through Bill’s speaking fees and the Foundation. Her Foundation was a slush fund for cronies, and was responsible for building moldy “hurrican proof” leaky trailers in Haiti. Uranium One. The Diamond. Travel Gate. Her fingerprints on Whitewater. An illegal server in her dang bathroom containing top secret information that she uploaded to the Cloud. Purging her server and devices with Bleach Bit and Acid Wash. Breaking her devices with a hammer. Allowing a laptop with classified information to be used by a sexual deviant to sext minors. NOTHING HAPPENED. The Leftist control of the justice system protected her just as surely as it is persecuting Trump, whom they cannot find anything on. How many of us could hold up to that kind of scrutiny? Sooner or later, we would be caught for jay walking, or driving over the speed limit, or not coming to a full and complete stop at a stop sign. America is turning into a Leftist banana republic, targeting private conservatives and those in high office.

        I used to vote either Democrat or Republican, long ago. That time is dead, and its ashes blown away. I can never support this. I would vote for a lemur over any Democratic candidate, save a couple that I know of on the local level. Any Independent, Libertarian, or Republican who failed to vote in 2018 contributed to this Fascist behavior. Don’t let people who will abuse power, come to power. AOC is a prime example. She’s not even a dictator yet, and she already dreams about curtailing our ability to travel and deciding what we can eat.

        1. You’ve bought a bundle of hoaxes.
          1. The Clinton Foundation is an A rated charity from which Bill and Hillary receive nada.
          2. All ex presidents including Reagan made a lot of money on speakers fees. So do celebrities.
          3. The State Dept had 1 of 9 votes on the Uranium one deal, which was sponsored by the Treasury Dept.
          4. The uranium in question was non weapons grade and it is illegal for it to leave the US.
          5 The supposed Clinton insider on the deal – Guistra – sold off his interest 2 years before the deal.
          6. As I demonstrated in another post, the Supreme Court has held since a 1941 case, that deliberate intent to harm the US was necessary to find one guilty of the Espionage Act. Hillary did not meet that requirement and Comey was correct in his assessment, whether he should have been announcing it or not.
          7. There were 10 Congressional Committee hearings on Bengha8 and two non partisan panels. Both panels and the GOP led House.Intelligence Committee found no culpable behavior by the Obama administration though recommendations for improvements in handling embassy security were issued and accepted as policy.
          8. AOC will never be elected to any office outside of NYC. The GOP and some on the democratic left love her high visibility, but the democratic left didn’t win in 2016 and they won’t in 2020.

          You should turn off Rush and Fox and get some balance in your news sources.
          They lie.

          1. Huh? Anon say what? who’s talking about espionage? it always seemed to me Hillary was guilty of mishandling classified materials not espionage. you make up straw man!


            hoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
            (b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
            (c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

            1. “Huh? Anon say what? who’s talking about espionage? it always seemed to me Hillary was guilty of mishandling classified materials not espionage. you make up straw man!”

              Very good Kurtz. That is what Anon does with most of the things he says. Anon’s list demonstrates an ignorance that cannot be overcome. The last time he made such a numbered list I did what you did to all 7 points. He couldn’t handle it and a whole host of other things. Shortly thereafter Jan F. Became Anon. So it is with this new list that only a fool thinks won’t crumble under scrutiny. Just look and start at number 1 a point argued in earlier postings.

        2. “Can you imagine if this was a private citizen, and the government targeted you, and every person close to him? They subpoenaed every financial document he ever touched in his lifetime, spending thousands of man hours sifting through it to find something, anything.”

          They did to Howard Root, the best example I can think of. Anyone who has not yet seen this video in its entirety should do so. It is the equivalent of a law school course on prosecutorial abuse and details the effects on countless numbers of people and society. Our civil liberties are in jeopardy so even people like Jan F. should listen to it very closely.

    1. Hey Peter. How about an executive summary of the article from you, and a link? Cuz I’m not wasting my 4 minutes of my time reading wapo garbage of the day. But, i would read your one line summary of it.

  3. Is it true that Bill and Hillary are going to submit all accounting data, since inception, related to the Clinton Foundation to Deloitte for a thorough and comprehensive financial audit spanning its entire history?

    1. George, on this matter, we agree. I am so infuriated at the double standard that I’m beside myself. The checks and balances of such abuse are not working.

      1. I think this is the normal way fascists and socialists take power. We can look at all the various nations where such a catastrophe occurred. The leftists promise things and create double standards while lying to the people. Most recently look at Venezuela a country that should be very successful. Back in time the Soviet Union also a union that should have been successful. Then again one can look at Nazi Germany where elections put Hitler in power and their legislative body gradually abdicated theirs. I don’t think our leftist friends know their history.

  4. Lisa Page to Peter Strzok on Loretta Lynch, “And yeah, it’s a real profile in couragw [sic], since she knows no charges will be brought.”

    Report details Sky Harbor meeting between Clinton and Lynch

    ‘It was a 110-degree day in Phoenix and the U.S. attorney general was getting ready to leave her plane at Sky Harbor International Airport when, as she remembers it, someone told her former President Bill Clinton wanted to chat. As detailed in a report released Thursday by the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice, Loretta Lynch, then the attorney general, expected not much more than a quick hello. Clinton, on the other hand, seemed in the mood to chat on that June 2016 evening. Lynch, according to her interview in the report, said she felt increasingly uncomfortable as the minutes ticked by and Bill Clinton showed no signs of leaving. Meanwhile, her aides, sitting in a vehicle on the Sky Harbor tarmac became fidgety, the report says. Finally, one aide bolted from the vehicle and announced she was heading into the plane. That meeting at the Phoenix airport would prove consequential. At the time, Lynch’s Department of Justice was investigating presidential candidate Hillary Clinton over her handling of classified information sent through emails. The 20 minutes with Bill Clinton would cement then-FBI Director James Comey’s decision that he, and not Lynch, would be the person to publicly announce that Clinton would not face criminal charges. Comey, in that July statement, said that while Clinton did not break the law, her handling of classified material was “extremely careless.”

    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.”

    “You can’t handle the truth.”

    – Colonel Nathan R. Jessup

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

    Obama’s co-conspirators are:

    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, Sessions et al.

    That’s the truth you can’t handle.

  5. Another mish-mash and word salad from JT, but that’s OK because he is now hedging his bets instead of jumping in to protect Trump with picking nat crap out of pepper. Of course when the check comes in from the right-wing think tanks and speaking tour circuit, it’s on again. I give credit where credit is due. Play both sides JT, you will be better off in the long run.

    1. We are guests, he is the host.

      You’re insulting the sincerity host of the venue for your comments
      That is uncivil, and he doesn’t deserve that.

      You can always buzz off if you don’t like it.

      You stink like rotten fish carcasses cluttering up the beach on a hot day

  6. Turley has been wrong about this investigation from the beginning. There is proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government right in front of us. Natalia Veselnitskaya and her henchmen from the Russian business empire/intelligence offered the Trump campaign dirt on Clinton that almost certainly was found through cyber crimes or espionage.

    When offered this info, Trump Jr replied, “I love it.” They agreed to meet with Russian officials to receive this info.

    As the late Charles Krauthammer said, it may have been an inept and incompetent attempt but it is still collusion.

    The Mueller investigation is NOT close to complete and I wouldn’t be surprised if it lasted until the summer. The investigation into Whitewater lasted from the mid 1990s until 2001 but it didn’t involve any international crimes.

    We do not work with foreign spies who engage in cyber crimes against other American citizens. This is traitorous behavior and Washington would have been in an uproar if the Obama administration did this.

    1. it is not a crime for an american to hear a foreigners say something bad about another american.

      that is squarely within the ambit of free speech.

      basically Democrats want to criminalize the political process.

  7. 2 years spent pursuing allegations that Trump colluded with Russia in order to defraud voters. All they have to show for it are some process crimes and tax evasion by his associates, and allegations that Trump paid off mistresses and bought an overpriced painting of himself. This was done in spite of undeniable evidence that Hillary Clinton paid a British spy for false allegations by Russian spies in order to defraud voters. This was after she defrauded Democrats by taking on the DNC and rigging the primary against him.

    My bitterness at the inequitable application of the law and power of government knows no bounds. It has become quite clear that the law does not apply to Democrats in power. Clinton put top secret information on a private bootleg server in her bathroom, and uploaded it to the Cloud, and she had the full force of the FBI and DOJ protecting her from the criminal consequences of her actions.

    Anyone who still believes the law is blind in America must be blind.

    This is nothing more than a soft coup attempt because as Democrat did not win the election, a disturbing misuse of power. As long as Mueller failed to investigate the candidate who actually did coordinate with Russian spies, this entire investigation is a fraud. Ever Republican candidate in my memory has been called a Fascist and any number of vile names. Conservatives routinely get called every name in the book on social media, on college campuses, in the workplace. It is virulent bigotry in the old demonize your enemy playbook. I don’t like when Leftists call conservatives terrible names, and I don’t like when Trump repays it in kind.

    I wholeheartedly support anti-cyber-piracy efforts. Foreign nations like China have been raiding our corporate intellectual property for years. I also support efforts to combat voter fraud, from purging the rolls of the ineligible, requiring ID at the poll, to security against hacking of actual voter machines.

    We are already aware of multiple, large scale efforts at voter fraud – Hillary’s dossier and her rigging of the primary. The mainstream media might be guilty of campaign finance law violations in their coordinated efforts to help the Democratic Party with selective or false reporting. GOOGLE executives are on record that they want to influence the outcome of the next election. Their algorhythm is ubiquitous, and it selects what stories are available for users to find based on political expediency.

    A handful of tech executives very well could become the Big Brothers who shape the outcomes of elections on the local, state, and federal level. They have the help of the Democrat madrassas operating from pre-K through grad school. The fact that there are so many Democrats who actually believe conservatives are all evil are testament to their influence.

    Stop the influence. Let us be free from the meddling of teachers, professors, and social media platforms in forming our own political opinions. Let educators confine themselves to teaching the subject at hand, and stay out of our personal politics.

    Someone once wrote about the Gillette ad, “why is my bathroom utensil insulting me?” I would ask, why is my child’s kindergarten teacher insulting our family’s politics? Why are those whose business is creating a platform to share cute cat videos insulting us? Why did they get their delusions of grandeur?

    1. Wow, you’ve bought the whole package.

      Let’s start with Democratic primaries. How did Hillary rig them? You know she beat Bernie worse than she did Trump, right – 55-43%

      1. Anon, you could investigate this matter for yourself to satisfy your curiosity.

        However , let me enlighten you:

        The Democrats were broke and in debt after bankrolling President Obama’s second-term campaign, and he did little to help them raise the money they needed. Desperate, the Democratic National Committee made a deal with Clinton early in her campaign to jointly raise money together. Using Clinton’s fundraising clout, the DNC was soon out of debt. In exchange, Clinton took control of the DNC, including hiring and firing, and used it as a political weapon against her foes.

        The deal let Clinton raise money outside the limits of the campaign finance law, by in effect laundering campaign donations through the DNC. It may have been illegal.

        Bernie didn’t stand a chance. Nor did then-Vice President Joe Biden, who, after showing all the signs of running for president, suddenly bowed out in October of 2015 — months after Hillary took over the DNC.

          1. Anon – I keep trying to post this comment, but it is not going through. Perhaps if I reply directly, it will post.


            As a member of Sanders’ campaign, I’ll never forget watching the primary votes being counted for Michigan, one of the key states that decided the 2016 election. Sanders’ “pledged delegate count” – which reflected the number of votes he received from rank-and-file Democrats – exceeded Clinton’s by four. But after the superdelegates cast their ballots, the roll call registered “Clinton 76, Sanders 67”.

            America’s shameful history of voter suppression
            Read more
            This repeated itself in other states. In Indiana, Sanders won the vote 44 to 39, but, after the super delegates had their say, Clinton was granted 46 delegates, versus Sanders’ 44. In New Hampshire, where Sanders won the vote by a gaping margin (60% to 38%) and set a record for the largest number of votes ever, the screen read “16 Sanders, 16 Clinton”.

            Sanders “lost” those states because hundreds of superdelegates had pledged their votes long before the primaries and caucuses began. By including those prearranged votes, running media tallies reinforced the inevitability of a Clinton win and the common perception that the Democratic primary was “rigged”. In June, the Associated Press went so far as to call the primary in Clinton’s favor – before Californians even had a chance to cast their votes.

            Again, as I mentioned before, you could easily research this topic to satisfy yourself both on source material and method.

            1. Sorry. It appears there was a lag and all three of my attempts posted simultaneously.

              1. Karen, I have tried to remain civil and polite in my discussion with you and did not purposefully call you a liar. I said the GOP was lying about this because it feeds their narrative and did not mean all who repeat it are as calculating as party spokesman. So forgive me for in any way implying that you are a liar.

                Otherwise, I think I have made my case clearly and by stating known facts about the Democratic Primary elections of 2016. As I have already stated, differences of opinion about super delegates can be had by well meaning and intelligent observers as well as Hillary’s cozy relationship with DNC. Given her opponent was not even a member of the party and really had no chance of winning, I think he received more than a polite treatment by the party. NOne of that takes away from the fact that he lost the election to Hillary, it was not close, and that had nothing to do with any favoritism or illicit behavior from anyone. The right woman won.

                1. oh he had a chance alright. but, he accepted getting shafted by Hillary, which shows that he was not the right man for the country as a whole that’s for sure. but he had a lot of good policy positions and many similar to those which helped trump

                  hillary ran on her strength, ie, she’s an insider. well, people don’t like that. but you are welcome to keep on misunderstandng things Ms “anon” it’s better for us if you remain deluded by your obsessive loyalty to Madame Hillary

            2. OK, but where’s the part about how she won the primary vote by 55-43%? That’s quite a lot of rigging if she stole those.

                  1. you figure it out. I’m not a Democrat. the only Democrats I have voted for are ones that i personally have met. and I have had friends run for office in Dem party, and the more I learn, the less i understand. So, basically, it’s not my problem. its yours.

                    Maybe take a lesson from Republican party. the voters got the man we wanted. That was trump not the establishment darling Jeb.

                    Can the Dems say the same? a question for you to worry about not me. I have voted for Democrats before but NEVER in a federal election. Probably never will either the way things are going.

                    1. That’s the entire point – the Dem did get who they wanted. She kicked Bernie’s ass.

                      Your and Karen’s claim is BS which is a convenient lie for the GOP and some ignorant Dems in the “progressive” wing to falsely beat the Democratic Party with.

                      It’s a lie.

                    2. Karen, Anon, Kurtz,

                      The Democratic Party is in the business of politics. Therefore its decisions regarding who it wants as their presidential nominee comes down to.. politics.

                      Bernie had never been a Democrat. Therefore the Democratic Party had no obligation to choose Bernie as their nominee.

                      Shortly after the 2016 election, Bernie reverted to his longtime status as an ‘Independent’. Which goes to show he really wasn’t a Democrat (or doesn’t care to identify as one). This seems to validate the party for not wanting Bernie as its nominee. But oddly enough Bernie wants to run for the Democratic nomination again in 2020. ..Go figure..!

                      Furthermore, no District Attorney or Election Supervisor in any major jurisdiction ever brought a case against the Democratic Party or the Clinton Campaign for rigging the 2016 primaries.

                      This ‘rigged primary’ crap is just an empty talking point Trumpers love to rag on. Yet they all believe that Bernie is really a ‘communist’. So their concern for the unfair treatment Bernie allegedly received from Hillary is totally disingenuous.

                    3. LOL. I am free to like who I like. I can have an opinion about Democrats just as much as Republicans. Even if I am a Republican. You ask yourself why pro Trump Republicans like me have good things to say and often agree with Bernie. You figure that out and you may come to understand why a guy like me that had retired from voting at all came off the bench to vote for Trump. Or why a lot of Democrats in states like Michigan voted for Trump. See you are still clueless, aren’t you?

                      You’re anon but we can see your face well enough. The face of the party loyalist, maybe a paid hack. Not the people.

                      “Ignorant progressives.” Ha. Ok whatever. Shows how much you know right there.

                    4. So, I’m a party hack, even though I called some fellow democrats “ignorant progressives”?

                      Not following that logic, but if they go around talking about how Hillary rigged the election – a charge no one here has come close to establishing – I’m sorry, but they are ignorant. Your repeating this false line and believing it – forgive me if you are a GOP propagandist and are using the story cynically – would unfortunately mean you are ignorant about the facts surrounding this lie.

                      I understand it is probably frustrating to not be able to back up your claims, but you shouldn’t be personalizing it against whoever it is you are discussing/debating the issue with, in this case me. In any case, I assure you I am like you only an interested voter who likes to discuss issues. I have strong opinions but will try to keep it genial as long as I’m not attacked and I can maintain respect for the opinion of others.

                    5. Anon:

                      “That’s the entire point – the Dem did get who they wanted. She kicked Bernie’s ass.

                      Your and Karen’s claim is BS which is a convenient lie for the GOP and some ignorant Dems in the “progressive” wing to falsely beat the Democratic Party with.”

                      I posted links and quotes to explain my position. You have called me a liar without a shred of supporting evidence, nor have you made your case to convince me I’m mistaken.

                      “The Dems” didn’t get what they wanted, unless you define the term as “Hillary Clinton” rather than Democrat voters. I can’t even say the term applies to the DNC, as it was Hillary running it.

                      When you call someone a liar, you either have to prove it, or you are making a knowingly false accusation simply because you don’t like the facts. When losing an argument, rely on ad hominem.

                      Bernie is a Socialist. One would think that would be different from the Democrat Party, and yet prominent Democrats have signed on to AOC’s openly socialist propaganda. Socialism has rising popularity among Democrats. If Dems are not Socialists, then they have failed to explain that position.

                      I think Bernie’s programs would be disastrous to the country. Neither he nor AOC have any idea what they’re doing. Socialism would usher in the same dystopia it has world wide wherever it is tried. Some capitalist countries have tried to offer the freebies that Socialist dictators offered to buy the freedom of their people, but they pay for it with capitalism. True Socialism is murderous.

                      None of that has anything to do with the fact that Hilary Clinton rigged the Democrat primary. She should have won on the merits, rather than fraud. Were it not for the failing public school system, the average high school graduate should know enough history to never, ever, vote for a Socialist. The public school system is a Democrat madrassa, from pre-K to grad school, so if young voters think Socialism is a grand idea, you can thank the Democrats who taught them.

                      If you don’t like it, be the change you want to see in your party.

                    6. Peter – Bernie supporters as well as rank and file Democrats abhorred the rigging of the primary to benefit Hillary Clinton. If you had read either of the links I provided, or the quotes I posted you would have read a Democrat’s perspective on the need for change in her party.

                      Your argument that Bernie was a sucky candidate has no bearing on the ethics of rigging the primary. Win or lose on the merits of the candidates.

                      All of this denial makes from the pair of you makes about as much sense as putting on lip gloss before cleaning corrals on a windy day.

                    7. you guys are clueless. Here is a smart honest liberal, Jimmy Dore. I have introduced you to him before. He does not like Hillary so you may have never heard of him

                      He has one of my favorite economists Michael Hudson. Who explains a lot. Watch this and learn about the history of debt.

                      And in their view, how Obama colluded with the banks, screwed the debtors, and Hillary promised more. Which is oversimplified if you ask me, but, you guys dont want to hear what else i Have to say, i a am a knuckle dragging conservative, who’s named himself after a fictional madman. SO at least consider these “ignorant progressives” you mock

                    8. Hudson mentions Fauxcahontas. aka Liz Warren. The best idea she had — maybe the only one– maybe some others I don’t know, i am not really a fan except of this one idea: was to modify the personal bk code so that courts in personal bks can cram down mortgage debt. this was during the 2006/7 mess. A great idea. They do it in business reorganizations and they could do it with personal bks. They should. But nobody got behind it. Of course banks are like NO WAY! and republicans were not in favor ….. but here’s the thing— DEMOCRATS were not in favor! Listen, if you cant get the pinkos to agree to it, then forget about the right wingers ok? So…NOW you understand WHY banks give so much money to DEMOCRATS. They are the ones who really matter because they are really the only ones who would dare clip their wings. But they wont. They are kept in the pocket as Hudson explained.

                    9. ha ha i feel zero frustration talking to you anon you are providing me with a lot of laughs. actually i feel a cathartic sense of relief that I am not a fool like you, ensnared in false beliefs.

                  2. “Sorry, but how did she rig the primaries? That doesn’t explain that claim.” I explained it with two links and block quotes.

                  3. How did she rig the primaries? As explained in two links and block quotes, she:

                    1. Took control of the DNC before the primaries and funneled contributions to herself
                    2. She prearranged super delegates’ votes before the primaries.

                    A candidate taking control of the DNC before the primaries, controlling decisions, seizing funds, and arranging super delegate votes is rigging the system.

                    It’s like saying the DNC can just do away with the primary system and choose Hillary, funneling contributions to her without the pesky process of letting Democrat voters decide, and be at a loss as to why anyone would take issue.

                    1. Besides for the fact that what you describe is not rigging the primary elections as you claimed and where the decision was made about who would be our candidate, but Hillary was loaning money to the DNC, not visa versa.

                      People can complain about the system and the existence of super delegates – I think they make sense and am in favor of them and the GOP has them also for the same reasons – or whatever else they don’t like, but that still doesn’t mean that Hillary stole the primary elections. She didn’t. She was the Democratic voters choice by a wide margin.

                    2. You’re really not answering his question. She cannot seize superdelegates. She can threaten them. It’s no surprise that the superdelegates sided with the establishment. That’s what was expected when the by-law provision for the superdelegates was enacted in 1981. It was supposed to be a way to bring more elected officials to party conventions.

                      I’ll wager the DNC pulled what dirty tricks it could on HRC’s behalf, but Sanders’ real problem was that he came up short with voters. Specifically, he lost by 3/1 margins among Southern blacks. No clue why.

                    3. This is absurd and I agree except that the super delegates ended up going with Obama after they became convinced he could win. I think they will largely be governed by that calculation, not necessarily loyalty to the establishment, though the latter is possible, and especially in a close call.

                    4. Anon, your comments clearly show that you are either not reading the linked material, or not understanding it.

                      She did not follow the rules of the primary system. She essentially skipped the entire process, took on DNC debt, took control of the DNC prior to the primaries, funneled contributions to herself instead of other candidates during that process, took control of super delegates. No candidate should have controlled the DNC, and de facto picked the super delegates for herself. That is literally cheating.

                      That is literally rigging the system. She did not follow the rules. Literally. You either do not understand this logic or are being deliberately obtuse. I believe it is the latter because you will not discuss the facts provided.

                      This is why the DNC recently stripped super delegates of their ability to select a Presidential nominee, in response to this scandal that you keep insisting never took place. This was the product of the DNC Unity Reform Commission. This scandal also forced the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Again, common knowledge, which is why I believe you are simply being obtuse because you are unable to rationally discuss these facts.

                    5. Maybe the blacks didnt vote for Bernie because he’s Jewish. Yes, the old tribal thing again. But Hillary is married to our first black president, Bill, and they are methodists which must be related to the AME yeah? See how that works? As simple as that.

                1. Uh, she didn’t need the super delegates. She clobbered Bernie in the primary elections.

                  By the way, as in 2008 when she also had most of the super delegates leaning her way, she lost a lot of them when Obama started winning primaries. That’s how it usually works, and if Bernie had out performed her in the primaries, he would have started picking them up. Super delegates are mostly elected officials who have to run with the presidential candidate at the head of the ticket, and who will likely have the most informed opinion on what’s best for the party in the general election.

            3. PS I have satisfied myself on this charge and have seen nothing that explains how she stole millions of votes. If you have something new I’d love to see it.

                1. OK, but that was about petitions to get on the ballot, not primary votes which are tabulated by state officials. Hillary won by over 4 million votes – that’s worse than the beating she put on Trump.

                  1. explain it away if you like, but the deeper you dig into that hole, the more troubling it should stink.

                1. I hope you able to find my response to your accusation that I called you a liar. The “reply” links on this board disappear at odd times and I had to post it up thread.

                  I voted for Bernie.

                  Facts are facts and I won’t continue them – we’ve beat this dead horse to death. But to sum up, no, the primary was not rigged and Hillary clobbered Bernie. Those who continue that story either don’t understand what happened or have their own motives of discrediting the party or trying to take it over.

                  You can have the last word.


        As a member of Sanders’ campaign, I’ll never forget watching the primary votes being counted for Michigan, one of the key states that decided the 2016 election. Sanders’ “pledged delegate count” – which reflected the number of votes he received from rank-and-file Democrats – exceeded Clinton’s by four. But after the superdelegates cast their ballots, the roll call registered “Clinton 76, Sanders 67”.

        This repeated itself in other states. In Indiana, Sanders won the vote 44 to 39, but, after the super delegates had their say, Clinton was granted 46 delegates, versus Sanders’ 44. In New Hampshire, where Sanders won the vote by a gaping margin (60% to 38%) and set a record for the largest number of votes ever, the screen read “16 Sanders, 16 Clinton”.

        Sanders “lost” those states because hundreds of superdelegates had pledged their votes long before the primaries and caucuses began. By including those prearranged votes, running media tallies reinforced the inevitability of a Clinton win and the common perception that the Democratic primary was “rigged”. In June, the Associated Press went so far as to call the primary in Clinton’s favor – before Californians even had a chance to cast their votes.

        Bernie Sanders is a Socialist, which means he naively believes that a regime of the Soviets and the German Socialist Party (Nazis), as well as starving Venezuela, could somehow be twisted around to be nirvana here. I hope he fails. I hope he never gets elected to any political office again on any level. That goes for AOC, too, because I sincerely believe their politics are murderous. They might be in denial, but it does not change the facts of the outcome.

        However, I don’t get to dictate who runs or wins elections in my country. The laws and rules are supposed to apply equally to all, including candidates whom I loathe.

        The Clinton Machine is ugly and unethical towards its opponents, whether they are accusing Bill of sexual assault or running against Hillary for President. Their desires would have been wishful thinking if the rules applied to them, equally.


        As a member of Sanders’ campaign, I’ll never forget watching the primary votes being counted for Michigan, one of the key states that decided the 2016 election. Sanders’ “pledged delegate count” – which reflected the number of votes he received from rank-and-file Democrats – exceeded Clinton’s by four. But after the superdelegates cast their ballots, the roll call registered “Clinton 76, Sanders 67”.

        This repeated itself in other states. In Indiana, Sanders won the vote 44 to 39, but, after the super delegates had their say, Clinton was granted 46 delegates, versus Sanders’ 44. In New Hampshire, where Sanders won the vote by a gaping margin (60% to 38%) and set a record for the largest number of votes ever, the screen read “16 Sanders, 16 Clinton”.

        Sanders “lost” those states because hundreds of superdelegates had pledged their votes long before the primaries and caucuses began. By including those prearranged votes, running media tallies reinforced the inevitability of a Clinton win and the common perception that the Democratic primary was “rigged”. In June, the Associated Press went so far as to call the primary in Clinton’s favor – before Californians even had a chance to cast their votes.

    2. Professor Turley gets me every time with the “horse-sized duck or duck-sized horses” metaphors. My ears prick up. Yeah, horses! Dang it.

    3. that you so blatantly mischaracterize these things and blow them off as nothing shows yours stripes fer sure….

      Who bought you?

      1. “that you so blatantly mischaracterize these things and blow them off as nothing shows yours stripes fer sure…. Who bought you?”

        Becka, why do you think Karen was bought? She wasn’t. She just has common sense something you lack.

    4. Well Karen the law is still active in the US and probably one of the more just legal systems on Earth. Perhaps not the best but in the top tier. It gets a lot worse. Don’t be too upset over it all.


    “In business, however, assets often are exaggerated. For example, Trump reportedly gave Deutsche Bank figures on his worth that jumped in one year by $4 billion”.

    As I noted yesterday, this is where Trump’s tax returns could become an issue. Trump more than likely orchestrated numbers to look relatively ‘poor’ for purposes of income tax.

    The numbers Trump submitted might pass legal muster with the IRS. But if revealed to the public, they could contradict the billionaire image Trump is so fond of promoting.

    The public might learn, for instance, that Trump’s main income came from “The Apprentice”. It might even look like Trump ‘needed’ that day job. We could learn Trump’s core business, real estate development, was relatively lame as an income stream.

    These revelations may not put Trump in direct legal jeopardy. But they could certainly puncture Trump’s image as the mega-rich wheeler dealer. That, in turn, could possibly damage longterm prospects of the Trump Organization. The business community might realize said company is more hollow than previously thought.

    1. on day one of unversity business accounting, they explain how there are often differences between ledger accounting and tax accounting. depending on the tax.

      one day one of university law school, they explain how there are differences between ledger accounting, taxation, and even also a third dimension, real fair market values.

      it all depends on the details of the law.
      this is a reason why people don’t like to give the journalists that are expert in none of that, grist for the mill

      1. Kurtz, so ‘No’ politician should have to show his tax returns because journalists might misrepresent the numbers?

        Or, ‘No businessman running for public office should have to show his taxes because journalists might misrepresent the numbers’?

        1. I dont follow you peter. The POTUS does not have to show his taxes. don’t like that? Ok, there’s good reasons to want them, so argue to change the law.

          But under the law as it is, he would be a fool to show his taxes it would just feed the fire of all the propagandists and liars. Even if he’s an angel they would have a field day with it.

        2. Peter, get real. To date all candidates picked and chose what they wanted to disclose to the American public. Obama and Trump were no different. If the American people want the President to disclose certain information as part of his running for the Presidency they can pass laws and Constitutional amendments. The Constitution aready states what is necessary to be President. Let’s not make up requirements after the fact.

          1. Do you also want it codified that Presidents should not make hidden hush payments to porn stars too? Previously both avoiding that behavior and releasing your tax returns were SOP for presidents and candidates for the office. Given the depths of behavior the scum bag in chief has plummeted to, and possibly dragged the office with him, perhaps we should.

            1. No it wasn’t SOP. No candidate’s tax returns were disclosed prior to 1976.

              Fun fact: prior to 1976, candidates didn’t publish their medical files, either. It’s been common since, and John McCain was exceptionally transparent with his. Obama offered an unaudited one page letter from his doctor.

              Pretty amusing how moles at Harvard, Yale, and Boston College managed to get the academic transcripts of John Kerry, George W. Bush, and Albert Gore into the hands of the media. Also amusing how Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard made sure that didn’t happen to BO.

                1. “I did not know that!”

                  Anon, You don’t know a lot of things. In fact you don’t know any more than Jan F. did.

                2. Richard Gephardt in 1988 attempted to persuade the other candidates to form a cartel to refuse media demands for personal information, finding their demands for documentation egregious. He didn’t succeed, but since then, the market position of the media has declined and campaigns have incrementally refused to be so accommodating.

                  John Kerry’s Navy personnel files were shown only to one selected reporter at the Boston Globe, a paper then functioning as a press agent for him. (This was while the Bush campaign felt compelled to provide copies of his 30+ year old TxAng payroll stubs of which there was a microfiche archive). Obama eschewed public financing of his campaign so he could rake in masses of Hollywood cash and illegal foreign donations. He also refused to open his medical files (while McCain was opening his) and refused for five years to provide a copy of his long-form birth certificate.

                  But none of that matters because reasons.

            2. Anon, we all know you like the deck stacked in your favor much like Hillary Clinton stacked the deck in her favor during the primaries. That is understandable. You want to win at any cost, legal or illegal, fair or unfair. That is your nature. But, we are a nation of laws even though Obama administration personal broke laws and conventions particular to where they worked. That you do not mind those things is because they suited your purposes. You are not an honest broker.

              You sound like a fascist that only feels the need to follow the law if it suits his purposes of gaining power. Remember Marcuse? Didn’t Jan and I have a little discussion revolving around things Marcuse wrote?

              Right now there is no fascist control. We have a legitimately elected President who to date has broken no criminal laws campaigning or as President. He has held back doing things to defend himself that he has the power to do. Example firing Mueller. His administration has not weaponized the intelligence services or the IRS like the Obama administration did. He does not have to yield to petty fascist requests unless they are laws that are Constitutional. I know that causes you heartache because to you it seems the Constituion is little more than toilet paper and though you talk about honesty you can’t even be honest with the people on this blog hoping to deceive them with a change of alias. You sound more like Michael Cohen than the honest businessman you say you are.

              1. So, expecting presidential candidates to release their tax returns will lead to fascism?

                It’s a little hard to follow your reasoning, what with all of the obsessing about me. Just between us, I think you’re the one with the problem dude.

                1. “So, expecting presidential candidates to release their tax returns will lead to fascism?”

                  No, your ideas and your intentions lead to fascism. You are just a dupe and that was easily seen in your argument with several members of the blog about the way Hillary handled the primary. It may have been legal but so was the election of Adolf Hitler. It is the way you and others manage your affairs that lead to fascism.

            3. uh you ever heard of Jack Kennedy? There was a real coxswain.

              Quite a few others too. We don’t even need to touch Slick Willy.

              Don’t make too much of the McDougal and Stormy things. Shows how naive you are.

  9. Three Days of Condor

    House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler has requested documents from 81 Trump-related agencies, entities, and individuals by issuing subpoenas

    Requirements for Service of a Subpoena can be By Certified Mail. Be careful when the Postman rings the doorbell.

    1. a great film by the late director Sydney Pollack

      a good fight scene, with some unbelievable tropes, which of course are needed to add to the tension.

      like, if you were going to use a mac 10 to try and hit somebody, why would you wait, and not just open up on them as soon as the door opened?

      of course that raises the other question, why try and use a mac 10 for anything. probably only suitable for repelling boarders on a ship at sea and not much else.

  10. mespo apparently hasn’t heard of Jesse Jackson, jr, Dinesh D’Souza, and Michael Cohen, all of who did or are going to jail for violations of campaign finance laws. There are others.

    Again, I suggest he read the NYTs, WaPo, WSJ, and The Guardian to be properly informed on the issues he feels compelled to comment on.

    1. Anon:

      “mespo apparently hasn’t heard of Jesse Jackson, jr, Dinesh D’Souza, and Michael Cohen, all of who did or are going to jail for violations of campaign finance laws. There are others.”
      D’Souza never went to jail — it was a half-way house — and got a Presidential pardon. He claimed selective prosecution. His prosecutor was later fired.

      Jackson and his wife, Sandi, signed plea agreements and agreed to plead guilty to charges of fraud, conspiracy, making false statements, mail fraud, wire fraud, and criminal forfeiture—having used about $750,000 in campaign money for over 3000 personal purchases that included a Michael Jackson fedora and cashmere capes. So campaign finance laws were the least of their problems. Saying the went to jail for campaign finance law violation is a lot like saying the bank robber went to jail for littering after he dropped the gun during the getaway.

      As for Cohen, we don’t know yet where’s going until he finishes singing the chorus to Jailhouse Rock.

      Do you think people don’t check out your prevarications? And, yeah, I know “there are others.”

      1. No one had ever been prosecuted like Dinesh was for what he did. Such minor campaign finance law violations are usually fined. Rosie O’Donnell used, I believe, 5 different names and addresses in order to hide her own campaign finance violations, and did not go to jail. HIs case was a misuse of government authority under color of law.

        I also disagree with PACs and bundling operating under different laws than individual contributions, as well as forced union political contributions. To reduce unfair influence, everyone should be limited to some dollar amount, whether they donate to a candidate directly or to a PAC. Otherwise, it seems like money laundering.

        Everyone is supposed to be treated equally under the law. Using that yardstick, D’Souza should have been fined. Everyone else who gets caught and escaped consequences should be fined. Whatever the general punishment is should apply to all, regardless of politics.

        The government threatened Dinesh with multiple similar charges, all for the same act, and all with massive sentences unless he pled out. He was never going to see the light of day again, but nothing happened to Rosie O’Donnell. They even threatened him with mail fraud because he mailed a check. That was an abuse of power against a private citizen for exercising his First Amendment rights to disagree with the government.

        It can now be said that the US is guilty of jailsing conservative political dissenters, and it does not apply that law to Leftist critics.

        The law must apply equally to everyone. Since it doesn’t, that is an existential crisis for our country that must be remedied.

        1. Hillary Clinton circumvented campaign finance laws by taking control of the DNC, funelling contributions to herself in excess of campaign limits. This was orders of magnitude greater than Dinesh’s thousands. You don’t see her cooling her heels in an orange jumpsuit.

      2. I’m happy you discovered Google and I suggest using it before posting rather than, as in this case, after.

        So, you agree all 3 went to jail or will be going to jail for campaign law violations. I’m happy for that and I assume this settles the comparison you made to speeding tickets.

        1. Very cheeky, Anon. That’s not what mespo said, and you know it.

          The law is not applied equally, and that’s a travesty.

  11. The American people sees this for what it is: a nasty parliamentary coup against an elected leader. As with Clinton, Trump will emerge more popular than before as he takes on the mantle of the people against he “ag’in everything” Congress. The issue isn’t a “duck-sized horse,” issue but rather a “d*cked size Congress” issue.

    1. Actually Mueller is more popular than Trump, so not sure where Mesp is getting his information. I suggest the NYTs, WaPo, WSJ, or The Guardian (no paywall) if he cares to know what is going on.

      1. Actually Mueller is more popular than Trump, so not sure where Mesp is getting his information.
        Yeah, and the crowd cheered bank robber, Sonny Wortzik, in Dog Day Afternoon. What’s your point?

          1. Anon:

            You said above that the American people “see this for what it is.”

            Not all of them. Just the responsible or experienced ones. As for a favorable comparison of Mueller over Trump, the respondents might have decided based on each man’s choice of suit fabric. Who knows? You don’t.

            1. Again, I only responded to your assertion. The popularity of Mueller is not of much importance, including to him.

      2. Anybody who has followed his career, is only impressed that he has erred to badly and yet kept on advancing. Under the Peter Principle, they have a picture of Meuller. He exemplifies it because he KEEPS ON AGAIN AND AGAIN getting promoted to the level of his incompetence.

        Just messing up the Hells Angels Conspiracy trial would have killed a regular career. Or failing to properly supervise the Boston FBI office that let agents run rampant helping Whitey Bulger murder people,. Or say framing the wrong guy fo the Anthrax mailings. Or lying to Congress about WMDs.

        Oh that Meuller. he is only popular with people who are ignorant of his career, or who knowing all about it, may want to employ his incompetence to advance their own stratagems!

        1. I think there’s reason to believe that neither suspect the FBI developed was guilty Only one, received a civil judgement against the bureau. The other committed suicide, indubitably because he was being cleaned out financially in defending himself and because an adverse judgment would prevent his wife from collecting his federal pension.

      3. this wafts from your fingers like smoke from the edge of a pipe filled with skunkweed

    2. Sp Trump is instigating a coup against the status quo….is that what you are saying Mespo? Cuz to me (and many ‘people’) he just doesn’t have the street cred for that task…….

  12. Turley wrote, “. . . as the Special Counsel moves closer to submitting his final report . . .”

    When? By the end of this week? That’s what they said last week. By the end of this month? That’s what they said last month. By the end of this year? That’s what they said last year. Who are these “they sayers,” anyhow?

    Well, the “they sayers” are not “Corporation A” that is challenging a subpoena from Mueller for bank records about a probable crime committed by a US citizen. Likewise, the they sayers” are not Andrew Miller and his lawyer, Paul Kamenar, who recently lost their challenge to a subpoena from Mueller for Miller’s testimony about the terrabytes of voluminous, complicated evidence against Roger Stone, a fair bit of which evidence Miller’s previously lawyer had already been forced to produce to Mueller or be cited for contempt of court.

    The Solicitor General of the United States, Noel Francisco, has already staunchly defended both of those subpoenas from Mueller and will continue to do so quite vigorously if needs be. Roger Stone’s trial date has not yet been set. Mueller cannot be through with all of his prosecution and declination decisions until Mueller has Miller’s testimony against Stone and “Corporation A’s” bank records, so that Mueller will not have to use classified information at the trial of that U. S. citizen whose probable crime those bank records will reveal. And Mueller still could, and should, subpoena Trump’s video-taped testimony before Mueller’s grand jury to force The SCOTUS to overrule Trump’s thoroughly bogus claim of executive privilege over decisions Trump made as President-Elect during the transition.

    Until Mueller has no more prosecution and declination decisions to make, Mueller cannot file his confidential report to the Attorney General. So when is Mueller going to be through with all of his prosecution and declination decisions? When Mueller says so. Not when the “they sayers” say so.

    1. Excuse me Ms. Late4Yoga, in skimming through your blather I do not see mention of “collusion” which seemingly was your life-driver. You are shifting gears before our very eyes – look a squirrel, look a rabbit, go get them girl!

            1. Thanks, Becka G. Looks to me like them sheep have been sheared. Why else would they let a rabbit herd them? D’oh! They’re playing “follow the leader.” I get it, now. Good one, Ms. G.

    2. or the last day of the presidency one would imagine. amazing how this sabotage has gone on so long and continues still.

  13. There are viable criminal allegations raised

    IOW, a lot of pettifoggery which the Professor pretends is legitimate. What’s irksome about the Professor’s columns is that each and every one assumes or defends the prerogatives of the legal profession to extract rents and make every other segment of society miserable.

    1. Absurd x 2 – True. Lawyers give lawyers cover throughout the “justice” system, including “collusion” to fix culture of excessive billable hours and artificially inflated hourly rates.This corrupt culture is rampant in court rooms and legislative branches – federal, state, local.

    2. extract rents? what i do is called working by the hour. if a plumber does it, that’s ok, but if I get paid, oh, that’s bad?

      wiki “In public choice theory and in economics, rent-seeking involves seeking to increase one’s share of existing wealth without creating new wealth. Rent-seeking results in reduced economic efficiency through poor allocation of resources, reduced actual wealth-creation, lost government revenue, increased income inequality,[1] and (potentially) national decline.”

      hopefully, lawyers create wealth, ideally, BY DECREASING SOCIAL COSTS. which result from crime, litigation, mostly.

      you say oh lawyers LOVE that stuff. well we love solving that stuff and getting paid to do it.
      but the alternative to US doing it, is kind of like how they do it in countries like, um the PRC

      that is, some corrupt official or communist agent decides what the outcome will be ahead of time, and green lights it, in a totally arbitrary way. so instead of the 90% conviction rate of the US Federal court system, it’s 99.99 there. in a way, nearly every show is a show trial– not just some of them.

      that is a system which has higher social costs of a wholly different kind.

      so in a way, lawyers are working, ideally, on reducing the negative externalities of human activity that show up as injustice and crime, both vis a vis private people and each other, and private parties and the state.

  14. Dumbocrats are committing self-sabotage with Witch Hunt 2.0, and going to turn moderates to Trump en masse in 2020. Trump-Russia collusion hoax crashed and burned with Cohen congressional testimony which was cherry on the sundae. It will be fun to see how Late4Yoga and other lefty loons try to justify their comrades’ unending blood-zest for Trump persecution while all the while devoid of game. Get your popcorn.

    1. Felix Sater is on the docket for The House Oversight Committee. Felix Sater was involved in both the Trump Tower Moscow deal and the Ukrainian Peace Plan that comprise a probable quid pro quo conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian election assistance to Trump. Or, if you prefer, a probable case of solicitation of a bribe against Trump.

      Manafort discussed that same Ukrainian Peace Plan with the Russian spy, Konstantin Kilimnik, at the August 2nd meeting at The Grand Havana Room at 666 Fifth Avenue in which Manafort sold and briefed Kilimnik on Tony Fabrizio’s $767,000 worth of detailed, sophisticated in-house Trump campaign polling data. Manafort briefed Kilimnik again on that polling data in a meeting in Madrid in, IIRC, late September of 2016.

      Manafort’s Madrid meeting with Kilimnik took place shortly after The GRU hacked the DNC data analytics from the Amazon Web Services cloud storage on September 24th, 2016. It’s entirely possible that Roger Stone told the GRU what sort of DNC data analytics they needed to hack. If the GRU put the Trump polling data together with the hacked DNC data analytics, then the GRU had focused, targeted informational-warfare capabilities going into the home stretch for the 2016 U.S. election for president.

      Cohen testified to Congress that Trump never expected to win the 2016 election for president AND that Trump would do anything to win the 2016 election for president.

      1. Manafort’s meeting with Kilimnik in Madrid took place in late January or early February of 2017 and it involved Manafort and Kilimnik discussing the Ukrainian Peace Plan rather than a second briefing on the polling data that Manafort gave to Kilimnik on August 2nd, 2016. Nevertheless, Manafort and Kilimnik also discussed the Ukrainian Peace Plan at the August 2nd meeting at The Grand Havana Room at 666 Fifth Avenue.

          1. There’s a good reason that Manafort lied about his conspiracy with Kilimnik and Deripaska. Manafort for exploiting Trump for Mnafort’s personal, financial gain. There’s no good reason for Trump to pardon Manafort for having conspired with Kilimnik and Deripaska. There might be, however, a really bad reason for Trump to pardon Manafort for having conspired with Kilimnik and Deripaska; namely, Manafort might know that he conspired with Kilimnik and Deripaska either for Trump’s personal, financial gain, as well, or for Russia’s election assistance to Trump, or both.

            1. Correction: Manafort was exploiting Trump for Manafort’s personal financial gain.

          2. cool vids, great dog. reminds me of my pet Alsatian, Blondi. and the walks we used to have near Obersalzburg

  15. Let’s not forget, this all started with accusations of Russian collusion. Now they will try to entrap President Trump on parking violations. Good luck.

    1. We have known there was collusion for long time. The question is whether it rose to a level of criminal conspiracy which prosecutors can prove.

      1. [Sarcasm alert] Everybody knows that playing footsie under the table with Russians while running for president of the United States is what real-estate developers like Trump are supposed to do. It’s only a criminal conspiracy if a former Secretary of State played footsie under the table with Russians several years before an election for president of the United States. (Which she didn’t.) Ha-ha! (It’s so unfair.)

        1. The new lefty loon mantra now is “There was collusion, it just could not be proven” So you all were so sure and put so much trust in Muler “In Muler I trust”.etc. Now Muler et al were simply not capable of working through the “subtlety, nuance, nor complexity”.

          1. Nope. That’s not it. The mantra goes: It’s not over until it’s over. Mueller doesn’t file his confidential report to AG Barr until Mueller is through with all of Mueller’s prosecution and declination decisions. And, even then, it’s not over until it’s over.

            Exactly what kind of Ex-Yankees Manager thinks he can simply announce that the game is over at the seventh inning stretch because his team might lose if the game is allowed to continue?

            1. In the immortal words of Steve Mariucci: “Believe what you see” i.e. Cohen congressional testimony etc. Keep on keeping on with your conspiracy blather i.e. Loser Talk. Good Day Ma’am.

              1. I haven’t seen Mueller’s confidential report to AG Barr. Have you? AG Barr hasn’t seen it yet. I think you believe what you’re NOT seeing. And what you’re Not seeing is . . . the end of Trump’s troubles.

          2. Collusion is not a crime, fortunately for Jr, Kushner, and Manafort, i.e., the top people in the Trump campaign. We know they colluded. The question is whether there were any criminal conspiracies involving campaign financing or other laws.

              1. mespo apparently hasn’t heard of Jesse Jackson, jr, Dinesh D’Souza, and Michael Cohen, all of who did or are going to jail for violations of campaign finance laws. There are others.

                Again, I suggest he read the NYTs, WaPo, WSJ, and The Guardian to be properly informed on the issues he feels compelled to comment on.

                Sorry posted this to the top of the page by mistake.

                1. The prosecution of D’Souza was blatant in its political motivation and that of Cohen is one discrete (and quite phony) element of a much longer bill of particulars. As for Jackson Jr., his plea bargain incorporated an array of charges in re what amounted to embezzlement from his campaign committee, not ‘campaign finance violations’. Nothing similar has been alleged of Cohen.

                  You never stop lying, do you?

                  1. As I posted, it is a statement of fact that D’Souza, Jackson Jr, and Cohen have all gone to jail for campaign finance law violations, or will go for that crime.

                    There are zero lies in that statement.

                    The above poster is a clear example of the corrosive effects of Trump droppings on the judgement of his sycophants.

                    1. As I posted, it is a statement of fact that D’Souza, Jackson Jr, and Cohen have all gone to jail for campaign finance law violations, or will go for that crime.

                      It’s not a statement of fact, for reasons I just delineated. That a campaign finance violation is on a bill of particulars does not mean the candidate was jailed for that. It’s not the top count on Cohen’s indictment. Jackson had a multicount indictment derived from his embezzlement of campaign funds, not something of which Cohen or Trump has been accused. As for D’Souza, his treatment by prosecutors and the courts was egregious, as everyone can see.

                      Repeating your lies and lying more brazenly doesn’t make them true.

                    2. Knowingly violating campaign finance laws – as Trump did by trying to hide his payments to Stormy Daniels – is criminal, not civil, offense and jail time is among the penalties. The 3 felons I listed all spent time – or will – based on violating campaign laws. It is not similar to a “traffic ticket” unless it’s a DUI. On the other hand, I encourage Trump supporters to stay dumb on this one – as he has – as it will help you sleep better.

                    3. Knowingly violating campaign finance laws – as Trump did by trying to hide his payments to Stormy Daniels –

                      Again, that’s a dubious interpretation of the law which has failed in previous court tests.

                      And, of course, these matters are hardly ever prosecuted. The Obama campaigns were merely fined. Lawfare is waged only on Republicans.

            1. That is, in fact, the question. That question has not yet been answered. In order to answer the question about Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Mueller must find out whether members of the Trump campaign or Trump associates knew enough about Russia’s willingness and ability to disseminate thousands of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton through Wikileaks to have entered into an agreement to conceal it by deceptive or dishonest means from The FEC, The State Department and The Justice Department so that the Trump campaign could benefit from the illegal foreign campaign contribution that the Russian hack and leak operation provided Trump for the purpose of electioneering communications during a U. S. election.

              P. S. Every last federal judge who has read whatever lies behind Mueller’s redactions has denied every last motion to dismiss the charges, to suppress the evidence, or to quash the subpoena.

            1. Anon:

              “Did it again – top of page. SORRY!”
              No problem. Common teenie bopper affliction. Has the crying subsided over Luke Perry yet?

              1. mespo…You’re hilarious!
                And I love it when a somewhat depressing blog thread goes from
                “Les Mis” to…………..”Le mes”……!!!!!

      2. “We have known there was collusion for long time. ”

        Correct that to a few crazy ideologues have fantassies that go way beyond normalcy.

        1. Sluggo misses the point so consistently that it simply must be intentional. Anon is drawing the proper distinction between collusion versus conspiracy. I-Bob’s use of the term “collusion” likely stems from the sort of conditioned reflex that made Ivan Pavlov’s famous pigeons peck at a button on cue. Anon is mercifully attempting to deprogram I-Bob. Sluggo is too far gone.

          1. Diane, there was no collusion or conspiracy on Trumps part. We know that your fantasies and hallucinations wish to lead you there but a bit of Haldol might temper you down.

            1. There was both collusion and conspiracy on the part of members of the Trump campaign and Trump associates. Manafort and Gates conspired with Kilimnik and Deripaska for personal, financial gain at the expense of increasing Trump’s legal jeopardy. Stone, Corsi, Malloch and Farage all colluded with Assange who, in turn, conspired with The GRU. There are terrabytes of voluminous, complicated evidence against Roger Stone that could easily make Stone’s collusion into a case for conspiracy.

              1. There are a lot of dishonest people in the world and for all we know you are one of them. You certainly are dishonest on the list.

                Trump had nothing to do with Russian collusion and conspiracy though we can’t say the same for the Clintons. What other people did on their own time is not something to hold Trump for. We believe Manafort to be guilty, but of crimes that preceded his involvement with Trump and then he was fired. I believe his crimes have been known for years but he is and was being prosecuted for his crimes more because he worked for Trump than because of his crime. That should tell you something if you are honest, but I don’t hold my breath.

                Cohen is guilty, but of what? His own fraud and Taxi medallion fraud. He also lied to Congress and then lied again when called back. That seems to be the charges you are interested in because that is closer to Trump rather than his criminal actions. Yes, Trump hired a lousy lawyer that I think has a compulsion to lie. I wish we could add up the number of lawyers Trump has had. Then look around and see the percentage of bad lawyers to good lawyers. If one hires enough lawyers one is likely to get a bunch of bad apples.

                The Democrats that are making 81 people hire attorneys and making their lives miserable would, if they weren’t in Congress, be liable for the equivalent of malicious prosecution. You don’t care about that because you don’t care about people, only your ideology.

                  1. “Trump personally concocted a false cover story for the Trump Tower collusion”

                    Anon, still waiting for

                    State the crime
                    State the proof.

                    You keep running away from that no matter which alias you chose to use. Show me the crime and the proof. Your citation didn’t do that though I don’t know that you are able to accept that fact. You can prove me wrong by quoting the two sentences from the Washington post and show how they meet the definition of a crime and proof.

                    Bye again. For your next alias I suggest Bent Nail

                    1. It seems I’m the only one in those conversation presenting something other than what was just pulled from your butt, and I’m running away? Delusions of grandeur from this guy!

                      As I demonstrated, Allan’s assertion that Trump is not guilty of collusion is only his wishful thinking. Collusion is not a crime, fortunately for the Trump Tower meeting attendees. Criminal conspiracy to violate a law – in this case it might be campaign finance laws relating to foreign involvement – or obstruction of justice are. By his act of making up a lie about what happened at that meeting, the president could be found a co-conspirator or guilty of obstruction of justice. In any case, by that act he’s part of that collusion, legal or otherwise.

                      There, even Allan should be able to understand that.

                    2. “As I demonstrated, Allan’s assertion…”

                      Once again Anon is obfuscating the issue at hand. That is what he tried to do as Jan and then went byebye. We are left with the same basic questions.

                      State the crime
                      State the proof.

                      We see a lot of verbiage just like when one leaves nails and hammers all over the floor to pretend one is working. Run, run away little boy your nose is growing.

                    3. “Man, there is something wrong with this guy”

                      You are sounding like an idiot. Skip the obfuscating verbiage.

                      State the crime
                      State the proof.

        2. The Trump Tower meeting – the one the President helped concoct a cover story for, and thus losing one of his lawyers (the one with the conscience) – that all attendants then lied about was a fantasy?

          1. Anon, just so you’ll know, you are free to vote for someone else in the next election, which is less than two years away.

          2. Anon, you are one of the craziest of the ideologues I was talking about. You discard everything that doesn’t suit your purposes and then you add things to the truth that don’t exist.

            “The Trump Tower meeting ”

            Specify the crime.
            Specify the proof.

            This is what got you when you called yourself Jan F. You lose when it comes to specifics, then you run away crying like a little child only to come back under another alias. I guess we will have to put up with your childish behavior under a new alias again.

            1. Anon is like the guy poking at the Grizzly Bear with the cage door open and never realizing that the same danger of endless attack and investigation now awaits the next Democrat President. Oh, they’ll holler their moralizing screeches and the Repubs will simply say turnabout is fair play — and it is. You want mutually assured destruction, you get mutual assured destruction and we’ll be left holding the bag.

                1. “Apparently mespo hasn’t heard of Whitewater or Behghazi.”
                  What I heard was the investigating party being swept from office the very next time the electorate got a chance to weigh in on their colossal waste of time. Welcome to the future Jerry, Nancy and that creepy Schiff.

                  What did you guys figure you’d do after government service?

                  1. If they impeach, maybe.

                    So, we agree then that “mutually assured destruction” and “turn about” have already occurred, right?

                    1. Anon:
                      So, we agree then that “mutually assured destruction” and “turn about” have already occurred, right?”

                      Sure and the cycle keeps turning and escalating until you have a Preston Brooks-Charles Sumner style free-for-all that spreads across the country. You don’t think the Right is just as ready as the Left to fight a civil war? Think again. Civil wars start when sides take extreme positions and demonize the other side. Their ideology provides intellectual support for the violence and the grievances pile up until they can no longer be held in check by reason. You are witnessing a cold civil war on the floor of the House now. If it spreads outside the walls as Berkeley and Charlottesville demonstrate is possible, impeachment is the least of the country’s problems.

                    2. Anon:

                      There was no removal from office either, Ace. You wanna play at being a revolutionary? Go ahead. It’s hazardous duty. I suggest you read the current situation in the context of the Collier-Hoeffler Model. You have all the components: a monopolistic technology sector hellbent on injecting itself against the political ethos for sake of greed; a culture of grievance; and a demarcated populace divided by economic status and identity politics.

                    3. I don’t recall stating I was planning on starting a revolution. Also I don’t know who Collier-Hoefiled is, nor do I recognize the players in your imagined apocalypse. Sounds like too much cable news and talk radio – or worse – has you imagining cultural wars that don’t exist when humans actually are together. I get along fine with my mostly Trump supporting subs and employees – I’m in construction – and we get more cranked up about sports than identity politics, Stephen Miller, and AOC.

                2. I have. The Administration successfully stonewalled in re Benghazi. In re Whitewater, the main participants were all convicted bar the Clintons, and they weren’t convicted of process crimes, either. Gov. Tucker, both McDougals, and Webster Hubbell.

                  Fun fact. Hubbell managed to clear $800,000 in ‘consulting fees’ after he was disbarred but before he reported to prison. Amazing how Democrats come up with the hush money for their own.

                  1. Stonewalled for 10 investigations with Hillary before them for 8 hours, and the GOP led House Intelligence Comm finding that there was no deliberate wrongdoing? That’s some world class stonewalling!

            2. I don’t know if it rises to the necessary level of criminal conspiracy – neither do you – but it is undeniably collusion.

              In the interests of time and focusing on the issues, do you think you can dispense with the lame and – coming from you – ironic insults?

              1. Anon, if it doesn’t rise to the level of a criminal conspiracy then why do we have prosecutors and Congressmen bothering with it?

                You say an indefinite item is collusion.

                What was the exact nature of the collusion?
                What was the exact crime?
                What is your proof?

                Over and over again the same questions are asked of you and you come up empty or as I said to Jan F, your alter ego ‘your bullets are blanks’.I read a whole bunch of things you said today and similar questions arose that you couldn’t answer. If I had time I would point them out but for now:

                What was the exact nature of the collusion?
                What was the exact crime?
                What is your proof?

                PS craziest of ideologues is right on target and is about the nicest thing one could say about your behavior.

                1. We do not know if it does because we don’t have all the information.

                  I’m not making claims for things which I don’t have proof of – you are.

                  1. “We do not know if it does because we don’t have all the information.”

                    Finally an answer. You don’t know squat!!!

                    The IRS may have looked at your taxes but it doesn’t know if you cheated or not so they audit you. There they find that you cheated and fine you or put you in jail. The audit doesn’t go on forever and even if they find your returns OK they still don’t have all the information and never will. Perhaps they should track every box of nails you put as an expense on your IRS forms. Why? Because we know you cheated. That is what you are doing to Trump.

                    With regard to Trump you keep saying he committed a crime. You provide vague answers as to what the crime is such as ‘Trump Tower’ as if that is a crime. Those words do not constitute a crime rather constitute a fantasy that exists in your mind. You are full of it. Supposedly, according to you, it was in the Washington Post article that had the proof, but it wasn’t. You are deceitful and dishonest. You can’t even be honest with the people you communicate with Jan F. AKA Anon.

                    1. For the record, I have not said Trump has committed a crime though he almost certainly did with his hush money payments and might have on several other counts around the Russian.collusion and whatever garden variety stuff the SDNY is looking at. On the other hand Allan has repeatedly said Trump has not committed a crime.

                      He doesn’t know that, though he has repeatedly states it as fact.

                    2. “For the record, I have not said Trump has committed a crime though he almost certainly did …”

                      This is nothing but double talk that one hears from a 5 year old that did something wrong. There is no such thing as almost certainly did. He either did or didn’t. You either lied or you didn’t. This is a bunchof BS that you propagate all over the blog.

                      “On the other hand Allan has repeatedly said Trump has not committed a crime.”

                      As I have said before you have fascist tendencies. In this country a man is innocent until proven guilty. Trump has been investigated for for over two years and to date nothing surrounding Trump shows any guilt what so ever. It is now up to you or anyone else to prove Trump has committed a crime.

                      You can’t even dilineate the crime Trump committed and can’t even supply some tangible evidence. Why? You are totally biased and ignorant.

                    3. The Obdurate Blob said, “With regard to Trump you keep saying he committed a crime.”

                      Anon said, “I have not said Trump has committed a crime.”

                      Anon also said, “I don’t know if it rises to the necessary level of criminal conspiracy – neither do you – but it is undeniably collusion.”

                      Anon also said, “Collusion is not a crime, fortunately for Jr, Kushner, and Manafort, i.e., the top people in the Trump campaign.”

                      Anon began by saying, “We have known there was collusion for long time. The question is whether it rose to a level of criminal conspiracy which prosecutors can prove.”

                      The Obdurate Blob ended by saying, “You provide vague answers as to what the crime is such as ‘Trump Tower’ as if that is a crime . . . You are full of it . . . You are deceitful and dishonest.”

                      Anon said, “I have not said Trump has committed a crime.”

                      The Obdurate Blob’s head remains as thick and dense and hard as a hockey puck.

                    4. Diane, Anon has been all over the place. But thank you Diane for giving me an opportunity to repeat one of the things Anon said: ““For the record, I have not said Trump has committed a crime though he almost certainly did …”” That is double talk. Did you notice Diane? I doubt it because that is how you write, circular reasoning and double talk.

          1. Cindy, we have to forgive Anon. He missed the nail and hit his finger and now it is pointing in the wrong direction.

Comments are closed.