The long-waited release of the report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to the Attorney General has left many in the Beltway with a dilemma: how does one observe Special Counsel day?  The problem is not just the lack of Special Counsel bunting and decorations, but many still do not know whether this will be a day of celebration or commiseration.  Wishful critics and supporters are wondering what the Special Counsel will bring for them.  After all, a large number of reputations are on the line. Breathless accounts of “bombshells”
 and “smoking guns” of collusion will now be tested as will the common article of faith that all will be put right if you “just wait for Mueller.”

Well, Mueller is coming to town.  Every indication is that he will give his report to Attorney General Bill Barr this week or early next week.

What is clear is that few mythical creatures have had so many prayers and expectations laid at their feet than Robert Mueller. He is the avenging angel for many who see him as the antithesis of Donald Trump.  Indeed, some people have named their pets “Mueller.” With each passing week, Mueller was built up as a towering figure (both literally and figuratively) who was unimpeachable, unflappable, and unrelenting in his search for the naughty amongst us.  The only thing missing is a blue ox and, yes, an actual report.

Mueller has become many things to many people.  For over two years, legal analysts have repeatedly assured readers that collusion is already established and that Mueller will vanquish the Trump with his mighty mandate.  For many Republicans, Mueller is the shadowy figure they tell their kids about at night to keep them from colluding or at least keeping detailed records.

But what if the Special Counsel comes and leaves “Bupkis,” just a finding of no criminal conduct by Trump and a long unpublished report?

The core narrative to the Mueller is collusion.  That is what spurred the investigation by former FBI Director James Comey and the latter appointment of Mueller.  A Mueller report without collusion is like Santa is Coming to Town without the Burgenrmeister Meisterburger.  It is already established that the Russians tried to influence the election by hacking and trolling on the Internet.  That is not as unusual as has been portrayed.  Many countries try to influence elections and the leading example is the United States, which has not only hacked the emails of our enemies and leaked the results but it has hacked our allies.  What is need is collusion in the hacking operation with Trump or his campaign.

This entire investigation began with the secret surveillance ordered of Trump figures by the Obama Administration during the campaign.  Early figures like Carter Page were never charged and all of the U.S. defendants charged by Mueller have faced largely unrelated charges or false statements or registration violations.

It is possible that Mueller could not find any direct collusion with the Russians while detailing substantial efforts by Trump to derail or damage the investigation.  You can commit obstruction even if there is no case for an original crime.  Most people do not do that, but Trump is not most people.  He has shown strikingly poor judgment in his public and private conduct. He could counterpunch his way into an obstruction case. However, without the underlying crime, it would be hard to base an impeachment case on Trump’s obsessive compulsive tweets. Moreover, Trump has not been accused of destroying evidence or firing core investigators or prosecutors.

Mueller can also refer to collateral crimes like campaign finance violations, but that still leaves a result far removed from the far more important allegations of collusion. It is the Rudolph the Red-Nosed reindeer story but Santa remains grounded and Rudolph is just used as a disco ball at the Christmas party. If Mueller can only show a deferred finance crimes on that on that fateful foggy bottom night, it is unlikely that the Democratic “reindeer [will] loved him as they shouted out with glee.”

Nevertheless, Special Counsel Day has all of the makings of a holiday without a clear theme.

Of course, with the upcoming Easter holiday, Special Counsel day could simply merge with that other unrelenting icon: the Easter Bunny.  After all, every diehard Democrat and Republican will not know what to expect when they wake up and find that the Special Counsel has visited in the night . . . that is, unless you are Paul Manafort or Roger Stone.  Most are expecting a Special Counsel horn of prosecutorial plenty.  Indeed, many commentators and politicians have a lot riding on those charges after two years to proclaiming open-and-shut cases of collusion.

If Mueller finds no collusion directly tying Trump or his campaign, the myth of Mueller could could end up looking more like the Austrian holiday figure “Krampus” who appears as a demonic figure to frighten innocent children.  Conversely, he could bring a slew of charges and look more like the Icelandic “Yule Cat” who roams the towns and cities to devour anyone who does not receive new clothes on Christmas Eve.  Mueller could still devour all those without plea deals, including some less known targets like former Clinton White House Counsel Greg Craig who could be charged under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

The Icelandic tradition would seem a nice fit because Mueller’s already team looks a lot like the “Yule lads.”  These are characters that resemble the Seven Dwarfs but are far from welcomed by those they visit. They have such names as “Door-Sniffer” and “Window-Peeper.”

In the end, Mueller may end up more like a Santa figure with a twist.  Santa is after all a bit of a hard case.  He engages in year-round surveillance and punishes hopeful children with bags of coal.  A bag of Mueller coal would be a report collusion tie with a ton of evidence of obstruction and a touch of campaign finance violations.

Santa however does not really capture the less than jolly Mueller.  For that, you need to pick up Japanese Santa decorations for “Santa Kurohsu,” who actually has eyes in the back of his head to watch naughty children. Yep, that is more of a Special Counsel Santa.

So Attorney General Barr is likely to give a rough date for his summary of the findings of the Mueller report.  Nervous commentators and politicians will go to their beds with visions of subpoenas and prosecutors dancing in their heads.  All we know now is that the Special Counsel Day is coming and no one knows if he is coming for them.

So to all my fellow pundits and all of the politicians everywhere, Happy Special Counsel Day . . . you earned it.

230 thoughts on “HAPPY SPECIAL COUNSEL DAY!”

  1. Well, it appears that I am yet again late to the game. After reviewing the comments, I am obviously the only person who has not had the benefit of reading the Mueller report. Perhaps one of the cognoscenti will be kind enough to furnish me a link to that document. Thank you.

    1. Mike, you are not the only one who hasn’t read the Mueller report. I haven’t either though despite Peter’s claim of no leaks many of us have already heard the underlying claims and lack of proof.

      What was released is there will be no more indictments by Mueller. That tells us alot. Now we might hear how the Mueller prosecution will spin the data so that despite innocence Trump will look guilty and the Trump team will spin the report to make him seem like an angel.

      Neither side will provide the unspinned truth. Trump isn’t an angel and there was no reason for the Russia investigation.

      I think we should all remember that there was at least one brave soul in our intelligence community that came forth and did the right thing, Admiral Rodgers.

      1. there was no reason for the Russia investigation.

        To create a diversion to prevent bad actors from being investigated, indicted, and disbarred. Yates, Priestap, McCabe, Sztrok / Page, the Ohrs, Lynch, Comey and the FISA judge. Richard Nixon’s people used an off-the-books crew on staff and on retainer at the Committee to Re-elect the President for this sort of thing. When you’re a Democrat, the Justice Department will do it for you.

      2. “POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing.”

        – Lisa Page to Peter Strzok

        ” And yeah, it’s a real profile in couragw [sic], since she knows no charges will be brought.”

        – Lisa Page to Peter Strzok, four days before Comey exonerated Hillary

        “The texts mean what the texts say.”

        – Lisa Page to Congress

        The Obama “Deep State” Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in

        American political history.

        The 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, Sessions, Obama et al.

    2. , I am obviously the only person who has not had the benefit of reading the Mueller report.

      There are no more indictments forthcoming, and all the indictments to date have been in re process crimes arising out of the investigation, show indictments of foreign nationals in regard to which neither Mueller nor the U.S. Attorneys will ever have to offer proof, and prosecutions of various actors in regard to business matters irrelevant to Trump and the campaign. The whole investigation was humbug, and you don’t need to read the report to know that.

      1. Absurd,
        Did you read Peter’s WaPo link? If Trump is “cleared”, more or less, by the Mueller report, there’s the “emoluments” hope, the hush money hope, the as- yet -unsealed indictments, etc.
        Hope springs eternal, so if the TDS people don’t find what they want in the Mueller report, at least let them pin their hopes on things like emoluments, maybe the Logan Act😄😁, etc.
        There are people like Natacha/Anonymous who are already right on the edge ( if not completely around the bend) over the results of the 2016 election…..I’m going to try to go along with😉, or at least not dash their hopes, that the House Subpeona Cannons, and the other possibilities mentioned, might turn up “something” to take down Trump, and preserve whatever level of sanity they still have left.

        1. Trump gets paraphrased, again:

          “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the Mueller report that AG Barr gutted. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

    3. That was my reaction too- after reading Prof. Turley’s analysis. There’s something to the general premise of the deep emotional attachment invests in expectations of an outcome. Up next: post-hoc, confirmation bias, victory laps, expressions of relief, defiant vindication, arrogance and vows of retribution.

      I don’t believe we to be the sad public he bemoans while marveling at our staggering ignorance hoping to celebrate a “structural failure” of democracy.

      I think most of us go about our ordinary day-to-day lives hoping low self-esteem, vindictive envy and blatant incompetence doesn’t cause something catastrophic- that there’s enough metaphorical slack in the line to keep us from falling to far too fast…or hitting bottom.

      There is more consensus that we might think: all Americans are ostensibly pained by something they believe has “lingered on” for far too long.

      1. ML,
        Good point. And I hate to admit this, but….I find a great deal of humor in the extreme emotional expectations attached to the need for a certain outcome.
        There’s been about a dozen presidents in my lifetime, and about 16 different presidential election.
        I’ve never seen anything close to the level of whackiness exhibited years after an election by those still whining about the results.
        Again, I hesitate to admit this, but I think it’s one of the weirdest, yet funniest, post-election reactions I’ve ever seen.

        1. 3 June 2016 Rob Goldstone to Trump Jr

          Emin [Agalarov, a Russian pop star represented by Goldstone] just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

          The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras [a Moscow-based developer who tried to partner with Trump in a hotel project] this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

          This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.

          What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

          I can also send this info to your father via Rhona [presumably Rhona Graff, Trump’s longtime executive assistant], but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

          Trump Jr to Goldstone

          Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?

          1. Tom Nash says: March 23, 2019 at 6:39 PM

            “I’ve never seen anything close to the level of whackiness exhibited years after an election by those still whining about the results.”

            Rob Goldstone: ” . . . official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father [and] is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.”

            Donald Trump Jr.: “. . . if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”

    4. Mike A,

      I suggest you check in on Dan Bongino’s channel of show’s, former NYPD/Secret Service, for at least his last few days for an up to date details of the cliff notes.

    5. Mike A.,
      There is no link, but you may be able to get a comprehensive summary of what’s in the Mueller report by calling a service like California Psychics.
      They charge $1.00 a minute, but I think they might start out with a few “free trial minutes”.
      Personally, I save money and mostly rely on our resident psychic here on this blog who predicts things that happen before they even happen.
      A caveat is that she mostly predicts things that don’t happen, but it is free.😉

      1. You want a free sample from the crystal ball? You got it. Remember: you literally asked for it, straight rom the world’s greatest close reader, Marcy Wheeler:

        But I can think of five mutually non-exclusive possibilities for the report:

        •Mueller ultimately found there was little fire behind the considerable amounts of smoke generated by Trump’s paranoia.

        •The report will be very damning — showing a great deal of corruption — which nevertheless doesn’t amount to criminal behavior.

        •Evidence that Manafort and Stone conspired with Russia to affect the election, but Mueller decided not to prosecute conspiracy itself because they’re both on the hook for the same prison sentence a conspiracy would net anyway, with far less evidentiary exposure.

        •There’s evidence that others entered into a conspiracy with Russia to affect the election, but that couldn’t be charged because of evidentiary reasons that include classification concerns and presidential prerogatives over foreign policy, pardons, and firing employees.

        •Mueller found strong evidence of a conspiracy with Russia, but Corsi, Manafort, and Stone’s lies (and Trump’s limited cooperation) prevented charging it.

        [end excerpt]

        L4D predicts that Ptom Gnash would prefer to predict the first possibility on the list above. But Gnash doesn’t do predictions. They’re too scary for Ptom.

        1. “Evidence that Manafort and Stone conspired with Russia”

          1) Manafort dealt with Ukraine not Russia and went to jail for things totally unrelated to Trump. AS usual you are Wrong.

          2) -200) Diane, you are wrong again and again.

      2. But wait, there’s more! Also straight from the crystal ball of the world’s greatest close reader, Marcy Wheeler:

        •Trump pursued a ridiculously lucrative $300 million real estate deal even though the deal would use sanctioned banks, involve a former GRU officer as a broker, and require Putin’s personal involvement at least through July 2016.

        •The Russians chose to alert the campaign that they planned to dump Hillary emails, again packaging it with the promise of a meeting with Putin.

        •After the Russians had offered those emails and at a time when the family was pursuing that $300 million real estate deal, Don Jr took a meeting offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” At the end (per the sworn testimony of four people at the meeting) he said his father would revisit Magnitsky sanctions relief if he won. Contrary to the claim made in a statement authored by Trump, there was some effort to follow up on Jr’s assurances after the election.

        •The campaign asked rat-fu[dg]er Roger Stone to optimize the WikiLeaks releases and according to Jerome Corsi he had some success doing so.

        •In what Andrew Weissmann called a win-win (presumably meaning it could help Trump’s campaign or lead to a future business gig for him), Manafort provided Konstantin Kilimnik with polling data that got shared with Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs. At the same meeting, he discussed a “peace” plan for Ukraine that would amount to sanctions relief.

        •Trump undercut Obama’s response to the Russian hacks in December 2016, in part because he believed retaliation for the hacks devalued his victory. Either for that reason, to pay off Russia, and/or to pursue his preferred policy, Trump tried to mitigate any sanctions, an attempt that has (with the notable exception of those targeting Oleg Deripaska) been thwarted by Congress.

        [end excerpt]

        L4D predicts that Ptom Gnash will pose the questions, “So what?” And “Who cares?” And the answer to that second question will be whichever heroic whistleblower takes a cue from Julian Assange’s radical transparency outfit, Wikileaks, and deposits the Mueller report, guts and all, on the doorstep of The Washington Post. Hoorah!



    Campaign Hush Money Payments

    Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty in August to breaking campaign finance law by arranging pre-election payments to two women who said they had extramarital affairs with Trump. Cohen told a federal judge that his actions were intended to silence the women to help Trump win the election. Cohen said he had been directed by Trump, who was referred to in court documents drawn up by federal prosecutors in Manhattan as “individual one.”

    Defamation Lawsuit

    Summer Zervos, a former “Apprentice” contestant, was one of about a dozen women who accused Trump of sexual misconduct before the 2016 election. She filed suit against Trump in New York in 2017, arguing that Trump defamed her when he called his accusers “liars.”

    A New York appellate court earlier this month denied a request by Trump to dismiss the suit, allowing it to move forward. Trump’s lawyers had argued that presidents are immune from lawsuits filed in state court while they are in office, and their defeat in the Zervos case has broad implications for other lawsuits that might be filed against him.


    Trump is facing two federal lawsuits alleging that he has violated the Constitution because his private company continues to do business with foreign governments.

    Trump’s D.C. hotel, down the street from the White House, has already hosted parties put on by the Kuwaiti, Azerbaijani and Philippine embassies, and it rented more than 500 rooms to lobbyists for the Saudi government starting just after the 2016 election. Trump’s hotel in Chicago has also hosted a national day celebration by the Romanian consulate. The Trump Organization has said it made $191,000 in profit from foreign governments last year and donated that amount to the U.S. Treasury. But it has not specified who its foreign customers are and how much they paid in total.

    The Constitution prohibits presidents from taking “emoluments” from foreign states, or the government of individual U.S. states.

    The Trump Inauguration

    Federal prosecutors in Manhattan sent a subpoena in February to the presidential inaugural committee, the entity that organized Trump’s $107 million festivities when he took office in January 2017. The request sought a broad range of records covering nearly every aspect of the committee’s activities, including documents related to its record-setting fundraising, vendor payments, perks for donors and other communications.

    New York state Investigations

    Trump and his company are facing a battery of investigations from state authorities in New York, where the Trump Organization is headquartered.

    New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) is suing Trump in state court because of what the state called “persistently illegal conduct” at Trump’s 30-year-old charity, the Donald J. Trump Foundation. The suit says that Trump used the charity’s money to buy paintings of himself, to pay off legal settlements for his for-profit businesses, and to give his own presidential campaign a boost during the 2016 Republican primaries.

    In addition, Trump’s company appears to be the focus of two new state inquiries that followed the congressional testimony by Cohen. Cohen told a House committee in February that Trump had submitted inflated summaries of his assets to both insurers and would-be lenders, seeking to mislead them about the state of his net worth.

    After that, state authorities sent subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and another bank that loaned money to Trump, and to Aon, Trump’s longtime insurance broker. One person familiar with the subpoena to Aon said that Cohen’s account — and the “statements of financial condition” that he said Trump used to inflate his assets — were “a key component” of the state’s inquiry.

    Use of Immigrant Labor

    State investigators in both New York and New Jersey have spoken to an attorney for undocumented immigrants who worked for years at Trump’s golf clubs, according to the attorney. In January, the company fired at least 18 workers — many of them longtime employees — after an audit found that their immigration documents were fraudulent.

    Neither the New York nor the New Jersey attorney general has commented on these cases or confirm that they had opened a formal investigation.

    Roger Stone Criminal Trial

    Trump’s longtime friend and former political strategist Roger Stone is set to go to trial in November for allegedly lying to Congress about his efforts to find out what material WikiLeaks held before the 2016 election.

    The anti-secrecy site upended the campaign in by publishing emails from the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta, that prosecutors have said were stolen by Russian operatives.

    Stone was charged jointly by Mueller’s office and prosecutors in Washington.

    Edited from: “Trump’s Legal Troubles Are Far From Over, Even As Mueller Probe Winds Down”




      For the sake of time, I’ll take Peter’s first two WaPo arguments. All of his arguments have been debunked over and over again.

      “Campaign Hush Money Payments”

      Nothing illegal was done. We will never know the absolutely true details of who said what to whom.

      “Defamation Lawsuit”

      We keep hearing the same things over and over again. One by one they are debunked. In this country anyone can say anything and rich and famous people become targets for frauds. The WaPo is a fraud making hundreds of millions of dollars off of constantly looking for unproven bad things to write about and sell newspapers.

      This is nothing more than a repeat article that keeps people like Peter paying money.

        1. Refer to prior discussions on this blog. If there is something in particular you question then state your concerns cogently in your own words. If you are stating facts provide a link.

          1. Diane, I just post sensible things that one could figure out with a bit of common sense and logic. Posting the Washington Post as a link doesn’t tell us much because it is opinion mixed with news and frequently the news is Fake News. Posting a primary source with a link would be worthwhile.

            I’ll let my point of view stand based on logic and common sense. You have no point of view except to sqawk the talking points or quote Wikipedia.

  3. They should name it Grand Hog Day for all the pork the government wasted

    Well at least Mr. Mueller made a killing through billable hours.

    1. Darren as a former LEO you should know better and stick to the facts:
      Cost of investigation ~25.5 million; money recovered with fines, forfeitures and restitutions ~28.6million.
      Robert Mueller’s investigation brought in more money to the government than it spent.
      Facts still matter unless you are just a stooge.

      1. Ok Stooge, so it seems by extension from what you wrote that you also support the idea of having law enforcement efforts financed on the collection of fines, fees, and forfeitures of the accused. Let’s finance an entire traffic division of a small town by writing countless speeding tickets against the five hundred people that live there, and when that eventually becomes unpalatable then annex a half-mile strip of interstate freeway so that only out-of-towners get pinched to support a bureaucracy.

        IF that’s the kind of law enforcement you prefer in your world so be it. I suspect that most others do not.

        1. I would question the need to established an OSC to “collect” fines/ penalties that could and should be imposed by established government agencies.
          The FBI investigation of Manafort started YEARS before Mueller and the OSC were established.
          If ONLY the OCS or a similar add-on agency is to be credited with all collected fines for the federal government, then lest forget about established agencies that are already on the government payroll.
          From this point on, ALL fines and prosecutions imposing financial penalties need be credited to a special prosecutor, an OSC, or some other extraneously established and funded mechanism.
          That argument is one of the lamest ones I’ve heard, but it never hurts to keep repeating that popular meme.

        2. Darren project much! You really are a stooge! It was you who said of the special council investigation : “They should call it Grand Hog Day for all the pork the government wasted.”
          Your projection of my beliefs ‘by extension” is a complete non sequitur. How embarassing for you as a former LEO.

        3. Firstly they didn’t need to spend the millions investigating Manafort. They already had the goods on Manafort so the fines could have been levied without such expense. The cost of the special counselor was spent trying to find Trump guilty. That failed. All the rest was BS.

          I note anonymous’s roof is dirty. Let’s fine him. That will bring more money in. Also did anonymous rip that tag off his matress? Take away his house and throw him in jail.

    1. Adam Schiff et al. should be impeached and convicted for perjury, nullification, abuse of power, usurpation, complicity in a “malicious prosecution” and conspiracy to defraud the American People.

    2. I’d settle for Rep. Schiff limiting his TV interviews to less than 100 over the next year.

      1. http://fleetingfreedom.com/index.php/2018/11/07/bug-eyed-freak-adam-schiff-promises-to-make-russian-collusion-top-priority/
        I don’t mind that Rep. Schiff does his record-setting spinning on the news, but he scares my grandchildren when they see him on the TV screen.
        Maybe he could do radio interviews instead? Or at least the TV networks could give a warning that “the following may not be suitable for young children” before he appears onscreen.


    Whether you think the investigation was merited or not, one has to commend Mueller for maintaining a completely professional office. Mueller himself stayed so completely out of the public eye you might have thought he was working far outside the beltway. Never did we see Mueller on camera anywhere. His voice and personality were completely unknown.

    Not only did Mueller manage to keep himself invisible, members of his office stayed out of sight as well. No one ever got drunk and shot their mouth at a Georgetown bar. Not one staffer ever made headlines with controversial statements. No staffer even made their name known to the public. Mueller’s office was a truly stealthy operation.

    In contrast to Mueller, Special Counsel Ken Starr became a well-known public face during the Lewinsky investigation. And the more we saw of Starr, the more suspicious we became of his motives. One recalls a prime time TV interview in which Starr described his boyhood as a preacher’s son. In that piece Starr volunteered that he never danced with girls. Which made him sound like the most prudish of Christian conservatives!

    Finally we should note that Mueller’s Probe tallied 34 total indictments. Even if one deducts Russian actors from that total, people who will never step foot in U.S. courtrooms, Mueller still filed a substantial number of charges; most notably against Paul Manafort. Therefore no one can say this investigation was a ‘big nothing burger’. To the contrary it revealed that people connected to the Trump campaign were ‘men on the make’.

    With regards to Trump himself, he might never have colluded directly with Russia. Trump, however showed remarkably bad judgement with a string of foolish outbursts. “Vladimir Putin if you’re listening..” and “I love Wikileaks!” will probably go down in history as the two stupidest things any nominee ever uttered in public. Those statements combined with Trump’s Lester Holt interview illustrated to everyone ‘why’ experience matter in politics.


      Yeah, go with that. And the Obama Administration was ‘scandal-free’.

      1. Tabby, name the Special Counsel who investigated Obama.

        And tell us why Republican never got one appointed. They controlled Congress during much Obama’s presidency.

        1. ” tell us why Republican never got one appointed. They controlled Congress during much Obama’s presidency.”

          Only leftists are vile enough to think about destroying the American Republic.

          1. The last special counsel to investigate a Democratic administration was appointed during the Carter Administration. Kenneth Starr was appointed under an independent counsel law which expired in 1999 (and which some constitutional scholar like Robert Bork thought unconstitutional). Democrats were perfectly happy with that law when lawyers with unlimited budgets were harassing Republican administrations. When the weapon was pointed at them, they were enraged.

          2. I think it is the Attorney General who appoints a Special Counsel.
            Amazingly😉😄, that never happened with Mr. Holder or Ms. Lynch.
            Nor could it have ever happened.

            1. Tom, the left is fascistic and will use any means including lying and violence to get what they want. To them our republic and our Constitution is meaningless.

        2. Tabby, name the Special Counsel who investigated Obama.

          When you’re a Democrat, the attorney-general buries the investigation and no special counsel is appointed. What ever happened to Lois Lerner and the crew at the IRS who kept playing hide-the-ball with congressional committees and with their own inspector-general? You really think she took the 5th just for kicks, Peter?

          1. Tabby, I totally disagree on that.

            The real scandal at the IRS was the abuse of nonprofit charities as political bagmen. And some offenders were liberal. That part of the ‘scandal’ was greatly under-reported.

            We don’t want non-profit charities creating networks for political funding.

            Republicans were trying to intimidate the IRS. And they did! Republicans punished the IRS with mindless budget cuts that have handicapped our efforts to pay down the debt bomb. How stupid can you get?

            1. Peter, you have a terrible knowledge of current events. As already mentioned Lois Lerner took the 5th for a reason.

      2. P. Hill says: March 23, 2019 at 11:48 AM


        This is absurd x 3 says: March 23, 2019 at 11:58 AM


        Yeah, go with that.

        Now hear this: If you want to exonerate Trump, then release the Mueller report in its entirety. If you suppres or gut the Mueller report, then I regret to inform you of the fact that:

        “Deep State has not yet begun to leak.”

        Pentagon Papers, Deep Throat, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange’s radical transparency organization, Wikileaks. “Russia if you’re listening . . . ” Ha-Ha!


      Obama’s grand experience was as a community activist destroying things rather than building them. He did the same as President. Trump was an experienced builder and negotiator. Whether one believes his wealth to be $0 or $100Billion the results of what he had a hand in building can be easily seen. The stupid do not believe in talking to one’s enemies. Whereas under the Obama administration they would run away and hide when conflict arose, under Trump they are taking testosterone shots and rather than speaking to their enmemies, instantly want to fight wars. They can’t seem to make up their minds as to what is good for our nation so it is made up for them by the media and by a simple label (D) or (R).

      1. Yeah, Alan, Obama ran from Osama bin Laden. Boy he was scared of him! It took a team of Navy Seals to get bin Laden while Obama hid in the White House. Why didn’t Obama get bin Laden himself?? Obama, the Muslim, could have blended in among the Pakistanis and gone to bin Laden’s hideout. ..That’s how dumb it gets..!

        1. Peter, that Obama finally ordered Osama killed is not at question, nor are all of Obama’s ideas regarding foreign policy. His problem stems from how he carried out his foreign policy by involving himself in the killing of Gadaffi who had actually disarmed his nuclear capabilities. How does that play out when Kim thinks of disarming? Obama’s idea of being strong and firm was to set a red line and when that red line was crossed he did nothing. Why did he set the red line in the first place? Obama was obsequious to our MiddleEastern friends and enemies and even illegally sent a cargo plane full of cash to Iran. He wanted so much to be loved. During Obama’s administration the Russians occupied new territory. Obama did nothing and got no benefit from what occurred. He also demonstrated that the US was somewhat of a paper tiger. It was Obama’s administration that was scandal ridden though the MSM seldom talked about it along with downplaying it.

          Peter, your talking points are nothing but talking points beccause after they are said you are unable to discuss the question in detail. For one that professes to be news junkie you sound more like one who is near a total illiterate of world and American affairs.

          1. Qaddafi was about to murder thousands of Libyans who had begun a democratic and US favorable civil war.

            The money the Iranians got back was their own money. We didn’t give them anything. When Kim agrees to end nuclear bomb production let me know and we can celebrate as that will be 2 players from the “axis of evil” no longer making them.

            1. Apparently Anon, you can only think one step at a time. You don’t know what Gadaffi would have done. You make excuses by creating fantasies that could be true or false. Likely Libya and its people would have been better off if Gadaffi was not killed. Anarchy and constant fighting aren’t good.

              We held the Iranian money for a reason and that reason wasn’t to make Iranians love Obama.

              No President has gotten as far as Trump even though Trump is at a disadvantage to all other Presidents because Korea now has nuclear weapons and missiles and the Chinese are much stronger. Of course your silly ideas surrounding the killing of Gadaffi made it even harder for Trump to succeed. I can’t say that Trump will be successful, but I can say with confidence that he does infinitely better than all other Presidents combined.

              1. The Typing Carbuncle can’t say with confidence that Trump doing infinitely better than all other Presidents combined will be successful.

                1. Diane, I already got through the first hurdle. Trump is doing better than Obama and has done more good for the nation in 2 years than Obama did in 8 and that is giving Obama a lot of extra points.

            2. Anon, it intrigues me. Why do Trumpers defend Qaddafi?

              It’s interesting because Russian trolls made Qaddafi a folk hero to every conspiracy monger. And here we have Trumpers citing Russian trolls.

              1. Tweedle Dee asks Tweedle Dumb, “Anon, it intrigues me. Why do Trumpers defend Qaddafi?”

                We don’t, but we don’t show the world that when they do our bidding we will turn on them and kill them.

                By the way, how is Libya working out for the libyan’s?

              2. I suspect that Peter Schill of HHHNN was banging the drum for the overthrow of Saddam, and launching Gulf War II.
                Yeah, Saddam was a murdering sack of ****, and you are “defending him” by not overthrowing him .
                At one point I actually thought that Hollywood Hill had an ounce of intregity and maybe something going on upstairs.
                He he not only a shameless, lying propagandists, but he is dumb as a f***Ing rock as well.

                1. I don’t what to ask how friggin stupid Hollywood Hill is, because I think he’ll take it up as a challenge and just keep on topping himself.

                2. Tom, I was not morally opposed to taking Saddam out. He deserved to be hanged.

                  But the Bush administration totally under-estimated the costs of that invasion. The administration officially projected a $50 billion price tag. That was obscenely off. And 100,000 men was woefully inadequate.

                  Libya, by contrast, was nowhere near that big of a job. Britain and France, in fact, were eager to get involved for once.

                  The real casualty of the Arab Spring was actually Syria. There Obama was not that keen to get involved. He didn’t want to fan a war in such a powder keg of a spot. And Syria has challenged Trump. He wanted to pull out but found it complicated. I don’t know that anyone can predict Syria’s future.

                  This week Trump signaled to Israel that they could annex the Golan Heights. I honestly don’t mind. My feelings towards the Assad regime is total contempt.

                  1. Who, among the actual potential replacements for Assad, would you prefer over Assad?

                3. Yeah, right Peter, the Arab Spring was “genuine”.
                  Take a look at the results of the Mubarek must go intitiative…what did that “cost” us, and what were the results?
                  Take a look at the U.S. removal of Gaddafi….done very cheaply, as you say…what were they results of that cheap but idiotic move?
                  I could go on and on, but it is absolutely pointless with you.
                  Maybe you can suggest other dictators we can overthrow “on the cheap”.
                  ( Don’t deal with or worry about the consequences of doing so…that kind of analysis is Way the f*** over your head.

            3. The overthrow of Gaddafi, especially in the aftermath of Gulf War II, was one of the dumbest mistakes of the Obama Administration.
              It was not in our interest to remove him from power; anyone making that statement should catch up on the news on Libya after we said Gaddafi must go, and made sure that it happened.
              There are unfortunately casualties…..often massive casualties…on both sides on civil wars.
              By the logic of “we’re responsible for going in to stop the civil wars” we would have been bogged down in a horrendous situation in Syria for years, with American casualties that might make U.S. casualties in Iraq look minor.
              It’s unbelievable that people still think it was a good idea to remove Qaddafi and pave the way for ISIS in Libya.
              It’s after if some people never learned a damn thing from the aftermath of Gulf War II.
              The other issue, mentioned earlier, is that Gaddafi had given up his WMD program and did an about face on terrorism.
              After decades of sponsoring international terrorism, he actually became an ally in the war on terrorism.
              And about 10 years after he did both, we made sure he’d end up like he did.
              What kind of a message do people think that sends to people like N.Korea’s Kim and other dictators with nukes or nuke development programs.
              ThoseThose pani over “Russian meddling” in the 2016 election should review America’s recent history of declaring “Mubarek must go”, “Saddam must go”, “Gaddafi must go”, etc.
              It’s not our place to tell these countries that their current leaders must go.
              It makes our whining about Russian meddling in our affairs look like a joke when we go out and topple other regimes ( I consider Gulf War II and bombing the **** out of Gaddafi’s forces to be “meddling”).
              The “Mubarek must go” and the interference with the elected regime of the Ukraine did not involve direct U.S. military action, but definitely involved diplomatic pressure.

              1. Tom Nash says this about Libya’s revolt on Qaddafi:

                “It’s not our place to tell these countries that their current leaders must go”.

                Tom, we didn’t tell the Libyans Qaddafi must go. The Arab Spring was genuine! Quaddafi had been in power 41 years. Mubarak had been in power 30 years. People were sick of them. That wasn’t Obama’s fault. Only in right-wing media is that the narrative.

                Tom, explain how long a strong man should expect to stay in power. To their dying day? There comes a time when old dictators find the crowds have turned.

                1. “Only in right-wing media is that the narrative.”


                2. The “crowds”, you moron, had been pushed back to their last stonghold in Benghazi…and where on the verge of defeat before massive U.S./ Nato air power decimated Gaddafi’s forces under the guise of a “no-fly zone”
                  And the Benghazi “crowds” were where the U.S. Ambassador and a few others were killed on a 9-11 anniversary.
                  Benghazi has historically been an area where tribes hostile to Western Libya rule…that hostility pre-dated Gaddafi, and was present even when the relatively moderate and pro-western King Idris was in power.
                  We were under no obligation, and had no interest in, turned ng the tide of that civil war in favor of the Benghazi tribes.
                  This was an uprising by Part OF Lybia and the Libyan population against another part.
                  Where else would you like the U.S. to intervene when there’s an uprising against a dictatator?
                  There are a number of places where we do that “on the cheap”, so screw the consequences.

              2. Not all situations or results are the same, and the one in Libya does not fit the Iraqi or other ME models.

                We did not instigate this revolution and it’s goals were pro-democratic, and when completed, a democracy was in fact instituted with fair elections. The principles of the American flag waving supporters and it’s forming council were:

                “In another statement clarifying the goals for a post-Gaddafi Libya, the council committed itself an eight-point plan to hold free and fair elections, draft a national constitution, form political and civil institutions, uphold intellectual and political pluralism, and guarantee citizens’ inalienable human rights and the ability of free expression of their aspirations. The council also emphasized its rejection of racism, intolerance, discrimination, and terrorism.[39][40] Article 1 further declares Tripoli the state capital and Arabic the official language while reserving the linguistic and cultural rights of ethnic minorities as well as the freedom of religion for religious minorities…”

                The government formed after the revolution did hold elections and maintained unified power for 10 months before tribal rivalries erupted and a new civil war erupted. Obama has said his worst mistake was in not providing more support for the Libya during those critical stages. As it was, we intervened with our allies under a UN sponsored resolution to stop a human tragedy of the looming massacre of thousands of his citizens by Qaddafi. We spent about $1 billion on this effort, and while the country continues to be in turmoil due to lingering tribal rivalries, now congealed into 2 major sides, ISIS is gone, and there is still UN and international pressure for these groups to resolve the problem.

            4. Gadaffi spoke to a Congress of African nations, suggesting they unite their currencies into one African currency to increase their financial power while negotiating with the West desiring to split up the largest untapped source of wealth (Africa) on planet earth.

              A couple years later, Hillary’s CIA trained and financed non-existent “moderate” Islamics who analy raped and beheaded Gadaffi.

              That after the USA made a deal with Gadaffi not to kill him if he admitted responsibility and paid reparations for downing Flight 103. Gadaffi kept his part of the bargain, the USA, not so much.

              If you are curious why Kim Jong Un’s dad went nuclear and his son shall never give them up, see above. There’s only two types of nations on earth: nuclear armed and those subject to bloody, horrific US over throw.

              After what Hillary did to Gadaffi the USA’s power to negotiate on the subject of nuclear weapons is zero and shall never improve.

      2. Obama’s grand experience was as a community activist destroying things rather than building them.

        Be nice. Pro-rating part-time and seasonal work, he practiced law for three years and taught at the University of Chicago for five. He found time to publish two memoirs and run the Chicago Annenberg Challenge into the ground. Didn’t find time to publish any scholarly articles. Michele got a couple of boffo promotions during those years – one when he won a seat on an state legislature committee concerned with health care and one when he was elected to Congress.

        Extra credit: give us a description of Michelle’s duties at the University of Chicago Hospitals, and explain why her position was eliminated in a hiring freeze after she vacated it.


      What doesn’t knock Peter over the head and fit squarely into the left’s talking points, Peter knows nothing about. How can one assess that there were no leaks? We have even had reports of what the Mueller report would and would not conclude. Our problem is that we do not know where the anonymous sources came from or which anonymous sources were to be trusted.

    4. The Sounds of Silence
      …. If only we could have over 2 years of dead-stone silence regarding the investigation of a candidate, then the candidate becomes president, our country would be far better off.
      It was suggested in an earlier thread that this might set the pattern for future candidates who are elected….we can only hope that a secret set of investigations, spurring endless speculation and rumors, will now be the standard.
      Whatever Putin may have had in mind with his imvolvement, and regardless of the level ir impact of his involvement in the 2016 election, he must be laughing his ass of at the way the U.S. has been chasing it’s own tail for well over two years.
      And counting. It’s not as if volleys of Subpeona Cannons from the House, the related Schiff/ Nadler sideshows, the speculation about unseal d indictments, the wonderful possibilities Peter laid out in the WaPo article, are going to go away anytime soon.
      From Putin’s perspective, this is the gift that will just keep on giving.

      1. I think he probably finds it more amusing that he has our President trying to wreck NATO and dissolve our long standing alliance with fellow democracies in Europe while trashing our intelligence agencies in favor of “his word”.

        1. I think he probably finds it more amusing that he has our President trying to wreck NATO

          I think the Correct the Record crew find it amusing they can for a small per diem get people to utter arrant nonsense in comboxes.

        2. The President has helped to secure NATO’s future even though some can’t connect the dots.

          The President is elected based on his promises. Intelligence agencies are not and many that create our intelligence told us that Saddam had WMD’s. On the one hand people blame Bush for Iraq when our intelligence failed. On the other hand when it suits their desires they make claims that the President should listen to the intelligence agencies. There is no coherent though processes coming from such individuals.

  5. Congressman Mark Meadows: “It’s additional information that is coming out that will show not only was there no collusion, but there was a coordinated effort to take this president down. We talk about the ‘Deep State.’ There are players now, even ambassadors, that are sitting ambassadors that were involved in part of this with the FBI-DOJ.”…

    ” As we look at this, it’s time to show that we show the American people what’s out there, declassify some of those documents. I think when the American people see what I’ve seen, they will judge for themselves and know that this has all been a hoax.”

    1. Did Meadows explain how the Deep State managed to scuttle Hillary’s campaign 2 weeks before the election while protecting Trump’s campaign. I’m really eager to here about that.

  6. I’ve never seen someone so unhinged as Lapping4Mueller…er… ..I mean DateForSchiffer…er I mean Late4Therapy…I mean Dinner…yea that’s it….

        1. I met a devil woman
          She took my heart away
          She said, I’ve had it comin’ to me
          But I wanted it that way
          I think that any love is good lovin’
          So I took what I could get, mmh
          Oooh, oooh she looked at me with big brown eyes

          And said,
          You ain’t seen nothin’ yet
          B-b-b-baby, you just ain’t seen n-n-nothin’ yet
          Here’s something that you never gonna forget
          B-b-b-baby, you just ain’t seen n-n-nothin’ yet

  7. There’s no law against “receiving” opposition research but I’m pretty sure there’s a law against “fabricating and paying” for a fake Russian dossier on the opposing candidate and “conspiring” with a well known senator to spread it to the media and FBI. There’s a big difference and shouldn’t be compared.

    1. betteroffwittrump, consult your dictionary for a definition of ‘dossier’. Then compare it to ‘peer-reviewed research’ and ‘official document’. You will find, I assure, three completely different terms.

      Right-wing media, in its effort to dumb-down America, has convinced Trump supporters that dossiers ‘are’ official documents. As though Christopher Steele obtained sworn depositions and had his dossier sealed by a court!

      Anyone who ever saw a detective movie knows that dossiers are a loose collection of facts and gossip. The mainstream media made that clear very, very early in its coverage of Christopher Steele. But right-wing media kept using terms like ‘fake dossier’ and ‘forged document’. Those terms were an effort to dumb-people-down. And betteroffwithtrump reflects that dumbing-down.

      1. “Anyone who ever saw a detective movie knows that dossiers are a loose collection of facts and gossip.”

        Such is the low intellectual thoughts of our esteemed colleagues on the left.

        dossier: “a file containing detailed records on a particular person or subject”

  8. Now that Special Counsel report submitted with no more indictments, lefty loon Mantra is quickly changing from Collusion! Collusion! Collusion! to Pivot! Pivot! Pivot!

  9. There was a question addressed to me a couple of comments ago about “having a problem” admitting the purpose of the Trump Tower meeting.
    There’s no problem…it’s pretty clear that the objective was to get Russian dirt on Hillary.
    The problem is that one would have to be incredibly dense not to recognize that there was a much slicker, better-funded, better concealed, a more extensive effort to get Russian dirt on the Trump campaign.
    Aside from who gets blamed for what in connection with the 2016 campaign, we need to figure out, going forward, the limits of foreign opposition research in American campaigns.
    Or if we eveb want limits…..but this crap about “it’s OK when “my side” does it is as phony as a $3 bill.
    On the point that L4B made about not even having read the Mueller report, why should that stop her now from drawing conclusions from it?
    That is an established pattern with her, and she started off doing the very same thing in this thread here.
    Given screen freeze-up and no reply boxes in sequence below, I’m putting the replies here.

    1. Tom, I’ve pointed it out before, Trump was the first presidential nominee with no political experience. But his far-flung business interests covered the globe. Therefore a foreign-based researcher became a necessity to investigate Trump’s many connections.

      And again, these issues don’t arise with experienced candidates. Senators and governors have long been in the public eye. Researching their careers is vastly more simple than careers of tycoons. What’s more, the Trump Organization was always a private company. That too became a complicating factor. And Trump’s refusal to show his taxes only heightened the impression he had much to hide.

      Finally one should note that Trump’s connections to Russian billionaires was a source of interest to business journalists going back many years. There was actually a long paper trail of business media stories scrutinizing Trump’s dealings with Russians. Christopher Steele probably used those articles as a starting point for his research.

      During the Democratic convention, in July of 2016, Michael Bloomberg stood before the delegates, on primetime TV, and called Donald Trump a “fraud”. That was an extraordinary moment. There, New York City’s former mayor was telling everyone that New York City’s most famous real estate developer was a common fraud! And never did Donald Trump threaten to sue. How curious that was.


        Trump was qualified to become President based on the Constitution. There is no provision in the Constitution for the Adminstrative State to overturn such an electioon. There was no evidence that Trump intended to violate the Constitution. He was illegally set upon by the administrative state under the Obama administration where rules, regulations and laws were violated all in order to place a candidate from the same party as the present leader of the time, Obama, as the new President. The evidence has existed for a long time and has been mounting. The opposing candidate on the same side of the aisle as Obama demonstrated all sorts of questionable behavior, questionable enough that the FBI’s attorney stated Clinton should be indicted. Among other things the FISA court was misused.

        Stupid people do not understand that what was done by those seeking to influence the election and later to remove a legally elected President was all unconstitutional and they have acted in a way destructive to our Constitutional Republic. What some call the deep state may be called by others the Administrative State of unelected persons that in this case acted in a despotic fashion.

    2. Steele was the head of MI6’s Russian desk for several years and not likely to be worked by Kremlin agents. His sources would not be Kremlin based. The Trump Tower meeting was an attempt at getting campaign dirt from Kremlin operatives, which means the help of the Russian government. If it was innocent why did Trump himself make up the lie cover story? That is an established fact admitted to by his lawyers.

      Or we can wait for the report details.

  10. It took two years and millions of dollars to find out what we already knew. What a waste of time and money. The Democrats savior Mueller finally saw who was really involved in tampering with an election (Dems and FBI) and walked away from the probe. He was waiting for Trump to fire him so he could save face. But Trump never took the bait.

  11. It’s 9:00 am EST and there are already 15 posts from Lies4Breakfast. I’ll wager the medical attending at the assisted living center has pretty much given up on psychotropics for her. None of them work.

    1. My shift is ending soon. Come back later in the day when the thread is more spread out. The numbers should balance out. IIRC, P. Hill starts late on Saturday. Good for him. He deserves a pleasant Saturday morning. He’s earned it.

      OMG. They’re coming to take me away even as I click the post comment button.

      1. Yes, the work of shameless propagandists is never done.
        I can understand L4B’s relief at having someone else share that heavy burden.

      2. Diane, I’m in the Pacific Time Zone! Even if I’m up at 7, it’s already 10 in Washington.

        Don’t make me a liberal stoner who stays in bed all morning!

        1. It was no part of my intention to paint Mr. H as a liberal stoner who stays in bed all morning. You are not the Big Lebowski, Mr. H. You would never wear you bathrobe and you flip-flops to the grocery store in the middle of the night. Never. Not even if that rug really tied the whole room together. Not even then.

          P. S. I truly hope that you had a perfectly pleasant Saturday morning. I know I did. So why shouldn’t you, too?

      3. L4D says, “my shift is ending soon.” Your boss & IT didn’t find you & fire you yet?

        Using company computers to transmit messages for profit or otherwise is illegal.

          1. No one expects L4B to be cow by “risible nonsensense”. Spouting nonsense is her speciality; she is therefore not only immune from any nonsense as a carrier, she makes a virtual carreer of dispensing here for hours and hours, day after day.
            It is an expectation that she will diligently and obsessivey keep going down that same road, and dismiss any challenges to her foolish comments as “nonsense”.

      4. It’s 2:10 PM where I’m sitting (wherever that may be) and there are roughly 100 comments on this thread. According to Triply Absurd there 15 comments from me at 9:00 AM this morning. Add two more comments and you have 17% of the comments on this thread at 2:15 PM today.

        Like unto every other Trumpeter on the Turley blawg, Triply Absurd demands to run unopposed. That will never happen.

          1. From the Wikipedia entry on The Central Time Zone:

            The Galápagos Islands in Ecuador uses Central Standard Time all year-round; the remainder of Ecuador uses Eastern Standard Time. Both Easter Island and Salas y Gómez Island in Chile uses Central Standard Time during the Southern Hemisphere winter and Central Daylight Time during the Southern Hemisphere summer; the remainder of Chile uses Atlantic Standard Time and Atlantic Daylight Time.

            [end excerpt]

            And then there’s Manitoba, Canada. including the reputed home of the Acme Corporation in Ethelbert, Manitoba, Canada.

    2. Absurd,
      With the next 100 TV appearances by Adam Schiff, the next 100,000 words from L4B on volleyball, etc., the Barr summary, we will get more and more “information”.
      I put more weight on what will be released by Barr, but to each his own.

  12. But If Mueller sees his shadow, the investigation will go on another six weeks.

  13. Mueller has become many things to many people.

    The real Mueller is a Justice Dept. lifer whose business is protecting from accountability the federal prosecutocracy and the lickspitte strata among federal police. Mueller, Rosenstein, Comey, Yates, Weissmann, Sztrok, McCabe, Priestap, the Ohrs are all part of the same mafia. The appropriate course of action is to break up the Department of Justice, break up the FBI, scarify the federal criminal code, and create a corps of ombudsmen to discipline federal prosecutors and judges. The Democratic Party of Rackets will never countenance that because they’re fairly sure they’re never going to be the target of this crew unless they do something really crude (like have a chest freezer full of bribe money in their basement).

    1. It’s entirely possible that Mueller doesn’t have enough evidence to prove criminal intent on Trump’s part. Oddly enough, that would be about the same as what Comey said about Clinton’s use of a private email server.

      1. It’s entirely possible that Mueller doesn’t have enough evidence to prove criminal intent on Trump’s part.

        about the same? Not even on the same planet. There is a mountain of evidence proving Clinton violated the law. The lawfarists did everything imaginable to not bring her to justice. On the other hand, Trump has been in the cross-hairs of those same lawfarists for 3 years, and after doing everything imaginable, they couldn’t find anything to hang on him. The facts that are known today have proven the crimes alleged to have been committed by Trump were actually committed by the very people making the allegations.

        1. Then it must be a crime for Jared Kushner to do the same thing that Clinton did. Kushner is his father-in-law’s senior adviser. Kushner has a security clearance because his father-in-law overruled the objections of the intelligence community. There’s some evidence to show that Kushner may have sold classified information for personal financial gain. I’m sure you’ll want to get to the bottom of that story. Unless Kushner has more kompromat on Trump than Putin has.

          1. It would be a crime for anyone to do the same thing Clinton did. What law was violated in Kushner receiving his security clearance?

            There’s some evidence to show that Kushner may have sold classified information for personal financial gain.

            What would that some evidence be?

            1. While you were away, it was learned that The Qatar Investment Authority helped to bailout Kushner’s debt-ridden property 666 Fifth Avenue. It had been previously learned that Kushner had had private briefings with Mohammad bin Salman about the names of Saudis disloyal to MbS that Kushner read from the president’s daily briefing.

              Meanwhile, Trump backed the Saudi blockade of Qatar for no apparent reason. And then the QAI bailed out 666 Fifth Avenue. And then the Saudi blockade of Qatar ended. It’s one of the several reasons that our intelligence chiefs wanted to deprive Kushner of a security clearance.

            2. What law was violated in Clinton receiving her security clearance?

              Jared Kushner uses a private WhatsApp account to conduct both personal and government business. It’s not immediately clear whether Kushner or Trump recognize any difference between Kushner’s personal business versus Kushner’s government business nor Trump’s personal business versus Trump’s presidency.

              1. Receiving a security clearance dies not entitled the recipient to mishandle classified material.
                E.G., Snowden and Pfc. Manning had security clearances…the violation of the laws was not related to the security clearance procedure.
                I thought I these points would be self- evident to most rational people.

                1. Receiving a security clearance does not entitled Jared Kushner to mishandle classified material, either.
                  I thought I these points would be self-evident to most rational people.
                  But we have to make allowances for drive-by commenters who refuse to scroll though comment nests to find out what the blazes Olly and L4D were arguing over.

                  1. Tom’s point is valid. No one is entitled to mishandle classified material…period. If evidence exists that Kushner violated the law, then certainly the FBI and DOJ will be all over this. When will you be called to testify?

                2. It’s obvious that the issue with Hillary was not in the process by which she received the security clearance.
                  It’s also obvious that someone who pretends that was the issue us trying to dodge the real issue, the mishandling of classified material.
                  The only purpose in equating the security clearance process for Hillary with the same process for Kushner to evade the question of “extreme carelessness” ( originally “gross negligence”).
                  So the problem with Kushner is the process….if the claims that he had an appointment nprecedented number of “errors” and required “corrections” in applying for security clearance, that’s a major problem.
                  And if Trump directly intervened to get Kushner’s security clear, in spite of a suspiciously high number of “errors and revisions” on Kushner’s part, that compounds to the problem.
                  The process giving Hillary security clearance was never an issue; and the attempt to conflate the Kushner process with the Hillary security clearance process is an attempt to muddle the central issues involved in these cases.

              2. What law was violated in Clinton receiving her security clearance?

                Are you implying your statement; Then it must be a crime for Jared Kushner to do the same thing that Clinton did. was regarding Clinton getting her security clearance? If not, then your question above has no foundation. Clinton’s violations of the law were not in her being given a security clearance, they were her well-documented abuse of that clearance. This is not that difficult to understand, assuming of course truth is the goal.

                And when you begin a statement with It’s not immediately clear…, we can expect what follows to steeped in bilge water.

                1. OLLY says: March 24, 2019 at 8:24 AM

                  What law was violated in Kushner receiving his security clearance?

                  Late4Dinner says: March 24, 2019 at 8:49 AM

                  What law was violated in Clinton receiving her security clearance?

                  OLLY says: March 24, 2019 at 9:24 AM

                  “. . . your question above has no foundation.”

                  In which case, Chief Olly’s question has no foundation, either. Unless you count Republican Rhetorical Volleyball Syndrome as some sort of foundation for a question.

    2. At least 4 of the people Absurd names are life long Republicans and one of them sabotaged Hillary’s campaign 2 weeks before thr election while the others kept secret the investigation into the Trump campaign happening at the same time.

      Who believes this kind of nonsense?

      1. Anon fancies a campaign is ‘sabotaged’ when events occur which are inconvenient to said campaign. The entitlement mentality of partisan Democrats couldn’t be clearer.

        1. The system is rigged. She never should’ve been allowed to run. Crooked H, Lock Her Up!

          Nothing partisan about that. Nothing Republican about that. And nothing sarcastic about any of it, either.

          (Maybe it’s all some sort of elaborate sting operation against the Russian mob.) Ha-Ha!

        2. Yeah, we know Absurd believes the Deep State nonsense. Too bad he can’t explain it. No one here can.

      2. Comey is not a Republican…..it doesn’t really matter whether he is or isn’t….but just for the sake of accuracy, he is not a Republican.
        Strzok and McCabe had the information about the Abedin/ Carlos Danger laptop in late September 2016.
        I’m not certain if Comey knew, at that point, about the discovery of the laptop that led to reopening the Hillary email investigation.
        For whatever reason, the FBI sat on the laptop for c. one full month, THEN reopened it c. 12 days before the election.
        As I’ve pointed out before, reopening the investigation in late September was far less likely to impact the election than doing that 12 days before the election.
        The excuse that “Comey did it because he was afraid that the New York FBI agents would leak info. about the laptop” is not convincing.
        Comey either was in charge of the FBI or he was not. The NY FBI agents aren’t the directors of the FBI.
        I’ve been on boards that have to handle some items in executive ( closed) session.
        If I, as the board president, decide to announce the confidencial substance of what was discussed in closed session “because I was afraid someone would leak it”, that is a damn lame excuse.
        If that information somehow leaks out, it leaks out. I might not be able to control that.
        I CAN control what I reveal….just as Comey, ostensibly the Director and in charge of the FBI, can and should control what HE reveals, and when HE reveals it.
        So we keep coming back to that critical late September- late October 2016 period if FBI activity, with no realistic explanation or review of “who did what” within the agency.
        If that’s been determined from open Congressional testimony, the DOJ Inspector Generals report, or another source, I haven’t seen it.
        What I have seen is the lame, unacceptable ” oh, the New York FBI agents might have leaked it anyway” excuse.

        1. Comey was a life long Republican – who contributed to both McCain and Romney’s run for president – until sometime preceding the 2016 election when he switched no party affiliation. Mueller, Comey, McCabe, and Rosenstein are or were life long Republicans until Trump.


          Comey was fearful of leaks from the NYC FBI, hinted at by Guiliani and confirmed by Reuters. That is not crtical to undermining the Deep Stae nonsense though it does go to the allegations of one sided FBI political prejudices. Trump is in charge of the Executive branch of the federal government, but like Comey and the FBI, he can’t control leaks.


          Nothing in Tom’s post answers the question of how these supposed master conspirators managed to cripple Hillary’s campaign 2 weeks before the election, while protecting Trump’s campaign from a similar revelation. If that’s the Deep State they must have taken stupid pills.

          1. There’s no way to presicely quantity the impact of Comey’s late October 2016 announcement on the election.
            The polls do show a narrowing of Hillary’s lead in the final days of the campaign, but that phenomenon is common as election day nears for presidential candidates.
            So I think it’s debatable that Comey crippled her campaign; if he did, he did it by waiting until c.12 days before the election instead of late September to annonunce reopening the Hillary email investigation.
            So that would be the “how” he did it.
            That still leaves the less obvious and unanswered question of WHY the FBI and it’s top leadership delayed the announcement.
            Especially in light of the fact that they could have put this reopening issue behind them a month earlier with no likely impact on the election.
            I won’t get into the reason again about confidentially and leadership that I already covered…..I still thing using the excuse of a possible leak from the NY FBI agents is a weak excuse.
            Another key aspect of the Hillary email/FBI story is, of course, the lack of criminal charges announced by, and decided by, Comey in early July 2016.
            The “how” and “why” he came to his conclusion….HIS conclusion, not the DOJ’s conclusion….was that he and others decided early on in the “investigation” that there would be no criminal charges filed regardless of findings that may we’ll have supported criminal charges.
            Comey then compounds his overreach by confidently proclaiming that “no reasonable prosecutor” would disagree with his decision not to bring charges.
            I watched him as he made his announcement and wondered WTF this guy was doing out front to begin with, and why he’d make a comment that was just asking for a lot of negative blowback.
            So up until the time he was fired, it’s true that Comey was about “as popular as cholera” among both Democrats and Republicans.
            And he brought that on himself; first, by overstepping and “clearing” Hillary of any charges, then by waiting until late October to reopening the Hillary email investigation.

            1. 538’s Nate Silver found that the Comey nomination probably flipped the election.

              “Hillary Clinton would probably be president if FBI Director James Comey had not sent a letter to Congress on Oct. 28…..The impact of Comey’s letter is comparatively easy to quantify, by contrast. At a maximum, it might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College….Clinton’s standing in the polls fell sharply. She’d led Trump by 5.9 percentage points in FiveThirtyEight’s popular vote projection at 12:01 a.m. on Oct. 28. A week later — after polls had time to fully reflect the letter — her lead had declined to 2.9 percentage points. That is to say, there was a shift of about 3 percentage points against Clinton….”


              Those 3 states were won by Trump by a combined 70k votes.

              To quote myself:

              “Nothing in Tom’s post answers the question of how these supposed master conspirators managed to cripple Hillary’s campaign 2 weeks before the election, while protecting Trump’s campaign from a similar revelation. If that’s the Deep State they must have taken stupid pills.

              1. PS From the 538 article:

                “….But it’s not credible to claim that the Comey letter had no effect at all. It was the dominant story of the last 10 days of the campaign. According to the news aggregation site Memeorandum, which algorithmically tracks which stories are gaining the most traction in the mainstream media, the Comey letter was the lead story on six out of seven mornings from Oct. 29 to Nov. 4, pausing only for a half-day stretch when Mother Jones and Slate published stories alleging ties between the Trump campaign and Russia….”

              2. OK…”HOW” did Comey clear Hillary in July 2016 if he was trying to cripple her campaign.
                If you agree with the analysis of 538, Comey crippled Hillary’s campaign by waiting until late October to announce reopening the Hillary email investigation.
                That’s”how” . I’m not sure how many times you’re going to keep asking “how” when I’ve already answered that.

                1. I don’t think Comey was trying to cripple Hillary’s campaign. It’s up to the Deep State believers to prove their conspiracy. I don’t have to have an alternative conspiracy to show what obvious nonsense that is.

                  If you’re interested, my reading is that Comey is an honorable do gooder but one who is too self important. His October surprise was the result primarily of his putting his promise to Congress as well as what he somehow thought his obligation to the public demanded ahead of the longstanding DOJ/FBI policy of avoiding influencing a coming election.

              3. Anon still can’t accept the lawful election of Donald Trump.

                The special counsel’s report is in. Had Trump not been accused of Russian Collusion because of a fake dossier and FISA requests that appear to be wrongfully made Trump might have won all 50 states.

                Babies cry when they want mama’s milk. It seems grown up babies cry when they lose an election but nothing stops the crying even 2 years after the election is over.

          2. I’ve mentioned the October 31, 2016 New York Times article about the FBI investigation of a possible Trump- Russia link about 10 times already.
            So I won’t post the link again, but it was not a secret that the FBI was looking in to in appropriate coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.
            Separately, it’s not a secret that Christopher Steele was trying to get established media outlets to publish allegations from the Russian Dossier prior to the election.
            Neither Bruce nor Nellie Ohr were members of the FBI, but there are still questions of the Ohrs’ role in acting as a conduit between Steele and the FBI.
            They would have also had a possible incentive to hype Steele’s allegations to the media before the election, but I haven’t seen proof that they actually participated in Steele’s scheme to get the allegations out in the press before the election.

            1. It was a secret to 99% of voters as no one of stature confirmed the NYTs reporting it as Comey did the Hillary investigation. No one even willing to give out their name confirmed it.

              1. It’s likely that more that 1 percent of the population knew that their was an investigation of FBI into Trump campaign- Russia links.
                I don’t know what that percentage is, nor do you.
                But the out to lunch part of the electorate is not 99 percent.
                There is at least a sizeable minority of voters who closely follow campaign- elated issues and events.

                1. I read the NYTs everyday and that article did not stick with me. Trying to compare the impact of that article with Comey’s announcement – see 538’s discussion of the headlines for the next week, including documented data on it’s representation in the media – is ridiculous. Unamed sources in a one time NYTs article carry weight, but for very few voters.

                  1. PS Here’s where that article was in that day’s NYT’s – page A21 – with an innocuous headline:

                    “A version of this article appears in print on Nov. 1, 2016, on Page A21 of the New York edition with the headline: Investigating Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russian Government.

                2. Anon
                  I did not compare the impact of the NY Times article with the Comey announcement.
                  I did ( again) cite it to refute the common claim that the FBI investigation of Trump was a secret.
                  When there is an article in a MSM publication like the NYT about that investigation, it’s pretty clear that it’s no secret.
                  That’s the point I was making.

                  1. And i repeat, it was a secret to 99% of voters, a forseeable outcome to any Deep State conspirators and especially Comey who if guilty could have easily wrapped that information into his Hillary crippling announcement.

                    I accept your point that is was not a “secret” but it is irrelevant to the bigger argument about this supposed Deep State conspiracy. They would have to be very bad conspirators indeed to upend their hero while protecting their nemesis.

          3. Thanks for modifying your previous claim that they’re all lifelong Republicans.

            1. Thanks for showing your eagerness to claim moral victories. If only my Gators had even that after yesterday’s beat down.

  14. JT asks ” But what if Special Counsel comes and leaves ‘Bupkis’, just a finding of no criminal conduct by Trump and a long unpublishable report?”
    The answer seems obvious; if that’s where we end up, it’s obvious that the Russians got to Mueller himself and probably co-authored the report itself.😉😄😁
    ABC News has a good team of correspondents and legal analysts……Terry Moran, Jonathan Karl, Pierre Thomas and Dan Abrams.
    Most of the coverage I caught today was from ABC News, and most of them thought that AG Barr would give an outline, a summary, of the Mueller Report’s contents very soon…..maybe even this weekend.

    1. ABC News gets their stuff from Jay Sekulow and Rudy Giuliani. There’s a halfway decent chance that Sekulow was, or still is, under investigation for having coordinated Michael Cohen’s original lies to Congress and Giuliani could be under investigation for dangling a pardon for Cohen in exchange for Cohen’s silence.

      That doesn’t mean that ABC’s reporting is wrong. It just means that the source for the reporting (ABC News), also, should consider the source for their reporting (Sekulow and Giuliani).

      1. ABC News has a number of talented correspondents and analysts and does not parrot Sukelow or Guiliani for their reporting.
        But if one does not like ABC’s coverage, they can always make up a half-assed, unsubstantiated accusation like that if it makes them feel better.
        Better yet, they can narrow their news universe to cites like ShareBlue or MSNBC that report what they want and need to hear and believe.

        1. You just made an unsubstantiated accusation that “one” doesn’t watch ABC News and you did so expressly to make yourself feel better.

          P. S. When Jonathan Karl cites White Sources for his reporting about the Mueller report, it’s a pretty safe bet that Karl is parroting Sekulow or Giuliani, or both.

          1. OMG. White House sources. NOT White Sources. That was a bad one. Please pardon my sarong.

          2. Again, bull****. If you don’t like ABC News and make a stupid comment like you did, that’s your problem.
            I don’t really care if your coven allows or prohibits viewing ABC News.

              1. Way to stay on topic. Let’s talk about the NCAA brackets now, as well as volleyball.

                1. The Secret Meaning of Republican Rhetorical Volleyball Revealed at the link below:


                  Mar 20, 2013 … Psychologist B.F. Skinner taught these pigeons to play ping-pong in 1950. … science by building on the theories of Ivan Pavlov and John Watson. … Skinner’s critics believed it was a cruel and experimental way to raise a child.

            1. I missed the part where I supposedly alleged that “one doesn’t watch ABC News”.
              But feel free to reword what others actually said in these columns and comments if you feel justified in doing so.

  15. We have, in our yard, a snake in the grass. It is a rattle snake. It’s name is Mueller.

    1. Mueller has taken significant steps to assure the American people that no candidate for the Office of the President of the United States will ever again dare even think of doing what Trump did in 2016: Play footsie under the table with a foreign power while running for president. Not even Trump, himself, will dare go back, Vlad, do it again.

      1. Unlike L4D, I haven’t seen the Mueller report or heard AG Barr’s summary.
        I’ll be looking for the part where it substantiates L4B’s claim that Trump played “footsie under the table with a foreign power while running for president”.

          1. Bull****
            I’ve tried to explain the difference between what L4B believes and what is backed by evidence that has been presented.
            That difference will never, ever sink in with her, given that she starts with conclusions, then tailors everything else to align with those conclusions.

            1. June 9th Trump Tower meeting => Playing footsie under the table with Russians while running for president.

              Trump Tower Moscow deal negotiations through July of 2016 or later => Playing footsie under the table with Russians while running for president.

              Giving Tony Fabrizio’s polling data to Kostya Kilimnik while discussing the Ukrainian Peace Plan (i.e. sanctions relief for Russia) with Kostya Kilimnik => Playing footsie under the table with Russians while running for president.

              Exchanging direct messages with the online persona created and controlled by 6 out of the 12 GRU officers who carried out the hack and leak operation => Playing footsie under the table with Russians while running for president.

              BTW, “=>” stands for “maps to.”

              1. If you need to revise and reword the Mueller report to fit your beliefs, that should not be difficult for you.
                You already did that with the Congressional Record to suit your version of the Trump Tower meenting, so an L4B version of the Mueller report should be a snap for you .
                In any case, campaigns will know better going forward.
                The acceptable way to play footsie with the Russians to get dirt on an opponent is to hi

                1. If L4B needs to revise/ reword the Mueller report to fit her version, that should not be difficult for her

                  1. The damned thing has to be released to the public first before you can substantiate your accusation that I’ve already revised and reworded what I haven’t even read yet.

                2. Screen froze up…..to continue, we now now that the acceptable way to get dirt on a campaign opponent is to use a law firm to hire a firm like Fusuion GPS to hire Orbis-Steele to use contacts to get dirt from Russian sources.
                  That appears to be a perfectly acceptable way of playing footsie with the Russians.

                  1. So you have no trouble accusing Clinton of having played footsie under the table with Russians while running for president. You only have trouble admitting that Trump played footsie under the table with Russian while running for president. Because Russia supported Trump’s candidacy for president and Russia hacked and leaked thousands of emails to damage Clinton’s candidacy for president.

                    Republican Rhetorical Volleyball Syndrome.

              2. Tell us exactly what Trump did that was illegal and tell us why. BS doesn’t count.

                None of what you have said was either wrong, illegal or true.

                1. More likely than not, he is guilty of violating campaign finance laws by paying off a porn star right before the election. Cohen is going to jail for that.

                  Very likely he is guilty of obstruction of justice by concocting a cover story for the Trump Tower meeting and for firing Comey because of the Russian investigation as he admitted publicly, and he may be guilty of criminal conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws and possibly other crimes by colluding with the Russian government to interfere in our election.

                  But we can wait for the report details and find out. None of us know either way.

                  1. “More likely than not, he is guilty of violating campaign finance laws by paying off a porn star right before the election.”

                    More likely than not isn’t proof of anything. Trump could pay off Stormy as much as he wanted from his own funds so nothing done was illegal or even improper as far as the election is concerned.

                    “Very likely he is guilty of obstruction of justice by concocting a cover story for the Trump Tower meeting”

                    Again with the very likely. Very likely you don’t know what you are talking about. Tell us the words Trump used that represented obstruction of justice.

                    ” firing Comey”

                    Read the Constitution. A lot of people wanted Comey fired, even Rod Rosenstein.

                    What we know is that no further charges will be sought by the Mueller investigation. That means he could find no guilt with regard to his mission of investigating Trump and Russia.

                    What you are doing is mouthing talking points that have been discussed over and over again in depth but you remain superficial because your knowledge is limited to the talking points you were meant to say. Apparently you have learned nothing else and wear that lack of knowledge whenever you post.

          2. Diane, back to making up stories of criminal action? You have been wrong on almost every major item since you took on the alias Late4Dinner.

            If you have something it’s time for you to spit it out. If not it is time for you to go.

            1. FUBARAllan is not the sole proprietor of Res Ipsa Loquitur. FUBARAllan is only The Sole Proprietor Of His Own Noise–which is incessant and Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition.

              1. Diane, still waiting for you to spit out whatever it is you have been trying to say on this blog. The only thing we have ever seen coming out of your mouth are the pills meant to keep you sane.

        1. Well why don’t you and Trump just send Putin an engraved invitation to “Go back, Vlad, do it again???”

          1. Why don’t you just continue making wild, delusional accusations if it helps you cope?

        1. Allan,
          I don’t think she was even trying to make that point.
          In her intial comments in this thread, she said that thanks to Mueller, Trump and Vlad won’t dare do whatever it was that they did again.
          I didn’t see her try to make the case that “Trump and Vlad” did something illegal…..it was more like whatever it was, in her mind, that they did, Mueller prevented them from doing it again.
          While that isn’t very specific, it is about as specific as L4B ever gets.
          Built into your question is an unrealistic expectation that you’ll get a direct, straightforward answer from her.
          How many times have you and others gone down that dead-end road?

          1. Tom, Diane is flying high. I’m just trying to keep her from flying into the sun until her aids put her back in a straight jacket and puncture her soft behind with a lot of Thorazine.

            1. Daboatayouze Demented Dipsticks seem to be laboring under the misimpression that the phrase “playing footsie under the table with Russians while running for president” implies some sort of crime when Hillary does it but business as usual when Trump does it. So daboatayouze demand proof that Trump doing business as usual is a crime even while daboatayouze simply assume that Hillary doing anything at all is a crime. That is the super-subtle meaning of the phrase Republican Rhetorical Volleyball Syndrome.

              1. Trump may have wanted to build a hotel in Russia Diane but that doesn’t mean he would side with Russia against American interests. Trump thinks talking is better than war. If you want war after war go pick up a gun and fight.

                The Clintons took cash from the Russians and others even while in office. Hillary’s big foreign triumph was presenting Putin with a plastic reset botton.

                Diane, you get confused with your own rhetoric.

  16. To find collusion with a foreign country, takt the entire Mueller investigation and apply it to Israel.

    1. And the result is still going to be bupkis. Israel is a real country with real policies. The ‘Israel’ of your imagination does not exist.

    2. Samantha, you continue to make veiled claims but never with any purpose behind them other than to libel the State of Israel. Zionism in such a context represents anti-Semitism. That is generally true when the individual in question lacks anything else tangible to prove their case.

      Autumn will soon come and then you can revert to your original name or your husband’s.

    1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

      When will we get to see Mueller’s report?

      It’s up to Barr, who is expected to say he needs a few more weeks to review what Mueller submitted. During that time, he’ll redact any classified information from the document, as well as information sourced from a grand jury, which is secret. He’ll also be working to summarize what could be a sizable document for public consumption. That will become the trimmed-down version of Mueller’s report that goes to Congress and is released to the public.

      That said, this being Washington, D.C., there’s the possibility nuggets from the report could start leaking out while Barr prepares the summary and makes his redactions.

      1. Rather than variations on the Christmas holiday, I see Groundhog Day. It’s apparent that Dems are so vested in the idea of wrongdoing they’ll pivot to the New York courts should Mueller disappoint. That “shadow” should easily get them to the 2020 election cycle.

        1. Trump selling the foreign policy of the United States for personal or family financial gain is a definite possibility going forward into the 2020 election season. There may even be some evidence along those lines in the Mueller report or in one or more of the investigations that Mueller handed off to various United States Attorneys. Besides, there are no Justice Department regulations against indicting Jared Kushner while his father-in-law holds the Office of the POTUS.

    2. Excerpted from the article linked above:

      With no details released at this point, it’s not known whether Mueller’s report answers the core questions of his investigation: Did Trump’s campaign collude with the Kremlin to sway the 2016 presidential election in favor of the celebrity businessman? Also, did Trump take steps later, including by firing his FBI director, to obstruct the probe?

      But the delivery of the report does mean the investigation has concluded without any public charges of a criminal conspiracy between the campaign and Russia, or of obstruction by the president. A Justice Department official confirmed that Mueller was not recommending any further indictments.

      That person, who described the document as “comprehensive,” was not authorized to discuss the probe and asked for anonymity.

      1. Also excerpted from the same article:

        It’s unclear what steps Mueller might take if he uncovered what he believes to be criminal wrongdoing by Trump, in light of Justice Department legal opinions that have held that sitting presidents may not be indicted.

        In his letter to lawmakers, Barr noted the Justice Department had not denied any request from the special counsel, something Barr would have been required to disclose to ensure there was no political inference. Trump was never interviewed in person, but submitted answers to questions in writing.

        [end excerpt]

        The excerpt cited above makes an important point: Had Mueller recommended an indicted against Trump, Barr would have denied Mueller’s request and Barr’s denial of Mueller’s request would have had to have been publicly disclosed. However, just because Mueller didn’t recommend an indictment against Trump doesn’t necessarily mean that Mueller had no case to indict against Trump. Instead, it only means that Mueller was unwilling to force Barr’s denial and Barr’s public disclosure of Barr’s denial. And that is a very strong argument in favor of public release of the Mueller report to the fullest extent permissible under the law.

Comments are closed.