Trump: Accusers Have Done “Evil” and “Treasonous Things”

It would seem that being cleared of collusion and obstruction allegations might be an opportune moment for Donald Trump to take the high road and declare an intent to move the country past the divisive politics of the last two years. Instead, Trump declared that those people who accused him were responsible for “treasonous things” and said they “will certainly be looked at.” Since I was one of those people who denounced others for alleging treason against Trump, it is disconcerting to now hear Trump himself using the same irresponsible rhetoric. Those peddling unsupported theories of criminality over the last two years were also irresponsible and reckless, but their voicing such views was not treasonous. Trump added that his critics were “evil”

Trump did not specify who he was referring to or who would be investigating his critics for treason. He simply said “There are a lot of people out there that have done some very, very evil things, very bad things. I would say treasonous things against our country. I’ve been looking at them for a long time.”

It is baffling why Trump tends to step on his own good media. Rather than basking in the findings of the Special Counsel, Trump immediately cut short the discussion with a new sensational and disturbing comment.

As with calling the media “the enemy of people,” the labeling of his critics and accusers as traitors is the signature of authoritarian countries. It was wrong for Trump’s critics and it is wrong for Trump.

361 thoughts on “Trump: Accusers Have Done “Evil” and “Treasonous Things””



    The Trump machine’s new “offensive” against Democrats is similarly absurd. Overreach on Russia is just not the big story of the past two years. While in the House minority, Democrats were mostly fighting a rearguard action against the GOP’s perversion and weaponizing of the oversight process to protect Trump from accountability and to harass a legitimate investigation into not just “collusion” but also into a foreign attack on our democracy.

    That investigation led to extensive indictments, guilty pleas and convictions, and it has set in motion many more investigations into “nearly every organization Trump has run over the past decade,” whose future revelations remain unknown. To claim that Democratic efforts to protect this process constituted overreach, on the basis of the lack of criminal conspiracy charges, is just another way of using that latter fact to denigrate the seriousness of the extensive wrongdoing and criminality that this process has already ferreted out. Which, again, is the whole point.

    Now that House Democrats are in the majority, they are demanding documents relating to potential Trump financial conflicts of interest, efforts at obstruction of justice, gaming of the security clearance process, and the dimensions of the hush money scheme and extent of financial dealings with Russia concealed during the campaign. It would be a dereliction of responsibility for Democrats to not be pursuing those things. And on Russia, given how little we know about Mueller’s actual findings and about what went into Barr’s decision-making, Democrats absolutely should be pressing for release of the former and intensifying scrutiny of the latter.

    The whole point of the current offensive is to get Democrats to back down on all those fronts. That Trump and his allies claim themselves emboldened to do this by Mueller’s findings, while attacking Democratic efforts to get those findings released, perversely captures the true nature of the gaslighting we’re seeing here. But if anything, this should embolden Democrats to keep pushing forward.

    Edited from: “Trump And Republicans “On Offense”? Nah. It’s Just The Same Old Gaslighting”.


    1. Dummocrats can push it and whine cry complain shout grandstand subpoena and moan all they want for the next two years and it still won’t matter. There’s a new sherriff in town in charge of the Justice Department and he ain’t playin’ the Dummocrats political games.

      1. And you’re so sure of what you’re saying you need to remain anonymous.


      What idiot can believe the theme Democrats have nothing to appologize for? It’s downright lunacy. It shows that dealing with a segment of the Democratic party is near impossible. Many of us used to vote for the best candidate no matter which side of the aisle especially in local elections. This type of attitude tells centrist Americans that they must vote against all Democrats good and bad. The nation is totally polarized. The left is totally dishonest and must be defeated even if one has to start using some of their techniques.

          1. Anon, are you unable to read? Where did I use the word elect? Your reading skills have left you in an intellectual hole so that you create stories out of thin air.

      1. Alan, only an idiot would apologize. And I will vote against any Democrat who even comes close to apologizing. Though I don’t think that will happen.

        1. And I will vote against any Democrat who even comes close to apologizing.

          Say what!? LOL! You’re in California, right? You do certainly have an over-inflated sense of self-worth.

            1. Aztlan they will call it when it joins the Estados Unidos de Mexico, about two decades off. Or at least the southern half of it.

        2. OH WELL there are a lot of non-idiot Democrats condemning this thing on twitter I see., as in Glenn Greenwald and Jimmy Dore and Tulsi Gabbard. and many many more

          but are any of the perpetrators of the fraud confessing? No, of course not!

          1. Kurtz, who cares about Gleen Greenwald????? He’s a nobody!!! Who is Jimmy Dore, I don’t even know. Tulsi Gabbard, who is ‘she’?? Nobodies!

              1. I posted a thing from wiki about Glenn Greenwald for others to read but the filter swallowed it.

                Here’s the short version

                Glenn Edward Greenwald (born March 6, 1967) is an American attorney, journalist, and author, best known for his role in a series of reports published by The Guardian newspaper beginning in June 2013, detailing the United States and British global surveillance programs, and based on classified documents disclosed by Edward Snowden.[3][4] Greenwald and the team he worked with won both a George Polk Award and a Pulitzer Prize for those reports. He has written several best-selling books, including No Place to Hide.

              2. Tulsi Gabbard is a smart, good looking veteran now running for the Dem POTUS candidacy. I don’t hold with all her positions but she has many wise ones. wiki:

                Tulsi Gabbard (/ˈtʌlsi ˈɡæbərd/; born April 12, 1981) is an American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Hawaii’s 2nd congressional district since 2013. Following her election in 2012, she became the first Samoan American and the first Hindu member of the United States Congress. She is a member of the Democratic Party.

                Gabbard served in a field medical unit of the Hawaii Army National Guard in a combat zone in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and was deployed to Kuwait from 2008 to 2009. She previously served in the Hawaii House of Representatives from 2002 to 2004. When she was elected to the Hawaii House of Representatives at age 21, Gabbard was the youngest woman to be elected to a U.S. state legislature. Gabbard was a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee until February 28, 2016, when she resigned to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

                As of 2019, Gabbard supports abortion rights, Medicare for All and same-sex marriage; she opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership. She is critical of interventionism in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. She also denounced U.S. involvement in the Yemeni Civil War and is outspoken against intervention in the 2019 Venezuela crisis. Her opposition to removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power by force, the ruling Indian BJP party’s interest in her, and her voting and lobbying against LGBT rights prior to 2005 have attracted controversy.

                On January 11, 2019, Gabbard announced her campaign for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in 2020.


                Also wants to legalize adult sex work. Very smart lady!

                1. She wisely says today:

                  “[n]ow that Mueller has found no collusion took place, we need to set aside our partisan interests and recognize that finding the president of the United States not guilty of conspiring with a foreign power to interfere with our elections is a good thing for America.”


                  very smart lady. Don’t worry Republicans, there’s no hope that the Hillary sycophants will allow her to succeed! But for the good of society, her voice is welcome!

                  1. Kurtz, if Gabbard is groveling to Trump she has forfeited any future with the Democrats.

                    There’s NOTHING to apologize for. Trump is a ham fisted buffoon who brought on the entire Russia probe with his own big, stupid mouth. And all the indictment leveled at Manafort and Cohen illustrate exactly the kind of character Trump is.

                    Furthermore, I would want to see the entire Mueller Report before I even think for a moment that Trump even close to exoneration.

                    1. ” if Gabbard is groveling to Trump she has forfeited any future with the Democrats.”

                      You lie when you say she is “groveling” but that is typical of your intellectual abilities. I hope a lot of Democrats feel the way you do for that will insure the reelection of Trump and the return of the House to the Republicans.

                2. Kurtz, Tulsi might be smart but some of her political positions are not feasible and are destructive.

                  1. Gabbard’s never held an executive position in the public or private sector. Some of those who have (Booker certainly, and, the smart money says, Butt-gig), are sufficiently hyped to leave the observer incredulous.

                    Delaney, Hickenlooper, and Yang have built businesses and Hickenlooper has been a public executive. They’re the most impressive of the Democratic bench .

                    1. I think you are thinking of Gabbard as a potential Presidential candidate. A lot of the Democratic candidates cannot offer much to show that they have the needed experience or a consistant record. Bernie Sanders is the most consistent with some experience but he is out in left field with regard to policy.

                    2. Klobuchar ran the largest DA office in Minnesota with 400 employees for 8 years prior to becoming a US Senator.

            1. Peter, I don’t like some of what Glenn Greenwald says, but he is not a nobody. He is quite intelligent though like most people blind in certain areas. I doubt 9 out of 10 of the writers on the Washington Post have half the brains he does.

              1. What’s unusual about Greenwald (whom I’ve never much cared for) is that he appears to have some actual fixed standards, substantive and procedural. You do see that among liberals – but only among the old. Jerilyn Merritt is a square shooter, I think. She’s nearly 20 years Greenwald’s senior, however.

                I’m old enough to remember when liberals seemed to care about policy, even if they had a half-dozen annoying properties in their discourse. Now, policy discussions are MacGuffins in what are essentially status games.

                1. “he appears to have some actual fixed standards, substantive and procedural. You do see that among liberals ”

                  That is what separates Greenwald from the trash on the left.

        3. “Alan, only an idiot would apologize. And I will vote against any Democrat who even comes close to apologizing. Though I don’t think that will happen.”

          Peter, thank you for confirming that you are one of the idiots you talk about.

  2. Every person in power has committed treason against the people of the US. Now it is up to “we the people” to stop the madness by recognizing this psy-op and stop going along with it.

    There are two wings to the same vulture. Neither party’s “leaders” have any good intentions towards our own people or our own nation. Russiagate was (and will remain) useful to these evil, powerful “leaders” as long as we let it go on. Russiagate harnesses Democrats to support know war criminals, wars, regime change, mass surveillance and torture because their “resistance” “leaders” are people who have (and currently are in some cases), engaged in all these horrific crimes. Republicans support Trump out of misplaced fealty to their “leader”. Thus they also support war criminals, wars, regime change, mass surveillance and torture. Funny isn’t it, how supposedly opposite sides have come to the same conclusions about war crimes, mass surveillance, the need for wars and regime change, etc. Who benefits from that concurrent opinion?

    Instead of pledging fealty to various evil and corrupt “leaders”, we the people need to pledge our fealty to our Constitution and to our fellow citizens. This will require rational thinking and the ability to see through a psy-op. Trump is playing a part. Dem “leaders” are playing their part. The MSM plays their part.

    It is way past time to play our part as citizens. Citizens should value the rule of law, value the well being of our own nation and stop the fawning worship of truly evil people. Right now, we need to do this.

    1. I wonder if the lawyer community questions why the public holds them in such a crappy light.

      1. Jim you think every lawyer is a darned fool like these clowns? Not at all


    The Obama Coup D’etat in America removes the Trump Russia collusion hoax exoneration celebration and democrat embarrassment from the headlines by ordering the corrupt Chicago prosecutors to drop all charges against admitted and confessed criminal hoaxer and fraud, Jessie Smollett.

    The liberal democrat free press is still free to insidiously manipulate the public mindset and opinion with propaganda and indoctrination.

    1. @rahnemanuel: “From top to bottom, this is not on the level … There needs to be a level of accountability throughout the system, and this sends an ambiguous message that there is no accountability and that is wrong.”


    “It is baffling why Trump tends to step on his own good media. Rather than basking in the findings of the Special Counsel, Trump immediately cut short the discussion with a new sensational and disturbing comment.

    As with calling the media “the enemy of people,” the labeling of his critics and accusers as traitors is the signature of authoritarian countries. It was wrong for Trump’s critics and it is wrong for Trump”.

    These comments indicate that Donald Trump really ‘is’ the ham-fisted buffoon his critics have always claimed. This hasn’t changed with Barr’s summary.

    Just a week ago Trump was denigrating John McCain in advance of the Mueller Report. Which leads us to believe that Trump expected the report to be more damming than it is.

    Though perhaps the Mueller Report comes closer than we think to incriminating Trump. For this reason the public needs to see every page of said report. We can’t possibly let William Barr’s summary substitute for thorough review.

    Whatever legitimacy Trump thinks he attained from Barr’s summary was absurdly short-lived; a blip in time that barely spanned a Sunday afternoon. We’re back to Trump’s default mode; the abusive, ignorant bully. Precisely the fool who earned a Special Counsel probe!
    That same fool wants to pursue a massive purge of his ‘enemies’.

    Before this week is over Trump will have half the country thinking he’s more out of control than ever. And that will only fuel demands that the Mueller Report be thoroughly reviewed.
    The public needs to know exactly what’s in that report.

    1. We all wish to see as much of the Mueller Report as possible recognizing that security interests must be protected. We have already seen how the left continuously creates a story denying the truth as things have been released. Then they focus on trivialities where they can distort what was actually said.

    2. The Washington Post has reported that Mueller told AG Barr that he would not charge trump with obstruction because of the DOJ policy that a sitting president can’t be indicted.
      The DOJ will release a redacted version of the Mueller report in weeks. The report will be redacted to protect current ongoing investigations and grand jury testimony as the law requires.

    1. Trump cannot be indicted while in office. Trump was not indicted. Trump has not been impeached. Trump only needs to hold onto 34 Republican Senators to be acquitted at an impeachment trial. Trump has famously said that he has the power to pardon himself. Your allegation of an attempted coup against Trump is rabid foaming at the mouth tin foil hat conventioneer conspiracy mongering. You have no business calling anybody else by the name of idiot.

  5. I can’t believe I have read this. We need to find out how this whole Steele document was able to garner a fisa warrant. Heads on pikes.

    1. The author headed MI6’s Russian desk for several years and was already familiar to the FBI as a trusted ally in our dealings with them..

      1. The FBI was warned about the Steele Dossier. Don’t make BS arguments. Further the FBI is supposed to be an investigatory agency so should know how to validate credibility when they want to. Even your beloved Washington Post didn’t originally publish the Steele Dossier because of credibility concerns.

        1. The FBI did investigate the Steele Dossier. It was not presented to the FISA court as settled fact but as worthy – due especially to the reputation of it’s source – of further investigation, nor was it the first or only evidence in the investigation. Nothing in my post above or this one is factually incorrect, though perhaps unpalatable to our conspiracy mongering Trump tools.

          1. Anon, go back and review the reasons behind the FISA court and the history along with the rules. It appears that either the FISA court was not provided the information they should have been provided or the FISA judges didn’t act appropriately. The former is more likely though some of the FISA judges may have been too compliant.

            I expect as the Mueller Report is released and the Horowitz report on FISA is similarly released you will once again change your dialogue as soon as you are provided with new talking points.

            What you say above “Nothing in my post above” may be factually correct but demonstrates that you have no understanding of what you are talking about. The Clinton campign was involved in the Steele Dossier making it untrustworthy from the start.

      2. ha ally that represents the QUEEN not the USA

        so you’re an MI6 sycophant too? sad

      3. “The author headed MI6’s Russian desk for several years and was already familiar to the FBI as a trusted ally in our dealings with them..”

        Keep dreaming. You don’t get a witch hunt any harder than this. Especially since the scheming party involved has no respect for law and order (the actions of Clinton and DNC speak for themselves), and they STILL couldn’t pin the tail on the donkey. Dreams, dreams, dreams…. dreee eee-eee eee eems…

    2. If I’m not mistaken, Page and Sztrok knew the FISA judge socially.

      1. And?… The FISA judge was a Bush appointee and probably knows a lot of people socially. “Professionalism”. Look it up.

        1. Yes of course. Most judges have never seen a warrant they don’t sign.

          BUT the FISA courts are notoriously worse.

          A civil liberties issue that you don’t care anything about. Nor the supposed self promoting Democrat defenders of civil liberties either apparently.

          1. Do you have a source for this claim about what easy lays FISA court judges are, and how would that allegation go to purposeful funny business on the Trump investigation?
            Are the judges in on it or just willing idiots?

  6. Why should Trump “take the high road” now or at any point while the opposition is still reviling him and demanding his impeachment. No president, including Nixon, has ever been spoken of in such vile terms, and the Mueller report has changed nothing.

    1. Trump is incapable of taking the high road. Isn’t that clear to you by now?

      PS The vile terms which he is described by are accurate as to his behavior.

      1. Anon…..from my perspective, you aren’t making any sense. The high road? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

        1. “Anon…..from my perspective, you aren’t making any sense. The high road? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?”

          Cindy, Anon is ridiculous and not trustworthy.

      2. “Trump is incapable of taking the high road. Isn’t that clear to you by now?”

        Anon, you are incapable of creating a factual argument so you deal in character assassination. One has to look at what Trump has accomplished while being barraged by the administrative state weaponized by the Obama administration. You dellude yourself by stating it was done by Obama even though Obama said much of this could never be accomplished. Honesty seems not to be one of your priorities.

  7. Trump has every right to be angry. He, along with anyone associated with him has been harmed, bankrupted, maligned or otherwise publically humiliated unjustly.

    Who is going to hold them accountable? The stench in D.C. poisons the air and has affected people”s objectivity, common sense and most important killed any sense of honesty.

    Until everyone involved with the failed takedown, including incompetent FISA judges, is held accountable, THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH MUST CONTINUE!

    1. If you really want the truth, then stop suppressing the Mueller report while putting words into Mueller’s mouth that Mueller never said.

      You’re not doing Trump any favors. Trying to turn the tables on the United States is exactly what Putin wants Trump to try to do. You are misleading your leader into committing an overt act of war against the United States. That’s dumb as dirt.

      1. “f you really want the truth, then stop suppressing the Mueller report while putting words into Mueller’s mouth that Mueller never said.” written to Barbara.

        Diane, the Mueller report was supposed to show guilt. It showed none of that and both Barr and Rosenstein (who is no friend of Trump and has been involved in this chaos) agree no collusion, no obstruction.

        Everything you say is a rabid residual to your side legally losing an election. Nothing of value passes your lips because your sole goal is to get rid of Trump no matter what the facts are.

  8. I think Trump is entirely correct and that there are a lot of evil people and that some did evil and bad things. I am not sure of the exact meaning of the word ‘treasonous’ but I think a coup was attempted. To me that sounds ‘treasonous’.

    1. It’s rather florid to call it a coup attempt. However, there’s been a great deal of scamming around by employees of the Justice Department in the last three years, not to mention the intelligence chiefs and the former president holding court in DC as we speak. If we had a healthy political culture and functional institutions, the Justice Department and the FBI would each be broken up into a half-dozen pieces and recruitment and promotion policies completely revamped. Also, anyone who was less than three steps removed from Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch would be scrutinized for possible dismissal. Of course, nothing will change.

      1. DSS, the overall consideration of everything that has been happening along with the rhetoric surrounding these events were all intended to stop Trump and make sure Hillary became President and when that failed the intention was to wreck Trump’s Presidency or replace him. Some of the things done should never have occurred and were illegal so I think a coup attempt (illegal siezure of power) is a legitimate use of the term even though no known violent overthrow occurred. Florid or not I think the use of the word “coup” expresses what has been occurring over the past 2-3 years. Do you have a better term that you prefer that better describes the seriousness of what has happened?

        1. Yes, including Comey publicly sabotaging Hillary while protecting Trump 2 weeks before the vote … wait, how did that work again?

          1. Anon, believe what you wish but the facts show otherwise when all Comey’s actions are taken into account.

            1. So, Comey did not undermine Hillary’s campaign (538 research shows it dominated the nation’s media for the entire next week of the less than 2 weeks left in the campaign) while protecting the confidentiality of the FBI investigation into Trump’s campaign?

              Wow, that is huge news. Where is that coming from?

              1. Comey and the justice department did everything they could to defeat and then unseat Trump. Why Comey stated what he did at that time might have something to do with the FBI’s attorney saying that Hillary should be prosecuted. I believe both statements were made in approximately the same time frame.

                1. Comey doing “everything he could to defeat” Trump included kneecapping Hillary 2 weeks before the election by publicizing her FBI investigation while he kept the FBI investigation of Trump secret?



                  How did that work?

                  You realize this makes you look like not only like a complete Trump tool, but a raging lunatic as well, right?

                  1. kneecapping hardly. if he would have insisted that she be indicted for mishandling classified information that would have been doing his job. instead he failed to do so and furthermore overtook the boss lady Lynch’s job at declaring the call one way or another

                    that was actually helping hillary but you dont care about reality much it seems

                  2. Comey should have been calling for an indictment of Hillary or a more intense investigation of her. Comey is most interested in Comey so I think he was trying to protect himsel and likely goofed. Of course that idea requires a bit of intellectual ability and the knowledge that Comey refused to state he was not investigating Trump even though he told Trump that.

                    Why don’t you talk about the 2.5 years of Trump bashing where Comey was complicit?

              1. I stated fully established facts and will continue to do so as long as gullible Trump tools like Absurd continue to spew conspiracy theories which these facts completely undermine.

                Note that he doesn’t try. No one does or will because it’s impossible.

                1. conspiracy theory is what the Meuller investigation was in the first place. One that failed for lack of EVIDENCE

                  hence its apologists are the real “conspiracy theorists” in the negative sense of that appellation

                  now a smart person who studies such things is properly called a “conspiracy analyst” lol

              2. Anon is the same person as Jan F. and we all remember Jan F. The only change is that Anon doesn’t care about how silly he looks and sounds like an intellectual storm trooper. Under Jan F. he realized he sounded like a fool so he said goodbye and changed his alias to Anon. He repeats the same things over and over again because he knows very little and is unable to deal with any facts contrary to his simple minded talking points. He repeats one watered down statement by Comey against Hillary when Comey knew the FBI attorney had called for indictment of Hillary and equates that with a continous 2.5 year attack on Trump.

  9. Trump will have plenty of charges to deal with in NY, DC, and Virginia. His kids & cohorts e.g. Jared will also have plenty of music to face.

    1. A more grounded fantasy than your usual Kennedy Assassination / 9-11 truther rubbish. I see your doctors have found more effective anti-psychotics.

      1. “I see your doctors have found more effective anti-psychotics”

        Knock it off, spammy.

        1. Whereas the attending at the assisted living center hasn’t a clue what to do with Diane.

      2. oh boy can’t leave sleeping dogs lie can ya?

        “this is an orange ”

        if you want to believe the NIST explanation for that feel free I just cant make myself think that an orange is an apple.

        but that’s old news now, not sure why you would bring it up.

  10. Trump, Trump, bo bump…
    Go on the Stump….
    Beat up Hillary…
    Find your Forrest Gump.

  11. The difference is that Trump’s rhetoric is not irresponsible. Where irresponsible allegations against him were based on fantasy and criminal attemps to frame him, Trump’s allegations are based upon self-appointed bagman John McCain’s dossier, a Deep State insurance policy, and mainstream media propaganda that’s been adding oxygen to the fire for the past two years, fraudulently swaying public opinion against Trump and his base.

    The problem for Trump’s critics is that not one is as intelligent as he is. Where Trump can nest simultaneous thought to six degrees of separation and more, weasels like Chuck Todd can barely dribble one thought at a time.

    Because of the special counsel investigation, Trump’s recourse has been only rhetoric while waiting for Mueller to come up empty, clearing Trump to go into wrecking ball mode and bring true justice for the American people who have been exploited by politicians since the days when separation of corporation and state was abolished — unconstitutionally — during the Reconstruction Era, flooding Washington with so much corporate cash, it’s been a swamp ever since. Corporations have had a monopoly at the ballot box for a hundred-and-fifty years now.

    Imagine if whoring politicians had abolished separation of church and state, instead!

  12. Meantime JT’s former student, lawyer Michael Avenatti suggested that his arrest has political motivations and are “close” to the Trump administration.

  13. Taking ‘the high road’ serves one purpose: maintaining the fiction that the federal prosecutocracy is properly supervised and acts in good faith. That’s not an object you should have. These people are scum and others should speak the truth about them.

    1. You’re either a self absorbed defense attorney or just a fool, or maybe sc.m. I know people very well in the DOJ who are not as you describe. Perhaps the idea of professionalism is foreign to you, which would not be a surprise, but many serve in that department honorably and with a goal of doing the best job they can, including agents who risk their lives, and for significantly less money than is available in the private sector.

      1. anon” says: “less money”

        ha. actually the best lawyers go into the big firms. which is where a lot of the AUSA go after they are done with their service bids. then they make that bigger money.

        a lot of them never would have been hired by BigLaw in the first place without that career experience. and a lot of them intend precisely to do what they often do.

        now that is not anything against them., but, it shows how much you know. less than you claim, apparently, as you claim quite a lot

        anyhow it’s not like a federal job is a rotten gig especially with the medical insurance and long vacations. seriously

        1. Before, he claimed to own a construction / renovation company. He gets around.

            1. Don’t knock Anon too much. Remember, one of his claims to fame when he was Jan F. was that he could do his own taxes. Wow! Isn’t he impressive?

    2. That is a pretty broad statement. For my part I would not call the entire AUSA staff scum and not even close. Mostly they are busy and do what they are told.

      But clearly some are very biased, however.

      1. For my part I would not call the entire AUSA staff scum and not even close.

        Who said anything about ‘the entire AUSA staff’? Mueller hired 14 lawyers, among them Andrew Weissmann. What do you fancy quondam employees of Arthur Andersen have to say about Andrew Weissmann?

        1. I don’t know. My friends who work at places like that, I haven’t talked to in decades. I’m just a small town nobody.

          Anyways if I misunderstood your meaning, sorry

  14. the rule of law is what is at stake here, if there were laws broken, those who committed those crimes must be held accountable, this cannot be left to be swept under the rug for the sake of “calm”. America will not heal if those who did this are given a pass.

    1. Judging by the fact that the Jussie Smollett charges where dropped, I would say the rule of law is gone. Good job all you lawyers out there.

      1. Yeah, he’s an important player in the future of the nation!

        WGAF? He’s less important than AOC, another TV driven personality, and that’s saying something.

        1. Not sure I understand your point, rule of law only need apply to us little people? Or, as long as it’s a liberal, they should get away with race baiting?

          1. Like me, you don’t know why charges were dropped, but unlike me, you GAF. Are you on every alleged crime involving a celebrity? Maybe you are. Why?

            1. Nope, only care about the ones that are slam dunks and get off. It only becomes important because it got the press. And, since it did, it is then important for justice to be carried out otherwise it is a promoted example of lawlessness.

        2. Anon, you lack the understanding of rule of law and how all are equal in the eyes of the law. You make a lot of excuses to justify illegal acts and bad behavior.

          Smollett: Guilt wiped Clean.
          Genral Flynn who honorably served the nation: Destroyed.

          That is Anon’s view of justice. It demonstrates a total lack of committment to justice and to the meaning behind our Constitution.

          1. I made no comments which indicate the opinions Allan has assigned to me. He and Bill are fond of assigning unstated opinions to other posters so they can the same things they always say. I get the economy of motion and thought this allows but you should try better to hide it.

      2. I would say Thank God we have someone like AG William Barr in charge of the Department of Justice and no longer have to endure disgraceful, contemptible, corrupt Obama admin figures like Eric Holder or Lorretta Lynch.

      3. there’s ten thousand lawyers in Chicago or so and probably 90% of them are pissed about Smollett. That prosecutor is done. But oh wait! I read she got six figures donations from Geo Soros. I guess that explains it. Some “Open Society” that bloated vampire wants for us!

  15. I am always been taught that birds of a feather flock together and they do, have you noticed that the same type of birds fly south for the winter. His associates that have been found guilty leaves one to wonder why hs feathers are different?

  16. The minute that any indictments are brought as a result of Trump’s long awaited counter-investigation of the FBI, the DoJ and the SCO, the Mueller report in its entirety, along with the grand jury information and every last single item of classified information, become immediately discoverable as exculpatory evidence under the Brady Rule not to mention Rule 6(E).

    Presumably, AG Barr knows that. Presumably Ag Barr will explain that to Trump’s satisfaction. Presumably Trump will be dissuaded from snatching indictment from the jaws of his “historic exoneration.” Presumably, presumably, presumably . . .

    As it stands right now, the only way to get one’s hands on the Mueller report, or any of the other items mentioned, is for some deep state operative to leak them to the press–or to a certain radical transparency organization that Trump claims to love–or maybe Russia, if they’re listening . . . Huh? Whaaaa? They wouldn’t dare. Would they?

  17. It certainly IS treasonous to demand an unwarranted investigation for the purpose of overturning an election and removing a duly elected president. The difference between folly and treason is the intent of the accuser. Unless the accuser truly believed that Trump was likely guilty of collusion with a foreign power, the accusers were acting for improper, treasonous political purposes. And I do not think the President is obligated to ignore the assault on his character. If I had been subject of an unfounded, two-year criminal investigation, I would be angry as Hell.

    1. There’s a rule that says that Trump can’t be indicted while in office. The only way to remove Trump from office other than the 2020 election is to Impeach Trump. That would require roughly 20 Republican Senators to join all of the Democratic Senators to convict Trump at an impeachment trial.

      Meanwhile, it just so happens to be the case that the United States is not an enemy of the United States. Consequently, the United States cannot lend aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States in the act of the United States lending aid and comfort to the United States.

      Trump is NOT the United States. If Trump indicts anyone from the FBI, the DoJ, or the SCO for treason against the United States, then Trump would be waging an overt act of war against the United States. That, in turn, would make Trump an enemy of the United States. Because Trump is NOT the United States.

      Presumably AG Barr knows these things and will dissuade Trump from launching his long awaiting counter-investigation of the FBI, the DoJ and the SCO.

      1. P. S. Trump cannot get Hillary Clinton nor Barrack Obama indicted for treason without first uncovering the supposed deep-state conspiracy at the FBI, the DoJ, the SCO and who knows what all other agencies of the United States Trump might seek to implicate in this literally lame-brained deep-state coup d’état tin-foil-hat convention conspiracy theory.

        Don’t forget that Trump’s rabid foaming at the mouth might be admissible as a valid reason to invoke The 25th Amendment and remove Trump from office and replace him with Pence–unless were also found to be rabidly foaming at the mouth right alongside Trump.

        1. you didn’t understand watergate much did ya
          nor do you understand the 25th amendment
          i hope most Democrats are wiser than you.

    2. Glenn Greenwald noted that MSNBC was essentially MSNB-CIA. If that is so, then shouldn’t that warrant an investigation as to why the CIA was ostensibly attempting to act as the Praetorian guard?

      Professor Turley wrote:
      “As with calling the media “the enemy of people,” the labeling of his critics and accusers as traitors is the signature of authoritarian countries. It was wrong for Trump’s critics and it is wrong for Trump.”

      But the media walked like a duck…

      I agree Trump’s comments are concerning, however, the media’s behavior is worse. I am reluctant to even talk about this fiasco with my liberal friends and family because the media had them whipped into such a frenzy over this. Worse yet, I fear the whole investigation was a smokescreen for other corruption.

      1. What would you prefer the “media” cover and who do you mean when you say “media”? The Russia Trump story was/is/and will remain – if the report is released – big news. You want the soybean futures numbers – probably not good – on the front page?

      2. Yes, I’ve had some very unpleasant conversations with intelligent people I respect about the Mueller investigation in general, and the performance of the liberaler media covering it: vilification, denunciation, frothing, the works. Good people revealing their unpretty parts, how enraged they are, how condescending. I feel for them because (I now think I understand the depth of this problem) they’ve been traumatized by Trump’s success and have never reckoned with the reality of why he has succeeded, or they’re afraid of that reality and do not want to deal with it, or they can’t. It’s a very big problem.

        But I do not think that anything Trump says is shocking because he’ll say anything that he thinks serves his immediate personal interests, (treason, witch hunt, whatever), and he does have a little acumen for demagoguery. The sinister part is that he seems to be cultivating a kind of USA brownshirt constituency among the bikers, the police, the military, the religious right, against the left in particular, just like in Nazi Germany (note resurgence of anti-socialist rhetoric) with perhaps less diabolical talent than Hitler, but at the end of the day implicitly threatening violence if his political fortunes should turn south.

        Treason should be abolished as a crime, as should any crime that can only be committed against an abstraction, for reasons that we can now observe. Whether it’s John Brennan or Donald Trump flinging it around, it is clear that treason is primarily a political epithet by which self-righteous nationalists arrogate the moral authority of patriotism to themselves to subvert their political opponents. The founders tried to hedge against this fact with all the material and procedural requirements of proving treason when it is alleged, but they would have done better just to ban it altogether as fundamentally antithetical to freedom and popular sovereignty.

        1. Treason should be abolished as a crime,

          It’s defined in the Constitution, buttercup.

      3. Don’t expect any of this to change. Rachael Maddow, like Jack Tapper or any other fatuous news celebrity, will not be held to account for slogging through this fiction night after night. Maddow will still collect her $10-million-a-year salary. And the handful of reporters who exhibited journalistic integrity—Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Aaron Maté, Robert Scheer, Max Blumenthal and Katrina vanden Heuvel—will continue to remain on the margins of the media landscape. The press is an arm of the corporate-funded burlesque that has replaced the country’s political life and turned civic debate into a vast reality show.

        The more the big news outlets try to spin this report, arguing that they need to see the full report rather than the attorney general’s summary, or that Jared Kushner sought to use the communications systems of Russian diplomats, the more credibility they will lose. And they do not have much credibility left. The lurid details of the president’s alleged sexual relations with a porn star and a Playboy bunny, and of “Russiagate,” have replaced journalism. These stories have nothing to do with the lives of most Americans. This descent into the inane and the tawdry gives immunity to Trump. In attacking the press he attacks an institution most Americans loath. And with good reason. The press, unwittingly, enhances a president it seeks to destroy. And its decline, accelerated by its collaboration with liberal Democratic elites who scapegoat Russia to avoid confronting their responsibility for trashing the country in the service of corporate oligarchs, will get worse. Little the press says about Trump will now be believed.

        There was, of course, massive interference in our election by a foreign power—Israel. But try saying this naked truth out loud and you will suffer the character assassination, chanted by the unified chorus in the press and the political hierarchy of both parties, that was unleashed on Rep. Ilhan Omar. The engine driving our animosity toward Russia comes from the arms industry, which with the expansion of NATO up to Russia’s border—despite assurances given upon the unification of Germany that this would not happen—is making billions of dollars selling weapons to countries in Eastern Europe. The situation is also exacerbating tensions between two of the world’s biggest nuclear powers. But this is just one more suppressed truth.

        The Trump administration has carried out policies that, rather than serve Russian interests, have further antagonized our relationship with Moscow. It has imposed sanctions. It is openly attempting to overthrow the government of a country that Russia supports, Venezuela. It is attempting to block the sale of Russian natural gas to Europe. It has sold weapons to Ukraine, a foe of the Kremlin. It has armed insurgents in Syria and carried out airstrikes, even as Russian troops seek to prop up the Syrian regime. It has withdrawn from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. But facts matter little to Russian-conspiracy theorists.

        It is not only Trump who has obliterated the line between fact and fiction. It is the press. It hyped and reported allegations it never investigated or confirmed. And by doing this, repeating failures of the kind that appeared in its coverage of the invasion of Iraq, it has committed suicide. A nation that lacks a functioning press becomes a tyranny. This is not Trump’s fault, but our own.

          1. Say what?

            Perhaps it would be valuable for those denouncing the “media” to be clear about their target.

            Can we begin by noting that Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow are not news reporters and anyone ho relies on them for this purpose is a fool. In general the 24/7 cable “news” shows are a bane – by the way, Obama refused to watch them while Trump can’t get enough, which is why he exhibits the hyper partisan behavior those networks purposefully foster.

            Also, the editorial page of the WSJ and NYTs are not the same as their news reporting, both of which are exemplary, while we may and should differ on their editorial content. You question their news at your own peril. They are not perfect, but are selling reliability, not ideology, and are probably right, most of the time. Of course they were and are going to cover Trump/Russia.

            1. Tucker Carlson does not pretend to be a news reporter. He doesn’t even pretend to be a Republican. He discusses both sides of an issue with guests and gives those guests an opportunity to present their views on Fox news. He believes in the Constitution and the people with an emphasis on family. Those are worthy goals.

              Of course the left doesn’t like him so they are trying to get rid of him. No opposition to the left’s point of view is tolerated by the left so the one station on TV that is centrist right is a target. That demonstrates how awful the left is about diversity of opinion.

              1. The media is willing to tolerate a pseudo-opposition manifest in the likes of Jennifer Rubin and David Brooks, whose job is to set the limits of ‘permissible’ discussion and validate liberals’ self-understanding vis a vis the real opposition.

                Megan McArdle and Ross Douthat have retained some degree of intellectual independence (present only intermittently in Douthat’s case).

            2. You blab blab blab even when you are totally wrong.. Shameless!

              that’s an admirable trait for a lawyer in criminal defense. you should get a day job! Talk to Mark M here he has some leads for you.

              1. “You blab blab blab even when you are totally wrong.. Shameless!”

                Anon had a bit of shame when he was Jan F. That is why he said goodbye and found a new alias. But there is no way Anon could become a lawyer and a member of the bar. His reading and fact finding skills are too low, not that lawyers as a whole are the brightest but they do have to have sufficient reading and fact finding skills to pass the bar.

              2. Your inability to mount an intelligent response or even note what you object is duly noted. As long as your polite I promise to not humiliate you again.

          2. ***WOW*** I saw another comment posted in recent days where I think the commenter named Oky1 said something similar — that a video posted under his name and avatar was NOT posted by him. How is it that someone’s ‘handle’ AND ‘avatar’ symbol are being hijacked for a posting that was NOT POSTED by that person?

            Until THIS CONCERN IS ADDRESSED BY THE BLOG ADMINISTRATOR, I will not be posting here again.

            1. TBob, on the odd chance that your concern is sincere, you might want to consider the possibility that Wortmanberg posted a copy and paste excerpt of somebody else’s work without saying whose work it was and then wanted to disavow that it was Wortmanberg’s own work. Or not. What do you think?

              As for Pa Joad’s complaint, IIRC, Pa Joad said [paraphrase] that the browser did not accept the video that Pa Joad had tried to post.

          3. Distasteful kvetching about Israel would be the signature of Sam / Chris P. Bacon, Autumn, and (IIRC) Jill. It’s far too loquacious to be Sam / Chris P. Bacon and Autumn hasn’t posted in an age.

              1. Remember the incident. Can’t recall if it was Autumn or Jill.

            1. That’s what I figured. Although I didn’t recognize the author.

              You really gave TBob a scare. Unless he was being sarcastic about his paranoia. It could be either one. Look at how many of TBob’s cohorts followed him down the rabbit hole. Ha-Ha!

    3. You might be angry, but that is how the system works. Law enforcement agencies investigate allegations of criminal conduct. It is not uncommon for a long investigation to determine that there is insufficient evidence to justify prosecution of a particular individual.

      1. You might be angry, but that is how the system works. Law enforcement agencies investigate allegations of criminal conduct. It is not uncommon for a long investigation to determine that there is insufficient evidence to justify prosecution of a particular individual.

        See Andrew McCarthy’s critiques. Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller pretended that the predicate sufficient for a counter-intelligence investigation would suffice for a criminal investigation.

        There was never any crime to investigate to begin with.

        1. Yeah, the same crackpot Andrew Mccarthy who claimed Bill Ayers wrote Obama’s autobiography and the Obama was trying to institute sharia law in the US. That fool? He’s your source?

          1. Anon writes: “Andrew Mccarthy who claimed … Obama was trying to institute sharia law in the US.”

            That is an outright lie.

            Mccarthy has spoken about Sharia and he also has spoken about Obama. Leave it to illiterates to not to be able to read the written word.

            As far as who wrote Obama’s book, let me quote Andrew Mccarthy. But first people should recognize Anon for what he is, uneducated and unable to read the printed word. He shapes thoughts into new thoughts of his own that most of the time are completely wrong, out of context and distorted.

            “There has been speculation about this which I’ve ignored, no doubt because there are enough policy reasons to oppose Barack Obama and I don’t want to feed into what sounds, at first blush, like Vince Fosteresque paranoia. But I’ve finally read Jack Cashill’s lengthy analysis in The American Thinker. It is thorough, thoughtful, and alarming — particularly his deconstruction of the text in Obama’s memoir and comparison to the themes, sophistication and signature phraseology of Bill Ayers’ memoir.”

      2. Richard said, “It is not uncommon for a long investigation to determine that there is insufficient evidence to justify prosecution of a particular individual.”

        Richard is the new voice of reason on the Turley blawg. Whence I fear for Richard’s sanity. Don’t let go of your sanity, Richard. Hold on to it for dear life.

        1. L4D the town drunk is back in bar room harassing commentators. “Your Fired”!

            1. L4d is a fake sock puppet. I wear Army boots at Ft. Bragg NC. Ever here of Tiger Swan?

              1. My army boots are from the Army/Navy Surplus store, the same as every other displaced person’s army boots. Oddly enough I was born right here in America as were both of my parents. It’s the grandparents who were DPs. What a country!

        2. L4B fearing for someone else’s sanity😀😄😊
          Now THAT is funny….forget about the irony of that statement, and just appreciate the humor of it.

    4. Its worse than watergate alright–
      but most of the people who say that don’t get how

Comments are closed.