Trump’s Noble Moment: Waiving Executive Privilege Over The Special Counsel Report

Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the decision of President Donald Trump to waive executive privilege and the announcement of Attorney General Bill Barr that he has no intention to even give the White House an early look at the report. While Trump has not received any praise for that decision, it would (if true) represent a significant departure from past presidents and a major advance for transparency in government. Indeed, as discussed below, despite President Barack Obama’s pledge to be the most transparent president in history, Trump could have a greater claim to that distinction.

Here is the column:

Attorney General Bill Barr sent a letter to Congress on Friday, stating that he intends to release a public version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report in a matter of weeks. As with last Sunday’s release of a summary of the report, just two days after receiving it from Mueller, Barr’s handling of the report is the bureaucratic equivalent of a Nascar pace.

However, the most notable line of Barr’s letter was largely overlooked. Indeed, from a historical perspective, it could prove to be one of the important lines of the entire Justice Department deliberation over the report.

Barr stated that “There are no plans to submit the report to the White House for a privilege review.” And that would constitute a total waiver of executive privilege — an act that is both commendable and unprecedented in its degree of transparency.

The waiver of executive privilege has gone with nary a mention in coverage, as has the impressive speed and scope of Barr’s disclosure in handling the report. Yet, for critics of executive privilege, this is a decision that is not only historic but good for our democracy.

Many of us have criticized Trump for inappropriate comments that undermine the integrity and dignity of his office. That will be a lasting and troubling part of his legacy. However, this will also be part of the record, too. While praise is only begrudgingly given to this president by a media he constantly (and offensively) labels as “the enemy of the people,” the decision to waive privilege is not just worthy of praise but could well eclipse his predecessors in yielding inherent powers to the public interest.

In his letter to Congress, Barr noted that “although the President would have the right to assert privilege over certain parts of the report,” he decided not to do so. It was an extraordinary moment not only for Trump but for Barr. As I explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee at Barr’s confirmation, he has a robust view of executive power and, over the course of his career, has established one of the most unyielding, consistent defenses of executive privilege.

That line means Barr will confine his redactions of the report to four well-recognized areas: classified information, privacy-protected information, information related to ongoing investigations, and grand jury information. Mueller reportedly is helping to decide what information to redact.

Trump could have claimed sweeping privilege and tied up the report in the courts for much of the remaining two years of his term. Although Democrats have threatened to subpoena the report, such fights over hundreds of pages and thousands of sources can be like invading Russia in winter, as courts try to comb out privileged, protected information.

While Trump consented to Mueller interviewing his close aides, the disclosures made to Mueller were not waivers of privilege because Mueller is part of Trump’s Justice Department. Conversely, the Trump team has preserved privilege claims in testimony before Congress.

Even before this decision to waive privilege, Trump allowed far greater transparency than his predecessors.

President Barack Obama was repeatedly criticized for his sweeping claims of executive privilege and refusal to comply with congressional oversight committee investigations. The “Fast and Furious” investigation was a classic example: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives tried to track guns across the Southwest border, and one of those guns was used to kill a federal officer. The Obama administration stonewalled and slow-walked “Fast and Furious” document demands from Congress. The result was that former Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress, but the Justice Department refused to submit the case to a grand jury — a decision I heavily criticized at the time.

The same congressional Democrats now clamoring for disclosure on Mueller were conspicuously silent when President Obama refused clearly appropriate demands for disclosure in such investigations. District Judge Amy Jackson Berman rejected the executive privilege claims of the Obama Administration in the “Fast and Furious” case, noting that those were unsupported.

While Obama pledged to be the most transparent president in history, he immediately sought to prevent disclosures to the public and the media. The Associated Press documented the systemic denial of access to information by the Obama administration, which only became more hostile to press and public inquiries with each passing year.

If you separate his rhetoric from his actions, Trump’s record has been more limited in his claims compared presidents like Obama, who readily embraced notions of the “imperial presidency.” While Obama often voiced appealing sentiments of restraint and respect for constitutional authority, his record in the courts and Congress was breathtakingly extreme. Conversely, while Trump’s rhetoric is extreme and autocratic, his record is far more moderate on privileges claims.

Other presidents, such as George W. Bush, lost key court challenges to their own excessive claims of executive privilege. Bill Clinton invoked his inherent powers to refuse to testify and lost in spectacular fashion before the Supreme Court; his Administration also used privilege to stonewall Congress on investigative demands.

That is why Trump has been something of an enigma, legally.

None of this fits an easy narrative. It is hard to praise Trump for his restraint when he is rallying supporters in Michigan with ad hominem insults about “pencil-neck Adam Schiff” and attacks on the media. Yet, the more important measure historically is how presidents actually use their power and privileges.

Trump’s handling of the special counsel investigation and report reflects this anomaly. While Trump was unrelenting in his attacks on the special counsel, his actions stand in sharp contrast: He didn’t fire Mueller. He didn’t fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller and oversaw the investigation. He is not accused of destroying evidence or withholding resources from the investigation.

As for the report, Barr shocked Washington with the speed by which he released the summary of Mueller’s conclusions. He now is on track to release the public report in a fraction of the expected time for reviewing and redacting hundreds of pages, stating: “Everyone will soon be able to read it on their own. I do not believe it would be in the public’s interest for me to attempt to summarize the full report or to release it in serial or piecemeal fashion.”

That sounds a lot like transparency, and that is something we have not seen from a president in a very long time.

The irony is that the report does not, as Trump claims, “totally exonerate” him. The report is likely to be quite negative in its portrayal of Trump’s comments and conduct. Exoneration is not just a question of whether a president is a felon. We demand a bit more from our presidents than staying just short of the criminal code of conduct.

However, Trump has built an undeniable record of transparency during this investigation that could be cited for years by advocates as a gold standard for future investigations.

That’s right, Trump could have created a legacy here — and it does not involve an all-caps tweet.

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

304 thoughts on “Trump’s Noble Moment: Waiving Executive Privilege Over The Special Counsel Report”

    Mr. Kurtz,
    I haven’t been involved in the “hack or leak” discussions that have appeared in these threads from time to time.
    I was “credited” with statements I did not make by one of our resident liars, but I was never involved in that debate.
    It’s curious that the DNC denied access to their computers to FBI and that the consensus of hacking is based on the conclusions of a private firm that was allowed access.
    On a different topic ( see link) we had ongoing investigations into the Trump-Russia-“collusion” issues for over 2 1/2 years.
    ( I know “the Mueller investigation lasted less than 2 years” auto- response by those who want to completely dismiss the 10 month FBI investigation that preceded the Mueller appointment). Throughout the long course of these investigations, any observations)concerns about the excessive length, the scattered approach, and lack of updates for the public was likely to be dismissed by those who advised endless patience.
    Now, 10 days after the Mueller report was completed and officially delivered to the DOJ, the same “patience” crowd is setting and demanding unrealistic deadlines to Barr and the DOJ.
    Chairman Pencil Neck seems to out front in wanting answers and testimony “yesterday”….when Barr does testify, I hope he addresses the “we ( now) want instant answers” crowd in Congress.

    1. Bill Binney and Kim Dotcom both are well known information specialists, who have described fully and well why it must have been a leak and not a hack. Essentially the download speeds a hacker would have had to use in order to suck out the huge volume of information renders it impossible that someone outside the organization could have been the source of the stolen emails. Technologically IMPOSSIBLE.

      It necessarily must have been a leak. Was it Seth Rich? Maybe. Who knows. But we do know that it was not a hack . There is a difference. And it matters.

      Ray McGovern, not a Trumper. JIll Stein voter. But also a decades long award winning, President-briefing CIA analyst. But not a liar like Brennan. Just a retired analyst and today a peace activist, if you want to hold that against him. I dont.

      1. The only way it was a “hack” and not a “leak” is if someone physically was allowed to sit at a DNC computer a terminal and password access and download onto thumb drives or other magnetic media, the tons of crap that was given to wikileaks. Now since the people with password AND physical access were presumably all employees, it’s a reasonable inference that an employee leaked the stuff.

        So, some Romanian dude (“Guccifer” ?) sipping espresso in a cafe in Central Europe did not suck a golfball through a garden hose to get it. Even if he did have a stolen password, the download speeds do not add up. See?

        Which is part of the reason WHY the DNC did not let the FBI take physical custody of their machines and instead used their paid-for “security service” contractor to do the coverup “investigation” for them.

        Now the stupid journalists in this country don’t seem to know that in a garden variety criminal investigation the FBI will PHYSICALLY TAKE the machines into custody, and make forensically accurate mirror copies of hard drives, in order to routinely preserve evidence. But they didnt do that did they? Nope. Which flagged this as a bogus story from DAY ONE. That is if you have basic understanding of how the usual police procedure works. Then it’s pretty fake looking from the start.

        But the journalists are never very thorough and their editors are paid to make sure the “Truth” they tell is one that the editors bosses will like.

      2. Mr. Kurtz,
        I don’t know anything about Bill Binney….Kim.Com supposedly ran out of options in his fight to avoid extradition to the U.S., but I think he’s still in New Zealand? or Australia.
        Based on Kim.Com’s history and statements, I don’t view him as credible.
        It looked like he was angling for a pre-emptive pardon before coming to the U. S. in exchange for some supposedly valuable information.
        It looked like a con job all the way around.

      Steve J.,
      You might find this article to be of interest. The fact that these incidents and articles are “from 6 years ago” means that this hacking, etc. issues are not unprecedented.
      Somewhere in this thread someone noted something to the effect that “well, that was 6 years ago”, as if it has no relevance to 2016.
      I’m not going to sort through 200+ comments to find the exact exchange, but in any case, this foreign hacking is not unprecedented.

      1. Again, Anon, you don’t have the knowledge so you ask the question. Should SteveJ reply with an answer the chances are you will run away like you generally do. It is quite interesting how you draw conclusions without the facts.

        1. Allan,
          When I post something that contains information, I don’t feel a responsibility to check into every aspect that might be related to a an event mentioned in a linked article.
          If someone has follow-up questions they expect to have answered, they can do their own research if they’re curious about something.

          1. Tom, as you now know Anon’s question was to SteveJ. Anon is loaded with questions but empty on answers yet he throws unfounded conclusions everywhere.

            1. Allan,
              I couldn’t tell who it was addressed to, and the placement made me think the question was for me.
              I try to remember to address comments or questions but when I don’t, the placement of the question in the thread can make it hard to figure out who a question or reply is directed to.

              1. I should have posted his name – My use of the verb he used in his post was intended as a cue, but not clear enough.

          2. Tom, I don’t understand if your post is relative to any of mine, but to be clear I asked SteveJ for clarification of his statement not because I’m curious – I am pretty fully informed on that issue, just as I am with what the FBI did to damage Trump’s presidential campaign (nothing) – but because I think his implication is wrong and I look forward to correcting him. It is a challenge to him to back up his post or correct a misunderstanding.

            1. Anon writes: “I am pretty fully informed on that issue, just as I am with what the FBI did to …”

              “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” – Richard P. Feynman

      2. My statement was that foreign hacking has happened before.
        I didn’t speculate on what the Chinese obtained or how they may have used the information they got.
        If anyone had been interested, there may have been an investigation. You’re welcome to check that out and get back to us on what you found out.

          1. I skimmed the article…I noticed that the agreememt focused on protections of American businesses and intellectual property from cyber-theft.
            The sentence that the agreement did not address traditional cyber-espionage is interesting… looks like the government-to-government hacking wasn’t covered in the agreement.
            If the media are focused soley on the hacking done by only one country, it’s hard to get an accurate overview of how extensive the problem and which countries are the biggest threats.

          2. Well Anon, you’re welcome to come to a different conclusion regarding the WikiLeaks document dump that contained accurate information. But the only way it had an affect on the election was if people came to a different conclusion regarding that accurate information.

            1. SteveJ – While I am less certain the wiki-leaks dump was a conclusive as Comey’s stunt 2 weeks before the election in knee capping Hillary’s campaign, it did serious damage by taking focus off of Trump’s p…y grabbing, putting another Hillary “email scandal” on the nation’s front pages and opening TV news coverage, and by convincing a lot people who never read the emails that – like you apparently – there was something scandalous said. I read much of them. What did you find out about rigged primaries, since you have stated as much?

              1. Well my comment had 2 points. The first is that the document dump had accurate information. In other words it was truth. So let’s not pretend that WikiLeaks and whoever gave them the info subverted Democracy by giving us the truth.

                Now you apparently don’t think the accurate documents say much. To the extent others feel that way, the documents had no affect on the general election. I’m satisfied that the DNC violated it’s charter and became an arm of the Clinton campaign — which angered a good chunk of people within the DNC and a good chunk of left of center and independent voters.

                I say it’s obvious from the document dump that higher ups in the DNC were figuring out how to help Clinton during the nominating process. That’s not their job. Their job is to let the voters pick the nominee and then support that nominee. When higher ups don’t do their job right, people get upset. They become less motivated. Let’s try and avoid that next time.

                1. You are not being specific. If you reviewed the emails, surely you have something in mind. I saw nothing of concern, unless you think Debbie Wasserman Schultz asking her underling to push back against accusations by Bernie’s campaign is somehow scandalous and calling his campaign chairman an a.shole and liar because she thought he lied about an incident at the Nevada convention.

                  The only damaging email I saw was one from the campaign CFO suggesting they bring up Bernie being a Jewish. atheist. No responded favorably or acted on the email and he was dumped by the DNC.

                  I might also add, that it is both illegal and immoral to steal and release the emails of others – who by the way are not government employees – not intended for public viewing and I don’t understand how you don’t view that as troubling.

                  So what did you see that made you think the primaries in which Hillary wasted Bernie by 4 million votes – that’s more than she beat Trump by – or 55%-42% was rigged?

                  1. I am glad that you agree that WikiLeaks did nothing do subvert Democracy by releasing accurate documents.

                    And I posted a link with specific e-mails that show DNC staffers strategizing for Hillary Clinton as early as 2015. And there are e-mails that show the DNC fundraising conjoined with Clinton fundraising.

                    1. I’ve read all the emails deemed the worst, and summarized them above. Surely if you took the time and effort to post about it, you must have something specific in mind to claim the primaries were somehow rigged, right?

                      I did not agree with your approval of Wikileaks partisan efforts during the campaign and I don’t understand how anyone who aspires to ethical behavior and fair democratic elections would either. Maybe you can expound further on your approval of this behavior and how you would accept it no matter who was targeted.

                      As to the DNC’s finances, Hillary’s campaign helped the DNC, not visa versa.

                    2. “Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”” (Donna Brazile)


                      “Donna Brazile: I found ‘proof’ the DNC rigged the nomination for Hillary Clinton”


                  2. I listed two specifics. That the DNC became an arm of the Clinton campaign and that there was a slimy financial arrangement between the two. The e-mails specifically show that the DNC is in the tank for Clinton well before any votes were cast. If you want to ignore that, that’s your prerogative.

                    You’re claim that Hillary Clinton helped the DNC and not vice versa is not the case. You claim Hillary Clinton made contributions to the DNC.

                    Yeah Anon. She was paying them off. A Clinton operative says to Wasserman Schultz over lunch that so and so would be a good senior level appointment at the DNC. That same day the DNC receives money from the Clinton campaign. You see how it works?

                    In addition to that, she got money via the DNC in return. She initiated the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America — probably on the same day she handed over another contribution. Huge sums of money were sent from state parties to the DNC and funneled to the Hillary Victory Fund.

                    Now you really didn’t need WikiLeaks for any of this. Democratic voters and voters in general have known it. And to the extent it influenced the general election it was due to American voters, not Russians.

                    1. You have not produced one fact in support of your claim that the primaries were rigged for Hillary.

                      Was the DNC anticipating that Hillary was going to beat a socialist who wasn’t even a Democrat in the primaries? Well, yeah! Was that smart and appropriate in a business where winning by the law is what counts, not supporting vanity projects for non-party members? Well, yeah.

                      I know the cool kids are Bernie Bros, but you lost and your candidate fully supported Hillary in the election because ultimately he believes in principles, not personalities. Try it sometime.

                      In the meantime, show us how the primary was rigged. So far you haven’t and are dodging the question.

                    2. “Now you really didn’t need WikiLeaks for any of this. Democratic voters and voters in general have known it. And to the extent it influenced the general election it was due to American voters, not Russians.”

                      SteveJ, a very astute suggestion.

                  3. Was the DNC anticipating that Hillary was going to beat a socialist who wasn’t even a Democrat in the primaries? Well, yeah!
                    That is NOT their job Anon. It violated the DNC charter. The e-mails are facts. The joint fundraising agreement between the DNC and Clinton along with the monetary transactions resulting from that are facts.
                    You can ignore them or claim that their not. And we’ll just leave it at that.

                    1. Charge it as a conspiracy why don’t you? You stinking hypocrite, you.

                    2. The job of the DNC is to elect Democrats.

                      The fund raising benefitted the DNC – Hillary already had the money.

                      Still waiting for the evidence of a rigged primary. Let me help you out on this. You need to show vote rigging, debates Bernie wasn’t invited to, efforts to keep him off the ballot, etc. None of that happened and he wasn’t even a Democrat.

                      Show us the rigging.

                      By the way, I knew Bernie personally 40 years ago and rode around with him alone all day once campaigning for the Senate on a wacko left wing ticket – before he was the mayor of Burlington. I voted for Bernie in the primary out of loyalty and respect him as a person and politician. He got his ass kicked. He lost. This rigging BS is a handy tool for more Hillary bashing, not a serious charge.

                    3. The fund raising benefitted the DNC – Hillary already had the money.

                      Well then why was so much money sent on to the Hillary Victory Fund from the DNC, which she was then able to use in the general election. What happened at the DNC here was wrong. It was a cynical way in which to get around FEC laws. It doesn’t matter what you think of Bernie. In in terms of disrespecting the Democratic process, it was easily more egregious than anything she claims happened to her in the general. In my view a 100,000 bucks of Internet propaganda including some shoddy Facebook adds, many anti-Trump, isn’t newsworthy.

                    4. You’re wasting my time. You have no evidence of primary rigging in the 2016 Democratic primary. I don’t know your motivation, but it’s not the truth. I’ll keep that in mind when reading your posts.

                    5. My main motivation is that the Russia Hoax was never going to benefit the Democratic Party. I only brought up Clinton by comparison. But you kept wanting to zero in on that aspect of the comment.

                      On the overall egregious scale, what she did in manipulating Democratic processes isn’t all that high. But it’s easily higher than any manipulation she claimed happened to her in the general. And my initial comment was to note the irony in that.

                    6. “Now you really didn’t need WikiLeaks for any of this. Democratic voters and voters in general have known it. And to the extent it influenced the general election it was due to American voters, not Russians.”

                      I don’t think morality, right or wrong, enters Anon’s head when he argues. Maybe he is that way all the time, maybe not.

                    7. SteveJ, Comey cost Hillary the election. Hillary did not cost Bernie anything except getting his ass beat fair and square.

                    8. No, Hellary cost Hellary the election.

                      Comey let her skate on criminal charges under instruction from Lynch. You’re pretty graceless complaining about it.

                      That he answered a question from a congressional inquirer honestly was an inconvenience to Hellary. Partisan Democrats fancy they should be free of inconveniences. Because childish.

    1. Late4Dinner is in Mr. Smith’s penalty box again. L4D attempted to post statements of proven facts uncovered during the Mueller investigation but charged as a conspiracy. But Smith’s bit bucket blockade has prevented the posting of those proven facts on Res Ipsa Loquitur. Because, cowardice.

        1. Six hours later and Res Ipsa Loquitur still bans the posting of proven facts uncovered by the Mueller investigation.

          Truly can’t make an argument without cheating. And everybody knows it. Including Turley’s Mother.

  2. I haven’t followed the lawsuits against Purdue Pharma.; I imagine there are others out there.
    The lawyers will go where the bucks are; it’s not realististic to sue the makers of illegal fentanyl brewed up in some garage in Mexico.
    Or the makers and sellers of heroin, cocaine, etc.
    They’ll go after legal drugs that have legitimate uses, the manufacturers, even though the illegal drugs are what’s primarily driving the rise in opiod deaths.
    I have very little confidence in the judgement of the agencies, etc. that have swung this pain management pendulum back and forth for decades.
    In the real world, of real patients and real health care givers trying to interact effectively (off and on) in pain management,

    1. (Screen froze up)…I was finishing the last sentences…this “war on opiods” will have one hell of an impact on pain management , which will swing back to the “just say no” mentality for a lot of patients in bad shape.
      It might make a dent in the opiod deaths at the expense of a lot of those patients.

  3. did you guys see creepy biden memes today? his goose is cooked now.



    With most of the Mueller report still under wraps, it’s understandable that there would be some disagreement about its determinations. But our poll revealed something else remarkable about allegations that Trump’s campaign tried to collude with the Russian interference effort: Most Republicans don’t think there was an interference effort.

    A bare majority of Republicans told our pollsters that they don’t think Russia even tried to interfere in the campaign.

    Mind you, Russia’s efforts are one of the better documented allegations that Mueller and his team made. Since July, you could read a 29-page indictment outlining how Russian agents allegedly hacked into the Democratic Party’s network and into the email account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman. For more than a year, you could read a 37-page document explaining how a group of Russian workers tried to spread misinformation and dissent over social media. As far back as June 2016, The Post first reported that hackers linked to Russia had accessed the Democratic National Committee.

    Although the allegations haven’t been proved in a court of law and although Russia’s government denies them, there’s little serious debate at this point that Russia was involved in those hacks and that social media push. No serious explanation for those acts has been offered beyond trying to muck up the 2016 presidential election.

    Trump has repeatedly waved away the idea that Russia wanted to intervene in the election on his behalf and the idea that Russia was necessarily involved in the hacking. For every time he has seemed to forcefully acknowledge Russia’s apparent role, he has cast doubt on the subject.

    In other words, on this, too, we have a Trump-vs.-Mueller conflict. And Republicans again trust Trump’s version of the story.

    It again raises an important question: What if Mueller had demonstrated serious wrongdoing by Trump? What if the full report still does? Then what?

    Edited from: “Most Republicans Don’t Accept A basic Mueller Finding: That Russia Tried To Interfere In The 2016 Election”

    This evening’s WASHINGTON POST

    This piece hits on the point I was making last week. Trump has spent the past two years calling Russian interference ‘fake news’. So not surprisingly hard core Trump supporters never believed the interference occurred. Yet The Mueller Report documents that Russian interference was real and A G Barr acknowledged it his 4 page summary.

    Therefore this notion that Trump has been ‘exonerated’ is ridiculous. Whether he colluded directly or not, Trump has been consistently dismissive about Russian meddling. Why is that?? One could argue that that level of dismissiveness amounts to collusion. There was a serious security threat that Trump refused to concede.

      1. Steve, your article is from 6 years ago. Yet you claim that’s more relevant..??

        And what’s wrong with admitting that Russia interfered in the 2016 election? Is that politically problematic to concede? Do Republicans consider that admission disrespectful of Trump? If so it indicates that Trump ‘is’ most certainly part of the problem.

        1. Well there’s no new evidence about hacking from the time the article was written. And what do you mean by Russian interference? “Internet propaganda and hacking?” If that’s the new definition of “election interference”, that’s been going on ever since the Internet was formed.
          Election interference is when you tamper with the voting machines. That didn’t happen here.

          1. Steve, Hillary became the first candidate in history dogged by foreign hackers in the form of Wikileaks. Those were daily releases throughout the last month of the campaign. That is certainly interference.

            Even if you hate Hillary that’s still interference.

            And it’s been well-established that Russian Trolls targeted Facebook with memes promoting disinformation. Blacks, in particular, were targeted by trolls promoting false conspiracies.

            The Bernie Bros, however, were big at sharing Russian-made memes. Which made them look stupid!

            I didn’t like the Bernie Bros for that very reason; ‘they fell for Russian trolls’. Still it wasn’t fair. We didn’t need Bernie Bros posting Russian lies. That was interference! It perverted the election.

            Arguably Donald Trump was the biggest victim of Russian interference. His Electoral College victory shall be forever clouded. Trump should have acknowledged that in his inauguration speech. I

            It would have been a no-brainer. Trump could have said:

            “I’m a victim too. Secretary Clinton and myself. Our election outcome was compromised by foreign trolls and hackers. That isn’t fair to either of our supporters. Therefore I shall form a commission to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election”

            Any politician with any common sense would verbalized the obvious. You want to put things out there that need to be said. Had Trump given that speech every Democrat would have taken notice. We would have known that Trump was serious about Russian meddling.

            An acknowledgement like that would have put Trump in the clear regarding Russia. The need for a Special Counsel would have never arisen. It would have seemed like President Trump was as concerned as everyone.

            But that wasn’t Donald Trump. ..No..!! Political novice Trump became a text book case in, “How To Get A Special Counsel In Record Time”.

            You get a Special Counsel by shooting your mouth-off. Like, “I love Wikileaks”. “Vladimir Putin if you’re listening– “Lock Her Up!” “Only I can fix it”. “Fake news”. “Enemies of the people”. “Millions of illegal voters”.

            Arrogant outbursts like these drive Reality Shows. Trump was good at that. It takes talent to be funny. But these outbursts have no place at the top of government. And that’s the biggest problem with this president.

            1. Well you’re giving Russia way too much credit. They don’t understand the American people. And apparently neither do you. You have pretty dim view of the American people. You’re claiming they’re suckers.

              The Democrats nominated a poor candidate who ran a poor campaign. That’s why we had the election results that we did.

              Next time nominate a good candidate who will run a good campaign. Or you can bellyache about the last election so that you lose the next one.

              1. Steve, that’s a dismissive cop-out.

                If Hillary was such a disastrous candidate, Trump should beaten her quite soundly. He should have soundly debunked her arguments during the debates.

                Instead Trump stalked Hillary on stage! That didn’t look too cool. After “Me-Too”, behavior like that could get a man shunned.

                It’s a cop-out to blame Hillary. Like ‘everyone should think hackers don’t matter, so no need to investigate. Just take Trump’s word. It’s all just ‘fake news’.

                That’s Politics For Dummies.

                1. “If Hillary was such a disastrous candidate, Trump should beaten her quite soundly.”

                  Well no. Because Trump wasn’t a good candidate either. It takes a good amount of incompetence to lose to Trump.

                  1. The ‘incompetence’ as you call it, was foreign interference. Daily headline about Wikileaks. No candidate wants their name tied to Wikileaks throughout October. And that was the DNC’s computer, as opposed to Hillary’s,

                    But I do believe there were other factors in the campaign that handicapped Hillary. Like James Comey’s letter, for instance.

                    Comey didn’t tell us that Trump was under investigation. And Comey shouldn’t have. Trump wasn’t being charged.

                    But neither was Hillary. Comey had no business releasing that letter. Hillary became the first candidate in history to come with an FBI warning. That was a huge handicap.

                    1. “Comey didn’t tell us that Trump was under investigation. And Comey shouldn’t have. Trump wasn’t being charged.”

                      Nobody in the world knew that Trump was under investigation (sarcasm alert).That is Peter’s view of this past election. Did not the onslaught of headlines, newscasters and leaks inform the American people that Trump was under investigation?

                The fact is that we’re stuck with these internet “campaigns”, and that it’s not one-sided.
                If there’s a chance of swaying some votes with an organized online army of paid trolls, it’s likely to be a pattern.
                I don’t know if Bernie’s online supporters were as well-suited as the SuperPac mentioned on this article, but I’m pointing out that this “poor Hillary” spiel is bunk.

                  1. The May 9th, 2016 date is at the top of the article,case is the to title of the article. If that’s not showing up on your screen or you’re missing it, I don’t know why that is.
                    But it isn’t “fake news’ just because you don’t like the LA Times.

                  2. Maybe the headline and the date we’re not large enough for you to notice them:
                    MAY 9TH, 2016
                    Hope the all-caps help.

                    1. Tom, why not put it in all caps? That is what Peter likes.


                      Of course there were the Hillary Clinton operatives like former jailbird Creamer who instigated violence and then blamed the violence on the opposition.

                1. Tom, that L.A. Times link is odd. No title on story. Nor is any date apparent. I’ve never seen a link like that from a major media source.

                  I must disclose, however, I don’t read the L.A. Times anymore. Their cluttered graphics drove me away. The paper is now quite hostile to anyone lacking a subscription.

              3. SteveJ ignores not only Russian targeting of demographics, but more importantly, Comey’s sabotage of Hillary’s campaign 2 weeks before the election, an event Nate Silver concluded was determinative as it led the nationl news for a full week after. Hillary still won by 3 million votes.

                Putting aside how could a campaigner she was – not very – she was an excellent candidate if one cares about experience, dedication, ability to work with others, and intelligence.

                1. “SteveJ ignores not only Russian targeting of demographics, but more importantly, Comey’s sabotage of Hillary’s campaign 2 weeks before the election”

                  Anon, you seem to ignore all the facts that do not support your claims. You also don’t recognize facts and .gov numbers. Lots of talk but you shoot blanks.


                  Obama .4
                  Trump 1.2

                  More than 3 times as fast under Trump even thought unemployement should fall slower not faster.

                  2016 9.9 9.7 9.8 9.7 9.7 9.6 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.5 2016 Obama
                  2017 9.4 9.2 8.9 8.6 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.3 7.9 2017 Trump

            2. ““I’m a victim too. Secretary Clinton and myself. Our election outcome was compromised by foreign trolls and hackers.”

              It was worse for Trump who had the DOJ and FBI compromised and acting against him on behalf of the Clinton campaign and their illegal actions.

                1. With all the releases of data, you still don’t know?

                  We go through these things all the time and you run away. I’m through proving my case though I am not through disproving yours.

                    1. Anon, I gave you close to a dozen different items on healthcare mandated by law that you knew nothing about. After putting in effort we know you have nothing and if someone were to shoot you they could only hit you in the back because you are always running away.

                  1. I’m through proving my case though I am not through disproving yours.

                    Yes, a 100+ times over. So why bother? Are you expecting an aha! moment with these folks? It isn’t going to happen. You are feeding them exactly what they are looking for. Starve them out and they’ll get desperate. Eventually they’ll change their name and start all over again. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

                    1. You got nothing dude. Answering the question should take fewer words than that weak excuse.

                    2. Olly, Anon already changed his name from Jan F. When his stupidity factor broke the records. He is trying for a second record but so far doesn’t rate higher than the Shill.

                      Do I expect a change from Anon? Of course not but occasionally I offer a real discussion but that never happens. I like studying all sorts of bugs and creatures. Anon fits in very well.

                    3. Anon says: April 2, 2019 at 8:51 AM

                      What did the FBI and DOJ due to damage Trump’s election effort?

                      Allan says: April 2, 2019 at 3:55 PM

                      I like studying all sorts of bugs and creatures.

                      Allan has no answer to Anon’s question. Because the answer to Anon’s question is that the FBI and DOJ did nothing to damage Trump’s election effort. But Allan refuses to admit that fact. Because it is a fact. And it is contrary to Allan’s argument. And that is obnoxious factor driving Allan’s stupidity.

                    4. “Allan says: April 2, 2019 at 3:55 PM

                      I like studying all sorts of bugs and creatures.”

                      “Allan has no answer to Anon’s question.”

                      My answer was to Olly as to why I respond to stupid people like you. Anonymous, you fit well into the bugs and creature category.

            3. It was a leak not a hack.
              And yes Assange is a foreigner. A foreign journalist. Just one you don’t like.
              And yes the Russians interfere as a matter of course and regular espionage. just as ours do from time to time and place to place. That is a subject of proper concern.

              Concern which did not merit a big long Special Counsel investigation culminating in zero indictments for genuine espionage or unlawful “collusion” just a bunch of FARA, process crimes, tax evasion and garbage like that.

              By the way, Stone is indicted on one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five counts of false statements, and one count of witness tampering. No collusion. Just garbage.

  5. Seriously, you just said that?

    DEBATE THIS: Congress must implement the clear and obvious meaning and intent, the “manifest tenor,” of the Constitution. Congress has the power to tax merely for “…general Welfare…” deliberately omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare. Congress has no power to tax for individual welfare or redistribution of wealth in any form.

    Understanding that general welfare includes only products, services and/or commodities which ALL people use in similar amounts and/or frequency (water, roads, sewer, electricity, trash pick-up, post office-1789, etc., and which is not provided by free markets), as “…general Welfare…” deliberately excludes welfare provided to individual citizens or individual groups, the entire American individual welfare state is unconstitutional and must be abrogated totally, completely and in perpetuity, including welfare, food stamps, Medicare, Social Security, affirmative action, quotas, rent control, social services, forced busing, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Education, Labor, Obamacare, Obamaphones, Social Security Disability, Medicaid, “Fair Housing,” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

    Article 1, Section 8

    “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,…to…provide for the…general Welfare of the United States;…”

    “…Courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

      1. Wait. You, the village idiot, just called the Constitution and Alexander Hamilton stupid.

        I rest my case.

        I, hereby, submit this im-poster and petition the moderator that it be banned-for-life

        for wasting huuuge tracts of space on this blog with endless meandering passages of incoherent, unconstitutional, communist


  6. The shills here are so desperate for something negative to say about Trump that they are dredging up Obamcare, as The Savior of the American People! Listen to the hysterical shill, Peter Hill, as he breathlessly proclaims this bit of garbage propaganda: “Donald Trump wants to eliminate HIV in the U.S., contain the opioid crisis and lower the cost of prescription drugs — but all of those need Obamacare to be successful. ”

    Like we will all die without Obamacare??? And no, Obamacare is not a necessity to stop HIV, or whatever. HIV could be stopped a whole lot better if “tops” simply wore condoms. Drug costs could be dramatically lowered if we simply allowed the importation drugs from overseas. Overall medical costs could be cut in half if prosecutors simply began enforcing anti-trust laws against medical providers. And, Medicaid costs could be reduced somewhat if we stopped bring in illegal aliens and providing them Medicaid benefits. If we better controlled our borders, we could make a dent in opioids, But, the Democrats need to stuff the ballot box, and frighten scared little liberals into sending them money, ala the SPLC scam.

    But no, Peter Shill hops on his soapbox and waxes wroth about Trump, the Horrible. What a silly twit! Gee, I hear the SPLC has some openings for fraudsters. . .

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky, you have no particular knowledge to add to any debate. No one could possibly mistake you for informed. You’re just a mean-spirited deplorable like most Trumpers.

          The comment “Like we would all die without ObamaCare” reminded me of the almost unprecedented increase in mortality and decrease in life expectancy in 2015, 2016, and 2017.
          Years that ObamaCare was in force. That doesn’t prove that ObamaCare is the cause, but it makes questionable the claim that “people will die without ObamaCare” when they’re dying at a higher rate WITH ObamaCare.
          Maxine Waters’ claim that 700 Billion people would die if ObamaCare were repealed seems especially suspect, given the Earth’s population of c. 7 Billion.

          1. People do not even know what Obamacare does. The simple thing is a discussion with those that support Obamacare as to what they like about it. The discussion will be very short because the list will be nearly non existent.

    2. I’ll have to re-read these comments, but I don’t see how ObamaCare or any other health Care system is going to eliminate HIV or the opiod crisis.
      There are things that health care can do and things that it can not do.
      It’s a pipe dream to think that a particular health care system will do away with high-risk sexual behavior, drug use, or for that matter, alchoholism and obesity or mental illness.
      (The latter is destined to explode if Trump is re-elected in 2020; the 2016 results already pushed some over the edge).

      1. Tom, if you read the Politico article. it notes that ACA is totally woven into the healthcare system. Therefore treatment and prevention programs for HIV and opioid addiction treatments are all in some way affected by Obamacare.

        Therefore if Obamacare is discarded ‘before’ a replacement is adopted, it throws the entire healthcare system into chaos. Hospitals, insurance plans and Medicaid are now written with ACA in mind.

        There has to be a replacement first. But for reasons of ideology, Republicans can’t get to the right of Obamacare and still have a viable healthcare system. Republicans essentially admit as much. For that reason Mitch McConnell told Trump last week he’s on his own regarding an Obamacare replacement.

        1. A fellow employees was sent to rehab at least 3 or 4 times that I know of, and relapsed every time.
          Died fairly young.
          This was long before ObamaCare, and the company (the company’s insurance) was extraordinarily generous in keeping his job open and paying for expensive rehab multiple times.
          Given the numbers, it’s hard to see that ObamaCare is/was that effective in stemming the opiod problem/ opiod deaths.
          My point was that no matter what form of health care there is in a system, don’t count too much on it ending the opiod problem.
          No matter how much “prevention” or “treatment” is provided, there are forces at work beyond a health care systems control and really have nothing to do with a particular health care system.
          Saying that we need ObamaCare or MediCare for all or whatever to solve the opiod problem isn’t realistic.

          1. Tom, it’s been found that states legalizing Marijuana have lower rates of opioid addiction. That comes as no surprise here in California.

            What’s more the Sackler family of Purdue Pharma, maker of Oxycontin, is currently besieged by lawsuits that could trim their $13 billion fortune.

            The Sacklers have become pariahs in the both New York and London. Their name is coming off buildings their money actually funded. I think the Sackler family’s downfall could possibly mitigate the opioid crisis from here. Doctors will seriously think twice before prescribing Oxycontin.

            And that could be bad for patients in very genuine pain.

              If you’re suggesting that legalizing pot will lower opiod deaths, you have a long way to go to make your case.
              It may be that states that have legalized pot have lower rates of opiod deaths…..I don’t know if that’s true or not…..but suggesting that legalized pot sonehow reduced the number of opiod deaths is not an easy case to make.
              I was actually disputing the statement that we need ObamaCare to fight opiod deaths; if the statistics are halfway reliable on the increasing numbers of opiod deaths, they spiked unabated after ObamaCare was enacted.

              1. Peter doesn’t think and jumps on anything that promotes his view of the world whether it is valid or not. Many, financially invested in the marijuana industry, would like to promote the use of marijuana. I am sure some researchers are more than willing to oblige. Studies of this nature are difficult, but people like Peter jump on them. A more likely scenario demonstrated in some studies (I think) is that the use of medical marijuana could reduce the use of opiates in relieving pain and thus reduce the consequences (death) of opiates. Peter only looks at the first bit of news that agrees with him and in this case it is one side of the seen consequences. Deeper thought is absent as are the unseen consequences.




    Donald Trump wants to eliminate HIV in the U.S., contain the opioid crisis and lower the cost of prescription drugs — but all of those need Obamacare to be successful. And Trump just promised to kill it.

    His HIV plan relies on key pieces of Obamacare to expand access to prevention and treatment services for Americans at risk of contracting the deadly virus. Expanding opioid prevention relies heavily on Medicaid, which expanded under Obamacare. And Trump’s push to lower drug prices would use an innovation program that tests drug cost modeling — and was created by Obamacare.

    So while the notion of killing Obamacare altogether arouses the GOP base, the reality is that the decade-old law is so intertwined with the entire U.S. health care system that repealing large chunks of it would destroy the ability to do things Trump actually likes.

    Even members of Trump’s team have raised red flags. Outgoing Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said Thursday that overturning Obamacare could thwart an initiative to get cheaper forms of insulin on the market. Carl Schmid, an AIDS Institute leader and co-chair of Trump’s HIV advisory board, called the ACA decision “an unfortunate distraction from ending the HIV epidemic initiative.”

    “He’s just completely consigning his own initiatives to the ash heap if the ACA goes down,” said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law and policy expert at George Washington University. “It has become the fabric of the health care system.”

    If the law is struck down in court, as the president is rooting for, an estimated 25 million people will lose coverage through private insurance and Medicaid expansion, and insurers would no longer be required to cover people with pre-existing conditions like HIV/AIDS.

    The HIV and opioid crises are intertwined because HIV infections have increased with people sharing needles for injecting drugs. Any Obamacare changes that hurt one of those efforts will have serious ramifications for the other.

    Edited from: “How Killing Obamacare Could Backfire For Trump”

    Today’s POLITICO

    Trump surprised the White House staff and congressional Republicans last Monday when he impulsively ordered his Justice Department to let the entire Affordable Care Act be struck by a lawsuit. Since then, Republicans have been in disarray trying to respond to questions regarding pre-existing conditions coverage (among other things).

    Yesterday on the Sunday morning talk shows, White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney had serious problems answering questions regarding the fate of ACA. This comes after Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell essentially told Trump to ‘find a replacement plan as fast as possible’.

    Trump fails to understand that ACA is now completely woven into the healthcare system. If ACA goes, the entire system is thrown into chaos. But because Trump decided this issue without any input, no one was able to brief him on the far-reaching ramifications.


      Trump is trying to replace Obamacare with insurance that is more reasonably priced and not as exclusionary. The intention is to cover pre-existent conditions not bankrupt middle class Americans which is what Obamacare does.

        1. Obamacare was passed without being completed or even read. We were better off before that plan was passed. There are many things that can be done to make things better. Obamacare is going through a death spiral and will eventually die under its own weight so it has to be replaced sooner or later. Makey from Whole foods did an op ed for the WSJ.

          The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare

          Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit.

          John MackeyUpdated Aug. 11, 2009 7:30 p.m. ET
          “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
          of other people’s money.”

          With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people’s money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.

          While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:

          Chad Crowe
          •?Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees’ Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.

          Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan’s costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.

          •?Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

          •?Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

          •?Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

          •?Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

          •?Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor’s visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

          •?Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

          •?Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

          Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

          Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America

          Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

          Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor’s Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.

          At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly—they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an “intrinsic right to health care”? The answer is clear—no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.—or in any other country.

          Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

          Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

          Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.

          Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.

          Mr. Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc.

          1. Alan, you don’t get it (which isn’t surprising). Trump has to replace Obamacare first, before it is struck.

            BUT HE DOESN’T HAVE A PLAN. Without a new plan in place, the entire healthcare system is thrown into chaos. Trump is too lazy to realize that and you’re too ignorant to get it.

            1. His health care plan is like the promised middle class tax cut he promised just before the 2018 election.

              Anyone who doesn’t understand he will say anything anytime are fools, and that is his secret sauce – the fools who continue to support him. By the way, have a good time paying for that wall he promised the Mexicans would pay for it. How many of you chanted that at a rally? Don’t be shy. Raise your hand!

              1. Anon, Alan is one of those fools. Alan presumes to play the wise old conservative. But he’s incapable of tracking the healthcare issue. So Alan reflexively presumes that Trump knows what he’s doing. Which is simply a case of one old fool blindly following another old fool.

                1. Peter, you are a fool. I offered to engage in a discussion of healthcare but you ran away. Insurance companies make money by insuring individuals. When the government mucks it up prices rise, quality falls and access falls. Government insurance is nothing more than a spot in a line waiting for care.

            2. You don’t get it Peter, one way or the other Obamacare is doomed to fall under its own weight. One can let Obamacare do its death spiral and move to a different system. You have limited understanding of the healthcare marketplace so you think a plan has to be run from the top when that is the least efficient mechanism.

              Obamacare increased costs and made healthcare less sustainable along with making the middle class Obamacare recipient feel they are uninsured. We had better healthcare before Obamacare.

              1. Alan, TRUMP HAS TO REPLACE IT FIRST!!!!!!!

                Otherwise the entire healthcare system is thrown into chaos if Obamacare goes.

                1. What is Obamacare doing? It is supplying very costly insurance that is not tailored to patient needs. It uses subsidies for those who can’t afford care but unfortunately raises prices so that even with the subsidies people are declining care.

          2. Obamacare was thoroughly read and vetted in Congress. It was presented in October of 2009 and not passed until 2010.

            Those charging medical costs increases are either ignorant or propangandists as our health insurance has been exploding since about 2000 and has actually slowed since the ACA was passed and instituted. Admittedly the cost control functions of the law, which do exist and have been successful were weakened by special interest who always get a say in bills of this size. The ending of the mandate further weakened cost controls as it was necessary to get young people in the pool to get costs down. Further efforts by the GOP to weaken it have also raised costs and the bill needs reforms, a policy of Amy Klobuchar who I support. The ACA is popular with Americans and as a camels nose in the tent of government price controls – which is how other countries keep their costs at 60% of ours – is a first step we’ll improve on over time. As an invention of the Heritage Foundation it is the last chance for those who want private insurance to have a future in the US.

            1. Anon, Obamacare was not read by the vast majority of people that voted on it and most of our legislators didn’t have the slightest idea what they were signing or not signing. Nancy Pelosi said we will have to pass it to know what is in it. That is the definition of a stool test.

              You keep bringing up isolated facts without knowing very much about the healthcare system we are presently under. Most people don’t know very much until they are sick and then they learn how bad the system is when the system doesn’t address their problems. Today we are destroying our intellctual capacity, our innovation, our physicians, our hospitals and causing prices to rise. The system is being gamed so expect pricing to rise more with time.

              All these things you quote are meaningless. Why don’t you look at the law itself to see all its faults. Have you noticed how hospitals and physicians are conglomerating into big corporations? Did you know that Obamacare was betting at least part of its success on ACO’s but the experiments before and after passage mostly failed. Do you know what an ACO is? Do you know what the MLR is? Do you know about pricing? How does Obamacare pay for those that are subsidized? Do you recognize how some of the mandates take care away from the sick? Do you understand EHR’s? Do you remember the suits against the HMO’s and how that spurred the public to demand a patient care law be passed? Do you know that where the HMO’s lost in prior legal actions the present laws have made it so that type of behavior never reaches court? Did you know that (under Medicare) Medicare pays almost double for a colonoscopy in a hospital rather than in an outpatient clinic. Did you know that if the hospital were within a certain distance from that outpatient facility that it could buy half the shares and the profits from the sellers remain the same? Did you know that when the hospital buys a physician practice the amount reimbursed for that physician’s services rises significantly? Did you know that the legislation was incomplete? Do a search for the secretary shall, will, decide or something similar and you will find that was a default for incomplete legislation, It appears hundreds of times. Obamacare was more or less a shell. Do you think a high school graduate in Washington D.C. knows more about your problems than you do?

              I provided a smattering of problems in no specific order. We don’t only need a fix in Obamacare rather we need to do a lot of things that change the dynamics and force prices down. That is why I copied Mackey’s WSJ article becauase it demonstrates some of the ways costs can be cut.

              If you want to play the ideological game then prepared for a lousy healthcare system. The US has the best outcomes (do I live or die; do I get better or worse) in the world. That is one of the reasons the rich will frequently travel across the world to the US. I know you will return with numbers that are meaningless because you don’t understand what you are repeating. If you want a serious discussion on healthcare I will engage but if you want to deal with ideology I’m not interested. I want the best care possible for as many Americans as possible.

              1. Just as Barr had staff to read the Mueller report do he could get hood letter out on that Sunday, as always, members of congress have trusted staff who review documents.

                Don’t be a fool.

                1. I guess that means a serious discussion is out of the question. Take note how it is apparent that you know nothing about the list I provided which were in no specific order.

                  Those reading Obamacare didn’t know very much either as you don’t seem to understand how the law interlinks with massive amounts of law. I don’t think many of the staffs read it either. They certainly didn’t seem knowledgeable about it and most aren’t knowledgeable about it today.

                  “Don’t be a fool.”

                  A fool is one that doesn’t know the subject matter and develops a fixed position without availing themselves of the ability to learn more. Do you fit that definition?

                  Are you even able to tell us what you like about Obamacare? I think not.

                2. Anon, engaging Alan is an absolute waste of time. All he will do is generate reams and reams of text to obscure the whole debate. It’s basically a form of setting off smoke bombs to create a thick haze.

  8. That’s because liberals care more for what you say than what you do:

    “While Obama often voiced appealing sentiments of restraint and respect for constitutional authority, his record in the courts and Congress was breathtakingly extreme. Conversely, while Trump’s rhetoric is extreme and autocratic, his record is far more moderate on privileges claims.”



    Newbold laid out her experience in the White House during a March 23 interview with bipartisan committee staff. Portions of that interview were in the memo released by Cummings.

    According to the memo, Newbold’s list of overturned security clearance denials included “two current senior White House officials, as well as contractors and individuals throughout different components of the Executive Office of the President.”

    “According to Ms. Newbold, these individuals had a wide range of serious disqualifying issues involving foreign influence, conflicts of interest, concerning personal conduct, financial problems, drug use, and criminal conduct,” the memo says.

    Newbold said she raised her concerns up the chain of command in the White House to no avail. Instead, she said, the White House retaliated, suspending her in January for 14 days without pay for not following a new policy requiring that documents be scanned as separate PDF files rather than one single PDF file.

    Newbold said that when she returned to work in February, she was cut out of the security clearance process and removed from a supervisory responsibility.

    Cummings’ memo doesn’t identify the officials on Newbold’s list. The committee has previously singled out Flynn, Porter and Kushner as it sought records from the White House about how their clearances were handled.

    Flynn maintained his clearance even after the White House learned he lied to the FBI about his conversations with Russia’s ambassador and that he was under federal investigation by the Justice Department for his previous foreign work.

    Kushner failed to initially disclose numerous foreign meetings on security clearance forms, and according to the Times, career officials recommended against granting him one before Trump personally overruled them.

    Porter had high-level access with an interim security clearance even though the FBI repeatedly told the White House of past allegations of domestic violence lodged against him by two ex-wives.

    Porter resigned after the allegations becoming public.

    Edited from: “Whistle Blower Claim of Trump Team’s Security Clearance Meddling Sparks Uproar At House Committee”

    Today’s FOX NEWS website

    Since I first posted Washington Post coverage of the story, our regular Trumpers have besieged me with dismissive comments that this story was merely ginned-up by ‘liberal mainstream media’. This story, however, is trending wide with headlines at almost every major news site.

  10. Well, Natacha’s rant proved to be 307 words, not including follow up. All fiction and emotionalism, of course.

    1. Absurd,
      At least we know from her 3:48 PM comment that she’s “not obsessed by Trump”.

  11. “Many of us have criticized Trump for inappropriate comments that undermine the integrity and dignity of his office.”

    – Professor Turley

    Did many of us criticize JFK for abuse of women in the White House and being manipulated by Russia in the Cuban Missile Crisis into surrendering Intel assets? Did many of us criticize Bill Clinton for abuse of women as a career and the rape of Juanita Broaddrick while doing nothing but riding the Reagan Wave of success? Did many of us criticize Hillary for enabling her criminal husband? Did many of us criticize Bush for the insane invasion of Iraq which cost millions of lives and is still costing trillions upon trillions of dollars?

    Have any of us yet criticized Barack Obama for a corrupt, “empty-suit” presidency, enabling Hillary’s pay-for-play and the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history – the Obama Coup D’etat in America – an ongoing attempt by the Obama “deep state” to subvert and remove a duly elected President?

    None of us have yet criticized these co-conspirators in the Obama Coup D’etat in America:

    Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Kadzic, Yates, Baker,

    Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud,

    Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan,

    Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Sessions, Obama et al.

  12. OMG! This is a bombshell! Barr lied!
    Johnstone: Leaked ‘401’-Page Mueller Report Proves Barr Lied, Collusion Theorists Vindicated

    An unredacted copy of the Robert Mueller report has been leaked to the Washington Post, who published the full document on its website Monday.

    The report contains many shocking revelations which prove that Attorney General William Barr deceived the world in his summary of its contents, as astute Trump-Russia collusion theorists have been claiming since it emerged.

    For example, while Barr’s excerpted quote from the report may read like a seemingly unequivocal assertion, “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” it turns out that the full sentence reads very differently:

    “It is totally not the case that the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    The following sentence is even more damning: “It definitely did establish that that happened.”

    The report goes on to list the evidence for numerous acts of direct conspiracy between Trump allies and the Russian government, including a detailed description of the footage from an obtained copy of the notorious “kompromat” video, in which Trump is seen paying Russian prostitutes to urinate on a bed once slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama, as well as other documents fully verifying the entire Christopher Steele dossier which was published by BuzzFeed in January 2017.

    Other evidence listed in the report includes communication transcripts in which Russian President Vladimir Putin is seen ordering President Trump to bomb Syria, stage a coup in Venezuela, arm Ukraine, escalate against Russia in America’s Nuclear Posture Review, withdraw from the INF treaty and the Iran deal, undermine Russia’s fossil fuel interests in Germany, expand NATO, and maintain a large military presence near Russia’s border.

    These things were done, according to Putin, in order to “keep things interesting.”

    Mueller told reporters Monday morning that there would indeed be mass indictments of large numbers of Trump associates revealed in the near future, including Jared Kushner and Donald Trump, Jr, just as the diligent journalism of MSNBC and other respected news media outlets have been assuring. Mueller said the delay in the arrests, and the mountain of evidence which will surely lead to Trump’s impeachment, was due to the need to “cross a few ‘t’s and dot a few ‘i’s.”

    Needless to say, this completely vindicates the many alert reporters who rightly pointed out that Barr’s assertions about the Mueller report could be gravely dishonest, and that there was no way to know whether or not it had determined collusion between Trump and the Russian government. In a greater sense, it vindicates everyone who has spent the last three years focusing all public attention on the suspicion that the Kremlin could possibly have infiltrated the highest levels of the US government. In an even greater sense, it vindicates America, and it vindicates our very souls.

    More at the link:
    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky, what are talking about??? The Washington Post has not published the Mueller Report. Or if they did they’re keeping it a secret. There is nothing on their home page to indicate they ran with it.

        1. After a while, it gets to be side-splitting.

          Also didn’t realize Lies4Breakfast had editorial positions at CNN and MSNBC.

        1. Kurtz, April Fool’s is every day on this blog, in case you haven’t noticed.

        2. Kurtz, why did you tell Peter it was April Fools Day? This banter could have gone on for a week with him.

          1. oh, his heart leaped at the news, you can be sure. I recognized it as BS at once, but a few others have taken me in since I saw that one this morning. IM a big fool too!

      1. Normally I would commend you for trying to verify Squeeky’s breaking news. But there is nothing normal about anyone that would believe any of it to be true. Damn!

  13. Turley. You just haven’t come to grips with the fact that this was a witch hunt — and while Trump is outraged by it, as he should be, it helps him politically in the long run. This issue might get Trump 2 terms on its own. When the report is released, it will in all likelihood have slippery language unbefitting of an ethical prosecutor’s office. And you won’t need law school credits to see it. To the extent certain Democrats wish to keep making fools out themselves, and try to claim that such language “means something” it will help Trump.

    1. OK Steve J: you’re saying that the following proven facts are OK, and that the Justice Department should not investigate, because doing so would constitute a “witch hunt”?:

      1. Russians interfered with the 2016 election with the goal of electing Trump, with the help of the Trump campaign that provided Russians with polling data which they directed to key precincts in key states, which is how the popular vote got invalidated;

      2. Trump continues to refuse to admit the truth about Russian interference, and sided with Putin and against U.S. intelligence officials. Trump constantly praises Putin, who poisons and murders his opponents, even after they flee to other countries. Because he refuses to admit Russian’s interference, he will do nothing to stop it from happening in future elections.

      3. Trump’s son, son in law and Manafort took a meeting with Russians for the purpose of getting dirt on HRC.

      4. Trump’s son, son in law and Manafort did not contact the FBI to inform it that a hostile foreign government contacted them to help them with the election, and afterwards, lied about it;

      4. Trump dictated a deceitful statement about the reason for the meeting, claiming it was to discuss adoptions of Russian children;

      5. Trump publicly asked Russia, if it was listening, to hack into HRC’s e-mails, and shortly thereafter, Wikileaks posted some of them.

      6. Kushner tried to set up a secret back-channel means of communication with Russians–in other words, a communication channel that U.S. Intellegence could not track;

      7. Prior and during the campaign, Trump was trying to work a deal with Russian oligarchs, but denied publicly that he even knew any Russians.

      8. Trumps NSC designate conferred with Russians about lifting sanctions, and then lied about it.

      These are not hunches or speculations, but proven facts. These things are OK with you?

      1. Oh they’re proven facts are they. You’re an unwitting stooge for Trump’s re-election.

        The Democrats had a poor candidate who ran a poor campaign. That’s why we had the election outcome that we had.

        Rather than do introspection, they decided to blame another country.

        The only thing that comes close to this outrageous behavior is the McCarthy hearing of the 1950s. And you sound a lot like good ol’ Joe.

        Thanks for nothing.

        1. Yes Steve, they’re proven facts. As a Trump follower I realize you must like being lied to,as it is impossible to not notice he does almost everyday and without even the respect for his audience of making it believable. Are you one of those who claim that when he said – and his crowds chanted – that the Mexicans will pay for the wall, he was joking? Dollars to donuts, you want to pay for it now.

          Nice con.

          1. Yes Steve, they’re proven facts.

            Yeah, $100,000 worth of Facebook ads.

            1. In which “key states” was “the popular vote invalidated”?
              And who “invalidated” them?
              I didn’t read past #1 of that rant, but I didn’t see election officials throw out ”invalidated” votes that swung the election to Hillary.

          2. I have written NOTHING that indicates I’m a Trump supporter. Check your reading skills.

        2. Yes. These are proven facts, established via documents and testimony. You can criticize HRC all you want, but she WON the popular vote. The “outcome” was the product of Russian interference and the outmoded Electoral College that set the stage for it to happen.

          Wanna know what’s “outrageous”? Trump. Everything about him, beginning with his absurd appearance–bald head that he tries to cover with the phony comb-over pompadour, oversized ties trying to conceal a big fat gut–yet, he mocks other people, including members of Congress who won their election legally and without the help of a hostile foreign government. His constant lying: “Mexico will pay to build the wall”; “We will repeal and replace have a beautiful health care plan that covers everybody for way less money, better than Obamacare” , as 2 big examples of just plain lies. His absolute failure as a leader. He insults Mexico by calling Mexicans “criminals and rapists”, then wonders why Mexico not only won’t stop the migrant caravans, it actually hires buses to bring them to our borders. His narcissistic personality disorder. Criticism of a Gold Star family and a genuine war hero, John McCain because he made Trump look bad, and yet he faked heel spurs to get 5 deferments and has the gall to criticize genuine patriots. He brags about assaulting women. He praises White Supremacists. He is a racist. He filed false tax returns. He falsified financial statements–one set of books for Forbes, to make himself look wealthier than he is and a second set of books for the IRS. He cheated craftsman who built the Trump casinos in New Jersey, and has filed bankruptcy several times. He was found guilty of engaging in discrimination in renting apartments, and then lied and claimed he won the lawsuit brought by the Justice Department. He has cheated on all 3 of his wives. He pays off porn stars and nude models, and then lies about it. He was a con man before he stole the election and he always will be. Sorry Jon Turley–there is nothing noble about Trump and never will be.

          1. Yes. These are proven facts, established via documents and testimony. You can criticize HRC all you want, but she WON the popular vote

            Even with the harvested ballots in California, she won no majority. You’ve revealed one thing you have in common with bona fide law school graduates: you’re bad at math.

            1. not all of us but yes a lot of the grrrrrls especially we used to tease them about it. now they call that a microaggression

            2. She rants about Trump’s allegedly bald head, bad ties, and fat gut.
              But he doesn’t have a pencil neck; it seems to me that an objective, “balanced” person like Natacha/ Anonymous would have mentioned that on her inventory of Trump’s appearance.
              To win her over and get her vote for 2020, Trump might consider contacting Rep. Nadler’s liposuction specialist.
              He’d risk that post-surgery “deflated balloon” look, but he could dodge her obsession with the fact that he’s on the heavy side.

              1. what does he care if he has some extra girth?
                and the combover is awesome

                HAIL TRUMP

              2. No, Trump has a turkey neck. He actually had some of his staff contact certain news organizations to complain about showing photos of his face from a side view because it made his turkey neck more noticeable.

                I’m not obsessed by Trump: he insults the physical appearance of everyone he perceives to be an enemy, so now that’s the new Presidential standard.

                1. He’s in fine condition for a man of his age.

                  Born with good looks and money, we are pleased that he has come away from the billionaire’s desk, to use his executive leadership skills in the service of our Great Nation! What a patriot! If I was him I never would have bothered. I’d be out there, golfing, travelling, enjoying the ladies, etc.

                  I’m too selfish to expose myself to all the loser stone throwers out there henpecking every day. Thankfully God blessed him with enough “narcissism” that he seems to enjoy the work! Good for us!

            3. Please, tell us about the “harvested votes”.

              PS Whether winning the popular vote means getting the most of all candidates, or a majority of all votes cast is not a “math” question. Did you graduate from any school?

              1. or a majority of all votes cast is not a “math” question

                I see you’re not any better at math than Natacha.

                1. I see you’re so ignorant you think a question of definitions is somehow a “math” question.

                  Given that either winning the most votes of any candidate or the majority of all votes cast can be – absent a qualifier existing somewhere outside absurd’s imagination – rightly described as winning the popular vote, you don’t seem to understand English very well either.

                  BTW, Hillary did the former, Trump did neither. Therefore, in the English language – just to help you out – Hillary can accurately be described as having won the popular vote while Trump can accurately be described as having lost the popular vote.

                  Would you like to discuss this further? I’m also pretty good at math if you sometime need help with that.

            4. Tabby, why don’t you show us for once how those votes were ‘harvested’ in California. You’ve been making this claim as long as I remember. Funny how no journalist ever picked up on this claim. It seems to be all your’s with no validation.

          2. He insults Mexico by calling Mexicans “criminals and rapists”, t

            In Natacha’s ‘mind’, acknowledging that a mascot group of the Anointed contains a criminal population (something any non-idiot in Mexico knows) is an intolerable attack on all.

            1. He actually called them “criminals and rapists”, and then added that he assumed some of them could be good people.
              He said it. Look it up.

              If he really wanted to stop illegal migration, which is a concept I do support, he could take strong measures to dry up the jobs here in the U.S., which is what brings them here. If something isn’t done, the U.S. will become North Guatemala or North Honduras. The U.S. does have a right to control immigration, but the only or even the most-effective solution isn’t to incarcerate the illegals or to separate children from parents. Begin with conducting raids on hotels, restaurants, housekeeping services, landscaping services, pallet factories and other low-skill jobs that hire illegals. They aren’t hard to find. In fact, you could go to any Wal-Mart or other place where money can be wired to Mexico or South America. They line up there to cash their checks and wire money home on Friday nights. Go to cheap apartment complexes. Multiple families live in apartments with multiple bedrooms–one family per bedroom. I know where several are where I live, and I haven’t been looking very hard.

              For employers who hire them, deport the employees and fine the employers, oh, say $50K per illegal. The next time they hire some illegals, mandatory jail time. Make them pay the cost for deportation. That won’t happen because the big restaurant chains, hotels, etc. all contribute to Republican candidates, they pay lower wages, and illegals don’t make as many workers comp or unemployment claims, so labor costs go way down. One other thing: the privateers who run the prisons receive $750 per day per inmate. They, too, are supported by Republicans. Both groups are making money from illegal immigration and both groups contribute to Republican candidates.

              Make friends with Mexico. Apologize for calling them names. The illegals can’t get here without going through Mexico. If we gave Mexico enough money and strategic help, they would turn them back at the Mexican border. Of course, with this solution, the privateers aren’t getting rich from incarcerating illegals, and the hotels, restaurants and other businesses that pay low wages aren’t making as much money, so that’s not going to happen, either. Republicans are the problem here, not the Democrats. Building more walls, setting up more immigration camps and immigration courts aren’t the answer, either. Of course, these solutions also benefit Republican-supported privateers, too.

              1. apologize? you clearly don’t spend much time around Mexicans. Lame, weak apologies make no friends, they only engender contempt.

              2. Make friends with Mexico. Apologize for calling them names.

                Why apologize? They have a criminal population and they are helping to produce chaos at the border.

              3. He actually called them “criminals and rapists”, and then added that he assumed some of them could be good people.

                Strange as it may seem to you, the illegal alien population does include violent criminals.



    A White House whistleblower told lawmakers that more than two dozen denials for security clearances have been overturned during the Trump administration, calling Congress her “last hope” for addressing what she considers improper conduct that has left the nation’s secrets exposed.

    Tricia Newbold, a longtime White House security adviser, told the House Oversight and Reform Committee that she and her colleagues issued “dozens” of denials for security clearance applications that were later approved despite their concerns about blackmail, foreign influence or other red flags, according to panel documents released Monday.

    Newbold, an 18-year veteran of the security clearance process who has served under both Republican and Democratic presidents, said she warned her superiors that clearances “were not always adjudicated in the best interest of national security” — and was retaliated against for doing so.

    The allegation comes during an escalating fight over the issue between House Democrats and the White House. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), the committee chairman, said in a letter to the White House Counsel’s Office that his panel would vote on Tuesday to subpoena at least one individual who overruled Newbold — the committee’s first compulsory move aimed at the White House.

    Washington Post national security reporter Shane Harris explains what you need to know about security clearances. (Shane Harris, Patrick Martin/The Washington Post)
    Cummings vowed more subpoenas would follow if the White House didn’t cooperate with his panel’s investigation.

    White House officials whose security clearances are being scrutinized by the House Oversight Committee include the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump, her husband Jared Kushner and national security adviser John Bolton, according to the panel’s letter.

    The White House declined immediate comment on Monday, and Kushner’s legal team did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    Edited from: “White House Whistleblower Says 25 Security Clearance Denials Were Reversed During Trump Administration”

    This morning’s WASHINGTON POST

    1. So, what, Peter?

      1. How often are such decisions reversed? (NB the White House Staff has over 500 positions).

      2. What were the grounds?

      (While we’re at it, the FBI agent tasked with running background investigations during the first two years of the Clinton Administration said it was like pulling teeth to get any of his appointees to sit down for an interview. The people who gave him the brush-off included top echelon aides like Dee Dee Myers. How many of them were denied security clearances?).

      1. Tomorrow’s Peter Wapo headline


      2. Tabby, whistleblower Tricia Newbold has been at her job for 18 years. The article gives no indication that she has come forth with such complaints before.

        1. 1. Is the article ‘ventriloquist journalism’? Ever been interviewed, Peter? A lot of these people have no integrity at all.

          2. Is she telling you how often people are flagged and how often decisions are reversed? Again, there are 500 people employed at the White House.

          3. How many of these refusals are the security professional’s version of ‘the automatic language rule’?

      3. You’re pivoting again, as you have been taught to do by Faux News.. Who cares happened with the Clinton Administration? How many Clinton appointees tried to set up secret back-channel lines of communications with Russia? How many of them had to amend their security application 40 times because they kept getting caught with ties and dealings they failed to disclose, like Jared?

Comments are closed.