The Trolling Of Bill Barr: How Politics Has Outstripped Meaning

Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the rising attacks against Attorney General Bill Barr even before the redacted report has been released. Many in the media has notably omitted critical facts like Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein helped write the summary and also concluded that there was not case for criminal obstruction to be made against President Trump. There may be grounds to criticize Barr for his redactions, but critics omit the fact that Robert Mueller’s office is assisting in those redactions. I have a long relationship with Barr and testified in favor of his confirmation. However, I will not hesitate to criticize his actions when it is warranted. For example, I do not approve of the Justice Department refusing to defend the Affordable Care Act — disregarding the function of the Department to defend duly passed laws. Yet, Barr’s conduct with regard to the report and thus far been open and consistent with what he said in this confirmation hearing.

Here is the column:

In the novel “1984,” author George Orwell wrote that “if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” Democrats appear to be taking that idea to heart this week with their bizarre outcry over Attorney General William Barr referring to the government “spying” that targeted Trump presidential campaign figures. Suddenly, the term “spying” was declared as categorically exclusive of any intelligence surveillance.

As someone who has done classified national security work since the Reagan administration, I was surprised by the new Democratic dialectic, but it is not the first time that I missed the memo on the updated meaning of common terms, from “wiretapping” to “collusion.” The problem for Barr is that contemporary politics has outstripped common meaning. That was evident in his two hearings in Congress this week. His answers appeared immaterial to the discussion, and lawmakers raised the objection that Barr could not possibly have read the special counsel’s report and conclusions in the 48 hours that it had taken to issue his summary of the findings.

Of course, after the report was submitted, many pundits suggested that Barr might just “sit” on it or give no information at all while refusing to release any part of it. Instead, he took only 48 hours and the narrative changed. At the House hearing, Representative Nita Lowey sarcastically called it all “quite extraordinary” that he “received a very serious detailed report, hundreds of pages of high-level information, weighed the factors and conclusions at length, outlined, prepared, edited, and released” the memo in less than 48 hours. “To me, to do this, it seems your mind must have been already made up. How did you do it?” Lowey asked him.

The response from Barr was as clear as it was crushing. He explained that he did not just get the conclusions of Robert Mueller but that the basic findings had been disclosed weeks earlier. He said that his conclusion on the lack of criminal obstruction by President Trump was reached together with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who Democrats have maintained for almost two years is essential and unassailable in reaching such findings. Finally, Barr disclosed that the special counsel staff is assisting in making redactions, the report came with summaries and Mueller had been consulted on his prior letters.

None of that mattered. It did not matter that Rosenstein described the questioning of the intentions of Barr or the necessity for redactions as “completely bizarre” and that, in his view, Barr has been “as forthcoming as he can.” The narrative has continued unabated, and billionaire Tom Steyer has even funded a national commercial repeating how ridiculous it is that Barr could have determined the conclusions of the special counsel report in just two days. His words simply did not matter until they did.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen asked why the attorney general was evidently looking into the basis for the secret investigation into the 2016 campaign. Barr explained that he was concerned about any kind of spying, foreign or domestic, on our political process. Shaheen was shocked and said, “You are not suggesting, though, that spying occurred.” Barr was again very direct and measured when he answered, “I think spying did occur. But the question is whether it was predicated, adequately predicated.” He then continued, “I am not suggesting it was not adequately predicated, but I need to explore that. I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred. I am saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it. That is all.”

Washington went into its now signature feigned vapors. Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced the use of “spying” and said, “I do not trust Barr.” Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer called it “peddling conspiracy theories,” while House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said the word meant that Barr was “spewing partisan talking points” and striking yet “another destructive blow to our democratic institutions.”

The most mortified observer was fired FBI Director James Comey, who took a moment on his book tour and declared, “When I hear that kind of language used, it is concerning because the FBI and the Department of Justice conduct court-ordered electronic surveillance. If the attorney general has come to the belief that that should be called spying, wow.”

That was also my reaction. Just wow. For years, “spying” and “surveillance” have been synonymous. Indeed, Democrats and the media have used the terms interchangeably, until another language change was spontaneously declared this week. It was all too familiar. Early during his administration, Trump accused the government of “wiretapping” campaign officials. The media went into a frenzy, calling that a “fake scandal” and a “diversion.”

It was later shown that campaign figures were targeted by the FBI and that secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act orders were based on an application that relied on the Steele dossier funded by the Clinton campaign. Obama national security adviser Susan Rice categorically denied that she ordered the “unmasking” of the names of Trump associates under surveillance but later admitted that was a lie. None of that mattered again. Instead, the media chose to focus on the use of “wiretapping” to insist that no literal wiretapping occurred.

From the outset, it was an absurd point. “Wiretapping” was previously often used as a generality for surveillance. “Surveillance” was a term that came into vogue later. Indeed, the Supreme Court has commonly used “wiretapping” or “eavesdropping” for “surveillance” in its opinions. There is no physical splicing of wires needed in modern surveillance. However, the entire point was that the discussion was focused on the lexicon.

The same thing occurred at the start of the special counsel investigation. Some of us supported the appointment of Mueller but warned that there was no crime of “collusion” and that related crimes such as conspiracy were highly unlikely to be established. The media discussed whether Trump was guilty of collusion, despite there being no such crime in the federal code. It did not matter until an actual alleged crime of obstruction became available, and then suddenly collusion was the context for any possible crime.

Trump is equally untethered by language. He calls his critics “traitors” and nimbly changes the meaning of even the clearest statements such as “Mexico will pay for the wall.” Neither language nor facts prove a burden for the president. If all of this is confusing, it is because you have not spent any time recently on college campuses. Speech codes are now common, and the meaning of terms is based on how language is received rather than intended. Language is now indeterminate and can easily be declared “microaggressive” solely on how it is received rather than intended.

In the same way, it does not matter that what Barr meant was reasonable or that he immediately clarified “wiretapping” as “improper surveillance.” It was important to portray as an absurdity any suggestion of the Obama administration spying on a Republican campaign, even though two key officials were targeted during the campaign. So language now reflects our politics as unhinged and undefined. We have been reduced to a language of trolls. As explained in “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire,” it is not hard. “Anyone can speak troll. All you have to do is point and grunt.”

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

245 thoughts on “The Trolling Of Bill Barr: How Politics Has Outstripped Meaning”

  1. The politicized media is trying to sway voters in the next election with misinformation and fraudulent reporting.

    1. Supposing that’s were true ( for the sake of argument, only), what do you propose to do about it? Lock them up? Or just flap your arms helplessly at your sides whilst whining how unfair it is that the free press won’t do your bidding for you? Whaaaaa . . . . .

    2. Yes. Faux News is trying to do this, but most Americans see through it.
      When Hannity went onstage at that Trump rally, he eliminated any facade of journalistic impartiality. You Trumpsters think that any media that overlooks the daily lying and prevarication is biased. You have it backwards.

      1. Prior to Hannity appearing on stage at a Trump rally, did Natacha or just about everyone else think that Hannity was an example of “journalistic impartiality”?
        That onstage appearance must have been a real eye-opener for Natacha.😉😄
        At that point, she discovered that Hannity was not an impartial journalist.🤔

    3. I think the Covington Catholic students’ lawsuit might be a step in the right direction. There is nothing like being at risk of losing $250 million to reacquaint the media with journalistic integrity.

    1. Wow. Hillary Clinton selflessly risked her own life, and that of her daughter’s, to warmly greet an 8 year old girl, and chat with her, while under sniper fire…because our own military was apparently unable to secure the safety of the First Lady. Do I remember the outrage expressed by the military over her lying, claiming they would ever allow our First Lady to be in danger.

      Remarkable. Most remarkable is that, at the time, CBS actually covered a story detrimental to Hillary Clinton’s honesty rating. After all, she is “the most qualified person, ever to run for President.” Funny how that was all I heard for over a year, and now those same people are rather quiet about her qualifications.

      1. it is a wonder the trolls on here did not go apoplectic decrying it is an old video

        entertaining those tribbles are

      2. Why are you, Trump and Faux News constantly obsessing over HRC? Do you think it will distract from Trump’s constant lying and lack of leadership?

        1. Natacha honey, you need to stop watching and obsessing about Fox News.
          Focus on less trivial issues, like how you “know” Trump “stoled” the election in 2016.
          Also, the oddsmakers are giving Trump about a 45% of being re-elected c. 18 months from now.
          It’s not to early for you to start making up a list of reasons as to why ” Trump stoled the 2020 election”, as a contingency in case he wins again.

          1. Tom, she does seem remarkably obsessed with Fox News. Brings it up constantly. Perhaps she would be happier watching the state media in North Korea.

            It is not the op ed nature of news in question, but rather repeated false reporting against conservatives.

    2. “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

      – William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987
      ________________________________

      Hillary Clinton is a de-compensating psychotic narcissist totally obsessed with the acquisition of personal power.

      The “deep state” Illuminati forces Americans to listen to the lies of its carnival barkers.

      America is false. America is a lie. The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional. The “deep state” Illuminati have kept America in a lie since since the lie that was the “Reign of Terror” of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln when the Constitution was shredded, mutilated and pulverized – arbitrarily suspended.

      The American Renaissance will materialize when all legislative transgressions are fully repealed and abrogated and the clear and obvious meaning and intent of the Constitution is restored to “…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…”
      ____________________

      Ben Franklin, 1789, we gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”

      Ben Franklin, 2019, we gave you “…a republic, if you can take it back.”

  2. “I was surprised by the new Democratic dialectic”

    Why?

    They are never honest now, yesterday nor tomorrow.
    All they know how to do is lie.
    ______

    The lie that is Hillary

    A list of her ‘accomplishments’ reveals a suspect pattern

    Many of us remember the classic line from the “Seinfeld” show, that “it’s not a lie if you believe it.” Applying that theme to the evolution of Hillary Rodham, then Hillary Rodham Clinton, and now just plain Hillary Clinton, here are the notable accomplishments of her “public service” career:

    • Flunked the D.C. Bar Exam.

    • Was removed from her House Judiciary Committee staffer job because of incompetence and lying.

    • The Whitewater scandal.

    • Married a serial liar and cheater, who occasionally had sexual encounters with nonconsenting partners.

    • Lied about “sniper fire” in an attempt to simulate exposure to danger in a war zone.

    • The subject of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” that led to the impeachment and disbarment of her husband

    • Took crockery, furniture, artwork and other items from the White House — had to return and/or pay for them.

    • Said “what difference, at this point, does it make” about four brave people killed in Libya as a direct result of her failure to protect them on the anniversary of 9/11.

    • Totally ignored the structure and rules for the handling of sensitive national security information.

    • Amassed a personal fortune with “speaking fees” and payments from private sector political donors and foreign governments into transparent “foundations” in obvious exchange for future political favor.

    Two conclusions emerge from this nefarious list of “accomplishments”:

    First, Hillary’s brief solo “professional” career [without Bill] was a total failure, and of her own doing. This despite high-level political sponsorship to get her a key “entry level” job as a legal staffer on the Nixon Impeachment investigation in the early 1970s. But she flunked the D.C. Bar Exam [perhaps the easiest in those days] and got fired from her staff job.

    Second, she is identified today in friendly media solely by her “career” post-marriage to Bubba.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/19/hillary-clintons-long-list-of-lies/

  3. OT:

    Drivers Threatened with $250 Fine for Sleeping in Car

    https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/tri_in_the_news/drivers_threatened_with_250_fine_for_sleeping_in_car

    April 07, 2019

    “If you’re driving through Virginia, you don’t dare think about catching a few winks in your car if you get tired. That’s the warning from the civil rights experts at the Rutherford Institute, who say a new Roanoke County ordinance allows police to do warrantless searches and seizures on vehicles and their drivers. If they’re taking a nap. The Roanoke County Code 13-14 “makes it illegal for people to sleep in their cars and subjects them to warrantless seizures and searches by police and a fine of $250,” Rutherford President John Whitehead explains. He is asking officials, in a letter, to repeal the new law. Whitehead calls the plan a “thinly veiled attempt to crack down on the area’s homeless population that is “constitutionally vague” and “overly broad.””

  4. If more Americans only knew — and understood — what a not-so-fine mess we’re in…

    “Snowden submitted a declaration in our case confirming that he had seen the report when he was an NSA contractor. DOJ attorneys told the court that Snowden was “not competent” to testify. -from the following linked article

    Government Fights to Trap EFF’s NSA Spying Case in a Catch-22

    BY CINDY COHN AND KAREN GULLOAPRIL 11, 2019

    The U.S. government admits—and, of course, it’s common knowledge—that the NSA conducts mass, dragnet surveillance of hundreds of millions of Americans’ communications. It has done so via a series of different technical strategies and legal arguments for over 18 years. Yet the Justice Department insists that our legal fight against this spying is bound by a Catch-22: no one can sue unless the court first determines that they were certainly touched by the vast surveillance mechanisms of the NSA, but the court cannot decide whether any particular person’s email, web searches, social media or phone calls were touched by the surveillance unless the government admits it. Which, of course, it will not do.

    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/government-fights-trap-effs-nsa-spying-case-catch-22

    1. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

      ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

      Again: “We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

      1. one difference between the USSR and now is that the modern administrative spying apparatus is hugely more automated. there are computers collecting and sifting with robotics and AI the things that the poweres that be are looking for.

        the Bolsheviks only dreamed of “information awareness” on the level of what the US military and intelligence apparatus now commands

        the relative greater efficiency of our domestic surveillance state, makes these memorable quotes of A. Solz, somewhat dated.

        1. Dated, yes, but still relevant.

          This is the point, IMO:

          “We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

  5. How apropos!

    A colloquy on semantics in the midst of the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history – the Obama Coup D’etat in America – the co-conspirators of which are:

    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.

    1. you didn’t like Bill and Hillary’s speaking tour either, huh?

      At Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking tour event, heckler speaks for many
      https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/04/13/at-bill-and-hillary-clinton-speaking-tour-event-heckler-speaks-for-many/

      Back in October 2018, the Clinton power couple announced an upcoming 2019 “stadium tour,” which would feature an evening with the two of them speaking to audiences and answering scripted questions.

      We were skeptical at the time that the Clintons could fill an actual stadium. Ticket sales were sluggish; in December, it was reported that the promoters had resorted to selling tickets on Groupon. At the tour’s website, seats were listed starting at $89 and going up to $399. But during the early Canadian leg of the tour, in late 2018, tickets were discounted to $6.55.

      Maureen Callahan of the New York Post attended the kickoff of the U.S. tour this week at the Beacon Theater in New York City, where her ticket reportedly cost $210.

      For that, she apparently did get to hear the Hall & Oates classic “You Make My Dreams Come True,” played as exit music at the end.

      She also got to witness Paul Begala, loyal Clinton adviser, ask “softball” questions like “What is happening to American politics?” and “How did you raise such an amazing daughter?”

      This went on for 90 minutes. Callahan doesn’t comment on how full the theater was. She does describe the event as a “snoozefest,” in which the Clintons were “seated before a rapt audience of the converted — changing no minds, taking no questions from the crowd, brooking no chance that their narrative would be challenged.”

      And what a narrative. We might not spring for $210 ourselves, but who among us wouldn’t let our employer buy us a ticket to hear Bill Clinton hold forth in this vein?

      Bill talk[ed] about the good old days when he was president, telling such surely apocryphal tales as bringing together two veterans, each missing one leg, and a “formidable” overweight black lesbian activist — the veterans later telling Bill, with tears in their eyes, that they had more in common with this woman than they ever would have thought.

      The height of excitement for the evening, however, seemed to be when a heckler stood up in the front row and disrupted the script.

      “Bill, this is boring!” he yelled. As he tried asking his question — “Why don’t you talk about — ” Hillary immediately began talking over him, saying that the “important political conversations” they were trying to have could be difficult, especially when interrupted by such “agent provocateurs.”

      “Jeffrey Epstein!” shouted the man.

      The heckler was referring to the billionaire crony of Bill Clinton whose case – of repeated, alleged instances of sex with underage girls – was settled with a non-prosecution agreement in 2007.

      According to Callahan, the “heckler was, of course, swiftly hauled away, and the conversation returned to Bill talking about the good old days when he was president…”

      Callahan doesn’t mention whether the lone and level sands also stretched far away. But it seems like a good bet. Check here for upcoming engagements at a venue near you.

          1. Kurtz, now you’re using sock puppets because Estovir uses them?

            Well geez, I should start using sock puppets. Who cares if this blog has any integrity? The culture wars must come first. Too bad if Turley’s comment threads make no sense to anyone. The culture wars are too important!

            1. Peter Shill “Who cares if this blog has any integrity? ”

              integrity has never mattered to Democrats . Why else do you push to enslave blacks on your govt funded welfare plantations.

              Besides trolls were created by your employer David Brock to undermine integrity on the internet..

              Allan had some words of wisdom for you trolls…

              Allan says: April 14, 2019 at 6:21 PM

              Go Kill a baby while you are at it. After all, that is a part of the Democratic Party of today.

              https://jonathanturley.org/2019/04/13/federal-judge-attacks-trump-as-adopting-the-same-rhetoric-and-tactics-as-the-kkk/comment-page-3/

              1. Estovir, thank you for reminding us of your unstable condition. A timely reminder to random readers that Estovir is seriously deluded.

                But in his mind Estovir is the most fearsome of Culture Commandos. Liberals shake in their boots when Estovir appears!

                1. Good Anon says: March 30, 2019 at 6:45 PM
                  Peter Shill: “As I noted yesterday, they could be in the country illegally.”

                  They are American citizens you dumb ass.

                  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6852889/Questions-mount-Nigerian-bodybuilders-Jussie-Smollet-case.html

                  You are a pathetic troll. For all the crying you, Diane, Natacha, et al do about some politicians lying, you lie effortlessly, and like Bill and Hillary, smile about it

                  https://jonathanturley.org/2019/03/29/smollett-and-the-scourge-of-celebrity-justice/

                  1. Yeah, Estovir, I’m the ‘pathetic troll’ but you’re the one plastering this thread with irrelevant topics that have nothing to do with Professor Turley’s post.

                    1. Peter, I find Estovir’s comments far more interesting than yours and he is a lot more intelligent.

                    2. Fine, Alan. Maybe we should all use multiple identities and just keep plastering Turley’s threads with irrelevant topics. If we really push such an effort, we could make this blog a vast grab bag of issues with no focus whatsoever.

                      Is that what ‘you’ want Alan?

                    3. “Fine, Alan. Maybe we should …”

                      Actually Estovir’s topics are mostly on target. They are about truth and open minds. That is what this blog is all about. Free speech and with free speech we can try and get to the truth. That is something you shy away from. All you do is create untrue and phony headlines in capital letters followed by an article from the Washington Post. If someone posts something you don’t deal with what was written rather you impugn the validity of the author or where it was written. That is the cowards way out.

  6. Calling out his bias is hardly “trolling.” His partisan approach to his office requires all the kick-back we can muster.

    1. Did you hear the one about the secret tapes involving gay mayor Presidential candidate Buttigieg? he is hiding the tapes

      Oh boy…,you go 👯‍♂️💃🏽😉

      https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/438669-secret-tapes-linger-over-buttigiegs-meteoric-rise

      Secret tapes linger over Buttigieg’s meteoric rise

      Pete Buttigieg’s meteoric rise as a presidential candidate is putting a spotlight on his years as mayor of South Bend, Ind., including his demotion of an African-American police chief.

      An Indiana judge will rule soon on whether to release five cassette tapes of secretly recorded conversations between South Bend police officers that led to the 2012 demotion of Police Chief Darryl Boykins, the city’s first ever black police chief.

      The South Bend City Council subpoenaed Buttigieg to win release of the tapes, which were at the center of a police department shake-up and a series of lawsuits.

      Buttigieg’s critics say he’s gone to great lengths to conceal the contents of the tapes, which some believe could include racist language by white police officers.

      There is roiling anger in South Bend over the allegations of racism. Black leaders in the city say that if there is evidence of racism, it could call into question scores of convictions that stemmed from white police officers investigating black suspects in a city that is 25 percent black.

      Members of the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH coalition met with Buttigieg in 2014 and urged him to ask for a federal investigation into allegations of police misconduct.

      “There’s a level of frustration,” said Karen White, a city councilwoman and Democrat who is black. “We want this issue to be brought to closure to ensure this issue does not polarize our community further. We have a right to know [what’s on the tapes], as do our citizens.”
      
Buttigieg’s defenders say he’s not trying to conceal the tapes, but rather is seeking to ensure that releasing the recordings does not run afoul of federal or state wiretapping laws. No one in the mayor’s office has listened to the recordings, sources say.

      The mayor’s allies say he was put in a tough spot, eager to discover whether the allegations of racism are true but not wanting to expose the city to further legal action if a judge ruled the tapes violated federal and state recording laws.

      “The mayor’s stance from day one has been that he won’t do anything unless it’s cleared by a court of law,” said a Buttigieg ally. “These are serious matters. Serious allegations. His oath and his job every day is to follow the law, so that’s what he’s doing. Whatever the court decides, whether the tapes are to be released or destroyed, he’ll do that.”

      The matter currently sits with St. Joseph County Superior Court Judge Steve Hostetler, who could rule on a summary judgement within weeks, although further appeals are expected.

      The issue has potential ramifications in the Democratic primary. Buttigieg, 37, a Harvard graduate, Rhodes scholar and military veteran, officially launched his presidential campaign from a former Studebaker factory in South Bend on Sunday, saying his policies had revitalized the once-dying Midwest town.

      African-American voters will be a force in the primary, where 18 Democrats and counting are battling to be heard. If the judge rules that the tapes should be released, their contents will immediately become a national story.

      The Hill dug through court documents and interviewed more than a dozen people to look at the roots of the story, which began in early 2011, before Buttigieg had been elected mayor. The mayor’s office and South Bend Police Department declined to comment.

      Secret recordings

      In 2011, Karen DePaepe, a 25-year veteran of the South Bend Police Department in charge of the dispatch and communications center, informed Boykins that the desk phone line for Detective Bryan Young was being taped.

      A previous police chief had authorized taping the phone line because the detective at the time didn’t want to miss any possible tips. Boykins allowed the taping, now on Young’s phone line, to continue but did not inform the detective that his calls were being recorded.

      About a year later, shortly after Buttigieg had been elected to his first term in office at the age of 29, DePaepe discovered recordings on the line that she said revealed racist remarks and a potential criminal conspiracy between officers.

      DePaepe took the allegations to Boykins, who confronted the officers.

      The officers, upset over the secret recordings, went to the FBI and Department of Justice to ask for an investigation. They contended the recordings were illegal, and their complaints prompted U.S. Attorney David Capp to open an investigation.

      Buttigieg steps in

      Buttigieg only learned of the investigation into the recordings in early 2012 when the FBI alerted him to the probe.

      Buttigieg’s allies say he was frustrated that Boykins did not tell him about the existence of the investigation. The mayor was alarmed by allegations the officers had been improperly recorded.

      Though he had initially asked Boykins to remain on as police chief after his mayoral win, Buttigieg, upon learning of the investigation, asked him to resign.

      Boykins complied, but a day later, after consulting with legal counsel and hearing from supporters in the community, he reversed course and asked to be reinstated.

      In an interview with The Hill, Boykins’s attorney, Tom Dixon, accused the mayor’s office of misleading his client and trying to scare him into leaving. In a court filing, Boykins said he had stepped down under “the false pretense that the Mayor was being directed into this course of action by the U.S. Attorney’s office.”

      Buttigieg relented to a degree, removing Boykins as police chief but keeping him on the force with a demotion to captain.

      The mayor also fired DePaepe, believing she had intentionally eavesdropped on the officers to dig up dirt on them. DePaepe disputed that characterization, saying in a court filing that she had “inadvertently stumbled upon conversations” between officers.

      Lawsuits

      The firing and demotion led to a string of lawsuits.

      Boykins sued the city for racial discrimination, arguing that the taping policy existed under previous police chiefs, who were white.

      In a court filing, Boykins argued that Buttigieg had used the taping scandal as an excuse to get rid of him. Boykins said that since Buttigieg had been elected, the top three ranking African-American officials in the city had retired, been forced out or demoted. The men who replaced them, Boykins said, were white.

      “The Mayor seized the ‘tape scandal’ to make a clean sweep of the heretofore African American leadership in South Bend,” Boykins’s tort claim says.

      DePaepe sued for wrongful termination, claiming the recordings under wraps contained “racially derogatory statements relating to other ranking officers” and a plot to convince the new mayor to oust Boykins.

      A third lawsuit was filed by a group of four police officers and one officer’s wife, who said they had been illegally recorded and defamed.

      The city settled with everyone. Boykins received $75,000, DePaepe got $235,000 and the group of officers received $500,000.

      At the time, Buttigieg justified the settlements by saying that going to court would have been more expensive for the city’s taxpayers.

      “Even though I’m confident our administration did the right thing, there is still a big cost, financially and in terms of energy and attention, to defending and winning these claims in court,” he said. “Each passing day these cases were lingering was bad for the city, and a chance to reach an agreement and resolve them was in the best interest of the city.”

      The U.S. attorney closed the book on the case, saying there was no evidence a crime had been committed in recording the officers.

      Suing for the tapes

      The City Council and local activists were alarmed by the allegations of racism and corruption within the police department.

      Former City Council member Henry Davis Jr., a Democrat, asked for a federal investigation in a 2012 letter to Tom Perez, who at the time was the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department.

      “There is a high level of discontent brewing,” Davis wrote. “This letter is a plea to the Justice Department for immediate intervention for the protection and safety of our residents and police officers in South Bend.”

      The police officers are suing Davis for defamation. Dan Pfeiffer, an attorney for the police officers, told The Hill there is nothing criminal on the recordings. Pfeiffer accused Boykins of using the tapes as blackmail to threaten his political rivals, some of whom were angling for the police chief job in the new administration.

      The City Council issued a subpoena for the tapes. An attorney for the council members argued that there is no expectation of privacy inside a police station and that officers are told as part of their training that they should expect their phone lines are being recorded.

      The mayor challenged the subpoena in federal court, arguing that a judge should decide whether it’s legal for anyone to listen to the recordings.

      The fight over the tapes has been winding through the courts ever since.

      The controversy has hung over Buttigieg’s two terms in office, but his approval rating in South Bend is sky-high. South Bend is about 55 percent Democratic. Buttigieg won reelection to a second term with more than 80 percent of the vote.

      Buttigieg’s backers say he’s made strides in repairing the racial divide.

      “This happened very early on in his administration and the mayor has since spent a lot of quantity time with communities of color to build trust,” said the Buttigieg ally. “It was really hard, especially happening so early on in his time in office. But he’s been able to build deeper relationships because of it.”

      But some think Buttigieg mishandled the situation, particularly with Boykins, who is well-regarded within the community.

      “I personally felt it could have been handled differently with Chief Boykins,” said White, who is excited to see Buttigieg get into the presidential race but isn’t endorsing a candidate at this point. “There was a perception within the community that Boykins … was painted to be someone that was not in line with his character.”

      1. Estovir, your post here has about 50 paragraphs; but nothing whatsoever to do with Bill Barr’s response to Congress.

        What relevance does this story have?

      1. Greenwald wouldn’t vote for Trump in a million years. So he can’t be a complete idiot, right Anon?

      2. Not an idiot,. among the smartest commentators on the left

        Democracy Now in spite of being a far left outfit, has a lot of good programming!

        So may different topics too, not just this one

  7. I agree that Barr should be given the benefit of the doubt until the contents of the report are made public. That said, it is understandable and fully predictable that many would doubt Barr’s impartiality after first, pre-appointment, having written a lengthy memo concluding essentially that the Mueller investigation was ilegitimate, and that the President could not obstruct justice. Barr than exacerbated this broadly shared lack of trust by using a word, “spying” that he must know is a loaded one and which would be perceived by many as an underhanded accusation of impropriety. He then made things worse by refusing to answer whether he had provided the Mueller report or any of it to the administration. Barr may be an honest and professional lawyer, but he did himself no service in fostering that belief except among the Trump under all circumstances crowd.

    1. The investigation was illegitimate and the obstruction of justice memes are arrant nonsense. Barr’s not compromised for having said so. Democrats are emotionally invested in sh!t. You’re not untrustworthy because you tell them it’s sh!t.

      1. But, Barr didn’t know what evidence Mueller had uncovered when he opined that Trump couldn’t be prosecuted. Talk about politicization of the AG’s office. That was what Trump wanted, but everyone sees through it.

            1. Why not review the roster of people he actually prosecuted. Show indictments he knew he’d never have to argue, process crimes, and maters irrelevant to the campaign. Because he had nothing. This isn’t that difficult.

            1. You told us with your “sources”…CNN, WAPO, NYT, National Enquirer, Mad Magazine, Agatha Kristie novels, Sheila Jackson Lee and Corrine Brown locked up in prison

              What is your credible source for not believing Barr?

              Sorry, “feelz in da bonez” doesnt pass on these forums

              1. BECAUSE he campaigned for the AG job by writing an UNSOLICITED memo essentially exonerating Trump before he ever saw any evidence whatsoever. The AG is the attorney for the people of the United States of America. He is supposed to bring lawbreakers to justice. The position is not supposed to be partisan political.

                1. Cher needs your help right now. Go to her now. The TDS strain she has is more virulent than yours. Poor Cher

                  Yesterday:

                  Cher

                  @cher
                  I Understand Helping struggling Immigrants,but MY CITY (Los Angeles) ISNT TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN.WHAT ABOUT THE 50,000+🇺🇸Citizens WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS.PPL WHO LIVE BELOW POVERTY LINE,& HUNGRY? If My State Can’t Take Care of Its Own(Many Are VETS)How Can it Take Care Of More 60.5K
                  2:14 PM – Apr 14, 2019

                  2 years ago:

                  Cher

                  @cher
                  Those Who Can Must Take a DREAMER In2 Their Home & Protect Them‼️I’m Ready 2 Do This & 🙏🏻Others in MY BUSINESS WILL DO THE SAME‼️SANCTUARY 41.4K
                  1:13 PM – Sep 5, 2017

                  1. It seems to me that someone like Cher could buy a lot of bus tickets from LA to Seattle, or at least raise sufficient funds to buy enough tickets to send them on their way to the city that’s advertising they’d welcome the influx.

                2. On the contrary! It is one of the top slots in the Cabinet and hence it is inherently “political.” Political is not inherently bad, it is part of what outcomes are to be expected in democracy.

                  Certainly Obama’s AGs were political too. That was to be expected, This will not change so long as there is any amount of active democracy still happening.

                  1. That’s a bit too advanced for Nutchacha. All she knows is Democrat – Good; Republican – Bad. Everything else is just white noise.

                3. Natacha wrote: “The AG is the attorney for the people of the United States of America. He is supposed to bring lawbreakers to justice.”

                  Correct. And that’s why AG Barr said, “I am going to be reviewing both the genesis and the conduct of intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016.”

                  He’s doing it to ‘bring lawbreakers to justice.’ Duh.

            1. I can explain. [Sarcasm Alert] Whenever evidence is redacted, that redacted evidence ceases to be evidence that had been uncovered. From that simple principle it follows that the more of Mueller’s evidence is redacted the less evidence Mueller had ever uncovered in the first place. The concept would sink in quicker if you’d ever lost a dollar or three to a Three-Card Monte dealer down in the subway tunnels somewhere.

        1. The OSC reports to the Attorney General. Unless someone witnessed that interaction, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to claim what and when Barr knew or “didn’t know’.
          It’s not likely that Mueller just dropped off his report at the DOJ without any communication prior to that weekend.
          If that were the case, there’s a very serious issue that requires explanations from both Barr and from Mueller.
          That aside, it would be a good idea to have open hearings involving (at least) Barr, Rosenstein, and Mueller.

          1. The OSC began briefing Barr on the Mueller investigation either as soon as Barr was confirmed as AG or as soon as the ethics review said that Barr did not have to recuse himself from overseeing the Mueller investigation. If that sounds like I’m agreeing with you, then you may intuit the definition of coincidence. Or not. It’s up to you, really. Maybe you can spare a few moments out of your busy day to explain why I’m garbling your comment with Dianesean obfuscation.

          2. P. S. Natacha was referring to Barr’s 19 page “audition memo”–not Barr’s 4 page preliminary summary letter to Congress.

            1. I don’t have time right now to review all of these c.200 comments. Based on Natacha’s nearby comment above, she did not specify that.
              Given that she allows you to speak for her as a fellow coven members, I’ll take your answer as her’s.

    2. Richard, I’m also happy to wait for the report before judging, but you note some instances – among others going back a long ways – of partisan weasel behavior. Maybe we’ll be pleasantly surprised.

      1. “Richard, I’m also happy to wait for the report before judging”

        No you wont.

        You haven’t accepted the 2016 election results and you are suffering from TDS. So anyone like you who wants proof is just a shill

        Shill away cupcake

  8. This has been going on for a while actually. For example the following New York Times article from about a year ago:

    “F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, not to Spy, as Trump Claims”

    I hate to inform the New York Times of this. But an F.B.I. informant is a spy.

    1. yes. that was like saying that a computer intercept is not a wiretap. like do they use literal wiretaps at all anymore? it’s all on the computer anyways.

      really phony parsing of words there.

  9. Didn’t Obama’s Attorney General refuse to prosecute at one time? My brain can’t remember the subject of the case.

  10. PROFESSOR TURLEY ALLOWS THIS OBSERVATION:

    “Trump is equally untethered by language. He calls his critics “traitors” and nimbly changes the meaning of even the clearest statements such as “Mexico will pay for the wall.” Neither language nor facts prove a burden for the president”.

    So here was have a president who is “untethered by language”. Well then, that explains why Trump’s Attorney General finds himself a lightning rod with regards to the Mueller Report. Our ‘untethered’ president spent two entire years referring to Russian meddling as ‘fake news’. For that one reason alone William Barr faces waves of skepticism.

    The truth is that anyone close to Donald Trump is going to be burned by this president’s ‘untethered’ language.

    1. so then Rosenstein & Mueller himself must be tainted since Barr quoted directly from the report in saying there was no collusion.

  11. IMO the fact that the MSM and DNC are adamant to avoid investigating what the Obama Admin and Obama DOJ did during 2016, confirms they have something to hide, that something being the commission of several felony crimes and dozens of DOJ violations of rules, policies, and procedures.

    There’s no other reason. The above is the only possible definition of Peter Stryok and Lisa Page’s so-called “insurance policy.” During the time on the evening of the election night, when HRC was supposed to give her losing speech to her throng of sycophants, she was elsewhere working with the mental dolt John Podesta to institute Plan B of the DNC “insurance policy,” being to destroy Trump’s administration before he took office: HRC and the DNC attributed to Trump the Russia collusion she orchestrated in the Steele dossier.

    If there is any living human being (low level trash like Stryok, Page, etc. who has hard evidence incriminating Jesus Obama, Susan Rice, HRC, Podesta, etc., within 24 hours of turning or threatening to turn State’s evidence when the walls start falling inward, they shall be Arkancided.

    Of that there is absolutely, positively zero doubt. Even if it takes a wild rabid hyena roaming the sidewalk of DC, or a piano falling from the sky, or an errant nail gun, or a shotgun blast to the back of the head declared a suicide, it’s a given. The last example is what happened to one of Bill Clinton’s Arkansas security details with first hand knowledge of Bill’s running drugs for the CIA from the Arkansas State House.

    1. Why is John Podesta a mental dolt you ask? Podesta clicked on a link in an email from an unknown sender (probably a free child porn offer, a DNC specialty), which link infected Podesta’s computer, which infection caused the Wikileaks email dump that helped give us Trump.

      That’s why John Podesta is a mental dolt. Ask 2000 13 year olds and not even 1% are pathetically stupid enough to mimic Podesta’s act of grotesque incompetence.

      Podesta would now be HRC’s Chief of Staff, BTW.

      1. if that qualifies him as a fool then tens of thousands of execs and managers in this great nation are equally foolish. it’s easy to make such a mistake especially older users. it’s up to sysadmins to design the systems better.

        and other honchos like hillary to follow the law and direct sysadmins to follow it not flaunt it

  12. It is as we suspected… It doesn’t matter what gets said, it doesn’t matter who gets shown to be a liar, the Democrats will never ever forget 2016, and Trump will never ever be let off the hook. The Democrats will continue to scream, rant, and make fools of themselves in the face of clear evidence that contradicts their fondest beliefs.
    No conspiracy theory, no alteration of the facts, no ignoring the facts, is beyond their desire to live as public demonstrations of cognitive dissonance.
    The only way I can see this ending is with the credit ministration taking every one of the conspirators, and putting them in front of a judge and jury, and meeting out true justice. That means people like Comey, clapper, Brennan, race, stroke,… All of them. Then, with all the facts are in, and these people are on their way to a prison cell, perhaps the Democrats will realize just how they have been lied to, and how foolish they have been with their many many denials of the truth.
    Who am I kidding? The Democrats will never learn

    1. Moran will not be allowed to suppress the evidence of Trump’s innocence while proclaiming that there is clear evidence of Trump’s innocence. And here’s why not, Moran: If there was clear evidence of Trump’s innocence, then neither Trump nor AG Barr nor Moran would be suppressing the clear evidence that supposedly proves Trump’s innocence.

      1. Anon, is a hater. He doesn’t have to be truthful and why would anyone expect that of him? He has no concern for the truth, couldn’t care less how many black children have violent deaths in Democratically controlled cities and to top that off he likes to eliminate life in the womb even in a late stage. He even supports killing a baby immediately after it is born so him calling a decent man, Barr, a weasel isn’t very surprising.

        1. I kinda figure David Brock’s minions want P. Shill and Anon to try to play nice-cop / bad-cop.

    1. Just think. If you got to testify at the Senate hearing, maybe all the Democrats who voted to confirm could have seen the light and voted no.

    2. Anon, you’re the partisan – totally incapable of objective thought. Anyone reading this piece understands that everything Barr has said is done with the support & cooperation of Mueller & Rosenstein. But of course I’m sure you’ll think they’re partisan too.

      1. Rosenstein is a career DOJ guy who wrote the Comey letter. He’s honorable, but he doesn’t buck the system. Mueller has said nothing from the beginning to now. We don;t know what he thinks. Members of his team have pushed back on Barr.

        Barr has a history of purely partisan decisions going back 30 years and his congressional testimony – I’ve watched a fair amount of it – is skillfully mealy mouthed as he pretends to high principles while keeping the escape hatch nearby. I wouldn’t trust him to do anything except what Trump and the GOP want him to do.

  13. Considering that Barr was instrumental in recommending that HWBush pardon all the players in the Iran-Contra scandal and essentially stopped the investigation as was getting closer to HWB, NO, I don’t trust him. As AG he has shown that he is intent on being the president’s attorney and not that of the people.

    We don’t know who is doing the redactions, it could be someone from the support staff rather than a principal, doing the same support activity for the redactions. Barr said Mueller reviewed the initial letter. Telling that Mueller did not sign on to it; reporting suggests that he refused.

    There were summaries already prepared, but I guess they didn’t totally exonerate Trump, hence the need for a new summary that wasn’t a summary.

    The entire report, without redactions, should be turned over to Congress. Congress deals with security stuff all the time. I guess Barr joins Sanders in believing that this Congress isn’t bright enough to know what to do with it. I certainly have more faith in this Congress than I do Barr, but, admittedly, it’s a low bar.

    1. I see you got the DNC memo: as the DNC ordered you and EJ Dionne and the rest of their MSM mouthpieces, you used the term “not the AG of the people.” Keep your echo chamber working!

    2. People like Bettikath come on here and yammer without any knowledge of the facts. It has been stated that the summaries contain material that required redaction. In addition to that, the mandate for the investigation required that the attorney general provide a summary. Of course, in the face of a situation in which their fondest dreams have been destroyed, facts really don’t matter.

    3. So betty, then you don’t trust Rosenstein and Mueller himself? Barr quoted directly from the report when he said there was no collusion found or proven. Mueller & Rosenstein are working with Barr in the redacted version of the report.

    4. Hey there BettyKath. L4D here. You’ll be happy to know that Dr. David B. Benson returned to the blawg today. OTOH, it’s a shame about the fire at Notre Dame. But it’s always good to read you, Betty Kath.

      1. L4D, “it’s a shame about the fire at Notre Dame”

        did your relative start it?

        You’re probably having a party tonight celebrating the fire, burning the Virgin Mary in effigy

        classy

        1. Not a relative. But it’s “highly probable” that her coven’s affiliate coven in France had a hand in this.

  14. Trolling? Trolling? Seriously?

    Source! What is your source?!?</strong]

    This is my impression of Peter Shill

    1. ABOVE IS EXAMPLE OF UNHINGED TRUMPER

      Trump supporters wonder why they get this rap as mean-spirited, anti-intellectuals. But right above we have the typical Trump commenter operating under anonymity while firing away. And again one has to wonder if the actual blog itself encourages attack dogs to snipe at liberal commenters. It seems odd that these attacks are so brazen and common.

      Could it be Trumpers know they can’t win debates by normal standards of civility? And comically the party above is embittered by the concept of having to support assertions with credible sources. This complaint reflects a presidency where facts are regarded as major irritants.

        1. Jen, Clinton hadn’t even been elected when this interview aired. Clinton’s affairs with Gennifer Flowers had already gotten a huge amount of coverage in mainstream media. But the public didn’t care. What’s more, Clinton won a second term as even more affairs emerged. Again the public didn’t care.

          So I don’t know what point you’re trying to make here. Maybe you don’t either.

      1. One does not need to be a liberal to be anti-Trump. Just a patriot who believes that the POTUS should be an honorable, honest leader puts this country first, instead of a pathological liar who engages in petty name-calling and self-aggrandizement.

  15. Once the Mueller report is delivered to Congress, the prepared summaries from the special counsel’s office should be publicly disclosed so that people can see for themselves whether those prepared summaries are consistent with AG Barr’s preliminary summary letter to Congress. The Congress can then take it’s time reading the remainder of the Mueller report to figure out exactly what requests to make of Judge Beryl Howell for transmission of the grand jury information to Congress. The only information that really needs to be redacted is information that would make it easier for Russia to avoid getting caught the next time Russia tries to interfere in our elections. The rest of it should eventually be publicly disclosed.

    Like it or not, but there aren’t many people who are going to take AG Barr’s word for much of anything until Barr’s words can be matched up with the words in the Mueller report. To do otherwise would be equivalent to just taking Trump’s word for everything. Guess what? That’s not going to happen. Not ever.

    1. Yeah, because Mueller might be sitting on the side line doing nothing after finding out that Barr lied and/or misrepresented Mueller’s report, right DNC talking head?

      When monkeys fly out my rear end.

      1. Barr is not lying. Barr is spinning like a top by means of extreme cherry-picking, quoting out of context and eliding the quotes that were cited. That gives the Trumpeters like you plenty of time to garble pretty much everything before any of it is publicly disclosed. Why else would Turley lodge a complaint against lack of fealty to Barr? The only people buying the Barr rinse and spin-cycle are Trumpeters who insist that there is no evidence behind the redactions and that that’s why the evidence behind the redactions has to be redacted.

        1. Anyone who has read even a small percentage of L4B’s comments knows how to “pretty much garble anything”.
          Most don’t, and leave it to L4B to pretty much garble everything.

          1. Except that there is evidence behind the redactions. If there were no evidence behind the redactions, then there would be no reason to redact the supposedly empty spaces of blank page behind the redactions. The contrary notion is an all-too-obvious garble.

            1. I didn’t know that redactions were soley done in cases where “evidence” is the subject of the redaction(s).
              Then again, I’m not an expert in the classification and related fields like L4B is.

              1. In the case of counter-intelligence investigations, there could be classified information pertaining to sources and methods behind the redactions. In the case of criminal investigations, the classified information has presumably been converted into grand jury information through a process known as parallel construction. Whether the grand jury information would be of any use to Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation is anyone’s guess.

                1. It’s “highly probable” that there “could be”, ….OR, “it’s not impossible” that there “could be”.

        2. “Barr is not lying. Barr is spinning like a top ”

          Diane I suppose that is because as AG he was aware of what the Mueller Report was going to say long before it was released. Mueller actually works under the executive branch and got his orders from the acting AG Rod Rosenstein. Since the report is from Rod Rosenstein and Barr where Mueller has had input you must be accusing all three of spinning.

          I guess your comments about the great Robert Mueller were all lies along with your comments about how needed Rod Rosenstein was and that he shouldn’t be fired. Your account of what has been happening has been rather faulty. My guess is that if you had to use an eraser to correct all the errors you have made to date we would have an international eraser shortage.

    2. L4D, so the fact that Mueller is working WITH Barr on the redacted version, the fact that Rosenstein agrees entirely with Barr’s summary — none of that matters?

      1. facts don’t matter to the Left.

        Keeping blacks enslaved on the welfare plantation to keep their masters in power are all that matter

        1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

          The attorney general also said lawmakers had no inherent authority to review Mueller’s sensitive grand jury evidence, adding that he does not intend to ask a court to authorize the release of grand jury evidence to Congress.

          “My intention is not to ask for it at this stage,” he said, adding that he doesn’t believe Congress is exempt from grand jury secrecy rules under the law.

          [end excerpt]

          Barr is just plain flat out wrong. Congress has the constitutional authority to request or to subpoena grand jury information. It is not Barr’s “request” to make. If Barr declines the to make such a request, then Congress will go ahead on and exercise its constitutional power and authority while AG Barr sits there sucking his thumb like a terrible two year old for all Congress cares.

          Grand jury information belongs to the Judicial Branch. AG Barr does not work for the Judicial Branch. Trump does not work for the Judicial Branch. There’s no such thing as executive privilege over grand jury information. There’s not even such a thing as State secret privilege over grand jury information.

          Barr’s comments cited above stink to high heaven. The current Attorney General of The United States William Barr is wrong, wrong, wrong about The Law for crying out loud.

      2. SHN says: April 15, 2019 at 1:04 PM

        L4D, so the fact that Mueller is working WITH Barr on the redacted version, the fact that Rosenstein agrees entirely with Barr’s summary — none of that matters?

        Ongoing investigations. Mueller has handed off at least a half a dozen investigations to other United States Attorneys’ offices. Those referrals were probably made on the basis of evidence that has to be redacted from the Mueller report for a variety reasons not the least of which would be to avoid anything prejudicial to Roger Stone, Sam Patten, Flynn’s Turkish lobbying partner Khan (whose first name I cannot yet remember) and who knows who all else. IOW, the fact that Mueller is working with Barr on some of the redactions might not mean what you Trumpeters are hoping that it means. Stay fluid. It’s not over until it’s over.

        1. A partial list of Mueller’s referrals to other United States Attorney’s offices. (Plus the correct name of Flynn’s Turkish lobbying partner):

          •Inauguration graft
          •Potential Don Jr and Jared Kushner graft
          •Mystery Appellant
          •Ongoing Stone investigations
          •The Cohen hush payments
          •Bijan Kian’s prosecution
          •Sam Patten’s prosecution
          •Other Manafort graft, including potential coordination with states
          •Tom Barrack’s graft
          •Greg Craig, Tony Podesta, Vin Weber, Steve Calk
          •Konstantin Kilimnik (which is likely a counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal one)

          1. Trump won’t win the nomination.
            Trump won’t win the Presidency.
            Trump will resign from the Presidency.
            Mueller will find Trump guilty of conspiracy.
            Mueller will find Trump guilty of obstruction.

            Mueller is the greatest American since George Washington.
            Mueller is finding all sorts of things Trump is guilty of.
            Mueller has evidence of Trump’s guilt but he is holding back.
            Mueller is cagy and will put Trump in jail but he is waiting for the end.
            Mueller’s report is in and Barr is holding it hostage.
            Barr’s summary is lies and spin.
            The full report is being withheld.
            The report needs to be released in full.

            Trump is President, no sign of resigning, will likely run in 2020, will likely win reelection in 2020.
            Mueller’s greatness is disappearing and eventually he might become part of the Russia conspiracy.
            Rod Rosenstein is no longer such a great acting AG.

            Time to switch position and onto Diane’s “list of Mueller’s referrals”

            Is this a sickness or what?

  16. I am so friggin sick of the media in this country. All they do is lie, lie, lie.
    Many many years ago, probably in the late 60’s, when I was reading the NYT, I read in one edition that the NYT felt obliged to tell America which person to vote for President. That it was the NYT obligation to tell people how to vote. I stopped reading the NYT. I felt insulted and betrayed that a newspaper actually thought their obligation was to tell me how to exercise my vote. I have never forgotten that. Nor will I.

    1. Your comment reminds me of the few times I commented (using my real name) on several NYT articles and opinion columns. All of my comments were civil, concise and relatively uncontroversial, yet each was ‘curated’ out of the comments section and never allowed to be posted. The NYT censored my opinions because they were not in alignment with what ‘they’ deemed acceptable viewpoints. But they don’t call it censoring, they call it “curating” at the New York Times. Imagine that.

      1. TBob, I had a bunch of discussions with the NYTimes censors. I was on their blog and they would withhold my emails for days and sometimes not post them at all. Those posters whose opinions agreed with the Times were posted immediately without censureship even though grossly innaccurate. The NYTimes is an advocate and not a newspaper. One of the writers of intermittant columns at the NYTImes used to have a blog where comments were permitted. That blogger did the same thing on his blog and then stopped comments altogether after evidence from experts was produced demonstrating he was wrong in certain areas. He was actually a good blogger but couldn’t learn from alternate opinions.

        The left is unable to debate the facts so they have to control the entire process. That is why some on this blog believe only specific news media have value and that is because they toe the line on leftwing issues.

Leave a Reply