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. I don’t think it’s likely that the DOJ could prevent Mueller from giving Congressional testimony even IF they were trying to do that.
    If, as suggested, Mueller mistakenly put his confidence in Barr’s professionalism and integrity ( after knowing Barr for decades), that doesn’t speak well of Mueller’s judgement of character, among other things.

  2. Anon writes: “Mueller wrote his letter – which Barr has clearly lied about ”

    I listened to a portion of the hearings today and was lucky enough to hear Barr respond to multiple points that Anon has presented over and over again. Barr is on record for everyone to listen to and stated that they could also ask Mueller about these things when he appeared before committee.

    As usual this comment of Anon’s that is quoted above is totally untrue and demonstrates how Anon is guilty of Libel. Take note of how definite Anon always seems to be… ” Barr has clearly lied about”. Anon says these things without even knowing the context of the remarks or seeing the proof. I think today’s hearings, at least the parts I heard, puts an end to Anon’s veracity in this type of statement.

  3. According to the DOJ, Mueller was offered the opportunity to review Barr’s 4 page summary, but declined to do so. Barr is “out front” in all of this, and the mute Mueller may or may not make himself available for questioning/ comments.
    Is there is an actual interest in learning about the OSC report, we need to hear from not only Barr, but Mueller, Rosenstein,band others as well.And that will have to go beyond a brief written comment by Mueller.

    1. Perhaps Mueller mistakenly assumed that Barr would be both professional and honest and not misrepresent his report to the public and Congress while holding up it’s release for 3 weeks. Mueller wrote his letter – which Barr has clearly lied about – to Barr within a day of Barr’s false summary. Clearly you don’t think misrepresentation followed by lies about being called on it are being “out front”, right?

      By all reports Mueller’s appearing before Congress is being held up by the DOJ

      1. “Perhaps Mueller mistakenly assumed that Barr would be both professional and honest and not misrepresent his report to the public and Congress while holding up it’s release for 3 weeks.”

        Again Anon is making aspersions about Barr’s character without proof. That doesn’t demonstrate a trustworthy poster.

        1. He’s just assuming what Mueller may have “assumed”. That’s pretty thin, but it’s a nice try.

      2. 1. He didn’t misrepresent the report.

        2. Mueller and the FBI spend 32 months chasing fantasies and you’re kvetching over a few weeks to redact the grand jury proceedings. Cute.

    2. Mueller is not mute. He’s inscrutable. Besides, skywriting always goes over your head, Gnash.

      L4D on the Ptom-Job.

  4. It will be interesting to see JT’s response to this latest Barr disaster, since he’s been so defensive about him to date. Now the author of the report and one of the most respected men in America is quoted agreeing with those who “trolled” Barr – to use JT’s phrase. There is now clear evidence that he lied under oath before Congress.

    Good times

      1. L4D says, Wally says, Marco says, “Don’t mess with The Marine.”

        Also, AG Whitewash Barr is in full damage-control mode now. Rosenstein only promised to land the plane. Rosenstein never promised not to land the plane on The Potomac. Now get in the boat, Whitewash, and start rowing merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, gently down the stream.

          Mueller’s Marine Corp service 50+ years ago is neither here nor there in evaluating his performance as Special Counsel.
          But L4B is certainly free to recycle that lame refrain posted time and time again by Marco, whether see posts as anonymous, L4D, L4D Project, or Diane.
          And free to babble things like “merrily, merrily down the stream”.
          The direct attack on a career Marine General actually is an example of a Congressman insulting a Marine, and that differs from the irrelevant and vacuous “don’t mess with a Marine” mantra seen here.

          1. The Congresswoman from Florida who name I can’t remember is not the one who fired General Kelly. And neither is Trump. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump are the ones who fired General Kelly.

            Well, at least they didn’t insult him over the phone, let alone to his face.

            L4D on the Job.

            1. The Congressman who insulted Mattis was from Illinois, I think .
              I have no idea what L4B is babbling about in bringing up Florida, etc.

            2. ” Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump are the ones who fired General Kelly. …L4D on the Job.”

              If you were on the job you would be fired. Neither of those two had the power to fire Kelly. Trump fired him but that is above your pay grade.

  5. Plain and simple, Barr is part of the Trump campaign and was doing Sarah Sanders job – lying for the president – and not that of the AG.

    1. So far we haven’t seen Barr lie. His summary included the negative words of Mueller who might have lied. He is the AG who is well respected. The only thing that has changed is that he is now working for Trump.

      Trump Derangement Syndrome reigns supreme.

      1. Barr is not well respected. He was a political hack before and is still a political hack. He lied about Mueller’s obstruction findings and his Russia investigation findings so Trump and his supporters could set the argument weeks before he released the report.

        ““The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.””

        1. “Barr is not well respected. ”

          That is something you have to prove. You do realize that Barr and Mueller had a close relationship and were also friends.

          Mueller had his chance to make sure the summary captured what he wanted it to capture but he didn’t act. Yet Barr included Mueller’s negative statement by quoting it and not that long after Barr released the entire document for even you to read for yourself. I don’t think there is anything to complain about. The only problem is that no matter what you give the Democrats they want more. They provide a never ending stream of negativism as long as it fits into their ideological world. They move the goal posts whenever the goal is made. Just look at all your own comments that don’t have proof yet contain never ending complaints about Trump as soon as the prior complaints are proven erroneous.

          Just look at the Democrat and your lack of total acceptance of Trump winning the election and being President. Paraphrasing, ‘he lost the popular vote’ ‘the electoral college is unjust’. On and on you go never stopping to realize Trump is now President and we ALL have a country to run.

          1. Your problem is with Mueller, the guy who produced the report. Even after the letter and discussion with Mueller, Barr lied to Congress when he said he didn’t know if Mueller agreed with his summary. He’s a liar, like the president he serves.

            1. I don’t like Mueller and I think he ran an incomplete and poor investigation but I don’t have a problem with him. Your initial statement said Barr was not well respected but you still haven’t provided proof and are moving the goal posts again.

              You say Barr lied. What was the exact question asked and what was Barr’s exact response? Then we can go on from there to determine the validity of your claim. Since you didn’t provide proof of Barr not being respected even after I commented “You do realize that Barr and Mueller had a close relationship and were also friends.” we know that you make accusations that you don’t back up.

              1. You go first – You started by claiming Barr was respected – without evidence. Prove it.

                Unlike Barr, Mueller is respected by the public and those on both sides of the aisle in Congress. Mueller produced the report and Barr misrepresented it so Trump and his supporters – including here – could pretend he was exonerated, We now learn Barr was called on it by Mueller.

                Meanwhile, you want to see how respected Barr is? Watch his appearances before Congressional committees over the next two days.

                1. You made the first statement that started this series of posts: “lying for the president ” That is what should be proven first, but you are welching on your responsibility, which is not unusual for you, so I will start with a few bits and then toss the ball in your court for you to prove your contention: “lying for the president ”

                  ( I want you to also remember that the report came from both Barr and Rosenstein. Rosentein hired Mueller and has been at the center of all activities involving the Trump investigation. I think Rosenstein might even have been involved in some useemly activites so that makes him somewhat of an enemy to Trump.)

                  Your tidbit for tonight and then you can welch as usual. From Barr before the Judiciary Committee: “I have known Bob Mueller personally and professionally for 30 years,” “We worked closely together throughout my previous tenure at the Department of Justice under President Bush. We’ve been friends since” Mueller was an assistant AG under Barr.

                  Your Turn Anon. Welch away.

                  1. Put up or shut up Allan. Prove your statement that Barr is respected.

                    I proved Mueller wrote a letter to Barr and it is a fact that he stated Barr misrepresented his report. He also lied to Congress, a felony.

                    Here’s Rep. Nadler’s tweet tonight:

                    “I note with interest AG Barr’s 4/10 Senate testimony. “Q: Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion? A: I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.” Now it appears that Mueller objected in this 3/27 letter.”

                    1. What was Mueller specifically objecting to? Barr’s conclusion about obstruction of justice that Mueller punted to him to make?

                      Or Barr’s four page summary?…as if a 4 page summary could or should be expected to “fully capture the context, nature and substance” of a 450 page report….??

                      So Mueller punted on the decision, but now he objects to Barr’s conculsion?? That’s ridiculous. This is more poltical gamesmanship on the part of the Democrats and the media.

                    2. “It’s a fact…” Barr lied to Congress? What’s the lie, specifically?

                    3. “What’s the lie, specifically?”

                      Bob, good job. Anon is a generalist that thinks he is a general. He shoots buckshot hoping to hit a target but seldom does.

                    4. L4D–Excerpted from the WaPo article to which Anon linked above:

                      Mueller’s report described 10 significant episodes of possible obstruction of justice but said that because of long-standing Justice Department policy that says a sitting president cannot be indicted and because of Justice Department practice regarding fairness toward those under investigation, his team did not reach a conclusion about whether the president had committed a crime.

                      [end excerpt]

                      This is just one example of AG Whitewash Barr quoting Mueller out of context. It may not be an explicit lie. But Whitewash said that the OLC opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted was not the reason that Mueller declined to decide the question of Trump’s obstruction of justice, when, in fact, it was one of the two reasons that Mueller gave for declining to decide the question of Trump’s obstruction of justice. The other reason being the “fairness” question.

                      BTW, Mueller specifically endorsed the power and authority of Congress to decide whether Trump obstructed justice. So there’s yet a third reason for Mueller declining that decision.

                    5. “Mueller’s report described 10 significant episodes …” Anonymous who can’t even use an individual alias despite her calls for Presidential transparency. It immediately shows one the epitome of dishonesty.

                      But none of those episodes has a chance of proving obstruction. The President permitted his lawyer to speak at will and provided all documents when he could have used executive privilege. That makes Trump the most transparent President ever in any circumstance similar to his. It also makes the claim of obstruction ludicrous unless one can provide substantive truth which doesn’t exist despite the testimony of his lawyers, Whitehouse staff and documents.

                      There is a bit of lunacy going on, all of it attributable to TDS.

                    6. Tbob: from Rep Nadler’s tweet last night

                      “I note with interest AG Barr’s 4/10 Senate testimony. “Q: Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion? A: I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.” Now it appears that Mueller objected in this 3/27 letter.”

                    7. “One could argue that Barr’s summary downplays the obstruction findings, though it accurately relays that Mueller’s report does “not exonerate” Trump. It was Mueller’s decision to leave the verdict on obstruction to Barr and make clear that if Congress disagrees, it has the power to indict Trump on its own. Mueller’s office assisted with Barr’s redactions, which proved to be, as Barr had pledged, extremely limited. Despite containing numerous embarrassing details about Trump, no executive privilege was invoked to censor the report’s contents.

                      In the end, Mueller’s report shows that the Trump-Russia collusion narrative embraced and evangelized by the US political and media establishments to be a work of fiction. The American public was presented with a far different picture from what was expected, because leading pundits, outlets, and politicians ignored the countervailing facts and promoted maximalist interpretations of others. Anonymous officials also leaked explosive yet uncorroborated claims, leaving behind many stories that were subsequently discredited, retracted, or remain unconfirmed to this day.”


                    8. So again, is Mueller specifically objecting to the conclusion/prosecutorial judgment Barr made on the issue of obstruction that Mueller declined to make himself? It’s not clear, so Barr’s answer, “I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion” is not “a lie.” He doesn’t know, nor do we.

                    9. tbob, one cannot read the report details on the Trump campaigns communications and connections with Russia and honestly conclude there was “no collusion” as Barr and Trump alleged. Mueller specifically rejected the use of that term as non legal and worked to a higher legal standard of provable criminal conspiracy. Further, the investigation was hampered by unresponsive witnesses, including Trump, erased emails, witness tampering, and self deleting communication apps. As to obstruction, and as anonymous points out above, Mueller specifically said that DOJ policy on indicting a president was a major factor in his witholding a conclusion. Barr lied about as well.

                    10. “…when it comes to the core question of contacts between Trump and the Russian government, we are left with a “Russiagate without Russia.” Instead we have a series of interactions where Trump associates speak with Russian nationals, people with ties to Russian nationals, or people who claim to have ties to the Russian government. But none of these “links,” “ties,” or associations ever entail a member of the Trump campaign interacting with a Kremlin intermediary. Russiagate promoters have nonetheless fueled a dogged media effort to track every known instance in which someone in Trump’s orbit interacted with “the Russians,” or someone who can be linked to them. There is nothing illegal or inherently suspect about speaking to a Russian national—but there is something xenophobic about implying as much.”


                    11. Tbob, try not to inhale the sand and come up for air.

                      The biggest fixtures in the Trump campaign met with a Kremlin connected lawyer for promised “dirt” on Hillary and subsequently Trump personally made up the lie to try and cover up the meeting. His campaign manager shared polling data on the mid west with the Kremlin. A campaign member bragged to several foreign emmissaries that the Russians promised him Hillary emails, but when campaign officials were asked about this, none of them could remember being told about it. The Russians dumped DNC emails hours after the p…y grabbing tape came out and Trump publicly asked the Russians to find Hillary emails, an effort they began within hours of his request. A longtime Trump friend and campaign advisor worked with the Russian agent Assange on email dumps.

                      Wake up.

                    12. You made the comment and I am not playing the game anymore where you can’t back up your comments and I back up mine. I provided you a tid bit, the friendship of Bob Mueller and their working together. You provide political positions that represent today’s anti Trump bias. Go back and look and prove Barr wasn’t well respected.

                      You are welching. Prove your case before things became political: “Barr is not well respected.”

                      “Now it appears that Mueller objected in this 3/27 letter.”

                      Take note of the word appears. That means one isn’t sure of anything. Barr answered correctly “I don’t know” That is what you say when you are unsure. Did Mueller object to his own words that were copied into the summary? You don’t know yet you will use inuendo and insult to destroy any person that promotes diverse ideas.

                    13. I gather Correct-the-Record is telling it’s minions to try the collusion-truther line.

          2. Allan says: April 30, 2019 at 11:30 PM

            “Barr is not well respected. ”

            That is something you have to prove.

            With testimonials? With awards? With opinions? Why, yes, of course, with opinions. So how does one prove an opinion, Allan? You do realize that the question of whether AG Whitewash Barr is or is not well respected is a “matter of opinion. Don’t you, Allan? How’s about you start demanding of yourself what you so readily demand of others; namely, proof for your own opinions.

            L4D posting here.

            1. Everything the Left posts on these forums comes from Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals. Everything. Its not even original blather but scripted. Predictable.


              Send us new trolls!


              Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals

              “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
              “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
              “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
              “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
              “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
              “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
              “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
              “Keep the pressure on.”
              “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
              “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
              “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.”
              “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
              “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

              1. On the issue of “respect”; if Barr works really, really hard at it, he might gain the respect that Sessions, Lynch, and Holder all commanded.🙄
                Those three immediate predecessors as AGs set a really high bar.😉😄

            2. Re the WaPo quotes posted above…..suppose that Mueller decided that Trump was involved in a treasonous conspiracy with Putin. Would he then said that he won’t reach a conclusion on that matter because of DOJ policy that a sitting president can not be indicted?
              The weak excuse that Mueller didn’t present a conclusion about obsruction because he could not indictment is a cop-out. If in fact his “real” conclusion is that Trump obstructed justice, then state that conclusion clearly in the report. The way that he left it, of course the DOJ is going to make the decision.
              SOMEBODY has to. As far as the speculation that Mueller intended for Congress to “decide”, they can do that with or without Mueller’s blessing. But they need to be careful how they play this, because they’ll look like even bigger fools if they conclude that Trump obstructed justice, but we won’t impeach him for it.
              Part of the goal and expections of having an OSC is that the Special Counsel will reach conclusions, not punt it over to the DOJ, Congress, or L4B.

              1. There is plenty of criticism of Mueller for being too cautious and most of it from the left and other career fed prosecutors, but that worked to Trump’s advantage and reinforces his assumed role as fair and non-partisan. Barr lied about what Mueller reported in his letter, and now we know he lied under oath before Congress twice about what Mueller thought of his March 24 letter to Congress and to America.

                1. lied about….and now we know he lied under oath….

                  BILL CLINTON’S KNOWN LIES

                  July 1991: Question: “Have you ever used Marijuana or any illegal drugs?” Answer: “I’ve never broken any drug law.” – Arkansas Gazette, July 24th, 1991, p. 8B
                  Asked this 3 times, on 3 separate occasions, by 3 different interviewers, your Great White Hope repeated this claim. Until faced with irrefutable proof, that is.

                  Then he said:

                  March 29th, 1992: “I’ve never broken a state law. But when I was in England I experimented with marijuana a time or two…”

                  Later, in that same interview, “No one has ever asked me that question point-blank.”

                  – The New York Times, March 30th, 1992, p.A15.

                  On Jan. 19, 1992 Bill Clinton said, “I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut, in my view, is central to any attempt we’re going to make to have a short-term economic strategy.”

                  But on Jan. 14, 1993 at a press conference, Bill Clinton said, “From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely mystified me, the press thought the most important issue in the race was the middle-class tax cut. “I never did meet any voter who thought that.”

                  On Sept. 8,1992, Bill Clinton said, “The only people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent, those living in households making over $200,000 a year.”

                  In response to a Bush-Quayle ad that people with incomes of as little as $36,000 would pay more taxes under the Clinton plan, Bill Clinton said on Oct. 1, 1992, “It’s a disgrace to the American people that the president (Bush) of the United States would make a claim that is so baseless, that is so without foundation, so shameless in its attempt to get votes under false pretenses.”

                  Yet the NY TIMES in the analysis of Clinton’s budget wrote, “There are tax increases for every family making more than $20,000 a year!”

                  “While Clinton continued to defend his middle-class tax cut publicly, he privately expressed the view to his advisers that it was intellectually dishonest.” (The Agenda, by Bob Woodward, p. 31)

                  In Business Week, July 6, 1992, Bill Clinton was quoted as saying, “When I began the campaign, the projected deficit was $250 billion. Now its up to $400 billion.”

                  However in Time Magazine. 2 weeks later, Bill Clinton was quoted as saying, “When I started in New Hampshire working with those numbers, we felt the deficit was going to be around $250 billion a year, not $400 billion.” Which is it, Bill?

                  But then he said on Feb. 10, 1993, “The deficit of this country is about $50 billion a year bigger than I was told it was going to be before the election.” –our President said this after “discovering” that the deficit was $290 billion, $110 Billion LESS than he had claimed in July! Which story are we to believe from our president??

                  President Clinton said on March 23, 1993 at a press conference: “M economic package will cut $500 billion from the deficit in five years.” Yet the projected deficit in 1998 with Clinton’s budget is $234 billion, the projected deficit in 2001 with Clinton budget is $401 billion.(These figures come from Bill Clinton’s budget document, “A Vision of Change for America.”-Feb. 1993. The Wall Street Journal Opinion-Editorial Page 2/21/95

                  NUMBERS GAME

                  It’s the season to cut government, or at least to claim to, so we perked up when we heard President Clinton declare in his State of the Union address that he had cut (quote) more than 100,000 positions from the federal bureaucracy in the last two years alone (unquote).

                  As they say in detective work, interesting – if true. So we decided to pull out the new federal budget to check. What we discovered is that Mr. Clinton isn’t lying, but he isn’t telling the whole truth either. His speeches need an asterisk.

                  From 1993 to Fiscal Year 1996, the Clinton Administration will in fact have cut the federal government by 157,000 full-time positions. But there’s a catch: 131,000 of those positions are civilian Defense jobs. Those cuts reflect the inevitable post-cold War decline in military spending, not some brave retrenchment in the overall size of government.

                  There’s another catch: Of the 26,000 positions to be cut from the non-Defense side of Leviathan, 9,500 come from the Resolution Trust Corp. and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Those two banking agencies grew like Topsy to manage the savings and loan debacle, but are now cutting back as the bailout ends. The RTC is even supposed to go out of business this year. The bottom line is that over the course of the Clinton presidency, the non-Defense, non-S&L part of the government will cut a measly 16,500 full-time positions out of some 1.2 million. In essence the domestic government is conducting business as usual.

                  Mr. Clinton also says he’s making the federal establishment (quote) the smallest it has been since John Kennedy was President (unquote). But again, excluding Defense, total executive branch employment will be 1,181,000 in 1996. Back in 1963, when JFK was President, total non-Defense employment was a mere 861,000. Maybe that should be the 1996 goal for Republican budget- cutters; they could say they got the idea from the President.

                  Are you referring to the guy who absolutely, positively guaranteed that if he was elected governor of Arkansas in 1990 he would serve 4 years? The one who said that a 4% income tax rate on the wealthiest 2% of the population would raise 165 billion dollars, reduce the deficit, and allow a middle class tax cut? The one who claimed that the republicans had killed the Lani Guinier nomination? The one who claimed that he had decided to make himself available to the draft after 4 acquaintances were killed in Viet Nam (rather than after his birthday had been drawn #311 in the draft lottery)? The one who claimed that “affirmative action “benefits white men?

                  Are you referring to that Clinton?

                  No, he said that the new gasoline tax (4 cent per gallon) would go to a deficit reduction trust fund. No such fund has been established to date… it is going to the general fund to fund their increased social programs… check it out… call the government accounting office and ask… they are stealing your money…

                  And I give you my word to do it without the blame game of the last twelve years of Reagan and Bush.

                  Good, OOPS, that lasted almost a whole day!

                  The NY Times reported that people earning under $100,000 paid an additional $3 billion in ’94.

                  But wait, Clinton and the media claimed that only the top 2% were going to pay more taxes. Was that another lie from the Clinton administration?

                  According to liberal Democrats, anyone who makes a dollar more than you is the “rich”. On the issue of “taxes on the rich”, consider the following:

                  Most of the “rich” are smart business men & women… they own and run their own businesses. In addition, Clinton passed a 1% increase in corporate income taxes…

                  If you owned your own business, or if you were the CFO of a corporation, and your cost of doing business went up, what would you do ? You’d pass this cost on…

                  Should they feel the heat, so to speak, they pass the new costs on to the principle consumers of the goods and services they offer…The middle-class and poor….So who really is paying Clinton’s new taxes ?

                  As the saying goes. “When the “rich” get a sniffle, the middle-class catches pneumonia.”

                  The real problem with this attack on the rich is the underlying assumption that this is a static class of people. Not so.

                  A great many people start off “poor” and as they move up in the business world become successful and eventually become what the Democrats would currently characterize as “rich.” Indeed most of the wealth in this country is in the hands of senior citizens. Many of these people at one time had no money at all.

                  So, the attack on the rich is not an attack on some evil group. Its mostly an attack on people who after much sacrifice and hard work have finally reached their peak earning years and are trying to enjoy and pass on the fruits of their labor.

                  There were many other Clinton proposals that didn’t fly (thank you) which would have further parted people from their capital….Here’s a couple of winners he proposed in 1992….

                  Imputed rent…You would pay tax on “rent” that you would have collected FROM YOURSELF…Tax real, only…NO RENTAL INCOME !!!!!

                  Lower the inheritance threshold…From about $650,000 to around $200,000. What has been an exclusive tax of the rich, Clinton wanted to give as a gift to the middle-class…

                  Newsweek reports that Clinton and the Democrats will no longer pursue the rich vs. middle class America class warfare strategy. They realize that it won’t help them politically and, according to Newsweek, “President Clinton…doesn’t really believe in it.”

                  Newsweek noted that they are abandoning it, so apparently, they do not agree, nor do their sources. Clinton has been bashing the rich since his campaign, claiming disingenuously that they are not paying their “fair share” of taxes, i.e. falsely implying that they are paying less than they did in ’80. Hillary went after the “greedy” pharmaceutical companies, after selling their stock short. They have made many self-serving moralistic statements about the “greed” of the ’80’s. Clinton and the Democrats condemn Republican. tax cut plans because they claim it will “help the rich.”

                  If this is not class warfare, what is?

                  Clinton has pursued this strategy for about 3 years, and now he claims he **doesn’t really believe in it?** Hey, I’ll buy that!

                  Newsweek reported it as “news.” How strangely non-judgmental that they would not question the sincerity of Clinton’s claim when his actions speak otherwise.

                  Clinton’s economic policies ???

                  1) A massive tax increase

                  2) “Hope” that interest rates would remain low

                  3) A few R & D credits for Al Gore’s pet high tech industries

                  Was there anything else ?

                  In reference to the Social Security trust fund —

                  “But its important that we not panic; there is no immediate danger to retirement. Our accumulated surpluses would be sufficient to pay the liabilities to 2029 at current payroll tax rates.”

                  From an interview; published in the May ’95 issue of Money magazine.

                  Hasn’t anyone told him that the Social Security trust fund has no money — Congress borrowed it all and left IOUs with no plans yet on how to redeem those IOU’s?

                  Given that Clinton seems so concerned about the hateful rhetoric in: politics these days, I wonder if he intends to limits such violent: statements as “taking food from the mouths of children”, “war on the poor”, “throwing the elderly out on the streets”, and “contract _on_ America, Evil, Extreme, Mean Spirited and on and on and on.

                  We’ve given more power to states and localities and to private citizens. Our proposals would further accelerate those trends. Bill Clinton, White House press conference, 3/3/95

                  Fact: Clinton lobbied to defeat the Balance Budget Amendment in the Senate, so states and localities are prevented from getting the chance to even debate the amendment. His Administration opposes giving block grants to the states. He is opposing all Block Grants as well.

                  We support adding 100,000 new police officers. Bill Clinton, same news conference.

                  Fact: There are no “100,000 police officers”. Never has been, never will be. Even liberal columnist DeWayne Wickam concluded in USA Today: “Many of the 100,00 cops promised in the crime bill will never materialize”. On the day AFTER Clinton signed the bill into law, The New York Times reported that “some law enforcement analyst said the Administration has in effect misled local officials by vastly overstating the number of police officers who can be hired under the program”.

                  It’s called lying where I come from, how about where you came from?

                  Everyone knows that I have tougher ethic rules than any other President. Bill Clinton, news conference 3/3/95 defending the ethical standards of his administration.

                  Fact: In addition to his own Whitewater troubles and many high-level resignations, several members of his cabinet are currently facing probes in their conduct, including four “Special Prosecutors..

                  The budget which came from the President said,, I’ve given up; that as long I am President of the United States there will never be a balanced budget. That is an astonishing statement. Paul Tsongas, at a Capitol Hill press conference, 2/7/95.

                  Clinton said, “Who do these people think they are?” referring to people who stockpile guns, “No other government in the world would allow their citizens to do that.”

                  How about this!

                  Sara Brady was quoted in several papers and magazines at an Hand Gun Incorporated rally a couple of weeks before the Senate vote saying…” Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort facts or even lie.

                  “Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” — Sarah Brady (President of Handgun Control, Inc. and wife of James Brady, whom the Brady Bill was named for and was recently “honored” by Clinton)

                  Democratic Rep. David Obey said “I think most of us learned some time ago that if you don’t like the president’s position on a particular issue, you simply need to wait a few weeks.”

                  Foreign Policy?

                  Well, let’s see, start with Somalia. It’s not the first, but its one of the best known. In the winter of 1992 George Bush ordered US troops to guard food shipments in and around the ports. The deployment ended in March, a resounding success. A couple of months later Clinton got suckered into sending the Marines back in as ‘nation builders’. In the course of which he deliberately violated Executive Orders of the Presidency not to engage in deliberate or willful assassination of foreign political or military leaders; you DO remember the AC130 gunships firing wildly into civilian occupied apartment buildings, in an effort to murder a Somali warlord and his followers, don’t you? I didn’t think so. Long term memory is not a strong suite of the Clintonestae.

                  Want a small disaster? At the opening of the Holocaust Memorial, 1993. A luncheon was served afterwards for the distinguished Jewish guests and foreign dignitaries. The main entree’ was Honey baked Ham.

                  Bosnia. Bosnia is always good for a laugh. On the campaign trail, Candidate Clinton said that he was qualified as Commander In Chief of the Arkansas National Guard to make military decisions. As an example, he bragged that if he were elected, he would bomb the Serbs. In May of 1993, he sent Warren Christopher to convince the Europeans to allow him to do just that. Christopher went with the ‘strongest message possible’ to urge England, France, and Germany that he was fully committed to this course. Even as the Secretary of State was waiting to meet with them in Geneva, Your Great White Hope appeared on the tube and said that ‘bombing the Serbs probably wouldn’t be necessary’. Warren Christopher is not noted for emotional displays: Some have suggested that he has had the centers in his brain responsible for emotion surgically removed. After Christopher heard what Fearless Leader did, he ALMOST cracked a frown. The Europeans went ballistic. This year Clinton pushed the bombing schtick again to make himself look tougher than the average weenie and we all know what happened: The Serbs have basically gone on to conquer Bosnia. In that sad country you now have Serbian held territory and UN funded and run Serbian concentration camps disguised as ‘safe havens’. The only reason these haven’t been overrun is the Serbs haven’t got the vaguest idea what to do with the refugees huddled in them.


                  CLINTON IS BEING JUDGED SO HARSHLY!!!!” Previous administrations had more successes than failures. George Bush built an international coalition to defeat Iraq in the Gulf War – even got the Arabs to talk to the Israelis afterwards. Ronald Reagan stopped the advance of Marxism in this hemisphere and cracked the will of the Soviets hard-liners to continue the Cold War. Carter, whatever else he may have failed at, can always look back at the Camp David Accords. Ford wasn’t President long enough to do more than handle domestic problems, but Nixon reopened the dialogue with China. And so on back through American history. Yes, they had failures, but never were so many failures in so short a time the result of INCREDIBLE INCOMPETENCE by an Administration.

                  Dan Rather responding to congratulations to him and Connie Chung during and interview shortly after they teamed up together, “If we could be one-hundredth as gret as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been together in the White House,” the supposedly objective newsman said, “we’d take it right now and walk away winners.”

                  “We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans”

                  – President Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A)

                  Vice President Al Gore’s interview on ABC’s “This Week with David Brinkley,” Sunday, August 25, 1996

                  Vice President Al Gore made a number of assertions during this interview which we feel require additional clarification.


                  “Beyond that, the Republican Party, specifically Speaker Gingrich, said that he wanted to make changes that would cause Medicare to wither on the vine.” –Al Gore, ABC’s “This Week with David Brinkley,” 8/25/96

                  Wrong! Al Gore quoted Speaker Gingrich out of context. What the Speaker actually said was:

                  “Okay, what do you think the Health Care Financing Administration is? It’s a centralized command bureaucracy. It’s everything we’re telling Boris Yeltzin to get rid of. Now we don’t get rid of it in round one because we don’t think that’s politically smart. We don’t think that’s the right way to go through a transition. But we believe its going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it — voluntarily.” –Speaker Newt Gingrich, remarks to Blue Cross/Blue Shield conference, 10/24/95

                  In their 1992 campaign, Clinton and Gore endorsed scrapping the Health Care Financing Administration:

                  “We will scrap the Health Care Financing Administration and replace it with a health standards board — made up of consumers, providers, business, labor and government — that will establish annual health budget targets and outline a core benefits package.” –Bill Clinton and Al Gore, Putting People First, 1992

                  100,000 Cops

                  “The president has formed an alliance with the law enforcement officers around this country and experts in fighting crime, passed legislation, over the opposition of Senator Dole and Speaker Gingrich, that is now putting 100,000 extra community police officers on the streets.” –Al Gore, ABC’s “This Week with David Brinkley,” 8/25/96

                  Wrong again!

                  “What I am advised is that there are 17,000 officers that can be identified as being on the streets.” –Attorney General Janet Reno, media availability, 5/16/96

                  Worse, not all of these cops are fighting crime:

                  “At least $7.2 million in COPS grants has been used to hire 86 officers for state parks, marinas and other areas seemingly far removed from violent crime.” –Investor’s Business Daily, 7/16/96

                  Reducing government

                  “We have downsized the federal government during the last four years by 250,000 people.” –Al Gore, ABC’s “This Week with David Brinkley,” 8/25/96

                  What Gore didn’t say was that Clinton accomplished this by gutting Defense:

                  “President Clinton’s plan three years ago to ‘reinvent’ government and cut the federal work force by nearly 252,000 jobs never mentioned that the military would absorb 75 percent of the cuts.” –The Washington Times, 8/23/96

                  The national debt

                  “The debt, which was just ballooning out of control under the previous two administrations, has now been cut by 60 percent.” –Al Gore, ABC’s “This Week with David Brinkley,” 8/25/96

                  Wrong! According to statistics released in February, 1996 by Clinton’s own Office of Management and Budget, the gross federal debt for fiscal year 1992 was $4.002 trillion. By fiscal year 1995 it had “ballooned” to $4.921 trillion — an increase of 23 percent.

                  Bill Clinton during a visit in Italy, to his hosts: “Just think, we are walking on the very ground where Romulus and Remus walked”.

                  — Bill Clinton (They are fictional characters)

                  “There is a feeling among reporters that the truth and Clinton don’t often go together. Reporters have a feeling he is a man without conviction.” — Ken Auletta, a media columnist for the New Yorker


                  1. Estovir, you forced me into continuing listing Obama’s lies and failures. Just one more on healthcare.

                    24) Lied about the cost of Obamacare
                    Before Obamacare was passed, Obama promised
                    “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize.”
                    However, after Obama signed it, the Washington Post reported that it would add more than $340 billion to the budget deficit over the next decade.
                    In March 2012, the Congressional Budget Office said that over the next decade, Obamacare would cost twice as much as what Obama had promised.
                    In May 2013, it was reported that Obamacare’s program for high risk patients was more expensive than what Obama had promised.

            3. Diane, there is a lot on the record about Barr. Even his friendship and his working relationship with Mueller are on display.

              It is not up to me to prove Barr is respected. It is Anon who made the comment “lying for the president”. That is libel and up to Anon to prove. Are you going to prove it for him? Right now he is floundering.

  6. Add Mueller to those “trolling” Barr:

    “WASHINGTON — Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, wrote a letter in late March to Attorney General William P. Barr objecting to his early description of the Russia investigation’s conclusions that appeared to clear President Trump on possible obstruction of justice, according to the Justice Department and three people with direct knowledge of the communication between the two men….”

    1. Mueller is starting to look and smell like old cheese left out of the refrigerator. He should have quit while he was ahead looking like a someone. Soon he will be a nobody. Barr relatively quickly released the complete report with relatively few redactions. Not a brilliant report lacking any investigation into how the Steele Dossier was produced, paid for and released. Nothing that Mueller can complain about especially since it has been said that Mueller could have added to the initial release and involved himself more, but he didn’t. Maybe Weissman is acting as Mueller’s present ghost writer and is scripting Mueller’s leap into oblivion.

      1. Check the sourcing on that article, Allan. Justice Department officials and three people with direct knowledge of the communications between the two men [Barr and Mueller]. Justice Department officials were also the source for the WaPo article. Justice Department officials are, therefore, the ones who allowed WaPo to review Mueller’s March 27th letter to Barr. That means that AG Whitewash Barr authorized the disclosure of Mueller’s March 27th letter to Barr to the WaPo.

        Now ask yourself, Allan, why would AG Whitewash Barr leak Mueller’s letter to the WaPo? Here’s a helpful hint: “Limited hangout” (a.k.a. “damage control”). Guess what? There’s more bad news for AG Whitewash Barr and Trump coming down the turnpike just as soon as Rosenstein officially deboards the plane he landed in The Potomac where it obviously belongs.

        1. Diane (who likes to play more than one anonymous hand at a time) a source to a WaPo article doesn’t provide fact and we all know how the WaPo uses anonymous sources just like you pretend to be in order to promote BS just like you.

          Now, Diane, start connecting the names with provable facts. WaPo has turned into one of the most unreliable sources of information. Presently you have said absolutely nothing.

      2. Maybe Christopher Steele can join Mueller and Rosenstein in Congressional testimony. This is his big chance to stand behind his Russian Dossier that at one time received so much attention.
        I wonder if he’s still selling insurance.

  7. >>Instead, the media chose to focus on the use of “wiretapping” to insist that no literal wiretapping occurred.

    Thus Democrats can dismiss the “unmasking” Susan Rice admitted happened as something less than “spying,” and sleep comfortably in their warm beds…content in the knowledge that they’ve vanquished another so-called “alternative fact.”

  8. Oooh sorry but I can’t let this one pass. Like most of what Turley says but he’s 100% wrong in these two examples. Perhaps he can think of a better example?

    Turley: “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.”

    “Traitor” is often used to just mean someone who has betrayed the country or undermined the basic principles of the country. In this case Trump is referring to a “soft coup” by the FBI/CIA to remove him by means of a corrupt investigation. Now skipping past whether that actually happened or not, can we agree that if the CIA / FBI did attempt to overthrow the US president, as Trump suggests, that the word most people would use for that is “treason”? That’s not Trump making things up. That’s the word most people would use. Indeed what other word would be more appropriate?

    As for “Mexico will pay” Trump is on record as repeatedly and clearly saying during the election period that he didn’t necessarily mean a big cash payment from Mexico and that it could be some indirect means of payment, of which he gave at least two examples. The first was that he might mess with the money immigrants try to send home to their families. The second was that he’d renegotiate NAFTA. He said this at the time of the election. To suggest that only after the election did he redefine what he meant is simply false.

  9. LBJ and Bill Clinton.

    Psychopathic’ presidents

    A 2012 study by psychologists from Emory University in Georgia found several presidents exhibited psychopathic traits, including Bill Clinton.
    The two determined to be most psychopathic were Lyndon Baines Johnson and Andrew Jackson

    Psychopathic attributes were identified by the Emory team as superficial charm, egocentricity, dishonesty, callousness, risk-taking, poor impulse control and fearlessness.

    LBJ, for example, had an ego the size of his home state of Texas.

    1. Continued from above….


      (LBJ) He brazenly stole his 1948 Senate election, then even more shamelessly joked about it, according to Robert Caro’s multi-volume biography.

      Johnson thought nothing of casually putting his hand up another woman’s skirt while his wife, Lady Bird, was sitting right next to him.
      He liked to humiliate underlings by summoning them to take dictation while he urinated in a washbasin or defecated in a toilet.

      However, LBJ may have caused his own political Alamo with widely suspected lies to the American people about a fake naval skirmish in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.

      Johnson used the incident to dramatically escalate the US war in Vietnam.

      But amid the ensuing hecatomb of the Tet Offensive four years later, LBJ announced he would not run for a second term.

      Andrew Jackson – who signed the ethnic-cleansing Indian Removal Act – is remembered today more for his cruelty than for the enviable accomplishment of being the only president ever to fully pay off the national debt.

      And Bill Clinton’s reputation, of course, was left in tatters by his sexual impulsivity.

      1. Psychiatrists should only make educated guesses about someone’s mental health, without an examination, of those who have already passed.

        LBJ sounds like a real peach. I also know, from those who were there, that his staff would water down his drinks to slow him down in his inebriation, when he was President. When he discovered it, he got really, really, really mad. This was while he was President, not before when he was a senator. It was said that he had his drinks watered down as a senator so that he could keep a clearer head. His staff began using that trick, without his knowledge, to try to handle his heavy drinking while in office.

      2. Estovir,
        A couple of bits of trivia about LBJ…..he did not get along with the Kennedy clan, especially RFK.
        And with the exception of Jackie….they seemed to like and respect each other.
        JFK and some other Kennedys would jokingly call him “Landslide Lyndon”, in reference to his tiny lead he “got” in the winning his Senate seats in 1948.
        I don’t think Ken Burns mentioned this and a couple of other things in his Vietnamese documentary: about two weeks before the 1964 election (and a few months after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution), he allayed voters’ concerns by assuring the nation that he had “no intention of sending American boys 8 or 10 thousand miles away to fight a war that Vietnamese boys should be fighting”.
        Within about a year, he had sent over 150,000 more U.S. troops to Vietnam, in addition to the c. 25,000 already there who had been primarily acting as advisors.

          Another fairly recent discovery was LBJ’s thought of going to the 1968 Chicago Convention to “reluctantly accept” a draft LBJ nomination.
          If that convention and nearby confrontations appeared to have been “choatic”, I can guess what would have happened if LBJ showed up.
          I don’t think it would have had much of a “calming effect” on the already-tense, heated environment.

    2. One of the psychiatrists who testified at Patty Hearst’s trial in early 1976 was interviewed later by Shana Alexander. He was a specialist in forensic psychiatry. Hearst’s lawyers had retained academic psychiatrists. The forensic specialist tells Alexander that establishment psychiatrists have two deficiencies in his opinion, “They know little about normal, healthy behavior an they meet very few criminals, radicals, or terrorists”. When was the last time any of those clowns at Emory ever met someone who grew up on the colonial Frontier without two nickels to his name?

        Shana Alexander was the liberal foil to conservative James J. Kilpatrick or sometimes Nicholas von Hoffman on the old “Point-Counter Point” debates.
        SNL would have a lot of fun doing parodies of those Point-Counterpoint exchanges.

  10. Here are three excerpts from Roger Stone’s discovery motions seeking the full un-redacted Mueller report:

    His lawyers must be allowed to review the Report in its entirety because it contains the government’s evidence and conclusions on matters essential to Stone’s defense. Starting with the base assumptions by the Special Counsel that Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Clinton Campaign email databases (see Indictment, ¶¶ 1-3, 7, 18, 20, 39);

    The Office of the Special Counsel has since concluded its investigation and has found that there is no evidence of collusion between Russia and those associated with the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump.

    Previously, however, opposing counsel designated this case as related to that of United States of America v. Netyksho, et al. (1:18-cr-00215-ABJ), because the government claimed that communications between Guccifer 2.0 and Stone were obtained from the Netyksho search warrant.

    The defendant’s false statements did not arise in a vacuum: they were made in the course of an investigation into possible links between Russian individuals (including the Netyksho defendants), individuals associated with the dumping of materials (including Organization 1), and U.S. persons (including the defendant).

    1. The last paragraph of the excerpt above was from the government’s response to Stone’s motion for discovery of the full un-redacted Muller report. Here’s a fuller excerpt from the government’s response:

      The defendant’s false statements did not arise in a vacuum: they were made in the course of an investigation into possible links between Russian individuals (including the Netyksho defendants), individuals associated with the dumping of materials (including Organization 1), and U.S. persons (including the defendant).


      In the course of investigating that activity, the government obtained and executed dozens of search warrants on various accounts used to facilitate the transfer of stolen documents for release, as well as to discuss the timing and promotion of their release. Several of those search warrants were executed on accounts that contained Stone’s communications with Guccifer 2.0 and with Organization 1.

  11. So The Washington Post filed a FOIA request to unseal the redactions from the Manafort breach hearing transcripts. Below are two excerpts from the most recent government brief opposing that request:

    The redactions at issue were undertaken and approved recently—from December 2018, through March 2019. No material changes have occurred in these past months. Although the Special Counsel has concluded his work, he has also referred a number of matters to other offices. The ongoing investigations that required redactions—many of which were already being conducted by other offices—remain ongoing. And the privacy interests that warranted redactions remain the same.


    The Manafort case has been transferred from the Special Counsel’s Office to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and the attorneys who were principally responsible for that case are no longer representing the government in this matter. The redactions are intended to protect ongoing investigations that are being handled by various attorneys in various offices. It is unknown how long some of these investigations may remain ongoing. And some of the privacy interests that are being protected may persist indefinitely. For the government to “promptly notify” (Mem. 18) the Court of any relevant development would impose a duty not just on the attorneys who have taken over responsibility for the Manafort case, but also on other attorneys throughout this and other offices and their successors. Given the breadth of the related investigations, it would be extremely burdensome, if not impossible, for the government to ensure such prompt reporting and to undertake regular reassessment in this case.

    [end excerpt]

    One way to interpret what the government says above is that they are not quite through with Paul Manafort yet.

    1. So the investigations formerly known as the Mueller probe are “many” and have been referred to “various” other United States Attorney’s offices presumably because those investigations are not explicitly related to an agreement between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in its election interference activities, but a few of which investigations, instead, may very well be related to almost any number of agreements between various members of the Trump campaign or Trump associates and certain Russian-affiliated individuals who had offered assistance to the Trump campaign without actually being officials of the Russian government.

      Well, yes, of course, that is the way the Russians do things–with cut-outs who have plausible deniability or who can be “burned” or worse, if needs be. For instance, the founder of a certain radical transparency organization could be construed as a Russian-affiliated individual who offered assistance to various members of the Trump campaign or Trump associates. And the government is telling both Roger Stone’s lawyers and the court hearing the WaPo’s FOIA request for the un-redacted transcripts of Manafort’s breach hearings that it knows not for how much longer the investigations formerly known as the Mueller probe might “remain ongoing.”

      No wonder the Easter-Island Monolith known as Robert Swan Mueller The Third is still not speaking in public.

  12. Sandra H.,
    One of the first things Holder did as the new AG in the very early stages of the Obama Administration was to stop or quickly wrap up the ongoing investigation into voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers.
    Maybe Obama and Holder thought that the NB Panthers were merely “extremely careless'”.

  13. Professor Turley – I appreciate your perspective but you are far too kind to the Left… you said this about President Trump – “Neither language nor facts prove a burden …” . Let’s remember who has lied for the last 24 months and often under oath: Waters, Shiff, Comey, Clapper, Rice, McCabe, Brennan, Mills, Abedin, Powers, Ohr(s), Steele, Yates, Lynch. For 2+ years, this cabal has lied over and over and over. But they didn’t do it in public — they did it clandestinely and covertly in an attempt to alter the voters choice. Here’s an excellent read ….

  14. Today they are coming after Barr. Tomorrow they will be coming after the people who work for Barr.

    1. You know I have to be honest here. Trump has taken discourse to a low unknown. I disagree but understand the need for Democrats to respond the way they do. They are caught in the same dilemma as Lindsey Graham. A recent Post article indicated that his newly found obsequiousness is paying off in the polls. I suspect Democrats get the same bump by acting this way. Congress is becoming a real mirror of ourselves.

      1. Jeff, you’re right in the sense that polarization breeds polarization. And it all starts at the top.

          1. Did you know that it takes two poles to tango?

            Of course, it also takes two Poles to polka. Nyuk, nyuk. Who’s there?

            1. Diane, some people as they age become more racist in their language as demonstrated above. Since you seem to have an interest in aphasia’s I suppose you have been scouring Wikipedia to answer concerns you have about yourself.

    2. Two replies blaming Trump for the attacks on Barr. Reminds me of being a little kid complaining to Mom that ‘he hit me first.’ Mom didn’t fall for it then, and we shouldn’t now.

      The attacks on Barr are intellectually dishonest. He’s done an admirable job handling the Mueller report. His investigation into FISA abuse could uncover one of the greatest scandals in American history. Abuse of the government’s secret surveillance power is important stuff. Bipartisan stuff.

      But there are powerful oxes that don’t want to be gored. Today they are coming after Barr. Tomorrow they will come after the people who work for Barr.

    3. “When they go low, we go high” – M.O.
      “When they go low, we kick them’” -Eric Holder
      ‘When they go low, you go lower’ – Bill Maher to Dems
      “civility can start again” when Democrats retake control in Congress – Hillary Clinton

      “When they go low, we kick ‘em in the nuts.” – Sean Clegg, a longtime Democratic strategist in California

      or as the Democrats said about Blacks up until recently: “Lynch em”

  15. 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.”

    As a Self Governing and independent Constitutional Citizen I do not trust Pelosi after having read her shenanigans trying to get special favors in the reduction of property taxes nor in her violation of her Oath of Office in seating people who refused to take the Constitutionally required Oath office. I don’t trust Senator Schumer who turned against his Oath of Office and even his religion after having used it to advance himself by supporting the enemies of our country. i don’t trust Schiff who fouls our Constitutional Republic and it’s Institutions by calling themselves something they are not inasmuch as our founders rejected nine times a democracy and his claim to the contrary.

    I can neither recognize nor countenance the actions of this group nor their founders nor their falsehoods

  16. As should be clear to anyone, the difference between Trump and his Democratic critics is that Trump defends while they attack and lie – often. They have brought on the speech codes, the Orwell speak and the persecution of conservative students and speakers on campus. As such, they are enemies of democracy in general and the nation’s lawful institutions specifically. They need to be prosecuted for the sedition they have raised to high art form. Like Hungary, you start with evicting Soros and his nefarious NGOs. You pressure colleges to live up to their ideals by letting everyone speak there including black panthers, white supremicists and every viewpoint in between. If students swoon with the vapors over the freedom they encounter, send them off to the military for toughness training.

      1. Wow!!!
        Where is Pelosi, Nadler, Schumer, CNN, MSNBC, et al denouncing the media inciting assassinating the President?

        CBS All-Access’ “The Good Wife” spinoff series, “The Good Fight,” is in hot water after tweeting an image from one of its episodes that shows a list of “target words” including: “Assassinate,” “President” and “Trump” in a red column and a second orange column that started with the words: “Mar-a-Lago” and “Eliminate.”

        1. Even the assignment of false colors needs taken to task. The Socialist side are clearly the real Reds while the Constitutionalists are just as clearly the Red, White and Blue. Is there any level of perfidity low enough to be spurned by these Socialist outcasts from the ranks of decent people and Citizens?

    1. Off Topic


      You might obtain this book and dedicate some time to the perspective on Lincoln’s arbitrary, despotic and tyrannical jailing of journalists, suspension of freedom of the press and Habeas Corpus, etc., and that of the quandary of Major Henry Wirz of Andersonville Confederate Prison who, allegedly, had no food, clothing, shelter, medical supplies or anything else to offer inmates as the Union forces were destroying not only the army but the residential, industrial and agricultural components of the CSA.

      Title Crimes and Cover-ups in American Politics: 1776-1963
      Author Donald Jeffries
      Contributor Ron Paul
      Publisher Skyhorse, 2019
      ISBN 151074147X, 9781510741478
      Length 408 pages
      Subjects Political Science › American Government › General

      1. I’ve read quite a bit about Lincoln and Wirz. Everybody reads about Lincoln and I disagree with characterization of the greatest wartime President as being a tyrannical oppressor. The copperheads were every bit the enemy as were the confederates. However on Wirz I suggest you read the trial transcripts in the Library of Congress. Wirz had supply challenges to be sure but the evidence shows his death by hanging to be more than warranted. He was a cruel murderer, director of murders and tolerated unordered murder by his guards.

        1. Mespo,

          Crimes and Cover-ups in American Politics: 1776-1963 Hardcover – Donald Jeffries – June 18, 2019

          No one has read the book yet. It will be released in June. In an interview, the author seemed convinced of Lincoln’s tyranny and sympathetic with Wirz’s “dilemma.” I thought it might provide some perspective. Maybe not.

          The author claims that Lincoln jailed thousand of publishers. That can only be illicit, antithetical and tyrannical in a nation with free speech and a free press. The author also claims that Wirz had crippling “supply challenges” and that Wirz was attempting to negotiate the repatriation of Union soldiers while the North refused.

          Does the Constitution preclude secession? That would seem counterintuitive given that the Framers seceded from Great Britain. If the Constitution allows secession, Lincoln had no grounds or authority to prosecute war (the U.S. must have withdrawn from the CSA), proclamations, seizure of private property, suspension of Habeas Corpus or any related acts.

Leave a Reply