Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on a missing element in the Mueller report not just for obstruction but impeachment: intent. As I discuss, I am still baffled by the logic of Mueller in not reaching a conclusion on obstruction. It simply makes no sense given his actions on collusion and the ultimate rendering of a decision by Main Justice on obstruction. While the Justice Department (wrongly) maintains that a sitting president cannot be indicted, there is no bar on finding probable cause to believe that a president has committed a crime.
Here is the column:
The release of the report by special counsel Robert Mueller has unleashed a furious debate within the Democratic Party over the need to commence impeachment proceedings against President Trump. Mueller was anything but subtle in his pointed discussion of how Congress can deal with the “corrupt exercise of the powers of office” within “our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”
In writing those words, Mueller put Democrats in Congress in a more uncomfortable position than he did Trump. Indeed, Trump seems quite satisfied with defining victory as avoiding indictment. Democratic leaders want to appear eager to impeach without actually impeaching Trump. Mueller, however, triggered impeachment frenzy but left out a key element necessary to achieve it. That element is criminal intent.
A study by the conservative group Media Research Center found that impeachment was referenced on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC more than 300 times in the first 18 hours after the report was released, with CNN alone accounting for 148 times. Many Democratic members of Congress ran on impeachment during the 2018 midterm elections.
As soon as they won the House, however, Democratic leaders such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that impeachment was not on the agenda. That was viewed by some as a bait-and-switch. When House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer referred to impeachment as “not worthwhile,” the resulting backlash forced him to backtrack. Others, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, have called to open impeachment proceedings.
Such demands suffer from the same loose analysis that characterized the last two years of predictions of inevitable criminal charges against Trump. The problem is that some positive findings for Trump in the Mueller report would weigh heavily in an impeachment defense. Mueller has effectively cleared Trump and his 2016 campaign of collusion. While the report states that Russians clearly worked to elect Trump and that the Trump campaign viewed the release of hacked Democratic material by the Russians as beneficial, the investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Indeed, no American was indicted in the special counsel investigation for collusion, coordination or conspiracy.
The report also undermined the theory surrounding the firing of FBI Director James Comey. That act, leading to the appointment of the special counsel, showed Trump in a distinctly bad light as blundering and blind to how it harmed his administration. However, Mueller found considerable evidence that Trump was motivated by his anger over the sheer refusal of Comey to state publicly what he was saying privately, which is that Trump was not a target of any investigation. Trump was dead wrong in his action, but Mueller detailed how the president felt Comey left his administration “under a cloud” by not telling the public what he was telling Congress.
Notably, Mueller also defused the “bombshell” story of the Trump Tower meeting. He confirmed that the meeting lasted only 20 minutes and was set up under the false promise of supplying evidence of criminal conduct by Hillary Clinton and her campaign. Trump’s son-in-law and White House adviser, Jared Kushner, left the meeting quickly after calling it a waste of time. The promoter who set up the meeting called it a “dumb” idea of a Russian client who had ruined his relationship with the Trump family.
The evidence indicates that Trump knew little or nothing about the meeting in advance. Mueller also described how Trump drafted his infamous statement about it with little knowledge of what occurred. Donald Trump Jr.said the meeting was primarily about adoptions and actually expressed concern that the statement should be qualified so as not to create a false impression that it was entirely about adoptions. Mueller painted the president as more clueless than conniving here.
Impeachment would have to focus on alleged obstruction, since Mueller did not find evidence of collusion. It is certainly true that you can obstruct an investigation that did not find a crime, but it is a difficult case to make. Despite Trump impressively counterpunching himself into an obstruction charge, the report does not establish a compelling criminal case for it. Indeed, Mueller explaining why he failed to come to a conclusion on it is one of the most unsupported and unconvincing parts of his report. The reason for that failure, however, could be as important as the element.
Some have tried to supply a rationale as a precursor to impeachment. Some have suggested Mueller was prevented from finding criminal conduct because of the Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president. Yet that policy did not prevent Mueller from coming to a decision on collusion. Furthermore, Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein did reach a conclusion, so there was no barrier from the Justice Department. Mueller also never said he was told he could not reach a conclusion. He indicates the very opposite.
There also is speculation that Mueller failed to reach a conclusion because he did not agree with the narrower view of obstruction held by Barr. Such a disagreement on the elements of the crime was not the reason. Mueller articulated his standard and applied it. Despite identifying 10 troubling episodes that could be defined as acts of obstruction, he could not say with confidence that Trump acted with the requisite “corrupt intent.”
Mueller found evidence of a “range of other possible personal motives animating” how Trump conducted himself, from anger over questioning the legitimacy of his electoral victory to how certain acts by him or his family could be viewed. Mueller concluded, while not determinative, “absence of such evidence bears upon” the intent of Trump “with respect to obstruction.” That is why the difference on the elements of obstruction ultimately was not the issue. It came down to corrupt intent.
The report is a mess on intent with an array of intents to choose from. Mueller found “substantial evidence” that Trump wanted to limit the scope of the investigation, but that is not necessarily intent. Importantly, Mueller described noncriminal motives for the baffling conduct of Trump. Usually, the absence of evidence of a corrupt intent is resolved in favor of the defendant; however, the special counsel may not have been so inclined after Trump refused to be interviewed on obstruction. If Mueller reached the same conclusion as on collusion, it would have rewarded Trump for his intransigence. There may be an element of comeuppance in declaring that, in the end, it was impossible to determine what Trump was thinking.
None of this produces a compelling case of prosecution, even when any noncriminal motivation or intent is acknowledged. Even the best grounds for obstructive intent with Trump seeking to fire Mueller, an order ignored by White House counsel, was justified by Trump as based on his fear of a conflict of interest. Since Mueller was not fired, we cannot know if Trump would have tried to block any new special counsel. But Trump ultimately did not stop the investigation. He could also claim, in his defense, that he simply wanted a neutral investigator, not someone who was interviewed to replace Comey and then appointed to investigate the firing of Comey.
Congress clearly has a legitimate interest to hold hearings on some of these issues. With Trump now calling some of the findings “fabricated” and “total bullshit,” he has again opened the door to further inquiry. Yet the inability of the special counsel to resolve the question of intent should weigh heavily on any decision of the Democratic leadership to move from investigation to impeachment. Like indictable acts, impeachable acts demand a showing of intent, not simply an array of possible intents.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He testified on the Bill Clinton impeachment standard, represented former attorneys general in that litigation, and served as lead defense counsel in the last Senate impeachment trial.
284 thoughts on “Mueller’s Mess On Intent Leaves Democrats In A Muddle On Impeachment”
It’s the language barrier that makes it seem like Jabberwocky.
To fully understand her comments here, you need to learn the Dianese language.
Then, and only then, will you fully understand that her posts are NOT “jabberwocky”.
At that point, once you get a workable knowledge of Dianese, you will realize that it is lunacy, not Jabberwochy.
OT: To fill in what some on the list lack when making comments.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s remarks at the Arab League gathering in Cairo demonstrate his preference for the well-being of terrorists over the ability of hard-working employees to put bread on the table for their families. These payments to terrorists and their families lie at the heart of Palestinian incitement to terror that drives the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
If anyone is collectively punishing the Palestinians, it is Abbas himself. He is depriving tens of thousands of families of full salaries, thus preventing them from purchasing food for their children or paying various fees, including rent and university tuition. A Palestinian civil service employee who sends his son to university does not get a full salary. A Palestinian whose son sets out to murder a Jew is entitled to a full salary and earns more respect from Palestinian leaders.
What message is Abbas sending to his people? That those who wish to eat had better turn to terror. The families of the public employees who are now unable to pay their grocery bill and rent are now looking at the families of the terrorists with envy. They must be saying to themselves: “We are suckers because we didn’t send our children to stab a Jew!” This is the education that the Palestinians leaders have been providing since 1965.
“The question, “So who can fire the POTUS?,” was, indeed, intended to be strictly rhetorical.”
Funny just inches above you lambasted me for avoiding the same question:
“𝘊𝘢𝘦𝘴𝘢𝘳 𝘈𝘶𝘨𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴 “𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦.” 𝘏𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 “𝘔𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰” 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩:
𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘖𝘛𝘜𝘚’ 𝘥𝘶𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘖𝘛𝘜𝘚 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭’𝘴 𝘥𝘶𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈. 𝘎. 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵? 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘖𝘛𝘜𝘚 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈.𝘎.? 𝑺𝒐 𝒘𝒉𝒐 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒇𝒊𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑷𝑶𝑻𝑼𝑺?”
Unless the dictionary writers changed the word “rhetorical” in the context of a question from ” asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information” in the last five seconds, I’m in a quandary about which side of your personality I should respond to — the one critical of me for “avoidance” or the one castigating me for answering a question designed MERELY to impress me with half-baked rhetorical devices. Do tell.
mespo727272 says: April 23, 2019 at 8:00 AM
“I never figured you for a anti-logitician. And no, melting snow isn’t rain. It’s water.”
Oh! But I am an anti-logician. And so are you. There is nothing inherently inconsistent with avoiding a strictly rhetorical question. Everybody knows that The United States Senate has the power “to fire” The POTUS. Just like everybody also knows that freezing rain is also water in the same way that melting snow is water. And not to put too fine a point on it, Counselor, but Water Is Wet. And if it falls, or spills, or drips onto the streets, then the streets get wet, too.
Are you sure you want to get into another anti-logical hair-splitting contest with “. . . the unlicensed fool [of Crazytown] by acclamation.”? You do realize that I actually enjoy this sort of thing. Don’t you?
I get it now: falling rain is melting snow because both are made of water just like steam is both rain and snow since they’re all made of water. And since melons are about 90% water, cantaloupes are thus mostly rain, snow and steam. Don’t get me started on infants which are 78% water which makes them mostly cantaloupes which is probably why storks love them so and carry them around. And, by extension, aardvarks are giraffes because both are made of atoms. Clear as day.
As for your love of the irrational, I hope you two are infinitely happy together. I’m not that enamored. Sorry. Jabberwocky on.
” Don’t get me started on infants which are 78% water which makes them mostly cantaloupes which is probably why storks love them so and carry them around.”
Mespo your entire reply was the best. It explains a lot of what these crazies say. Cantaloupes.
The Streets Are Never Wet With Aardvarks.
The Attorney General is not immune to prosecution just because an indictment against the AG would hamper the executive branch’s duty to enforce the law.
What mess? Comey decided to declare in open revolt with his boss there was no intent. But a quick but precise reading of that section of the law shows Clinton was hung either way depending on which paragraph as used.
a. One of them said intent was not an element of the crime and thus should be totally disregarded. Only the action counted. Score for Hillary GUILTY
b. Another said a long record of the criminal action was in and of itself proof of intent.
Score for Hillary Guilty
c. Another seems to indicate intent was a requirement but b took care of proving that so once again Hillary’s Score Guilty.
All it takes is someone with enough guts to provide the indictment. then all the other info comes into play. and as well as the liklihood of much of her staffs plural staffs being charged. Or they will pull out their CYA document and bingo eight ball in the corner but not in the pocket and once again… Guilty.
Others will fight to be first to give let’s make deal States’ Evidence.
And that is just on one blanket charge on the National Security issue.
Never mind the rest of the list.
And THAT leads in several directions principally the Foundation actons, the Department of State actions, the campaign actions, the DNC actions and the actions involving certain former members of the Justice Department, and the actions with foreign entities. and the actions against DNC members running against her. and much as Ih ate to p;ut this at the bottom of the list the miserable showing in the Benghazi episode. etc. etc. etc.
Add it all up this farce so far has held up hundreds of indictments.
I posted ( or attempted to post) one of L4D’s predictions made on October 16, 2018.
Since the cut and paste function on this device is not work properly, it was an entire page of comments that is held up in moderation and may not post.
If it does post, L4D’s prophesy can be found about 20 comments up from the bottom of the page.
If it does not post, her prophetic vision were posted I’m the comment thread treated to the JT column on reasons that Mueller may not invite.
Predications are a dime a dozen. Predictions made with the degree of certainty like the one about “blossoming fruit” are not as common.
Especially when past predictions, also made with supreme confidence, turn out to be dead wrong.
There are actually some political analysts that are worth paying attention to.
Most are not, and that includes our resident psychic.
I point this out in case some readers are not aware that her predictions should be taken with a grain ( or perhaps a ton) of salt.
Great Googli Moogli, Gnash. You are working way far too hard for your peanuts. Mueller announced that Manafort had breached his cooperation agreement on November 26th, 2018. Prior to that Manafort had spent the months of September, October and the part of November up until Thanksgiving being interviewed by Mueller’s Office and testifying before Mueller’s grand jury.
Had L4D known that Manafort was going to systematically undermine his own credibility as a witness for the sake of garnering a pardon from Trump, then L4D’s “predictions” might have been less “confident.”
P. S. There’s no way in Hades that Trump pardons Manafort, now. I am supremely confident of that one. Mark it on your calendar so that you won’t have to work so damned hard next time.
L4D’s confident Oct.16, 2018 predictions are on the record in the archives.
No amount of spinning by her is going to change that.
Had L4D had some common sense, she would not repeatedly act as if she were some gypsy with a crystal ball at the circus.
finally we agree on something. unlikely he pardons manafort
Disagree. He commutes Manafort’s sentence. If the conviction remains, the odious cretinette currently serving as Attorney-General of New York is debarred (by New York law) from filing state charges against him.
Now I have the auto-feature changing and finishing the words I type.
Anyway, I can see why the entire page of the Oct. 16, 2018 comments threads is held up, and may not post.
For clarification of some of the jumbled words and sentences above, L4B’s psychic visions can be found in the comments threads of the 10-16-2018 JT Column, “Three reasons why Mueller May not Charge Obstruction”.
Professor Turley, you say this: ” I am still baffled by the logic of Mueller in not reaching a conclusion on obstruction.” and “there is no bar on finding probable cause to believe that a president has committed a crime.” I was baffled as well, and after thinking about it, it became clear to me that what Mueller was doing was laying out the case for obstruction which would be an indictable crime, yes? But by concluding that obstruction took place and the outcome should be indictment, it strikes me that knowing that there would not be an indictment, and announcing a conclusion that would result in an indictment, the obstruction argument would be viewed by Trump as an example of political bias on the part of the Special Council and contaminate the 2 year effort by the Special Council to present their unbiased report. Knowing the President as all of us do, we should all be aware that Trump would attack the Special Council and his team of investigators and launch an all out effort to discredit the report. It seems apparent that Mueller provided the evidence for obstruction and then left it to Congress to decide what to do about it.
The logic that baffles me is the non-logic used by the DOJ regarding indicting a sitting President. Who came up with this idea? It’s a Unitary Executive concept isn’t it? The logic is pretty obvious.
Modus Ponens: The mode that affirms. If/then
P1. If the streets are wet, then it rained.
P2. the streets are wet,
C: therefore; it rained.
Modus Tollens. The mode that denies. If/then
P1. If the streets are wet, then it rained
P2. the streets are dry
C: therefore; it did not rain
Modus Ponens: If/then
P1. If the president can’t be indicted, then he is above the law
P2. the president cannot be indicted
C: therefore; he is above the law.
Modus Tollens: If/then
P1. If the president cannot be indicted, then he is above the law
P2. No one is above the law
C: therefore; the president can be indicted
If theory T is true, then we should observe O.
We do not observe O.
Therefore, theory T is false. ( Modus Tollens )
If P, Then Q.
Therefore, Not P
That’s the logic.
I’m sure in your experience, with regards to deductive reasoning, if the premises are true, the conclusion is infallibly true. No person is above the law in this country. The memo from the DOJ places a sitting president above the law. That’s a complete contradiction to the most fundamental principle that has guided this country from its inception. So the DOJ policy also violates the most basic law of rational thought; The Law of Non-Contradiction as stated by Aristotle. We can’t claim that no person is above the law, and demonstrate that one person IS in fact above the law. Both conditions cannot be true at the same time in the same context. You cannot be A and be Not A at the same time in the same context. I read your piece on why a sitting President CAN be indicted and I agree, but it seems to me the logic is much simpler than what I read in your essay. Everyone in this country can be indicted for criminal behavior. No one is immune. That means NOBODY. Full Stop.
Modus Tollens: If/then
P1. If the president cannot be indicted, then he is above the law
P2. No one is above the law
C: therefore; the president can be indicted
There is no guarantee that a president who has demonstrated criminal acts or committed impeachable offenses, could in fact be impeached. Given the Tribal nature of our politics, there is no way that the POTUS party will agree to convict him in the Senate, and if he can’t be impeached, then he can’t be removed from office and that means he can’t be indicted and that means he avoids justice. I doubt that the framers had that in mind. They shed blood and risked everything to rid themselves of that kind of authoritarian Tyranny. They would never remove one despot to install another.
My article on Presidential Powers. https://adagio4639.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/presidential-powers/
“The Logic is pretty obvious.”
Not really or at least not how you portray it. Your examples all have the fatal flaw of failing to account for other causes. In your erroneous example of street wetness, your premises (“if the streets are wet, then it rained/ the streets are wet) fail to arrive at a logical conclusion because wet streets can derive from other causes besides rain like street cleaning, broken fire hydrants, melting snow and myriad other reasons. Thus your conclusion is false. You could have said: “if the streets are wet it may have rained/the streets are wet/thus it may have rained” and been on firm logical ground. Similarly your premise that the DOJ illogically reasons that a sitting POTUS may not be indicted fails to account for its premise that indicting a sitting President would violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine by undermining the Executive Branch’s duty to the enforce the law. (See 2000 DOJ memo) Logic is wonderful as a framework for thinking but like so many things human it depends on the capacity of human using it.
Streets is plural in Larry’s argument. How many streets can one broken fire hydrant make wet at the same time? How many streets can one street sweeper make wet at the same time? However many streets that might be, for how long will that many streets stay wet? Is melt water from snow really a different cause of wet streets than rain?
If the POTUS’ duty to enforce the law makes the POTUS immune to indictment, then why doesn’t the Attorney General’s duty to enforce the law make the A. G. immune to indictment? Because the POTUS can fire the A.G.? So who can fire the POTUS?
Larry appears to be a musician–not a lawyer. I like Larry just fine the way he is.
I never figured you for a anti-logitician. And no, melting snow isn’t rain. It’s water. I like Larry, too. Just not in a position of authority.
Not seeking any position of authority. Just seeking a logical and rational approach to our laws. I don’t need to be a lawyer to want that. The idea that a sitting POTUS can’t be indicted is not demonstrated as true.
Hey Larry! Welcome aboard the HMS Crazytown.
Remember: Snow isn’t rain. (Except in Chicago–sometimes.) And rain isn’t precipitation, either. It’s water falling from the sky. (Even in Virginia.) Of course, according to the Virginian lawyer, snow is also water falling from the sky. But snow doesn’t make the streets wet until it melts. (Except in Chicago where the Morton Salt Corporation makes pretty much everything wet including especially snow-covered streets.)
Did you know that the water content of a brine has to fall below two percent before sodium chloride precipitates out of the solution as a solid? Well, of course you know that. You are a musician–not a lawyer. And not at all interested in a position of authority.
Welcome to Crazytown, Sir Lawrence.
You say this: “indicting a sitting President would violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine by undermining the Executive Branch’s duty to the enforce the law.” No. It doesn’t. You’re basing that on a theory called Unitary Executive. Theories are not proven. They’re disproven. Theories are always conditional. And Conditionals are always represented as If/Then arguments. Your theory is falsified through Modus Tollens. Your response only holds if the theory that because the DOJ falls under the Executive Branch, that the President is the ultimate law enforcement official. But he’s not. The DOJ has always maintained an independence and distance from the Oval office. It must because otherwise the President has the authority to launch an investigation against his political enemies and that results in a tyrant using the levers of the US Government to attack anybody that criticizes him and that is unacceptable in a state where no one is above the law. Therefore the DOJ keeps an arms length distance from the Oval Office specifically to keep that from happening. Trump couldn’t fire the Special Council. He needed the AG to do that. Why? Because it’s an overreach and an abuse of power on the part of the President. The DOJ and the AG are not serving the POTUS. They serve the people. They aren’t his private Gestapo.
However, the most significant response to your argument is that if it holds, then you have created a system in which one person is ABOVE the law and that violates more than your theory on what the Separation of Powers entails. It violates the fundamental principle that the country is founded upon which is that NO man is above the Law. Your theory would install one person as being above the law, and that that not only violates that principle, but violates the Law of Non-Contradiction as well. You cannot claim that nobody is above the law and have one person above the law. You can’t be A and be NOT A at the same time in the same context. Now that is not a Constitutional issue, I grant you that. However it’s totally irrational and has no place in a rational and just society. We can’t claim to be a rational state and follow irrational theories at the same time.
You do realize that your argument places one person above the law, right?
Modus Ponens: If/then
P1. If the president can’t be indicted, then he is above the law
P2. the president cannot be indicted
C: therefore; he is above the law.
So that’s your position? You believe that after a bloody revolution to separate from one tyrant, that our framers would create a system that would allow for another to take his place? Do you really believe that? Because if he can’t be indicted, that’s what you have. One person is above the law. The laws of our constitution do not apply to him. I could be indicted. you could be indicted. But a sitting President cannot? Now if he can’t be impeached because of political tribalism which blocks the process in the Senate from removal of the sitting POTUS, then he can’t be removed for having committed crimes that you and I could be indicted for. And if he can’t be removed through impeachment, then he can’t be indicted as a private citizen. He could literally commit murder and avoid prosecution. The office of President is not meant as a shield from prosecution. Justice can never be served this way. If your argument is that he can be indicted and prosecuted AFTER he leaves office…why would he leave office knowing he’ll be indicted. The longer he stays, the longer he avoids justice. If the laws of the constitution do not apply to him, then what prevents him from violating the constitution to shield himself from justice? If he’s re-elected he can outlast the statute of limitations which is 5 years.
But beyond that, what stops him from declaring a National Emergency ( he’s done that with his funding of a border wall ) and claiming that the results of an election that he loses be declared null and void because of alleged voter fraud. He can call it a “rigged system”. He’s done that before. He can blame the “Deep State”. He doesn’t need proof. He never needs proof. He subscribes to conspiracy theories. He could suspend the constitution and declare a state of emergency that will end after a thorough investigation of the election be undertaken. That could last for years.
Now this is all conjecture, but it only illustrates the potential damage of any person being above the law. Especially with a compliant Tribal allegiance to everything he does. The POTUS has the levers of the US Government in his grasp. All presidents do. We all hope that the person holding those levers is a rational individual. But if he isn’t, there are safe-guards to prevent too much damage from being done. Trump has never demonstrated any degree of rationality. He’s unstable. He’s notoriously insecure. His non-stop tweeting and sociopathic-narcissism tell a different story.
” If the president can’t be indicted, then he is above the law”
I didn’t read the rest but this statement is not true. Congress has the ability to remove a President and that is how it should be. Not every guilty person can be indicted or is indicted. You are acting as if the law has to function in a fashion you find desireable. It doesn’t.
I take it back Larry. You’re a ranting fool. The DOJ (not mine) policy has been in effect with good reason since 1973. How many bloody revolutions have we had to remove a criminal President in that time? An indictment clearly violates separation of powers since it casts the judiciary in a supervisory role over an indicted sitting President. Trump’s no more guilty than you of collusion but you throw around legal terms and statutes you can’t possibly know about and want acceptance from lawyers for your feeble arguments. Sorry maestro, but your opus isn’t ready for prime time. Neither is your rudimentary understanding logical syllogisms or federal criminal statutes of limitations.
Did Turley somehow miss that Mespo? lol;)
Levin has bought up the issue many times.
He must have, Oky 1.
seems apparent that Mueller provided the evidence
Had he provided the evidence his conclusion would have reflected as such.
Consider taking a course in logic.
Today is your lucky day because I am here to help you
Can we assume that you’re referring to Obstruction of Justice?
P1.IF he ( Mueller) provided the evidence, THEN his conclusion would have reflected as much
P2.Mueller provided evidence
C: Therefore: his conclusion reflected as much.
Consider taking a course in logic. I’m here to help.
The problem is not the logic. The logic is clear. The problem is with an ill-conceived policy by the DOJ that says you can’t indict a sitting president which blocks the logic from being applied. Mueller can’t recommend an indictment because he’s blocked from doing that by the DOJ rules. The rules ignore the logic. So he provides the evidence to Congress. It’s now in their court. Mueller was hired to investigate and provide the results of his investigation which is what he did. He wasn’t required to recommend anything beyond that. It’s in the hands of congress and the public now.
somebody has to be the boss. it is a perplexing idea that the boss who sits for a short term of 4 years will be subject to indicting himself for an alleged crime.
the complaining about the “unitary executive” concept does not explain anything about how things are supposed to work in the absence of an understanding, that, for a short time, yes the boss is the boss
why doesn’t anybody say the SCOTUS is above the law since it gets to arrogate to itself the power to draft new laws out of whole cloth based on popular demand? where is that in the Constitution?
There is NO time where a person is above the law. SCOTUS is not above the law. Provide an example of SCOTUS drafting new laws.
brown v board
griswold v connecticuit
roe v wade
lawrence v texas
Obergefell v. Hodges
In each of these cases there were validly made and constructed and long standing state laws. in each case they COULD HAVE BEEN FEDERALLY PREEMPTED BY CONGRESS BUT WERE NOT.
in each case, SCOTUS took over the federal legislative process and passed the desired result into law via a wide and novel interpretation of the 14th amendment due process clause
take a course in CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
this is what I learned in my constitutional law course from a lady who liked the result but called a spade a spade.
take a course as you said to someone else, but, i am not here to help.
do your own homework smart aleck
I love the way you succinctly answer Larry’s questions demolishing his premise and he then ignores the answers moving on to some new inanity. Let’s nominate him for King of Crazytown, L4D already having the unlicensed fool job by acclamation.
Caesar Augustus practices “avoidance.” Here’s a reminder of the questions that “Mespo” declined to grapple with:
If the POTUS’ duty to enforce the law makes the POTUS immune to indictment, then why doesn’t the Attorney General’s duty to enforce the law make the A. G. immune to indictment? Because the POTUS can fire the A.G.? So who can fire the POTUS?
Only the people through their representatives can “fire” the President before his term ends not some unelected ideologue judge. That’s sorta the point of the DOJ policy. The AG works at the pleasure of the President. This really isn’t that hard. Did you ever take Constitutional Law or are you like Larry?
I never took any confounded law course at all. But an indictment is not a “pink slip” from the Grand Jury nor the U. S. Attorney. A jury verdict of guilty entered against a sitting President might be construed as a “termination of employment letter” by The Congress–maybe.
Since you’ve taken all sorts of different law courses–including Con-Law–suppose that you tell me whether there’s anything in The U. S. Constitution that says “a sitting President having been a duly convicted of a crime by a jury of his peers shall be removed from The Office of The Presidency of the United States, because sentencing cannot be postponed–only indictment and trial can be postponed”???
The question, “So who can fire the POTUS?,” was, indeed, intended to be strictly rhetorical. And as long as were at it, here comes another one: So who can hire The POTUS? I will gladly stipulate that you know the answer to that question at least as well as Larry knows it.
I never took any confounded intellectual course at all.
That makes her like Larry.
Nice Mr Kurtz.
Lots of people are “above the law” (as you crudely put it) in a given context. Priests can’t be compelled to testify against penitents for crimes admitted in a confessional though it might be the only admission; wives can’t be compelled to testify against spouses in a criminal trial for private conversations; and judges can’t be compelled to appear as witnesses. There are good policy reasons for all three privileges. That the law adjusts to good policy is as old as Hammurabi’s Code. Thus, the DOJ has made a judgment in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion that a sitting President can’t be indicted for Separation of Powers reasons that all but a kindergartner can understand — if not agree with. (Imagine a bonded President having to get permission from a judge to travel to attend a NATO summit in Europe.) You may not like the policy decision, but your logic is downright inane since apparently no one ever explained to you that if your premises are faulty so is you conclusion, i.e. All men are from Zimbabwe / adagio is a man / therefore adagio is from Zimbabwe. Damn logical but patently crazy.
>”the complaining about the “unitary executive” concept does not explain anything about how things are supposed to work in the absence of an understanding, that, for a short time, yes the boss is the boss”<
That's a normative argument. You're telling us how things should ( are supposed ) to work and justifying that claim by special pleading that it's only for a short time. The Boss is the boss. For a short time? Who determines what that "short time" means? I would imagine that the short time is what the Boss says it is. At least from his subjective view of things.
Your argument is totally subjective. Maybe I don't agree with you about how things are :"supposed" to work. (Obviously I don't because I'm responding negatively to your claim.) Probably the best response is a unified Seig Heil from the gallery. Just saying that the Boss is the Boss implies that he has absolute authority to do what he wants. That's the objective of a dictator. He doesn't have absolute authority. He has no absolute powers. They're always conditional and come with restrictions. We don't give unlimited power to anybody in government. He's restricted by the Constitution. There are limits to his power. You seem to be under the idea that the Boss is the Boss is all that we need to know. Unless you're talking about Bruce Springsteen, you're wildly mistaken.
You’re definitely on to something with Mr. Kurtz and the “unified Seig Heil from the gallery.”
Would you believe that Crazytown can get a hell of a lot crazier than this particular thread?
you are one of those bedwetters who sees a nazi behind every bush I suppose. or perhaps not since you keep on coming back to converse?
I can see where L4D and the other “patients” in her facility view much of the outside world as “crazy”.
There were some signs of progress here when she once admitted to “losing it”, or words to that effect.
I thought that self- recognition might indicate some progress, of at least the first step to recovery/ rehabilitation.
It appears that is not the case, and she continued to view🤯🧐🤪😳the outside world from her own unique vantage point.
yawn, spare me the philo 101 doubletalk.
this is the nature of executive power. someone is the boss. nobody said it is unconditional or unlimited. that is your straw man argument.
the proposition was simply that the president can’t be indicted by his own DOJ of which he is essentially the boss. in case you did not know it the Cabinet which the President appoints and serves at his pleasure includes the Attorney General.
try an organizational chart or something if that’s too complicated for you to understand with all your bogus semantical bs
From The Office of Legal Counsel:
The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.
That is the actual OLC opinion that Mueller cited in Volume II of The Mueller Report. The notion that you’re pedaling–that The Boss can’t be indicted by the employee–is, at best, a misreading of the phrase “constitutionally assigned functions.”
In the case of the Justice Department and the United States District Attorneys, the capacity of the executive branch to enforce the law is not exclusively dependent upon the Chief-Executive power of The President to hire and fire. That is so because both The Justice Department and The U.S. Attorneys were created by Congress in the aftermath of the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson for having violated the Tenure of Office Act, amongst other charges, so that the will of The Congress to enforce The Reconstruction could not be thwarted so easily as Johnson had thwarted the will of Congress simply by misusing and abusing the power to hire and fire.
The actual OLC opinion at issue is not the argument that you and Mespo are pedaling.
nazi taunts dont work on me fool. I could care less if you or anybody else doesn’t like my idea of executive power.
and so what anyways? You may not know the names, I’ll fill them in for you. Carl Schmitt was a prominent German jurist and yes he was a member of the NSDAP.
and yes some people draw the Bush era “unitary executive” theories back to inspiration from Leo Strauss a U of Chi professor who introduced the thinking of Carl Schmitt to various americans. I wouldn’t know if that was really a source or not but that’s what people say when they are trying to frame what is actually just an obvious interpretation of a simple organizational chart
Here, you can read him for yourself genius
I am proud to introduce people to the work of Carl Schmitt but in this case it isnt even necessary. But for those who want a further bibliography how about “The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy” which also reads like prophecy for scheiss-shows like this.
Of course, anyone can be indicted. If one can indict a ham sandwich, one can indict a president. An inferior office, however, cannot
violate department policy and said policy may only be modified by the department director. Sessions could have indicted the
The question is “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”
If no crime is committed, can a person be blamed for the crime that was not committed?
If a person cannot be blamed for a crime that was not committed, can the person that cannot be blamed for the crime that was not
committed be found guilty of obstruction of justice in an investigation of a crime that was not committed by the person who did not
And since we are on the subject of corrective action related to jurisprudence in the United States of America, this scenario is not
dissimilar to that of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln in that if everything Lincoln did was unconstitutional, which it was, then everything in Lincoln’s
entire legacy is unconstitutional, which it is – most prominently the entirety of the eminently injurious, illegal and unconstitutional
“Reconstruction Amendments” – requiring the repeal and abrogation of every piece of legislation and amendment imposed by Lincoln
and/or his successors.
If you’re half right, you’re half wrong and if you’re half wrong, you’re all wrong!
President Trump is reaching “critical mass” in justification for seizing power, as Abraham Lincoln did, to save the republic.
The inmates have taken over the asylum, communism is unconstitutional and communists are mortal enemies of America and the American Constitution.
I’ve no time now George, but for your info I seen earlier tonight it’s went a full bore BS JFK type cover up.
Someone sent the script to the key players & they all seemed to jump on broad again.
You see, Bay of Pigs, JFK, Operation Paper Clip, Op.. Gladio (sic)
OKC, 911, etc… just more PR Bullshiiit story as Mr law degrees/etc., know the public, doped, have the attention span of a nat!
Well, they Phk’ed up this time! That BS isn’t selling this time!
I suggest Turley gets himself/family/friends “Make America Great Again” Hat’s & host a neighborhood BBQ with a mock trial for the bast*sd that cooked the brisket & sold that goat p*iss as Beer. LOL;)
Anyway, I think I see another back room deal done/closed, and now it’s just another shiiit sandwich & we all get a bite.
ha oky there is no script. these corporate hacks just understand what they should do to please the oligarchy, and they do it. no matter if the target was initially an oligarch himself, because, if he parts company with the rest, they do him in, just like an errant mafia boss who’s gone straight, so he has to be “corrected”
I believe you’re correct.
What I was suggesting last night was I doubt all those guilty of Treason, Sedition, Esponage against our nation over our leader Trump will be charged & end up in prison.
I’ve been sensing a deal is done or almost done where those in power offer up to the public a few token name. ie: Comey/McCage/Brennin(sic)/ ….
Communism is a political philosophy right? Like Fascism.
Where in the Constitution does it say that either of those political theories is unconstitutional? IF the First amendment provides freedom of thought ( religious liberty) and freedom of speech, and the press and the right to assemble and petition your government for redress of grievances, then what part of that says, “however, communism and fascism are unconstitutional”. The Constitution provides for representative government. That’s about it. Frankly I have no use for or interest in Communism or Fascism or White Nationalism. However none of those “isms” are considered unconstitutional. Maybe you can point it out to me specifically under one of the Articles.
“When you strike at a king, you must kill him.”
― Ralph Waldo Emerson
“When you strike at a king, you must kill him.” The House Dems would be wise to consider that statement. A wounded Trump is a wounded animal.
I think the Democrats already tried to kill him and failed. The Dems are interested in power. Trump is interested in a strong economy and American citizens. He could have worked with either side. He was not an ideologue at the start of his term. He has now learned the type of cr-p Democrats of today are capable of.
If an investigation of “alleged” collusion was, in fact, necessary, it appears that Robert Mueller was not an appropriate choice for the Special Counsel role. When the collusion narrative could not be validated, he provided the opposition party with ambiguity which will be used to keep Democrats issuing subpoenas and investigating whatever they desire, all at the expense of the American taxpayer.
Why Mueller failed to make a traditional prosecutorial determination is an essential issue and one that I hope his testimony will clear up definitively. In the interim, all we know is that a novel and unprecedented theory of obstruction led to a novel non-determinative prosecutorial decision or perhaps more aptly, non-decision.
Mueller must have known that a primary part of his overall remit was to search for the truth and bring clarity and closure to the issues. By failing to render a determination one way or another, it painfully does neither and simply leaves Trump [substitute “a citizen” to remove partisan bias] without any viable due process and in a position of having to prove his innocence which stands in stark opposition to our long-standing principles of jurisprudence.
Ironically, Mueller’s non-determination undercuts his own argument that this novel theory of obstruction somehow holds no undue or deleterious implications for the execution of Article II powers. The fact that the Mueller report has now been transmogrified into a political Rohrschach test based on this novel and expansive theory should be telling enough. In essence, under this theory, all executive power becomes beholden to Presidential (or Executive Branch official) mind-reading and wouldn’t it be the strangest thing if it simultaneously and wondrously opened the Pandora’s Box of partisan bias and abuse.
Let’s take Trump’s firing of Comey: Dems will see obvious corrupt intent and obstruction of justice while Republicans will see an action long overdue and a legitimate exercise of presidential authority. Let’s put the shoe on the other foot: President Obama declared on a national broadcast that Hillary Clinton was careless but had no ill intent and there was no harm to national security regarding the Clinton e-mail/server scandal (coincidentally or not, this is precisely what the DOJ/FBI ultimately determined). All this while Obama assured the public that there will never be any political influence in any investigation because no one is above the law.
Under Mueller’s novel theory of obstruction, Obama could well have been investigated and if corrupt intent were found, he would be guilty of obstruction of justice. Naturally, D’s will claim this was a President opining on an investigation as the de facto chief law enforcement officer while clearly not attempting to influence an investigation while R’s will claim this was clear corrupt intent and that Obama was signaling in plain view the prosecutorial conclusion DOJ needed to reach and which, in fact they did. Interesting how that works depending on your partisan perspective.
The point is this novel theory of obstruction would have the potential to hold a wide swath of Executive Branch actions hostage subject to determination of corrupt intent–a matter perhaps best and more accurately left to the local soothsayer–if at all. Somehow I seemed to have misread that part of the Constitution: the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America…..subject to DOJ investigation and determination of proper intent.
Somewhere the Founding Fathers are stirring uneasily and for good reason.
– “Mueller’s punt” virtually guarantees at least another year and a half of the Adam Schiff TV series, millions more words from the press, countless hours of talk by the “talking heads” on TV, Congressional grandstanding, etc.
Because this will all happen on top of a 2 1/2 + years of investigations that was supposedly going to provide something more concrete on terms of answers, I think more more more voters will tune out this continuing static.
The other factor is that the Democratic House leadship has to consider is the increasing impatience and hostility directed at them if they overplay their hand.
That’s why I think the senior, established House leadership will prevail in keeping the impeachment hawks in check. Short of impeachment, there’ll be a lot of free air time for committee chairman like Schiff and Nadler to campaign against Trump’s likely 2020 re-election campaign (I’m assuming that he’ll run and get nominated).
The Thirteenth Letter of the Roman Alphabet said, “. . . leaves Trump [substitute “a citizen” to remove partisan bias] without any viable due process and in a position of having to prove his innocence . . . ”
Hogwash. Trump was not indicted. The Office of Legal Counsel has opined that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The Justice Department has a regulation based upon the OLC opinion that prevents the indictment of a sitting president. No indictment means no trial. No trial means no accusation. No accusation means that the presumption of Trump’s innocence remains intact. Mueller will not challenge the presumption of Trump’s innocence in a court of law. And there’s your due process for you, Thirteenth Letter.
It’s not Mueller’s job to clear Trump’s name. You don’t like it? Lump it.
There’s a reason why prosecutorial decision are binary. You are correct in that Trump should be presumed innocent and it’s certainly comforting to know that you presume Trump’s innocence.
If a sitting President cannot be indicted, then a sitting President cannot demand a traditional, binary, prosecutorial decision to initiate or to decline a prosecution [to indict or not to indict] either.
A sitting President cannot enjoy the benefit of immunity from prosecution and the benefit of exoneration at the same time.
Suppose that one could assert one’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination even whilst demanding that the prosecutor should clear one’s name by exonerating one of any criminal culpability.
Does Trump still have the power to pardon himself?
M, your main argument is underlined and then undermined by the example you raise of supposed parallel behavior by Obama. If Mueller’s obstruction case were based only on Trump expressing his opinion on an ongoing investigation – a harsh and personalized opinion expressed daily for it’s entire existence – which is what Obama did once and respectfully in this example, I’d get it. But absent demonstrated actions other than that by Obama aimed at the investigation, the parallel doesn’t hold. Correct me if I’m wrong, but expressing his opinion was not by itself a feature of the 10 or 11 instances of obstruction by Trump which Mueller investigated.
Further, among those instances are alleged illegal witness tampering, and of those otherwise legal, like firing Comey, many otherwise legal behaviors may become illegal if done for illegal purposes, like obstruction of justice. This is true for private citizens as well as the President. I have a legal drivers license, but if I use it while driving a get away car for a bank robbery, I cannot use the fact that it may be current and that I have proper insurance as a defense for my behavior.
excerpted from Page 214 of The Mueller Report:
Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible.3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if
individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in . . . [lost in page break. stay tuned]
1 A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222,
222, 260 (2000) (OLC
2 See U.S. CONST. Art257-258 (discussing relationship
between impeachment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President).
3 OLC Op. at 257 n.36 grand jury could continue to gather evidence throughout the period of
4 OLC Op. at 255 (“Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not
preclude such prosecution once the President’s term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by
resignation or impeachment”).
Excerpted from Page 214 of The Mueller Report:
[completion of the previously interrupted sentence] . . . safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual
investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought.
And there you have it in Mueller’s own words. When no charges can be brought, no judgment that the President committed crimes can be reached out of concerns for fairness.
And, now, in my words–not Mueller’s words–a sitting President cannot enjoy the benefit of immunity from prosecution and the benefit of exoneration of criminal culpability at the same time.
With the notable exception of the speaking indictments and various court filings, Mueller has been playing the part of an inscrutable Easter-Island Monolith throughout the Special Counsel’s investigation. And now that we have a redacted version of The Mueller report that Trump and his lawyers have been demanding since last Summer, it really ought not to be too hard to see that Mueller probably intends to prosecute Trump for Obstruction of Justice once Trump is out of Office. Because standing trial in a court of law before a jury of one’s peers while being confronted with the witnesses against one and running the risk of a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt remains the ordinary, everyday way for an everyman defendant to clear his or her name.
That’s why Trump, his lawyers and his many devoted disciples are complaining most bitterly about Mueller’s refusal to exonerate Trump of Obstruction of Justice. What you all really want is a permanent grant of immunity to Trump. There’s only one way that happens. A presidential pardon. Mueller does not hold the Article II power to pardon Trump. And neither does Vice President Pence–yet. That leaves Trump, himself, with the power to pardon Trump, himself. And he has a pen. No? D’oh! Someone get that man a pen–STAT.
– I remembered that comment when I read the article.
In hindsight, it’s amazing that the press Corp, etc. maintained a strict code of silence regarding JFK and LBJ’s ‘activities”.
That “code” us completely gone, now.
But since the 1990s, I’m not sure if those kinds of revelations about a candidare much of a political liability.
Tom…..I think the Left brought back “the code” for Obama. That’s the reason Biden was chosen as his VP….He got son Beau to sabotage Larry Sinclair’s credibility re: supposed salacious experiences with Obama, (not to mention a supposed murder coverup).
Two weeks later Joe is announced as VP pick. Straight out of LBJ playbook.
I don’t think Sinclair has much in the way of credibility.
Even if he were credible, I don’t know how damaging that would have been to Obama.
The kind of rhetoric his pastor, long-term friend and mentor used didn’t seem to hurt him one bit, as he was “allowed to” distance himself from that by appearing to be surprised that Rev. Wright made those statements.
That kind of association would sink most candidates; if that didn’t severely damage Obama politically, I question if even verified accusations of the sort that Sinclair throws out there would have seriously hurt Obama’s candidacy.
Tom….you’re probably right, but why did they expend so much energy and so many resources to lock him up without explaining what he did and why the AG of Delaware was spearheading it?
He must have been a threat for them to have him arrested. IMO, he wasn’t credible until they made such a big deal out of him.
See what I mean?
I didn’t look at his criminal record that closely, Cindy; from a quick glance, it looks like he’s had a variety of brushes with the law over a long period, and in different jurisdictions.
Tom….yes, he has had a messed up life, it seems. I wonder if he’s even still alive.
He was recently defeated in a 3-way race for mayor of a Florida community. He didn’t appear to have the best resume of the 3 candidates.
oh my gosh…..Not the best resume’? LOL
yeah that guys Sinclair was not credible. about as credible as a jailhouse snitch. a sad confused drug addicted homosexual. if obama was as bad as what he said, then there would have been 100 larry sinclairs to accuse him.
If he was not credible at all why have the Attorney General of Delaware involved in a major way?
That was an over-the-top way to discredit a total nobody, don’t ya think?
Also, there are a myriad of stories from the bars and the boys in Boys Town, Chicago. That’s no secret.
I went to law school in chicago and didn’t hear them. but I was not at U of Chi and I could have cared less what anybody was doing at queer bars. I was not into queer bars myself though I used to often go to a fine Mexican restaurant in Old Town neighborhood which was supposedly in the midst of a bunch of commies and homosexual digs.
i was also not involved in illegal drug use so I wouldnt know about that
now if per se, just arguendo, I was in violation of certain unconstitutional laws concerning the right to keep and bear arms, well, I never got caught and now we know that those were invalid anyhow. and I never shot anybody so no problemo on that account either.
That Larry Sinclair is a nutter in my book. I listened to him on youtube one time and did not find his wild tales credible. I have seen a lot better UFO testimonies than his. I can think of a thousand things to dislike about Obama before I resort to a wild story from a drug addicted homo jailbird.
Mr. Kurtz. I appreciste your comment.. I am not saying I believe the off-the-wall Larry Sinclair at all.
My point is that the Obama team sent in a “fixer” to fix the Sinclair matter… Why? And why so dramatically? The Delaware AG who has no jurisdiction in DC? Really? Why, If Sinclair is just a nutter, as you say?
No one can answer that.
I dont know those particulars. Maybe so
if you are talking about their sex stuff, nobody cares anymore
and back then the press had a sense that it was besides the point, which I think is so.
they say eisenhower had a comar too
for a warlord like Eisenhower you can bet they would not complain of it
Trump is no warlord, and no darling of the corporate media oligarchs, so they have made his trifles into as much hay as they could, but few have cared.
Comments are closed.