Mueller’s Mess On Intent Leaves Democrats In A Muddle On Impeachment

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”

  1. Estovir,
    I don’t think the Mad Max/ Hyphen-Cortez/ Rapid Tlaib etc. wing of the Democratic House is strong enough to prevail in their demands for impeachment.
    We’ll see….should be interesting to watch how this all ultimately plays out.
    As far as factions with a party political at odds with each other, it reminds me of the issues Speaker Boehner had to deal with. His successor really didn’t have his heart in the job, and he ( Ryan) may have already been thinking about leaving office when he took over as speaker.

    1. it appears they will lose 2020 because of idiotic business schemas. They are excluding Fox News from the DNC primary debates

      Wowwwwwwww! How idiotic because independents and potential conservatives who might have given the DNC candidates a chance will rightly conclude that the DNC is about exclusion, just the opposite about what they say they are

      Waytogo!

      ——

      The Democrats’ Debate Debacle
      Candidate proliferation and a Fox News ban mean the party will fail where the GOP succeeded in 2016.

      The DNC has excluded Fox from hosting a debate, which means there is no incentive for Fox to work within the DNC framework. Fox already has held multiple highly rated and well-received townhalls with Democratic candidates, including one last week with Sen. Bernie Sanders. It may not be long before Fox announces it will host a debate independent of the DNC. With 2.4 million prime-time viewers, it would be near impossible for many candidates to say no, especially those near the bottom looking to break out.

      If the DNC system breaks down, countless left-wing groups will seize the opening to host debates on their particular cause. Candidates looking to cater to these groups would find these invitations hard to resist, and since the DNC lacks any meaningful penalty to deter media outlets or candidates from participating in such debates, any attempt to shore up the official series would likely fail.

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-democrats-debate-debacle-11555972205

  2. Nancy Pelosi has lost control of her caucus

    Bwahahahahahaaha

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcSmlSok32g

    ——-

    Pelosi To Democratic Colleagues: This Is Why We Can’t Impeach Trump

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/04/22/pelosi-pens-letter-to-her-fellows-dems-we-cant-proceed-with-impeachment-you-kn-n2545181

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Monday penned a letter to her Democratic colleagues about the Mueller report. Without coming out and directly saying it, Pelosi told her caucus she doesn’t want to go through with impeachment proceedings against President Trump. The reason? The American people will see their proceedings as an act of “passion or prejudice,” not one of “truth finding.”

    Here’s the full letter

    April 22, 2019

    Dear Democratic Colleague,

    As you know, last Thursday’s release of the redacted Mueller Report has caused a public outcry for truth and accountability. Since its release, our Committees of jurisdiction and their staffs have spent the holiday weekend reviewing its contents. Our country is well served by the exceptional leadership of our Chairs to seek the truth for the American people.

    While we do not have the full report and the underlying exhibits, including the grand jury testimony, two of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusions stand out: one, the “sweeping and systematic” Russian interference in our elections; and two, the President’s repeated efforts to thwart cooperation with the independent prosecutors in their pursuit of justice.

    As to Mueller’s conclusion regarding Russian interference in our elections, House Democrats have led the way to strengthen our democracy with the early passage of H.R. 1.

    The For The People Act addresses the sweeping election protection, ethics reforms, and voting rights protections that the public has demanded to ensure that each voter has an equal voice and that their votes are counted as cast. We continue to urge our Senate colleagues to take up these reforms. And in light of the President’s defenders arguing in defense of receiving and weaponizing stolen emails, we continue to press our Republican House counterparts to take up our pledge to refuse to use stolen, hacked, or falsified information in campaigns because the American people deserve honest debate.

    As to the President’s conduct, we will scrupulously assert Congress’ constitutional duty to honor our oath of office to support and defend the Constitution and our democracy. That includes honoring the Article I responsibility of the legislative branch to conduct oversight over the other branches of government, unified in our search for the truth and in upholding the security of our elections.

    While our views range from proceeding to investigate the findings of the Mueller report or proceeding directly to impeachment, we all firmly agree that we should proceed down a path of finding the truth. It is also important to know that the facts regarding holding the President accountable can be gained outside of impeachment proceedings. As we proceed to uncover the truth and present additional needed reforms to protect our democracy, we must show the American people we are proceeding free from passion or prejudice, strictly on the presentation of fact.

    Because we still have not seen the full Mueller Report, I have enclosed the bicameral letter Democratic leaders sent rejecting Attorney General Barr’s effort to provide the remainder of the report to only a few Members of Congress, and only in a classified setting. We insist on the public’s right to know, so the American people can learn the truth and Congress can make our decision on how to proceed.

    Whether currently indictable or not, it is clear that the President has, at a minimum, engaged in highly unethical and unscrupulous behavior which does not bring honor to the office he holds. It is also clear that the Congressional Republicans have an unlimited appetite for such low standards. The GOP should be ashamed of what the Mueller report has revealed, instead of giving the President their blessings.

    Today, at 5:00 pm ET, we will have a conference call for our Chairs to report on the status of their review of the redacted Mueller report, their request for the full report and underlying exhibits, and discuss what comes next.

    Today is also Earth Day, where we sadly see Republicans’ continued denial of the climate crisis and active efforts to roll back our hard-fought environmental protections. When we return to Washington, we will continue to move forward with our Climate Action Now Act, H.R. 9, to uphold the Paris Climate Accord and lay the foundation for more bold action.

    United in purpose, we must make the Republican denial face the reality of what the Trump Administration is doing to our natural environment and our constitutional environment – and act with the boldest common denominator to repair their damage and build a better future.

    With the hope that you had a Happy Easter and a joyful Passover, I thank you for your leadership For The People.

    We know the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, like Reps. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (NY), Rashida Tlaib (MI) and Ilhan Omar (MN), want to move forward with impeachment proceedings. They even campaigned on doing suck. Other more moderate Democrats, like Pelosi, see the danger in moving full steam ahead with impeachment.

    The Democratic infighting is sure to continue, especially as Pelosi loses control of her caucus. It’s something that we’ve all, sadly, come to expect. The Democrats aren’t interested in learning the truth. They’re interested in fueling their own agenda and taking down President Trump at any and all costs. Their prosecutor, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, didn’t find evidence of collusion and they’re still not happy with the results. They’re going to dig and dig and hope they find something – anything – to get Trump ousted from office. They couldn’t win the election so they’re now looking at using Congressional powers for political gains. It’s sick and disgusting. And not what the Founding Fathers intended. At all.

  3. Mespo, if read my postings you know where I come from. I hope they impeach Trump. He will prevail, and after that, what happens? Do they impeach him twice? If the Dems impeach this guy and they are not successful, Donald Trump will be the worst nightmare they ever had.

    1. I am not one to agree with Noam Chomsky but he is totally right about the Left giving Trump a wonderful gift for 2020 reelection with Mueller’s findings

      The fact that the Left is so fragmented tells us they have no unified mission for 2020 other than “Trump….bad”

      The Left has no viable message for Americans

      1. As the Left Trolls on here say….added for emphasis

        Noam Chomsky Calls Dem Focus on Russia a ‘Huge Gift’ to Trump: ‘They May Have Handed Him the Next Election’

        Noam Chomsky, the noted progressive scholar, believes Democrats have focused far too much on Russia. And he thinks it might earn them four more years of President Donald Trump.

        Speaking at a forum in Boston with Amy Goodman, Chomsky stated his view that he always believed there was going to be little to no proof of collusion in the Mueller Report.

        “[T]he Democrats are helping him,” Chomsky said. “They are. Take the focus on Russia-gate. What’s that all about? I mean, it was pretty obvious at the beginning that you’re not going to find anything very serious about Russian interference in elections.”

        He added, “As far as Trump collusion with the Russians, that was never going to amount to anything more than minor corruption, maybe building a Trump hotel in Red Square or something like that, but nothing of any significance.”

        Chomsky went on to say that he believes focusing too heavily on Russia may cost Democrats dearly next November.

        “The Democrats invested everything in this issue,” Chomsky said. “Well, turned out there was nothing much there. They gave Trump a huge gift. In fact, they may have handed him the next election. … That’s a matter of being so unwilling to deal with fundamental issues, that they’re looking for something on the side that will somehow give political success.”

        Watch above, via Democracy Now. The relevant portion begins at 48:20.

        https://www.mediaite.com/trump/noam-chomsky-calls-dem-focus-on-russia-a-huge-gift-to-trump-they-may-have-handed-him-the-next-election/

  4. Don’t extend yourself by being do detailed and specific in your ”’content”, LT anonymous.
    You’re putting WAY too much thought into this little sniping comments, and the strain is getting to be too much for you.

        1. Always appreciate the deep “content” from LT Anonymous.🙄
          It was so profound🤔 I guess she thought it was worth repeating.

        2. as above, emphasis added


          For the commercial press to recapture any dignity after this collusion debacle, it has to at least start admitting to its role in artificially raising expectations in the last two years. It’s hard to imagine them doing that, however. This story has been so enormously profitable for cable stations, in particular, it will be hard for them to let go of this narrative. What are they going to do, go back to just reporting the news? One can almost feel how depressed network executives must be at the thought. They’ve trained audiences to expect bombshells. What will they sell now?

          1. Mueller referred 14 ongoing criminal investigations to other United States Attorney’s Offices. Every last one of those ongoing investigations is going to blossom and flourish and produce delicious and nutritious fruit.

  5. Excerpted from the Mueller report:

    In addition, the President had a motive to put the FBI’s Russia investigation behind him. The evidence does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia: As described in Volume I, the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official. But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns. Although the President publicly stated during and after the election that he had no connection to Russia, the Trump Organization, through Michael Cohen, was pursuing the proposed Trump Tower Moscow project through June 2016 and candidate Trump was repeatedly briefed on the progress of those efforts.498 In addition, some witnesses said that Trump was aware that [redacted] at a time when public reports stated that Russian intelligence officials were behind the hacks, and that Trump privately sought information about future WikiLeaks releases.499 More broadly, multiple witnesses described the President’s preoccupation with press coverage of the Russia investigation and his persistent concern that it raised questions about the legitimacy of his election.500

    [edit]

    Second, many obstruction cases involve the attempted or actual cover-up of an underlying crime. Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had an improper obstructive purpose, see, e.g. , United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 1988), or that he contemplated an effect on an official proceeding, see, e.g., United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558, 591 (2d Cir. 2015). But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating, in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that “obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime”). Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong. In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the President’s conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events-such as advance notice of WikiLeaks’s release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family.

    1. Repeated for emphsasis. Captain Mueller on deck. Look smart, you swabbies. Look smart and be snappy about it:

      But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns.

      See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating, in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that “obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime”).

      Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment.

    2. “The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. Persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation?”

      “The office did not identify evidence in these interactions of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian government.”

      “…the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign consider or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

  6. Read some of my comments, genius.
    Have someone explain them to you.
    You chose to shoot your anonymouth mouth off rather that responding to what I wrote about the odds of impeachment.
    There is a site that Darren Smith once recommended for someone of your particular lifestyle.
    I’ll see if I can find it in the archives, if it’ll help you out, anonascum.

  7. Mess and a mudlle! Six bits.

    Threre will be a new song out next year.

    (music)
    Where have all the Mullers gone?
    Long time passing.
    Where have all the Mullers gone?
    Long long time ago.

    We have just a muddle now.
    Muddle and a cow.
    When will they ever learn?
    When will they ever learn?

  8. I remember the good old days when Democrats fearfully worried that conservatives might not accept the result of the 2016 election.

    Trump is an anti-Semite! Impeach! No? Staunch ally of Israel?
    Trump is mentally incompetent. Impeach! No?
    Trump paid a mistress off, like he’s probably done for years. Impeach! Drat. That won’t work, either?
    Trump was colluding with Russia? Impeach as soon as the Mueller Report proves it. Oh, dang. Innocent of collusion? Impeach anyway! We’re out of ideas! Luckily, their voters have instant amnesia about all the other failed accusations they have made. It’s like the day just resets with a black slate, with the same to do list, with a total of one item: Get Trump OUt of Office, By Any Means Fair or Foul.

    Democrats are persecuting conservatives in an effort to silence free speech and take control of government. This is an abuse of power. Do not let them.

    1. when Democrats fearfully worried

      Nope. When any person defends the killing of an unborn baby, they fear nothing. They lose respect for you, me and all life

    2. Yeah, Karen, you just reminded us: ‘Trump hinted he wouldn’t accept the election results (if he lost)’.

      Strangely Trump never accounted for that attitude. Yet Democrats are supposed to accept, without question, Trump’s Electoral College victory.

      1. That was a petty remark by Trump who probably felt ( like most) that he was heading for defeat.
        Some Democrats to this day are accepting Hillary’s 2016 loss with the same grace Trump would have likely displayed had he lossed.

            1. “I’ll get it right yet!” -TomBoy

              I doubt it. (You may be able to correct the spelling, but as for fixing the content? Well, that’s another thing.)

              1. I don’t don’t think LT Anonymous knows the meaning of the word “content” or ‘”substance”.
                But she likes to use those words anyway.

      2. Reality, Peter, reality. Trump didn’t fire Mueller though many said he would. Trump didn’t collude though many said he did. Trump didn’t obstruct though Democrats continue to press that issue.

        Hillary lost and she along with the Democrats still haven’t accepted that fact over 2 years after Trump’s victory. It sort of tells us what type of people we are dealing with.

      3. Trump did not do anything to negate any election, however, did he?

        However, we have the politicized FBI using unverified opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton in order to spy on a Presidential campaign.

        We have Democrats trying to get rid of the electoral college in order to defraud voters.

        We have Democrats saying that, in light of the Mueller investigation fining Trump innocent of collusion with Russia, they should impeach him anyways.

        There is no comparison.

        Trump was absolutely right that the Democrats have been trying to defraud voters, as well as him. If he felt there had been any fraud that took place in a loss, then he would have ever right to demand an investigation.

        Democrats, however, refused to investigate the person proven to have tried to defraud voters, Hillary Clinton, and instead have targeted her victim.

        This is fascist behavior.

  9. The Professor’s legal analysis is all very interesting, but the finer points aren’t top of mind for those in Congress and the media applying the “impeach the motherf***r” standard. The impeachment discussions are sadly lacking in principle have become an exercise in politics and political power.

    At this point, the focus needs to be on the actions of the FBI, DOJ, et al. in seeking a warrant from the secret FISA court, in which they relied at least in part on the Russian-sourced Steele dossier. The real threat to our democracy is the ability of the government to obtain warrants, ex parte and in secret, to spy on American citizens. It is made even worse when the spying is done in the context of an election. People being people, it is only a matter of time until that power gets abused. This is not a partisan issue. It transcends politics.

  10. Breaking news: “Two months before special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed in the spring of 2017, President Donald Trump picked up the phone and called the head of the largest U.S. intelligence agency. Trump told Mike Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, that news stories alleging that Trump’s 2016 White House campaign had ties to Russia were false and the president asked whether Rogers could do anything to counter them.” Because they had never seen anything like this in their years of government service, those present wrote a memo detailing what was said, which they placed into a safe.

    Still think there’s no collusion and that everything’s ducky?

    1. Everything’s ducky. You have emotional investments in certain scenarios. The scenarios are not true. You’re upset about that.

    2. Natacha is elected to Congress🙄 ( I know, but play along). They are news reports that she’s owned and operated a cathouse and also sold crack cocaine to neighborhood children.
      These reports come largely from an opposition research dossier hired by the opponent she defeated in the election.
      She picks up the phone and calls someone involved in investigating these charges to knock it off, quit leaking to press, and clear her name.
      Very suspicious.
      ( Turns out that the crack cocaine rumors were false…..she only sold to adults. And she only operated the cathouse, but was not the owner).

  11. “Factually informed” by comments to this blog? Comments like yours, Allan’s, Tom Nash’s and the list goes on?

    Now that’s funny.

    Have a good day, Braggy. You, too, JAY.

    1. If the troll groupie “anonymous” has a specific instance where she disagrees on a point of fact, she’s free to weigh in. She’s free to, not capable OF anything beyond cutting and pasting, posting links, kissing the trolls’ ***es, and making bitchy little remarks like she just did.

        1. A very substantive and unsubstantiated remark, anonymous Anon. Maybe you’re taking pointers now from LT anonymous.
          I don’t hide behind an alias when I “gossip” about a chicken**** weasel like you.
          And I reserve that kind of “gossip’ to the few ***holes here like you who are asking for it.

            1. It sounds like you may want to get on touch with Brock, anonymous Anon.
              Given the tenor of your comment.
              I’m not sure if it posted, but there was an alternative site once recommended for those of your particular, uh, preferences.

        1. Excerpted from the section of the Mueller report discussing Trump’s written answers to Mueller’s written questions:

          Did you have any discussions prior to January 20, 2017, regarding a potential pardon or other action to benefit Julian Assange? If yes, describe who you had the discussion(s) with, when, and the content of the discussion(s).

          I do not recall having had any discussion during the campaign regarding a pardon or action to benefit Julian Assange.

          [end excerpt]

          Gee! I wonder why Assange would seek a pardon from Trump before Trump was elected? What did Julian know? And when did Julian know it?

          1. Wait a second. Mueller’s question includes the transition period (prior to January 20, 2017–inauguration day). Trump’s answer was limited to the campaign. Trump did not say that he does not recall discussing a pardon for Assange after November 8th, 2016, but before January 20th, 2017.

        2. Did you know that when a lawyer poses a question to a witness there has to be a foundation for that question? Do you think that Mueller posed that question to Trump without any foundation? Unless and until you answer those questions, FUBARAllan, you have no business calling anybody else by the name of “brainless.”

          1. Tweedle dee and tweedle dumb. You and the brainless one can decide who is the former and who is the latter.

            Accepting you quotations from the Mueller report:
            “Did you have any discussions prior to January 20, 2017, regarding a potential pardon or other action to benefit Julian Assange? If yes, describe who you had the discussion(s) with, when, and the content of the discussion(s).”

            Trump’s response is essentially no.

            You state: “when a lawyer poses a question to a witness there has to be a foundation for that question?

            Apparently not. If the lawyer had a foundation for the question the lawyer would have presented it. Trump’s answer was no to a circumstance that never existed.

            TDS is eating away at your brain so that at present you are making a fool out of yourself.

            1. Some articles state that Assange can easily forestall extradition to the U.S. for years.
              Given that the British have him incarcerated in a “grime” “drab” prison, I’m not sure he’ll fight extradiction.

                  1. Allan,
                    “Feeding you the answers” to L4B’s quiz of the day reminded me of something I hadn’t thought of in decades.
                    I still feel a little guilty for pulling this prank on a classmate and friend who sat in front of me. We were both at the very back of the 6th of 7th grade classroom.
                    The teacher, nun, called on my friend to answer question in science class. She asked him if he knew what happened when the humidity was very high. He hesitated, so I “fed”him the “answer” and whispered “You drown”.
                    I didn’t think the guy would really blurt that out as an answer, but he did. Everyone, including the teacher was rolling in laughter and this poor guy’s turning red as a beat.
                    I apologized to him later, and there were no hard feelings.
                    But anytime you need answers for L4B’s quizes, I’ll be glad to help out. Just because she never answers questions ddoesn’t mean we have to dodge questions.

  12. I don’t understand why I keep hearing that no one in the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians. What do you call the handing over of internal polling information to Russians by the campaign chair, Manafort? It was an overt act that gave the Russians something to further their efforts to influence the campaign. And then there is Trump giving the Russians the “order” to hack Clinton’s emails and then DNC emails get dumped. I see conspiracy.

    The Democrats in the House can continue their investigation, take the Senate, then impeach with a conviction. Maybe their investigation will show Pence to be as dirty as Trump, after all, why did Manafort insist on Pence as VP?

    1. Bettykath – If Democrats do take the Senate, and then impeach Trump, we can all be sure that it will not be any semblance of justice. If they get the seats, they will impeach him for political expediency. Then they will set their sites on Pence. They will abuse their power to defraud voters. Then they will abolish the Electoral College to disenfranchise most of the states in the United States, destroying the Republic.

      Meanwhile, the politicized mainstream media and public education system and social media will continue to try to influence voters through propaganda, until they have set up yet another Leftist dictatorship. Books like Animal Farm, Fahrenheit 451, and others will be banned as having an alternataive viewpoint to tyranny. The Green New Deal or some facsimile will pass. Air travel will cease. The 2nd Amendment will be abolished. Fossil fuels will be abandoned. People will chop down every tree and burn dung to heat their homes. Air pollution will increase. Gas prices will skyrocket. Electrical grids will collapse as alternative energy is both too expensive and unreliable. Medical technology will be abandoned, as it virtually already has in Venezuela. Only the ruling political class will have access to enough food, travel, money, and energy. Enforcers will show up at people’s homes to punish them for using the wrong pronoun, criticizing the government, wearing their old MAGA hats, or posting a conservative video. We are practically there now with the harassment and doxxing of conservatives. There will be the inevitable starvation and deprivation that always accompany Leftist dictatorships. Only, this time, there will be no free United States to stop it.

      Think it won’t happen? Learn history. It’s not conservatives who seek to destroy the Constitution and our republic. It’s the Left.

      Extremist Democrats are fighting for dystopia, with their blindly loyal fans cheering them on. Moderates seem to have abandoned taking any action at all.

  13. So, you are confused by why Mueller didn’t go further than he did? Probably: 1. He is and has always been a Republican. Despite all of Trump’s endless lying about everything, his bragging about assaulting women, his praise of White Supremacists, caging of young children, and general lack accomplishments, Republicans are Republicans first and American patriots second. Exhibit 1: Hypocrite-in-Chief, Mikey Pence, who, with his butt-ugly wife stand smiling and supporting a man who constantly lies, who brags about assaulting women, who is a racist and xenophobe. Exhibit 2: 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.” Being a loyal Republican, Mueller gave Trump every benefit of the doubt, but the facts are that Trump’s campaign met with Russians to get dirt on his political opponent, they didn’t report this contact to the FBI, and that Trump lied about it. Neither of these things are acceptable conduct for the POTUS, regardless of whether he or his family could go to jail for them. 2. He believed himself hamstrung by the controversial DOJ “policy” (not law) that a sitting POTUS, even one who cheated to “win the victory” with the help of a foreign government and who failed to report that assistance to the FBI, cannot be indicted while in office.

    Turley claims: ” Mueller, however, triggered impeachment frenzy but left out a key element necessary to achieve it. That element is criminal intent.” Where is there any statutory support for the notion that a “key element” for impeachment is proof of criminal intent that rises to the level of “beyond a reasonable doubt”? Mueller called Trump “corrupt”, which is and has always been. That alone should give people pause. He punted the ball to Congress. Republicans are Republicans first and patriots second. Democrats can’t do it alone.

    Turley also says: “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.”” This is highly misleading because Mueller also reports that Trump refused an in-person interview and the lawyer-written responses to discovery were not completely forthcoming. Without direct evidence from one or both conspirators–i.e., Russians and Trump and/or members of his campaign (convicted liars), how would you prove conspiracy? MUELLER WAS DENIED THE EVIDENCE. TRUMP WAS NOT “EFFECTIVELY” CLEARED OF ANYTHING. Trump was found to be corrupt, and would be behind bars right now if his staff had carried out his orders, which they didn’t do. Trump does not belong in the White House.

    1. ? Probably: 1. He is and has always been a Republican.

      You and Glenn Greenwald must be sleeping together. How is that working out given he is gay?

      Glenn Greenwald
      @ggreenwald

      CNN should have a countdown clock for when their attacks on Robert Mueller start. It’s not long now.

    2. . He is and has always been a Republican.

      Do you know where he’s registered to vote? I’ve looked. You can rummage around in California, Maryland, DC.

      This assertion was made about James Comey. It was provably false in his case.

      1. You can rummage around in California, Maryland, DC.

        only if you drag a hundred dollar bill around the trailer park will you get her to do anything.

        😉

    3. “Bragging about assaulting women?” Assault requires an unwilling victim

      Trump bragged, in private, about the willing behavior of groupies. He got caught on a hot mike. It was embarrassing. It was not assault.

      I have said unkind things about groupies. They have got to be dirtier than the floor of a New York taxi cab. I mean, they allow themselves to be passed around in order to say they were close to famous people. I went to high school with a guy who would sleep with any female who would say yes. Not particular at all. He was a common fixture to find in the bushes with some random, willing girl, at just about every party I attended. Of course I criticized, in private, not only his lack of any standard and probable STD status, as well as the total low bar for a surprising number of girls.

      Care to be a fly on the set of any Hollywood blockbuster while they discuss and film a steamy sex scene? Think that’s all respectful as they discuss the lighting and how who should grab whom?

      I would not want to speak in such an ungenerous way in front of groupies. Or on TV.

      I have seen women pinch men’s butts in bars, and other…areas. I have heard women brag about all sorts of things they could get willing guys to do. Have you ever heard how lesbians or gay men talk about each other? The airwaves would burn. I was groped by a lesbian in a gay bar. I laughed it off. Assault is a sole killing offense that you never, ever get over. If you cannot fend off a groper in a bar, you can’t go out. Male or female.

      Trump was making vulgar comments in private as many others do. It was most certainly not polite, not respectful, or fit for the airways. But it was not an admission of assault. He was discussing groupie willing behavior.

      If Trump actually went around grabbing lady parts, he would have been arrested. It would be well known. He does not have a reputation as someone who actually did that behavior. Bill Cosby, on the other hand, built up quite a reputation. Actions leave a trail. I do not defend groping. There is no pattern of such behavior. Joking about it is in poor taste, as are millions of other conversations that take place every day. Joking is not assault.

      If you cannot imagine what kind of cretin would find such talk funny, then why did people spend millions of dollars to see this, laughing uproariously?

      https://youtu.be/2holvsTiY6E

      https://youtu.be/WHTPLpY8mBI

      I’ll just bet that at one point, you have made totally inappropriate comments about both your own, and the opposite sex, while among your friends or family.

      1. Karen, where are the groupies?

        In the video, Trump tells Billy Bush about a failed attempt to seduce Nancy O’Dell, who was Bush’s co-host at the time (circa 2005) of the recording:[9]

        I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it.

        I did try and f… her. She was married.

        And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, “I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.” I took her out furniture—I moved on her like a b…h. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony t.ts and everything. She’s totally changed her look.[3]

        Later, referring to Arianne Zucker (whom they were waiting to meet), Trump says:

        I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the p…y. You can do anything.[3]

        1. So? His locker room talk is crude. So?

          Did he rape her? No Did he molest her? No.

          Were the American people informed about this type of crudeness when they voted? Yes.

          Have they faced other Presidents who have been equally rude or have actually been accused of rape? Yes. Clinton for one and Hillary demeaned the women that were hurt. She then ran for the Presidency.

          Though I don’t particularly like that type of talk you sound like a prude. Have trouble in bed?

          1. It’s not crude, it’s predatory, but Karen wants to blame the victims.

            My daughter-in-law called it right:

            Real men grab women by the heart.

            1. Anon:

              How dare you imply that I would ever blame sexual assault victims? I have known people who were raped. I visited one in the hospital and she was totally unrecognizable. Looked like she’d been hit by a truck. The trauma and fear was unbelievable.

              How dare you imply that someone willing to allow a “star” to make sexual advances on them are assault victims? That is a slap in the face to anyone who has been a victim, or seen them suffer. It trivializes a truly horrific crime. I hate seeing rape victims belittled by this insane comparison to Trump gabbing about willing groupies.

              You must have absolutely no idea what women are like who hang onto movie and TV stars, athletes, and the rich and powerful. Living in CA, I’ve seen it often. You’d see these guys in LA with women hanging all over them. Predatory? You should see some of them hone in to get past the velvet rope. And, yeah, when you interact with one of these men who are used to having women fall at their feet, they are a bit puzzled when someone’s not affected. Such insincere flattery is unhealthy for all participants.

              Your judgement is skewed.

              Ask your daughter-in-law if she has ever, in her entire life, made comments she thought were in private about the same, or opposite sex, that she would find embarrassing if overheard by you or on national television. Ask her if she ever said anyone slept around, or threw themselves at people. Or if she’s made disparaging remarks about men at some point or admired their assets? Has she or any of her friends ever gone to a strip club and remarked on the willing male dancers and their physical attributes?

              People can deny it all they want, but not everything they have ever said is fit to print.

              How much respectful behavior do you think goes on at Havasu, Los Vegas, or Miami Beach? Ever seen spring break?

              People should do their best to have standards, behave will in public, and treat others with respect. People also have to have the good judgement to tell the difference between bragging about willing conquests and sexual assault. This should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

              1. Why won’t the Left differentiate between hyperbole about willing women, and sexual assault? What I want to know is if they really understand the difference.

                1. There is nothing to understand. The left is willing to kill a new born baby and then make all sorts of arguments against any law meant to stop that from occurring. People like Anon lie over and over again. It’s pathologic.

            2. ” it’s predatory”

              How is it predatory? The talk was locker room talk. The action didn’t occur.

              “Real men grab women by the heart.”

              That might be true for many women and many men but it is not true for all. If you don’t recognize that get off the net go outside and have a life. You need to learn the difference between an action and a fantassy.

              1. Trump was not describing grabbing any woman against her will. He was bragging, to another guy, about how willing women wanting to suck up to stars let them do anything. Let them.

                I saw an older man trying to show off to a younger one.

                What bothered me wasn’t his bragging about groupies. I live in CA. I know what hangers on are willing to do to get close to stars. What bothered me was that he was married. I hate when anyone cheats. I don’t know Melania personally but she seems like a very classy lady. Stay faithful or get off the pot. That is his private life, however, and had no bearing on whether it would make me vote for Hillary Clinton, whom I find incredibly dishonest.

            3. “Real men grab women by the heart.” That is a sweet sentiment for a card to give to a husband.

              Do you believe that every man wants to capture every woman’s heart he dates or takes an interest in? Or is it more along the lines of getting to know someone, and then deciding if they even want their heart? Most men date or hook up because they are sexually attracted to a woman. They don’t fall for her until they get to know her, long after a string of interactions and conversations.

              There is a preponderance of the hookup culture among millennials. It is rather difficult for them to date, at all. Neither partner seems at all interested in the other’s heart. In fact, there are entire Cosmo articles devoted to how to have emotionless sex. Just like a guy who’s just hooking up.

              Sex in the City was for the older generation X, and, again, no one engaged in dating hoping to win the other’s heart right off the bat.

              1. Sorry Karen, but I overlooked your long winded posts on p… grabbing that preceded the one I did respond too, and besides for trying to personalize the discussion by obsessing over my lovely daughter-in-law (similarly Allan speculates I’m not getting enough, while Tom elsewhere questions my sexual identity) you dud double down on the darn groupies argument. I didn’t see anything in Trump’s comments suggesting that he limits his predatory advances to this group as they were talking about a married woman and a specific but minor TV personality.

                As to my off the record “locker room” discussions, no, in my long fully hetero life I have never even joked about attacking women, nor do I remember any of my good friends doing so. It doesn’t or wouldn’t turn me on or somehow seem funny. While I’m only guessing, I seriously doubt that my daughter-in-law or wife would either, though I don’t doubt that like me they may make uncensored comments that would be unacceptable in mixed company. If you and your friends do, maybe I’ve led a sheltered life, though I can’t say I’d be envious.

                You’re trying too hard to defend the indefensible, a full time job for Trump fans.

                1. Anon:
                  I had no idea the Left was populated with prudish Puritans — or, perhaps, folks who never made it into a men’s locker room. Maybe things were different in the band room. BTW, Trump never suggested “attacking” women. You can’t “attack” the willing. He suggested a crude sexual advance. You may think it matters in the context of his Presidency. Thankfully, most of us don’t. We find it appalling that NBC would leak the tape to another source in a failed effort to undermine an elected official and inadvertently crush a bystander’s career. That apparently fails to raise your wrath, being insufficiently salacious enough. To each his own.

                  1. Bragging about assaulting women is not “locker room” talk, it’s a..hole talk, and grabbing a woman by the …y is an attack that will get you in jail if you’re not a celebrity and the woman has ovaries – even Karen agrees with that.

                    1. Anon, you lie again. He said nothing about assaulting women. He talked about women in general and related the conversation to willing women with those in the start spotlight.

                      Assault doesn’t fit Trump’s profile but it does fit Clinton’s.

                2. Anon, I postulated that you had a problem in bed not that “Allan speculates I’m not getting enough,” Additionally you sound like a prude where rude sexual locker talk is criminalized at least in your mind.

                  You say: “in my long fully hetero life I have never even joked about attacking women, nor do I remember any of my good friends doing so.” but based on your discussions it seems you have no problem in killing a new born by letting it die on the table. I’ll take the rude locker room talk over murdering babies.

                  1. I’m not a prude, I work in construction where the subject and comments are often blue, and I don’t enjoy murdering babies.

                    1. Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
                      The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
                      Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
                      The frumious Bandersnatch!

                      And now for today’s pop quiz.
                      Which nonsensical name best describes Allan and his contributions to the blawg?

                      A) Jabberwock

                      B) Jubjub bird

                      C) Bandersnatch

                      D) Just plain frumious

                    2. Anon, you sound like a prude whether or not you work in construction. It is your writing that gives you away. You like to distance yourself from murdering babies but I noted what you had to say when the discussion came up. All you did was obfuscate. You said nothing positive that indicated you wanted to prevent the murder of new born infants nor the murder of infants soon to leave the mother’s body.

                3. Anon – if a woman is willing, how is that attacking her? Did you ever say to a friend a woman allowed you to touch her? Imagine if that was overheard and you were accused of assault. Not by any woman you’d ever met, but by those who disagreed with you politically. Imagine if everyone kept willfully ignoring the “allowed” part.

                  As for defending the indefensible, you said I blame rape victims.

                  Deplorable garbage post.

                  1. Karen, Trump didn’t say he waits for consent before grabbing …..y. WTH are you talking about?

                    Karen, you are trying to blame the victims of Trump’s …y grabbing on them, yet nowhere does even he claim that. You’re not making any sense, and by the way I didn’t accuse you of blaming rape victims. You are blaming victims of sexual assault.

                    1. The significant word for you is “let” as in they permitted.

                      “And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”

              2. PS On a side track, I fell for my wife almost the first time I saw her, a reaction I think may be more characteristic of men then women. That was a long time ago, and was a powerful mix of physical and emotional attraction that has endured, even if the first half of that has diminished. Yeah, I’m lucky and I hope she is too, but the point is it might be hormones, but there is some magic too.

                1. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0653105/characters/nm0001304
                  Anon,
                  All joking and insults aside ( for now), congratulations on your happy marriage.
                  I couldn’t find any videos of that great comedy series online, but here’s one of classic lines I remember. Kind of the polar opposite of your lasting marraige.
                  I don’t really fit in either category, but I got it right the last time. The downside is that she doesn’t allow me to change my socks.

                  1. congratulations on your happy

                    You are being Trolled. Does Anon strike you as:
                    1. honest
                    2. reliable
                    3. happy

                    —-

                    David Brock’s empire, including Media Matters, American Bridge, ShareBlue, and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, served as a hit squad for the Clinton campaign last year. Now that Clinton has lost, Brock is retooling his machine to lead the attack on all things Trump. “We really aspire to be like the Kochs,” he explained, referring to the circle of ultra-wealthy right-wing donors convened by the notorious Koch brothers.

                    Brock, known for his silver pompadour and penchant for high drama, is a controversial figure among Democratic operatives. Nurtured in the netherworld of the far right, Brock was a foot soldier in what Hillary Clinton famously dubbed the “vast right-wing conspiracy” before converting. (He earned his stripes by slurring Anita Hill as “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.”)

                    After recanting and changing sides, Brock nevertheless prides himself on being as ruthless and amoral as the operatives on the right, though his act doesn’t fly as well in Democratic circles. During the Democratic primary, Brock declared that “black lives don’t matter to Bernie Sanders” and called on the septuagenarian Sanders to release his medical records in order to cast aspersions on his health.

                    In the John Podesta e-mails released by WikiLeaks, Neera Tanden, head of the Center for American Progress, called him a “menace,” and “shady,” while musing whether he was a “Manchurian candidate of the GOP secretly out to tank [Clinton].” Podesta, chair of the Clinton campaign, suggesting Brock was merely an “unhinged narcissist.”

                    After months of slurs, Sanders erupted, denouncing Brock and the Clinton campaign for trafficking this dreck: “What the Clinton people do very well which is what modern politics is about is you spin,” Sanders said. “I don’t think you hire scum of the Earth to be on your team just because the other side does it.”

                    Throughout the campaign, good government groups also criticized Brock’s Correct the Record for trampling federal restrictions on campaign spending by asserting its right to coordinate directly with the Clinton campaign.

                    https://www.thenation.com/article/the-poisonous-politics-of-david-brock/

                    1. Apparently Estovir is one of the several here who need to think that those they disagree with on politics must be either evil or lesser human beings.

                    2. Anon, it has little to do with politics and more to do with your propensity to lie and your lack of morals. Think of killing new born child and those coming out of the birth canal. Yes, it had to do with a lack of political and personal morality not because you are a Democrat, Socialist, Fascist or even a Republican.

                2. I also pinched a few girls’ bottoms before I was 18 and at the time it was considered naughty but not a huge big deal. Right now the statute of limitations has run on simple assault so good luck nailing me on this folks and I am a nobody anyhow so who cares.

                  Treating incidental social contact like rape is a discredit to rape. That is my opinion. I think that proper physical boundaries should be respected but that may vary from place to place time to time people to people and among cultures. Consent is very important but METOO has made it into a political cudgel. I object to that.

            4. Oh my how lovely. Swoon!

              And yet History is also filled with the stories of “Real Men” who did a lot worse. I wonder did Chinggis Khan qualify as a real man? He extinguished whole cities and tribes by fire and sword and today they say a large fraction of the Asian population is probably descended from him. I suspect he did not worry too much about “consent”

              https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/mongolia-genghis-khan-dna/

        2. Did Trump describe sexually assaulting Nancy O’Dell? Was the lady parts comment in reference to her? No? Then why are you conflating the two? Coming on to a woman or man is not assault. There was no force discussed.

          The latter comment was about what willing groupies allow you to do. What is a groupie? A woman or man who has sex or engages in sexual favors with a famous person, for no other reason than their fame. Women who allow stars to do anything sexual with them that they want are groupies. In contrast, a courtesan is the next level, whose goal is to financially supported by a rich and powerful person.

          You may have noticed that extremely vulgar comments have been made on this very blog over the years. There have even been fantasies about murder and castration, often after one of Turley’s trophy hunting stories. It is amazing what people will say when they believe they are either anonymously posting, or that they are having a private conversation. One would hope they were only words.

          I do find his comments to be vulgar. I also hate when men or women cheat. However, it is false logic to conflate his comments with an admission of sexual assault.

          1. We’ll it was exactly a description of sexual assault which he said was his SOP and of course he has been accused of groping multiple women. I notice you dropped the “groupies deserve it” line.

            1. Anon, you are weird. There was no assault but you are desperate so you equate talk with assault. Next thing we will hear from you is that you want to put every sixteen year old male in jail.

        3. It’s disgusting what Trump said, but true. And we all know it to be true. This was a low moment for him, but not a criminal one.

          One of my former friends who had become a successful performing artist called them “star-f’ers” and said they wait for the end of every show to provide services. And he was a lech even before he was famous. Seducers understand that the idea of a handsome man ripping the bodice over a lady in a swoon is not just a trope of romance novel covers. It has some basis in women’s common erotic fantasy. Not all women but many. If you think I am wrong, I just identify the source of this notion and direct people to a book that was written many decades ago by a less prudish feminist than those we have today, called “My Secret Garden” by Nancy Friday. Read it for yourself. Perhaps Nancy friday was actually working for “the patriarchy?”

          If it’s an unwanted touching like that, a woman will certainly object, perhaps mildy.
          Or she may slap the man and verbally object loudly. She may promptly call the police for good measure. That is fine by me. Or, a woman who lets a man fondle her, if it’s fun to her, I say, I hope she enjoyed it and I have no bad words for her.

          I have been inappropriately touched by women more than once, but I took it as a compliment and just brushed it off. I did not see fit to make a big deal out of it.

          However if a woman who has had an incident like this does not object or refuse, and then she then later makes up a phony story about it being abuse, well then she is a Liar. Who has manufactured a lack of consent out of sour grapes at not being elevated by her willing services. The METOO phenomenon is full of these I suspect.

          BUT WE HAVE TO BELIEVE THEM ALL! SO I AM TOLD

  14. Off topic: Can you imagine the hit now by Demosocialist wackos Kate Smith and God Bless America, nursing’s, nuts.

  15. Continuing the hemorrhage of Left Wing TDS new outlets

    As you have probably figured out, Fox News was No. 1 in cable news throughout the day. This continued into prime time, where FNC also dominated the cable news competition with Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight and The Ingraham Angle, averaging 3.2 million total viewers and 591,000 in the key demo. President Trump expressing excitement about what their respective broadcasts what on tap that night probably didn’t hurt.

    Attorney General Barr Press Conference Coverage

    Network | Total Viewers / A25-54 demo
    Fox News: 3,375,000 / 517,000
    NBC: 2,883,000 / 758,000
    ABC: 2,315,000 / 574,000
    CBS: 2,155,000 / 376,000
    MSNBC: 1,980,000 / 281,000
    CNN: 1,230,000 / 287,000

    Total: 13,938,000 million / 2,793,000

    Attorney General Barr Press Conference Coverage & Public Release of the Mueller Report

    Network | Total Viewers / A25-54 demo
    Fox News: 2,780,000 / 441,000
    CBS: 2,515,000 / 462,000
    NBC: 2,189,000 / 615,000
    ABC: 2,057,000 / 461,000
    MSNBC: 2,013,000 / 307,000
    CNN: 1,173,000 / 286,000

    Total 12,727,000 / 2,572,000

    https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/heres-how-many-watched-coverage-of-attorney-general-barrs-presser-and-the-release-of-the-mueller-report/400149/

    Note to the Left Leaning Trolls:
    PLEASE KEEP TROLLING FOR THE DEMS

    1. The Ingraham Angle, averaging 3.2 million total viewers and 591,000 in the key demo

      The Left Boycotting Laura Ingraham is quite possibly helping her.
      3.2 Million! Surely Hillary will throw money at CNN to keep them viable

    1. I persuaded management at my gym to turn off CNN at all of the 20 something TV sets in the cardio section. Now we have ESPN.

  16. On the real crime front but off topic: Avenutti strikes again but this time it’s a scam – allegedly — of NBA player Hassan Whiteside who paid a cool $2.5 Million in settlement to his former girlfriend and Avenatti client, Alexis Gardner:

    “According to the grand jury, Avenatti told Whiteside [Gardner?] that the whole $2.5 million was for attorney fees and that her part of the money would be broken down into 96 payments over eight years.

    But following the claim of a payment plan and to cover for his misuse of the cash, Avenatti told Gardner that the NBA player was refusing to pay.

    Nearly a year later, Avenatti began sending monthly payments totaling about $194,000 to Gardner claiming that the money was from Whiteside.”

    https://www.breitbart.com/sports/2019/04/22/michael-avenatti-accused-of-embezzling-2-5-million-from-nba-player/

  17. I have no idea why Professor Turley keeps asserting it was wrong to fire Comey. It not only was the right thing, it was the best thing Trump did. Comey was insubordinate, arrogant, and a snake. He hated Trump from day 1, was involved in the Steele Dossier and signing off on FISA warrants to spy on Trump, and was leaking and “taking notes” in an effort to damage him.

    Reading Comey’s Trump conversation memos made me laugh. Anyone in Corporate America who behaved like Comey would’ve been fired well before May 2017. I would have fired him in mid April. If your remember, Trump called Comey on march 30, and requested he go public with the fact that Trump was not under investigation. Two weeks later, Trump calls Comey and asks for the status.

    And Comey’s response is breathtaking in its arrogance. He tells Trump, he’s done nothing on going public with Trump not being a target, And he’s not taking orders from Trump – ONLYy from the DAG, and that in the future Trump needs to have the OLC contact the DAG to relay any requests for Comey. Amazing! I would have fired him the next day. April 20, 2017. That Trump waited for Comey till May 2017, was generous of him.

    1. The moderator is an advocate for legal establishments. Anything done which vexes the nexus of lawyers making our political system so dysfunctional irritates him.

  18. I’ve watched people like Chairman Pencil Neck and Lipo Nadler talk about the “obligations’ or “duties” or “responsibities” of Congress to “investigate” this or that matter.
    The impeachmemt talk is not primarily about any of the above. It comes down to a political calculation on the part of the Democratically- controlled House on whether pressing forward with impeachment is a political winner or a loser for them.
    The OSC investigation had about 10 months of prior FBI investigations to bulid on when Mueller was appointed in May 2017.
    And of course we had the Steele/ Russian Dossier political opposition research in the mix as well, with Fusion GPS and Steele trying….mostly unsuccessfully…..to peddle that hit job to the press before the 2016 election.
    Now when all of this nearly- three-year soap opera was possibly thought to be near some conclusion, some resolution, we’re looking at an indefinite continuation of the Pencil Neck Schiff’s TV series–with the same script he’s worked from in the past hundred-to- two hundred past episodes.
    And a relatively new star of the small screen, Nadler.
    The only thing lacking to make this a perfect trifecta is the absence of the Avenatti series, whose string of TV appearances at one time rivaled that of Schiff’s.
    It looks like that particular series has been indefinitely suspended due to other pressing matters.
    Even the most addicted news junkie will eventually get sick of this protracted, non-stop crap.
    That gets back to the political calculation of how long and how far the House leadership wants to press the issue.( Sen. Pocahontas is now “all in” on impeachment, but not in control of the process).
    My best guess is that, absent a truly stunning new revelation/ smoking gun surfacing, the House majority will try to keep this ball in the air for at another 18 months.
    Lots of impeachment “talk”, but no successful House majority vote to impeach. They can mine and recycle every bit of negative opposition research they can glean from the OSC report, and try to branch of into the areas of tax returns, “emoluments”, etc.
    This is free air time with the 2020 campaigns now getting into full swing.
    My primary interest at this point is to see how the Democratic House leadership decides to play this between now and November 2020. The Mad Max/ Rapida Tlaib faction doesn’t have the clout to successfully press for impeachment. The OSC team certainly was not lacking in resources or commitment to “find something” that would take Trump down; I don’t think House committees are likely to accomplish that, either.
    Congressional committees can look like part-time amateurs compared to the OSC team of seasoned investigators and prosecutors.
    The House Speaker and others in the top leadership of the House majority are going to be thinking long and hard about how long they’re going to milk this thing.
    My bet would be more of the same type of TV appearances and grandstanding by the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, but no vote to impeach.
    ( I think betting on campaigns/ impeachment odds, etc. is illegal😲 in most of the U.S., but I follow sites like Ladbrokes and Oddshark for the heck of it).

    1. “I’ve watched people like Chairman Pencil Neck and Lipo Nadler…”

      …which undercuts anything you might have to say. I, for one, didn’t read any further.

        1. This is to the Braggy one:

          “Factually informed” by comments to this blog? Comments like yours, Allan’s, Tom Nash’s and the list goes on?

          Now that’s funny.

          Have a good day, Braggy. You, too, JAY.

          1. Anonymous….No, mutant munchkin. I’m referring to becoming informed by researching bona fide news sources that are not dogma driven. They’re out there, to be discovered. Try them some time.
            The point is not that you think like me. The point is that you think. Period.

              1. Tom…..thanks so much for this link. Yep….sounds like our Lyndon.
                It just makes me sick! The comment about his crass behavior from our deep state Dems was always ” Yes, he’s a whore, but he’s our whore”.
                That was supposed to make us feel proud!?!?
                I’m sure I’ve told you that hubby was a Capitol Hill Policeman in D.C. in 1968….and drove a patrol car and was given the license plate numbers of Lyndon’s girlfriends and was told: NEVER stop these vehicles. Leave them alone.

            1. Cindy B.
              The characteristics of some of the anonymous anonymouses make a few of them distinctive and identifiable.
              LT Anonymous, the troll groupie, sticks to what she knows.
              That’s a pretty small area, and most ly involves the type of comment you see above.
              When she not sucking up to the full-fledged trolls, or parroting what others say.
              There’s no “there” there as far as any substance; she works up to the limits of her capacity.

            2. Cindy Braggy and TTom Gnasher ought to try thinking once in a while — as opposed to just running their big yaps.

              1. Russia is calling. They want you to Phone home and reconnect with Troll Farms R Us. It seems you have lost the Trolling ethos and are being yanked for being bitter, tired and ineffective

                By the way….

        1. That is in reply to LT Anonymous’ comment that she didn’t read beyond the first sentence of one of my comments.

Leave a Reply