Trump Attacks GOP Rep As “Loser” For Supporting Impeachment

Rep. Justin Amash (R., Mich.) became the first Republican to call for the impeachment of President Donald Trump this weekend. There are ample grounds to questioning the existence of impeachable offenses. Yet, Sen. Mitt Romney (R., Utah) called Amash’s stand courageous. I agree that breaking from one’s party on an issue of conscience is worthy of respect even if one does not see the merits in the same fashion. However, President Trump stuck with his signature personal insults in calling Amash a “loser” who was motivated by a desire for attention. Once again, I fail to see why Trump engages in such unpresidential, low-grade attacks. It is not only demeaning to his office but ultimately self-defeating to his claims of innocence.

Amash tweeted that he had read the Special Counsel report carefully and concluded that Trump should be impeachment. He also attacked Attorney General William Barr as “deliberately misrepresenting” special counsel Robert Mueller’s report: “Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment.”

I have previously written that I disagree with the claims that Barr’s summary was false or misleading and recently testified in Congress that the contempt sanction against Barr was unfounded and unfair.

Despite that view, I accept that people of good-faith can disagree on these issues. Indeed, the impeachment claims have been strengthened by Trump’s refusal to heed continued warnings from both commentators and key aides not to threaten prosecutors, publicly comment on the investigation, or reach out to key figures like former FBI Director James Comey on the status or direction of the investigation.

He is continuing to do so. After the statement from Amash, Trump tweeted “Never a fan of @justinamash, a total lightweight who opposes me and some of our great Republican ideas and policies just for the sake of getting his name out there through controversy.” He added that, if Amash actually read the report,  “He would see that it was nevertheless strong on NO COLLUSION and, ultimately, NO OBSTRUCTION. Anyway, how do you Obstruct when there is no crime and, in fact, the crimes were committed by the other side? Justin is a loser who sadly plays right into our opponents hands!”

I have no problem with Trump’s references to the findings, though I wish he would stand aside from the debate. It is the personal insults and incivility that I find so troubling.

What do you think?

337 thoughts on “Trump Attacks GOP Rep As “Loser” For Supporting Impeachment”

  1. What do you think?

    We need to get back to the Faith of our Founding Principles.
    Till then we are a house divided

    Christians are expected, by word and deed, to be different
    Father Jeffrey F. Kirby
    May 19, 2019

    In the ancient world, people were identified by their city, economic status, gender, and social class. Crossing these various boundaries was nearly impossible. People were boxed in and determined by factors beyond their control.

    The Christian community, however, was a shining exception.
    Among the Christians, people of different cultures, genders, and social tiers worshiped together and served alongside each other. Such a broad perspective was grounded in the Christian belief that a person’s identity was given by baptism and not by one’s social standing, money, or other worldly factors.

    Grounded in baptism, Christians held the unprecedented belief that all people were children of God and all people held an inviolate dignity.
    While universally accepted today by all people of goodwill, such a belief was radical at the time of the early Church. And, truth be told, such contemporary convictions of human dignity and human rights find their genesis in Christian theology.

    Since Christians believed in the dignity of all men and women, rich and poor, native and foreigner, they reached out and sought to serve all people, especially those who were abandoned or discarded. This was particularly true in terms of widows, orphans, the sick and starving. In general, such groups were either ignored or manipulated by popular cultures in the early world.

    People feared the sick, avoided the starving, and enslaved the widow and orphan. The Christians, however, were called to do no such thing. In fact, they labored to accept and help all people, especially those on the peripheries.

    Grounded on such a foundational belief in human dignity, the Christian community felt compelled – by faith and goodness – to denounce any offense against a person’s dignity, such as abortion, the abandonment of the elderly, and the euthanizing of the sick. The Christians did not only condemn offenses, however, they also actively sought to surround the vulnerable with love and selfless service.

    This led believers to create innovative services that became the antecedents to contemporary institutions such as hospitals, orphanages, schools, and outreach centers.

    Today, in the Gospel Reading at Mass, all believers will once again hear the Lord Jesus’ own commission to his disciples (and to all people of goodwill): “I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

    It is precisely these words (and others like them), matched by the Lord’s own actions, that present to the world today “the most excellent way of love.” The disciples of the Lord are especially called to pick up this mantle and to speak as he spoke, to love as he loved, and to serve as he served.
    This is not an easy summons, but it is a good one. The believer knows in her heart that any cross is worth it since it points to the resurrection.

    In our world today, by words and deeds, Christian believers are expected to be different. Each believer, according to her own talents and means, is called to be a selfless and generous servant of life and an ardent defender of human dignity.

    Rather than a political issue, or merely a justice or moral issue, the protection and care of all human life is a heartfelt credal issue for the Christian. It is one born from the very core of Christian belief, namely, that God became a human being, redeemed us by his sacrificial love, and reasserted the dignity of all men and women by showing us again that we are all the children of God.

    Flowing from this core belief, Christians have received – and willingly follow – a way of life that asserts the worth and value of every human life, especially of the most vulnerable among us. This way of life is lived out in multiple and various ways. Each aspect is essential as they all extend from and point back to the dignity of all men and women.

    No one outreach is prominent. Each is necessary – spiritual, political, educational, charitable, and familial – in order for the entire person to be ministered to and fully loved.

    In these ways, Christian believers, and all people of goodwill, listen and fulfill the inviting words of the Lord Jesus: “As I have loved you, so you also should love one another.”

  2. Speaking of Amash’s comments which go to Barr’s misrepresenting the Mueller report – we have Mueller himself saying he did in a letter to Barr – and the ten incidents of obstruction of justice in the Mueller report, JT says:

    “Despite that view, I accept that people of good-faith can disagree on these issues.”

    No they can’t! This about facts, not opinions. If JT thinks that only a criminal conviction on the obstruction charges can justify an impeachment, which is a hearing of the facts before Congress, he’s just plain wrong. He’s the law professor and he’s talking mumbo jumbo mealy mouthed BS. Meanwhile, the guy he keeps finding excuses for is constantly lowering the bar for both public civility and presidential precedent. Find some guts and stand up.

    1. “No they can’t! This about facts, not opinions. ”

      What Anon is calling facts is not the issue and his statement is wrong. There is a disagreement of opinion. Whether Muellers list of potential obstruction is true or not doesn’t matter as each person is interpreting those “facts” and how they relate to the law differently. Therefore, they are rendering different opinions.

  3. Seriously. The Great Americans who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights also, within the year of adoption of the Constitution, thrice required citizens to be “…free white person(s)…” in the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795 and 1802 as they required, in most states, voters to be Male, European, Age 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres (the vote in republics has been restricted since Greek inception).

    Presumably, the Supreme Court would have declared the Founders illicit in their own country and struck down the Naturalization Acts and vote restrictions as unconstitutional, were it the case. They didn’t. They weren’t. Were those conditions constitutional when the Founders passed them, it would be difficult to argue that they are illegal, erroneous or unconstitutional now.

    One might conjecture that the essential problem is that, unlike the Israelites who were “Chosen,” capable, out of Egypt and on their way to the “promised land” before the ink was dry on their release papers, the freed slaves in America failed to obtain efficacy in a definitive and conclusive resolution due to some unknown paucity in cognizance or otherwise deliberation. You may know that Abraham Lincoln first considered the clearly superior finding as compassionate repatriation to Liberia.

    “He who hesitates is lost.”

    ― Cato

    1. So sorry for your condition as demonstrated by today’s word salad contribution you were able to smuggle out of the group home.

      this is to “I had to trade today’s jello–the RED kind!! to get internet time” georgie – paulie

  4. “Seems???”

    If my aunt “seemed” to have balls, she would “seem” to be my uncle.

    If Mueller “seemed” to be “…not recommending any further indictments,” it would “seem” that Mueller effectively exonerated President Trump.

    A senior Department of Justice official said that Mueller is “not recommending any further indictments.”

    – Kaitlyn Schallhorn

    Also, if Mueller persists in refusing to appear before Congress, it would “seem” that Mueller knew early on that he was conducing a criminally “malicious prosecution” for which he will “seem” to seek, but not find, his own exoneration – what did Mueller know and when did he know it – same for Christopher Wray; where were you Chris?

  5. “Be Best”

    “Mrs. Trump believes that children should be both seen and heard, and it is our responsibility as adults to educate and reinforce to them that when they are using their voices—whether verbally or online—they must choose their words wisely and speak with respect and compassion.”

    Maybe Melania should have a chat with the big kid in the White House. A little bedtime reading from the aforementioned site perhaps?

  6. If Amash claimed that Barr misrepresented Mueller’s report, then Amash is either wrong or dishonest. If he found grounds for impeachment, he is either wrong or dishonest.

    Some people use anti-Trump sentiment as a political advantage. He may be trying to appeal to Republicans who are against Trump. This is either an angle, or he’s allowed personal bias to color his judgement.

    I would respect someone who spoke his conscience, even to his own detriment. For example, those who voiced opposition to Michael Vic continuing his career after running a dog fighting ring and killing dogs. However, the evidence does not support this.

    I will say this about Democrats, they stay in lock step.

    No, Trump should not have called him a loser. If he was going to say anything at all, he should have said that the evidence does not support Amash’s statements, and one should wonder what his motives were.

    1. Karen, Barr misrepresented Mueller in exactly the way Amash described. In fact Mueller took the unusual step of writing Barr about it.

      If colluding with the Russians – including after the fact by not punishing them for election interference or even challenging them on future interference – and then lying, witness tampering, and firing those involved in the investigation is not an impeachable offense, why not?

      1. Mueller can explain when he appears before Congress. Oh, he’s not appearing you say? I wonder why. What did Mueller know and when did Mueller know it – and Christopher Wray?

    2. A bi-partisan group of 900 former federal prosecutors say there is more than enough evidence for obstruction of justice…. so contrary to your claim, the evidence does support Amash’s position.

      1. Bipartisan? Republican Amash, Republican Romney et al. directly and diametrically oppose Republican President Donald Trump.

        Bipartisan? You fool yourself.

        Mueller’s team was 100% liberal zealots and democrat contributors. I suppose it was also unbiased, objective and bipartisan.

        You fool yourself only.

        You are “fake news.”

        1. Trump is not a Republican. He’s the cult leader who’s taken over the party and real Republicans already regret it and the alt right types will soon enough.

  7. “JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Anti-money laundering specialists at Deutsche Bank recommended in 2016 and 2017 that multiple transactions involving legal entities controlled by Donald J. Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, be reported to a federal financial-crimes watchdog.

    The transactions, some of which involved Mr. Trump’s now-defunct foundation, set off alerts in a computer system designed to detect illicit activity, according to five current and former bank employees. Compliance staff members who then reviewed the transactions prepared so-called suspicious activity reports that they believed should be sent to a unit of the Treasury Department that polices financial crimes.

    But executives at Deutsche Bank, which has lent billions of dollars to the Trump and Kushner companies, rejected their employees’ advice. The reports were never filed with the government….”

    1. that’s insignificant and boring stuff, AML software and compliance routines generate tons of SARs which are meaningless. FINCEN is swimming in useless information

    The date of the article is interesting and various opportunists have been looking for “something” to hang the impeachment hat on for a long time.
    Since actual impeachment has been virtually taken off the table, then we’ll see what kind of political mileage the “impeachment talk” gets heading into the 2020 campaigns.

    1. Impeachment has not been taken off the table. It is being slow walked by Democrats as they begin their investigations. The more voters know what is described in the Mueller report, the worse the situation will become for the President and the more likely he will be impeached.

      1. Go to Vegas. Put your money where your mouth is.

        Based on the evidence,

        there will be no impeachment.

        There will most certainly be no conviction.

        Put your money where your mouth is.

          Speaking of betting, here’s “the latest line” for 2020.
          Election betting may not be legal in most U.S. jurisdictions, but one could always get a U.K. bookie in a pinch.
          If there was a perceived need for “insurance” when Trump was a 5-to-1 to 10-to-1 underdog in 2016, think how important that “insurance” is for 2020.
          If the House has a go at it, it’ll be if Trump is re-elected.

      2. Impeachment has been “slow-walked” since either Jan. 20, 2017…….or November 8, 2016. At the end of an investigation that began in against a candidate in 2016 and continued into March 2019, you’re in a position to decide to A. proceed with actual impeachment proceedings, or B. talk about how “he should be” impeached without impeaching.
        This will likely be “slow- walked” and “much-talked” into November 2020, at least.

        1. L4D asks–Would you care to propose a solution other than griping and grousing about how terribly unfair it supposedly all is?

          1. Yes….either **** or get off the pot.
            “Talking impeachment” for c.2 1/2 years, in the absence of any intention of actually proceeding with impeachment, gets old.

    1. The problem with this is that are plenty of people who are not Trump supporters, Turley included, who are not willing to use the criminal justice system for political purposes. So I don’t quite get what Amash is doing here. Like I said below, if this is a way to get some name recognition ahead of announcing a Presidential run, it’s going to be extremely disappointing. Because up until now I didn’t think he was like that. Although I don’t have blind in anybody in Congress.

      1. Steve J.,
        Maybe JT will eventually crumble under the pressure of groupthink if enough fellow lawyers like Aspinwall keep up the pressure.😉

        1. “Steve, impeachment is not part of the criminal justice system.”

          That’s an interesting paraphrase of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” requirement. Just as interesting as when Mitch McConnell left a Supreme Court seat open for a year under his interesting paraphrase of the advice and consent clause.

      2. I agree with you about Justin Amash – he’s certainly been the most principled Republican in the House to this point. But people and circumstances change unpredictably.

        Justin Amash, who won’t deny he wants the Libertarian nomination for the Presidency in 2020. Stepping out against Trump, even if only on scant and/or controvertible evidence, combines with his honorable and rational career in Congress would make him a strong dark horse in the Republican race for the White House, and the most viable Libertarian candidate for Presiddent, ever.

        If we’re being judicious about what Amash said, we have to ask him what, specificallly supports his statements, and still remember this is someone who’s running against Trump in 2020 speaking.

  9. L4D says–Ordinarily, one would have expected Turley to credit Amash with having successfully “trolled” Gramma Nancy on the call for Trump’s Impeachment. But . . . No! Evidently Turley was too star-struck with Amash’s principled and courageous stand to take yet another gratuitous swipe at Speaker Pelosi.

    Oh well. There’s always tomorrow, or the next day. Turley is bound to figure that opportunity out sooner or later. Isn’t he? (O! If only The Professor had enough time in his work day to read his own blawg.) Ha-ha!

  10. Even some of us who like the job Trump is doing wince when he Tweets – “What fresh horrors?”, we think. However clumsily phrased, though, Donald Trump has a point about Justin Amash, who coyly won’t rule out a run for the Presidency in 2020.

    “Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) said Sunday that he’s not ruling out seeking the Libertarian nomination for the presidency in 2020.

    Amash said during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” that he believes the United States needs a president who is “presenting a vision for America that is different from what these two parties are presenting.”

    “I never rule out anything. That’s not on my radar right now, but I think that it is important that we have someone in there that is presenting a vision for America that is different from what these two parties are presenting,” Amash said when CNN host Jake Tapper asked if he would consider running.

    “Right now we have a wild amount of partisan rhetoric on both sides and Congress is totally broken. We can’t debate things in a clear way anymore,” Amash added.

    “The Michigan Republican on Sunday called for a “return to basic American principles.”

    “I think that we need to return to basic American principles,” he said. “Talk about what we have in common as a people, because I believe we have a lot in common as Americans.”

    That’s the single best set of aspirations I’ve heard any challenger for the Presidency in 2020 voice.

    But we also have to look hard at anything Justin Amash says about President Trump, no matter how smoothily and appealingly phrased. He’s got a good reason to with Donald Trump impeached.

    Fortunately, Amash and other Rrepresentatives can only indict Trump of wrongdoing – and it’s a good thing, because as triers of fact most of the House are hopelessly biased.

    The Constitution is setup in a way that this happens – the House of Representatives gets to be shamelessly biased in indicting someone in Articles of Impeachment, and history doesn’t care. No one really cares whether Nixon got a fair shake when his Articles of Impeachment were drafted, because press accounts made a good case for him to stand trial in the Senate for what he allegedly did. It’s only when the press is in bed with someone who’s been impeached (say, Bill Clinton) that we’re shown how poltiics works to allow the House to work off political angst ageinst a sitting President.

  11. “Amash tweeted that he had read the Special Counsel report carefully and concluded that Trump should be impeachment. ”


    Amash also opposed federal aid to residents of Flint, Michigan when their water was poisoned and no one from the State of Michigan wanted to do anything to save them. That’s instructive on his judgment.

      1. Greenwald is correct — so far. But if this is a pretext to get some press ahead of announcing that he is running for President under the Libertarian ticket, it will be extremely disheartening. And there’s nothing Libertarian in these particular comments.

        1. That’s my take, too – Amash forfeited any claim to objectivity he may have had when he let his hat hover the ring in the 2020 Presidential elections. Fairly or not, we have to consider that when he talks about the case against his main competitor in that race.

      2. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall.”
        ~ Emerson, Self-Reliance

        So, Greenwald isn’t a statesman like mindless train tracker, Justin Amash. Maybe he’s a divine?

          1. Anonymous:

            “You’re not consistent — I’ll give you that.

            We know: You’ve evolved. Or something like that.”

            Well, actually I just got more information. What do you do with new information, btw? Ignore it? The Right did use paid commenters just like Soros does today. If you think today’s Leftist radicals are yesterday’s left-leaning progressives, you’ve got your eyes closed – consistently.

            1. “The Right did use paid commenters…” -mespo, aka the god of thunder

              And it still does.

              As for my eyes? They’re wide open.

              1. “As for my eyes? They’re wide open.”
                Okay, so like “Facts Don’t Matter Just Consistency Justin” you approve abandoning US citizens in a lethal catastrophe not of their own making because according to barrister Amash it’s an “intrastate matter” even though it involves scads of federal regulations.

                Bet you were a ball during Katrina. Not surprising however. You seem to not know as much law as Amash doesn’t.

                1. Nothing to do with his views of tRump’s behavior though it does make a case that he is principled albeit heartless. Nice deflection, can’t imagine you have been crying for Flint.

          2. holy lunch money batman are there openings for that of late? that’s from 2011. lmk post leads here.

        1. There is a difference between a rational consistency and a foolish consistency. If Amash, who is mistaken in this instance, engaged in foolish consistency, he would have supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton and stated that Ken Starr was a model prosecutor while Robert Mueller was not.
          A rational consistency shows us that neither Starr or Mueller conducted themselves well. And that neither of these events should have happened.

          1. Stevej:

            “There is a difference between a rational consistency and a foolish consistency.”
            Do tell. Was it a rational consistency to deny funds to poisoned people in Flint? How about opposing a border wall on fiscal grounds? He’s consistently nuts.

              1. He’s a “constitution as suicide pact” kinda guy. Knows the whereabouts of every tree but can’t find the forest.

                1. And we know that you’re the “kinda guy” who knows everything…until he doesn’t. Foolishly inconsistent, maybe.

                  1. “And we know that you’re the “kinda guy” who knows everything…until he doesn’t. Foolishly inconsistent, maybe.”
                    Prove me wrong or go whimpering back to your shadowy corner.

                    1. To mespo @5:41 demanding proof, proof proof.

                      The proof is in the pudding — and the pudding in on full display.

                      When a guy believes that he’s always right, the “debate” is pointless.

                      Whimpering? Shadowy corner? You’re a hoot, if nothing else, oh-god-of-thunder.

                    2. “The proof is in the pudding — and the pudding in on full display.”
                      I assume you have none except dessert recipes.

            1. Foolish consistency is analogous to partisan consistency. And Amash, so far, hasn’t practiced that. As for the water crisis, Amash stated that the state government, who was in error in the first place, should be the entity to pay for their mistake. His stance on a border wall is that Congress needs to fund it. Next please.

              1. Read the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations which clearly apply and are mandatory. Seems you have the same rudimentary understanding of American law as your hero, Justin Amash.

                1. “Read the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations which clearly apply and are mandatory.”

                  Yeah and the Michigan State government didn’t comply with them. And so the Michigan State government needs to make restitution — which is what is going on. Please tell me that a quality Conservative like you isn’t arguing for a federal bailout.

                  1. SteveJ:

                    ” Please tell me that a quality Conservative like you isn’t arguing for a federal bailout.”


                    Yeah just like the feds “bailing out” Louisiana during Katrina or any in other disater. Were you at the ramparts then? I’m arguing the feds are there when the state government fails or is overwhelmed. In this case, the Republican administration was incompetent. The regs allow the feds to step in to enforce them. I thought you read them. It’s a public health crisis not a political football.

                    1. “The State wasn’t overwhelmed and had the money.”
                      I said they were incompetent (“In this case, the Republican administration was incompetent.”). Maybe you did read the regs and with the same comprehension.

      3. And he’s almost a candidate to run aginst Donald Trump in 2020.

        Hey, I like what I’ve read about Justn Amash, too, but it doesn’t blind me to Amash’s reasons to want Donald Trump as damaged going into the 2020 elections as possible. Even if he looks like an even-handed critic of Trump, Amash is also a savvy politician.

          1. Which is why someone else is making clownishly sinple and transparent Tweets about him.

            Amash either is or is not the big dog in the race to be the Libertarian candidate for President, depenidng on which poll you like. Ask Gary Johnson how many cups of coffee at Starbucks being nominated by the Libertarian party to be that party’s candidate for the Presidency gets you. So Amash isn’t being all that transparent when he disses Trump right now – he’s getting the stink-eye from the rest of the GOP, and not much at all from anyone else.

            Eventually, though, the Republican party will read the Constitution and Bill of Rights more clearly than it now does. It’ll become recognizably more like the present TEA Party and Libertarian party. And there Justin Amash will be, with a lifelong record of working for limited government and rule of Constitutional law.

            If anyone’s clownishly simple and transparent, there are 22 people running for president and the First Tweeter who are more so than Justin Amash.

            We still have to take Amash’s remarks about Trump with a grain of salt, because his hat is hovering over the ring for the 2020 Presidential race, too.

    1. The problem in Flint was made by Flint’s city government and the people running their water works, on a metter within Michigan’s jurisdiction.

      Amash seems to have been guided by sound Libertarian principles to let states and municipalities sort out their own mistakes despite the Flint water works issue very quickly being used by the Democrats and their friends in the national press as fuel for poltiical attacks on Michigan’s Republican governor.

      No one would have blamed Amash for bringing a large amount of pork back home to the voters (except Democrats and really hard-shell Libertarians, that is). But Amash walked the libertaian walk and didn’t make Flint’ water Uncle Sam’s problem. If every member of Congress acted as Justin Amash did on Flint, our national deficit would be much smaller.

      Justin Amash keeps being re-elected by his district to represent them ++in the House. He did something right.

      1. “Amash seems to have been guided by sound Libertarian principles to let states and municipalities sort out their own mistakes despite the Flint water works issue very quickly being used by the Democrats and their friends in the national press as fuel for poltiical attacks on Michigan’s Republican governor.”


        I think I heard Amash’s comments before. In 1968, it went something like: “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” That is saavy — to everyone except the citizens of Flint.

        1. That was actually a quote from the rocket scientist who took Flint off the save water supply it had been on for decades to save a few bucks and created a man-made disaster.

          If Flint had been bailed out by Uncle Sam for that mess, every other city and township would have their Repreentative and Senators clamoring to bail them out of messes they made.

  12. It’s apparently to difficult for JT to state the obvious fact that contrary to Trump’s claim and Barr’s skillful insinuation, the Mueller report did not clear Trump of collusion and specifically cited 10 instances of obstruction of justice. And this is a law professor concerned with our government? I don’t think so.

    1. That you are desirous of a political outcome in a legal venue is itself criminal.

      Mueller stated unequivocally that NO American colluded with Russia to affect the election.

      Mueller effectively exonerated President Trump.

      Allegation and prosecution of a “process crime” is disingenuous and malicious.

      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 commit it?

      More nonsense pllleeeease.

      More Anon pllleeeease.

      1. George, you dummy. No, Mueller did not say there was no collusion. Read the report and far back to us.

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

          – Special Counsel Robert Mueller

        2. A senior Department of Justice official said that Mueller is “not recommending any further indictments.”

          – Kaitlyn Schallhorn

        3. “But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law.”

          – Robert Mueller

          1. George:

            Well it is in anti-trust law but not here. Collusion is one of those propaganda terms thrown around to impress the ignorant. Barr isn’t ignorant; neither is Mueller but for different reasons.

            1. Robert Mueller and I stand corrected. Thank you.

              Question: If it is private property that is addressed by “anti-trust law,” anti-trust law would appear to be unconstitutional, understanding that the right to private property is, as Madison stated, “…that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual,” which would include excluding private individuals and individuals of the government sort, according to the words before us which are all we have, nothing more and nothing less, to base a conclusion on – no “interpretation” being necessary, viable or possible.

              Congress and liberals believe they can do whatever they like. They cannot. Congress and liberals do not believe that the power of Congress was enumerated, severely restricted and severely limited, with government existing solely to facilitate the freedom of individuals. Here again, as Lincoln had no authority to deny constitutional secession by the CSA, Congress has no authority to possess or control or “…claim or exercise..” “…dominion..” over the private property of individuals; it may merely take private property for the greater good and compensate the owners at market value under Eminent Domain.

              Further, if I may, anti-trust translates as anti-competitive which the Constitution leaves to free and open markets. It is incumbent upon consumers to generate competition and on government to avoid stifling competition. Markets are always maximally efficient because of competition. The recourse of consumers is not to complain but compete, boycott, divest and advocate. The redress the government must provide to complainants under the Constitution is the admonition that they, the consumers, must generate a market response to the market problem they perceive.

              Even when a temporary monopoly develops, Americans can’t lose faith in the free markets of the private sector – freedom and free enterprise. Freedom is optimism and optimism tells us that where there’s a will there’s a way. There is no alternative to freedom but slavery under communism and, to be sure, liberalism, socialism, progressivism and the “democracy” of the contemporary democrat party are all communism in disguise and communism-in-waiting. A woman can never be half pregnant and a citizen can never be half communist. The experiment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics proved absolutely and definitively, communism is economic and ideological suicide.

              As Lincoln illicitly denied the right and freedom of constitutional secession to the CSA, liberals deny the right and freedom of constitutional private property to individuals through the imposition of unconstitutional “anti-trust” law. The American Founders were indisputably geniuses. The Constitution holds dominion. Dreams and aspirations must yield.

            2. L4D says–Collusion is a political issue. Mueller declined to indict the Trump campaign for conspiracy. That Trump can’t tell the difference anymore between collusion versus conspiracy actually bolsters the obstruction of justice case against Trump.

      2. “Mueller effectively exonerated President Trump.

        AG Barr specifically denied that the Mueller report exonerated Trump. It merely refers to the lack of avidence to support the specific charges of collusion and obstruction of justice.

        I’m skeptical that Trump actively obstructed justice. If he only did as much as Henry II of Englsnd did, screaming “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?”about Mueller, it’s not recorded that anyone around him took it as directions to obstruct justice.

        In fact, Trump[ made his attorneys and staff available to be interviewed in that investigation. He failed to assert executive priviege until it became clear that the Democrats of Congress were bent on abusing their power of oversight to tie the Executive Branch in politically-motivated fishing expeditions.

        In caucus, the Democrats voted unanimously not to pursue Impeachment.

        Exonerated or not, the preponderance of the evidence seems not to support charges that Donald Trump obstructed justice.

        1. “Seems???”

          If my aunt “seemed” to have balls, she would “seem” to be my uncle.

          If Mueller “seemed” to be “…not recommending any further indictments,” it would “seem” that Mueller effectively exonerated President Trump.

          A senior Department of Justice official said that Mueller is “not recommending any further indictments.”

          – Kaitlyn Schallhorn

          Also, if Mueller persists in refusing to appear before Congress, it would “seem” that Mueller knew early on that he was conducing a criminally “malicious prosecution” for which he will “seem” to seek, but not find, his own exoneration – what did Mueller know and when did he know it – same for Christopher Wray; where were you Chris?

        2. loupgarous601 says: May 19, 2019 at 6:03 PM

          “In caucus, the Democrats voted unanimously not to pursue Impeachment.”

          L4D says–nothing of the sort took place at the Democratic caucus on health care. There was no vote taken on the question of pursuing the impeachment of Trump–least of all a unanimous vote against impeachment. You have exactly the wrong idea based upon the garbling of a news report that was mangled by Turley on his thread about the Democratic caucus.

          BTW, my previous comment on this topic was blocked because of a reference to a page number in The Muller Report that is also routinely blocked here most likely because it would refute your notion that nobody around Trump took actions on Trump’s directives to obstruct justice. You are being “protected” from “the truth” by “someone” who will not tolerate “the truth” to be posted here. You can’t even post the Page Number for crying out loud.

        3. Loupy said, “In caucus, the Democrats voted unanimously not to pursue Impeachment.”

          L4D says–Nothing of the sort happened at the Democratic caucus meeting on health care. No vote was taken on the question of pursuing the impeachment of Trump–least of all a unanimous vote against impeaching Trump. I’m pretty sure I know how you got exactly the wrong idea about the Democratic caucus meeting. But you are being “protected” from “the truth” by same person who gave you exactly the wrong idea about the Democratic caucus meeting on health care.

          1. L4D says–Gee. That’s swell. Can I post the Page Number now? Let’s find out:

            Page 91 of Volume II of The Mueller Report (PDF Pg. 303).

            1. L4D says–So the page number is the only thing allowed to be posted here. The page itself is blocked. And a brief description of the page is blocked. This blawg can’t handle the truth. Denial is not a chastity belt, Gentlemen.

    2. It’s apparently to difficult for JT to state the obvious fact that contrary to Trump’s claim and Barr’s skillful insinuation, the Mueller report did not clear Trump of collusion and specifically cited 10 instances of obstruction of justice.

      They spent 32 months trying, and failed. Because there was no collusion. The notion that Trump’s tweets constitute obstruction is simply not serious.

      1. For a guy who posts about it so frequently, absurd knows nothing about what is in the Mueller report.

        Absurd…. look at me!

        Collusion is not a crime and was not the subject of the investigation – this is explicit in the report – though to anyone who understands English, multiple examples of collusion are reported.

        Trump’s actions cited as obstruction of justice include, lying, firing, and witness tampering. This isn’t about tweets.

        1. Anon, Go ahead and list the items of obstruction and PROVE they represent significant obstruction. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar though you might find another meaning. Your mind is so warped you can only see one side of a coin when it actually has two sides and an edge.

        2. Anon:

          Whatever Absurd’s level of legal sophistication it dwarfs yours. Lying isn’t a crime; hiring and firing are executive prerogatives for which no impeachable offense can be manufactured; witness tampering obstruction of justice requires knowledge of an ongoing criminal investigation or a pending hearing that has to be in place before the so-called “obstruction” was performed. There were none even making the outlandish assertion that witness tampering occurred. Do you really think you can bluff your way through on a legal blog? You’re like the blind from birth guy proclaiming the sky isn’t blue sometimes. Pretty pathetic.

          1. Mespo, put a can of whoopa– on him, OK, but he’s an unarmed opponent – it’s just not a fair fight. You’re picking on someone smaller than you – a dwarf (apologies to dwarfs) – and it’s a bloody massacre. LOL!

            I can’t watch anymore.

          2. mespo, an act can be perfectly legal by itself but if performed for the purpose of obstructing justice, illegal. Of course the ten incidents Mueller listed occurred when Trump had full knowledge of the investigation of his campaign or of those associated with it. In any case, the over 900 former federal attorneys who have signed the letter stating there is evidence of an obvious prosecutable case against Trump on obstruction of justice disagree with you on the law. While one can know the law and disagree on the evidence, you seem to fail the first test.

            You posted late. I’ll assume you were in a dream state and not in full control of your faculties. Hard to explain otherwise.

            1. “Of course the ten incidents Mueller listed occurred when Trump had full knowledge of the investigation of his campaign or of those associated with it. “
              Well obviously. That’s why he’s being impeached right now. Your assertions are patently false or unprovable. But they are propaganda so they have that going for it.

              1. Read the report mespo. Or maybe a newspaper. The incidents occurred after the investigation(s) began and Trump and everyone in his administration of importance knew about it.

                1. I won’t believe my eyes. I’ll believe your interpretation of a report that exonerates the man. Are you paid by the word?

                  1. Mespo,
                    I didn’t see Robert Mueller’s name among the former prosecutors who signed the letter. I guess he’d prefer to remain
                    non-committal; I thought part of the idea of having a Special Counsel was to come to conclusions.

                  2. Thanks for the compliment mespo, but no, I’m not paid for shooting fish in a barrel.

                    The report did not exonerate Trump, a conclusion which confirms that you are as ignorant as absurd about it’s contents.

                    1. They spent 32 months looking for evidence of a crime. They also pulled out all the stops to get perjured testimony from Trump associates. All that activity, and they get not one plea agreement which delineates a conspiracy of any kind.

        3. PS For absurd – This is from the letter signed by 916 – to date – former federal attorneys, both Republican and Democrats: Note there is no mention of tweets.

          You can read the letter and peruse the list – it includes administration(s) they served under – and which is growing hourly.

          “The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:

          · The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;

          · The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and

          · The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.”

          1. The letter is a talking-point generator, and the signatories don’t have to put up or shut up. And the notion that Trump committed ‘obstruction of justice’ is facially absurd.

            1. I believe all the points Anon mentioned above were already proven ludicrous by Mespo. Anon is like an obsessive compulsive that keeps lists all neat and tidy but doesn’t really understand their purpose.

  13. I think anyone who questions why Trump does what he does hasn’t been paying attention. He is a desperately sick man who know nothing but ad hominem attacks, and cannot overcome his compulsion to disrespect anyone who disagrees with him in the slightest. I disagree that the Mueller report does not provide sufficient cause for impeachment. So do most of the scholars and 300 former US Attorneys if I remember right. I think Prof Turley has breathed some of the Trump air, probably by accident, and we know what that does to people.

    1. Please, Prof, resist the Giuliani/Dershowitz disease.

      1. “Please, Prof, resist the Giuliani/Dershowitz disease.”
        Yeah ’cause it blows the Hell out of Chucks’ emotional plea … er argument.

    2. Chuck:

      “He is a desperately sick man who know nothing but ad hominem attacks, and cannot overcome his compulsion to disrespect anyone who disagrees with him in the slightest.”
      With no more qualifications than you, I suspect this statement above is pathetic projection. You’re not above some ad hominen’em yourself. If you still think you are qualified, please post your diagnostic credentials so we can see who is “desperately sick” or perhaps who is the latest permutation of Walter Mitty.

  14. “State Department’s red flag on Steele went to a senior FBI man well before FISA warrant”

    “Government officials confirm that an October 2016 email revealing that Steele met with State Department officials — a breach of protocol for an informant if it was unauthorized — was sent to FBI counterintelligence supervisor Special Agent Stephen Laycock who immediately forwarded the information to Peter Strzok.”

    “The email to Laycock from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec arrived eight days before the FBI swore to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that it had no derogatory information on Steele and used his anti-Trump dossier to secure a secret surveillance warrant to investigate Trump’s possible ties to Moscow.”

    – The Hill

    Special Agent Stephen Laycock is added to the list of co-conspirators in the Obama Coup D’etat in America.

    The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history.

    The co-conspirators are:

    Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Stephen Laycock, Kadzic, Yates,

    Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Steele,

    Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry,

    Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder,

    Brazile, Sessions, Obama et al.

  15. As the layers of the onion of the Obama Coup D’etat in America are peeled back, Professor Turley averts and neglects the revelations then throws out a red herring named Amash.

    Why, Professor, why? Do we seek facts or political ends?

    Meanwhile, former MC Gowdy provides a road map to the irrefutable evidence.

    “Gowdy: FBI Has Papadopoulos Transcripts That Are Potential ‘Game-Changer’”

    “Former Republican South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy said he is aware of potentially game-changing evidence in the FBI’s Russia probe regarding George Papadopoulos, the former Trump campaign adviser. Gowdy indicated he has seen FBI transcripts related to Papadopoulos that contain potentially exculpatory information on the question of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government. “If the bureau’s going to send in an informant in, the informant’s going to be wired, and if the bureau is monitoring telephone calls, there’s going to be a transcript of that,” Gowdy said. Gowdy continued: “Some of us have been fortunate enough to know whether or not those transcripts exist. But they haven’t been made public, and I think one in particular is going — it has the potential to actually persuade people. Very little in this Russia probe I’m afraid is going to persuade people who hate Trump or love Trump. But there is some information in these transcripts that has the potential to be a game-changer if it’s ever made public.”
    The FBI officially opened its counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign July 31, 2016, after receiving information from the Australian government regarding Papadopoulos. A top Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, claimed Papadopoulos told him during a conversation May 10, 2016, that he heard Russia might release information on Hillary Clinton close to the campaign. As part of its investigation, the FBI used a longtime informant, Stefan Halper, to make contact with Papadopoulos. He paid Papadopoulos $3,000 and flew him to London in mid-September 2016 under the guise of writing an academic paper on Mediterranean energy security issues.
    Halper, a former Cambridge professor, was accompanied by a woman he claimed was his assistant. But the woman, who used the alias Azra Turk, was actually a government investigator. Papadopoulos claims during meetings in London, Halper and Turk asked him if he knew of or was involved in Russian efforts to obtain Clinton emails. Papadopoulos said he denied having any knowledge of the matter.
    A month after Papadopoulos’s trip, the FBI obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against Carter Page, another Trump campaign aide. The surveillance warrant mentioned Papadopoulos as well. It is unclear if the application for the warrant includes any information gathered by Halper, who also established contact with Page. Gowdy, who served on the House Intelligence Committee, said he and Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe have seen the potentially exculpatory documents. He said he hopes the public will one day get to review it. “If you have exculpatory information and you don’t share it with the court, that ain’t good. I’ve seen it, Johnny [Ratcliffe] has seen it. I’d love for your viewers to see it,” he said. Gowdy dropped another potential bombshell in a Fox News interview earlier in May.
    He indicated that while he was in office, he saw an FBI spreadsheet that listed news articles and information from longtime Clinton crony Sidney Blumenthal as corroborating information for the Steele dossier.”

  16. “Once again, I fail to see why Trump engages in such unpresidential, low-grade attacks. It is not only demeaning to his office but ultimately self-defeating to his claims of innocence.”

    The obvious answer is that Trump isn’t Presidential but is low-grade. BTW, his constant assertion that there can’t be Obstruction if there is no underlying crime totally ignores the fact he’s “Individual-1” in the Campaign Finance Violation crimes that saw his lawyer convicted for following his orders. Also, an examination of his finances which even his ardent supporters must admit he’s going to great lengths to hide might reveal all sorts of crimes. Apparently, Deutsche Bank employees wanted to refer some of Trump’s (and Kushner’s) transactions with Russia (of course) for Federal examination but those of the top at Deutsche Bank blocked it.

    1. “Individual-1” in the Campaign Finance Violation crimes that saw his lawyer convicted for following his orders.

      An enterprising U.S. Attorney tried to win a conviction of John Edwards at trial for that charge and failed. For a reason. The charge is humbug. Cohen negotiated a non-disclosure agreement, which lawyers do as a matter of course.

      1. Then, Tabby, you can explain why Michael Cohen is sitting in prison right now. You’re saying he’s there for arranging a routine agreement?

        1. They investigated his life and found millions in bank fraud. Maybe we should do that for every single citizen and turn ourselves into East Germany?

      2. No one has ever heard a peep from Tiger Wood’s former wife. She likes the “hush” money she was paid for her complete silence. It happens all the time. This is an absurd argument.

    2. Generational Welfare and Affirmative Action – Don’t leave home wiffout it.

      Listen to your redistributed tax dollars speaking.

        1. Thanks for axing. As a constitutional American, I note that the principles of communism, redistribution of wealth and social engineering are unconstitutional. Understanding that the American thesis is Freedom and Self-Reliance and as an individual, I would never accept charity in the form of monetary, employment or matriculation assistance. I would be embarrassed. Please cite fundamental law wherein redistribution of wealth and social engineering are provided for – eschewing your incoherent, convoluted and erroneous “interpretation” – per the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Charity is industry conducted in the free markets of the private sector. Seems like the Bible rejected welfare and affirmative action also:

          Thou Shalt Not Steal

          Thou Shalt Not Covet

          Understanding that the American Founders thrice passed the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795 and 1802 which required citizens to be “…free white person(s)…,” I’m confused by your use of the term “racist,” which apparently you launch as a pejorative. Were the American Founders illicitly “racist?” That seems counterintuitive as they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights and established the United States of America. Do you mean to imply that, given the freedoms of speech, thought, religion, belief, publication, press, socialization, assembly and every other conceivable natural and God-given right and freedom per the 9th Amendment, perception and revelation of race is unconstitutional. Is it invisible? Is it illegal to discern race, if so, which race? That seems biased and subjective. I don’t understand the nature or purpose of your question. Are you a “black supremacist?” I’ve not heard that theorized yet, although it would seem to be inevitable in the current hysterical, incoherent, chaotic and anarchical national condition.

          1. I guess a simple yes or no wouldn’t do. I like the “axing” part. I never realized you had a sense of humor. I’m from Minnesota and “axing” has never been part of my lexicon but I did catch it.
            As to whether the founders were illicitly racist? That’s the problem that you seem incapable of understanding is that a whole lot of racism is quite licit, codified in law and from time to time the Supreme Court puts its stamp on it. Muslim Ban anyone? Yes those Founders and every generation thereafter have ensured that you and you have and keep a leg up. You say you abhor charity and theft yet you benefit from in on a daily basis as has the country. This country was built on the stolen labor which gave it an economic advantage enabling it to keep up and at times ahead of the rest of the world. Thoses freedoms of speech, thought, religion, publication, socialization, etc, were not extended to all. Some of my ancestors learned to read under penalty of death if found out.
            I suspected you would be confused by the word racist and you didn’t let me down. I challenge you to come up with your own definition and then respond again to my original question, “do you consider yourself a racist?” MAybe a couple others if you have time. Assuming there is such a thing as voter suppression, would it be racist if applied expressly to reduce votes of a particular race(s)? Why was Affirmative-Action which you rail against at every chance, conceived of in the first place?

            1. Sorry. I’m in the United States of America. I don’t do nonsense, narcissistic personality disorder, petitions for alms for the poor or any other immaterial incoherence. I do the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Individuals are free and government is severely limited and restricted to the role of facilitating the aforementioned freedom of individuals. You should read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Congress has no authority to tax for any form of individual welfare or governmental “assistance.” Congress has no authority to regulate anything other than trade, exchange or “…commerce among the several States.” Congress has no authority to possess or control or claim or exercise dominion over any individual’s private property with the sole exception of Eminent Domain. Charity is industry conducted voluntarily in the free markets of the private sector.

              Per the Constitution, I do not have to pay taxes to fund any of these charitable considerations: Affirmative action (employment/matriculation), quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Education, Labor, Obamacare, Obamaphones, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing,” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

              Per the socially engineering, centrally planing redistributionists of wealth who control the means of production (i.e. unconstitutional regulation), aka communists in America, I have to pay taxes for all of it.

              Thou Shalt Not Covet

              Thou Shalt Not Steal

              When can I expect full recompense?

              Presumably your offense derives from your participation, in some form or other, in unconstitutional governmentally forced “philanthropy” extending back through the generations.

              Also, would that be your personal law that denies me a lexicon inclusive of “ax” and, yep, you missed it, “wiffout,” considering my right to and freedom of speech, thought, belief, religion, socialization, assembly, publication, press and every other conceivable natural and God-given right and freedom per the 9th Amendment?

              Aw-ite den!!!

        2. George is obviously a racist enigma, and a not very clever one at that. Probably a daddy’s boy like Trump and a legacy admission.

          1. Wait. Is racism, however it’s defined, unconstitutional? Could you cite that for me? Did I miss it in the Ten Commandments – Thou Shalt Not Hold An Opinion? I may be a speciesist because i hate the heck out of snakes – Rattlesnakes, Vipers, Cobras, excuse me, Black Mambas, etc. Is that unconstitutional also? I mean, you’re surprise-attacked and the next thing you know, the snake toxins have sucked the life out of you. Speciesist, that’s it. I also intensely dislike and reject seafood. To be perfectly candid, fish stink! There, I said it!

          2. I wasn’t asking as if there were any doubt. For a moment I wondered what his internal thinking process was. 10,000 words later, I regret opening that door. The more he writes, the less we desire to know.

        3. Actually, I erroneously left out the elephant in the room. Taxes. To answer your question, I am a taxesist, to adapt your phrase. Congress has no power to tax for individual welfare, merely “…general Welfare…,” Congress has no power to regulate anything other than trade, exchange or “…commerce among the several States…” and the right to private property denies any and all governmental possession or control, or claim to or exercise of dominion over any individual’s private property, with the sole exception of Eminent Domain. To wit, Article 1, Section 8 and the fact that James Madison defined private property as “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

          Per the Constitution, I do not have to pay taxes to fund any of these charitable considerations: Affirmative action (employment/matriculation), quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Education, Labor, Obamacare, Obamaphones, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing,” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

          Per the socially engineering, centrally planing redistributionists of wealth who control the means of production (i.e. unconstitutional regulation), aka communists in America, I have to pay taxes for all of it.

          Thanks for axing.

          I am a Taxesist.

        4. Enigma:

          “Out of curiousity George, do you consider yourself racist?”
          According to Rasmussen, blacks are considered the most racist group in America and that assessment cuts across all racial lines with American blacks believing blacks are the most racist group. So, statistically speaking, do you, enigma, consider yourself a racist?

          “Among black Americans, 31% think most blacks are racist, while 24% consider most whites racist and 15% view most Hispanics that way.”

          1. “South Carolina is the sort of place where, out one evening in Columbia for dinner, only minutes after I sat down, I was accosted by six drunk upper-middle-class white women who were out with their grown daughters. After pointing in my direction, one of them staggered over and sat down, and with her thick tongue and her red eyes, she asked me if I was her Uber driver and demanded that I drive her somewhere, “girl.”” – RACHEL KAADZI GHANSAH

            From her article “A Most American Terrorist: The Making of Dylann Roof” for which she won a Pulitzer.

            No shortage of racists in this country. Just one small example.

            1. Anonymous:
              She won a Pulitzer because she, like the committee who awarded it, are inveterate Leftists who despise America and applaud anyone who writes it. Here’s betting that incident only happened in her hate-filled mind. Southern women don’t behave that way and never take Uber. Who asks a fellow diner if they’re an Uber driver? The Left hoax machine drones on.

              1. Yeah, she probably imagined Dylan Roof too.

                Pretty broad statement on southern white women. I live in the south and I wouldn’t automatically dismiss accusations by credible people based on the race and sex of the accused unless it was anatomically or otherwise impossible.

                Does the Klan have awards for writing and reporting?

                1. ” I live in the south and I … ”

                  We know all about you Anon.

                  You live in the south
                  you do your own taxes
                  you have your own business
                  you think your business is a big deal when it amounts to a newborn guppy in an ocean of whales.
                  you marched in the south
                  you don’t provide proof or evidence
                  you run away when faced with fact
                  you change your alias when things get hot
                  you lie

                2. kluckers are notoriously poorly read. also they are mostly nonexistent except as promoters for the SPLC, who will often write one up, if they can be found

                  however, essay contests with a cash prize, directed to a pro white audience, have been seen

              2. I know a woman who grew up in Mobile and another who grew up in Harrisonburg, Va who use Uber.

                That having been said, the account offered does sound fictional and I agree with you that her editor’s due diligence was likely zero. Nearly a generation ago, John Leo offered that in his experience, reporters compose stories with templates, and if an event doesn’t fit one of the reporter’s templates, it will generally be misreported (and that’s when the reporter isn’t being self-consciously deceptive). And, of course, one reason due diligence is zero is that it fits the editor’s prejudices about Southerners.

                (I’ve spent much of my life in college towns and around Southerners. The only occasion I’ve ever seen a Southern woman obnoxious-while-inebriated, the perpetrator was a resident of Roanoke who grew up in New Jersey, a woman who is rather abrasive when she’s sober).

            2. “No shortage of racists in this country. Just one small example.”

              If you disappeared there would be one less.

          2. I’ll look over, “According to Rasmussen” as the most viable source. Racism still comes down to an individual choice despite whatever influences. I asked George a question, he answered with what appeared to be a justification. There is no justification.
            If you agree with the poll, have you asked yourself why that might be?

            1. “If you agree with the poll, have you asked yourself why that might be?”
              I’m person who believes credible scientific polling over foolishness. You might recall Rasmussen as being the only major national poll to correctly call the 2016 election because they’re aren’t ideologues.

              To answer your question, I suppose the answer of why it might be is that’s it’s true given that the experts on the subject, Black Americans, say so. Funny how people who claim they speak authoritatively for other people so rarely do.

              1. You’re answering a different question than I asked, I’ll allow for the possibility of misunderstanding. I’ll rephrase. If black people are the most racist, have you considered why that might be? Hint: Just possibly in reaction to the treatment they’ve receive in coming and since arriving in this country. While George feels all these laws have been passed that unfairly deprive white people of their entitlements. I’m sure I can point to a few (hundred) passed to deprive black people of all the freedoms George claims is there for all.

                1. blacks are conscious of race because they are an obvious ethnic minority in a country made up of non blacks. naturally, when things don’t go well, a black person may be tempted to suspect racism, to whatever degree the suspicions may be grounded in fact. but habitually so, especially since they have been socially conditioned to blame society for their misfortunes. of course there is racism against blacks, but blacks may engage in racism too.

                  racism and other forms of tribal and ethnic conflict are perpetual in society and will never vanish. we should just try and be wise under all circumstances

                  1. Many times I’ve wondered if someone/something is racist? My typical position is to wait and see and it will usually become clear. Sometimes, people broadcast it to the rooftops so their is no doubt.
                    There are those occassions where people claim their intent isn’t racist although the outcome certainly is. Some of the proponents of Gerrymandering that has an undeniable racist affect wasn’t their intent which was purely political. I say if you know what it does and do it anyway. That would be racist.

          3. Mespo, what’s the point. or do you present this information anytime you interact with a black person? enigma shows up here occasionally to discuss whatever issue is on the burner and people like you and George act like you’ve been waiting for a black person for weeks and now’s your chance, even though being white or black isn’t the issue.

    3. SARs probably were generated by AML software or some kind of boring mandatory reporting routines. that’s a snoozefest of a story if you know how the engine works under the hood

      1. Let’s assume the specialists at Deutsche Bank know how the engine works? Hence their position. Another question for consideration, why are financial institutions with a long history of criminal behavior allowed to continue to operate? Deutshe Bank has a long history of laundering Russian money. No amount of fines seems to hinder them. Until these institutions start getting shut down or its officers start going to prison. Getting caught is just a cost of doing business.

        1. i think a certain amount of money laundering, i mean by that bona fide real criminal ML, is impossible to prevent

          a big bank will have it happening just as they will have a certain amount of overdrafts and so forth. it is indeed just a cost.

          the DB is a big bank. it would be unreasonable to shut it down based on a certain small number of verified instances of ML

          1. DB has laundered Billions for Russia and seems to be continuing to do so. They established new guidelines which were supposed to keep it from happening again which they ignored in the Trump/Kushner cases. I don’t personally have proof but I have no doubt the great lengths Trump is going to in attempts to hide what all modern Presidential candidates willingly reveal is for good cause.

            1. DB has laundered Billions for Russia and seems to be continuing to do so.

              1. Either you’re contending the Russian government is laundering money or you have the idea that all Russian’s moving money around form some sort of Borg creature.

              2. Did it ever occur to you to look up the flow of funds through DeutcheBank in a year?

              3. Banks take deposits and make loans, among many other transactions. Your complaint about ‘money laundering’ is that they’re devoting insufficient manpower to policing their clients.

              4. None of this has anything to do with Trump, who is just another client of DeutcheBank.

              1. Deutsche Bank’s money laundering is already well-established and highly documented. I’d post linls but I sense any proof wouldn’t matter. I didn’t claim they had insufficient manpower, they just ignored the manpower they already had. I’d document that too but again it wouldn’t matter. One Federal Judge just said Trump’s accountants have to honor subpoenas for his finances, another Judge holds oral arguments tomorrow regarding the Deutsche Bank subpoenas. Trump’s finances won’t be hidden forever despite his desparate attempts to block investigators from seeing them. One thing he can count on though, you won’t believe whatever they find.

                1. Since the judge refused to issue a stay pending an appeal, we know the order was politically-motivated.

                  1. Or… as the judge said, there was absolutely no basis in law to block the release and they didn’t stand a reasonable chance of winning an appeal.

                    1. The reason for an appeal is because the first judge might be wrong. If that is accepted as true then it is interminably ignorant to trust the judge’s judgement on the chances of winning an appeal.

                    2. Can’t wait until a congressional committee subpoenas your tax returns.

                    3. Enigma, release your tax returns onto the net. That is where the Democrats want Trump’s to end up.

                    4. “This is what Presidents do.”

                      No, it is not. Presidents “do” what the law says. There is no law for the release of the President’s taxes.

                    5. Name the last President before Trump that didn’t release his taxes voluntarily? Wasn’t it Nixon? Riduculous statement that Presidents don’t do something when all the recent ones have.

                    6. “Name the last President before Trump that didn’t release …”

                      Obama. He didn’t release his transcripts which I believe are more important than Trump’s taxes. You don’t have a right to choose what you wish each candidate to release. The law states what the candidate must release.

                      Trump is not obligated by law to release his taxes. The public knows that and can incorporate that knowledge into their decision when they vote. Attempting to change the law after the fact is abusive and generally looked upon as an illegal act by a governing agency.

                      I think Biden’s son should release his taxes and the circumstances behind the $1-1.5Billion transaction with the Chinese that occurred within a week or two of Bidens negotiations with the Chinese government. That happens to be something to worry about. But the left really doesn’t care. We have to realize the left thought Avenatti was fantastic and couldn’t recognize he was a cheat. At one time he looked like he could make a run as the Democratic candidate for President. You should review all the left wing talk shows of the time that demonstrate the stupidity coming from the left.

                    7. Does anyone wonder why Enigma and the Democrats want Trump’s tax returns? Trump is doing a great job for America so they want to find things so they can slime him not debate him. He took large legal deductions and the Democrats feel they can use those legal deductions as a weapon. Enigma and the Dems are afraid the increase in salaries for families will cause them to lose the election.

                      Average US salaries on the rise thanks to booming economy
                      By John Aidan Byrne
                      US employers are stepping on the accelerator — and that’s lifting average salaries and fueling record raises across many sectors. For the typical American worker, pay increases could soon surge past 4 percent or 5 percent for the year, according to labor experts.

                      By any stretch, the number crunchers say, it’s a big jump to catch up on the anemic salary growth over the past 10 years, thanks to the law of supply and demand and a booming economy. Job openings recently surpassed the number of unemployed by 1.3 million. And it’s starting to trigger bottlenecks.

                      For example, a trucker shortage — precipitated in part by a surge in factory orders — is forcing one company to grease the wheels with some of the industry’s largest payouts of as much as $3,100 in weekly take-home pay.

                      “You need a minimum of two years experience, and be qualified to drive in the 48 contiguous states,” an official for MB Global Logistics told The Post.

                      “It’s tough finding drivers. We had a load delivery for New York City from the Midwest for $7,000 gross — and one driver we asked just did not want to take it.”

                      Although the generous offer by Addison, Ill.-based, MG Global could have some come-ons and hidden expenses, labor experts aren’t surprised.

                      ZipRecruiter says hourly wages for truck drivers now range from $10 to nearly $40. And average trucker salaries have vaulted 30 percent in the past four years, according to trade group data.

                      But trucking is not the only route to the pot of gold.

                      “Sometime next year, the labor market in general will get tight, whereas now it’s only tight in certain industries,” said Robert Frick, corporate economist at Navy Federal Credit Union.

                      “Those include the health care sector, building trades, engineering and finance and the food industry. These industries are already seeing wage increases, and may see their wages rise more first.”

                      Average hourly earnings in the private sector have risen by 3.2 percent in the past year. By Frick’s account, while global forces such as outsourcing could still hold back wage increases, by as early as next year the US could potentially see wages rise an average of 4.5 percent — similar to the peak of the 2000s’ expansion — or even as much as 5.5 percent, as happened at the peak of the 1990 to 2001 expansion.

                      Robert Johnson, chairman and CEO at Economic Index Associates, is convinced the US economy will see strong wage growth, possibly north of 4 percent over the coming months and next few years. Johnson attributes this to productivity gains and labor shortages.

                      “My only caveat is that the trade dispute between the US and China is resolved and doesn’t escalate into a full-fledged trade war,” he said.

                      In the meantime, many careers today are beating the averages. For example, registered nurses, with a typical annual wage of $73,550, have seen salaries grow by 10 percent over four years; production managers, at $110,580, have seen similar growth. Some in the trades have seen their pay go through the roof.

                      “Wage growth for those that are great at what they do is only going to accelerate,” said James Phillip, CEO of JMJ Phillip Executive Search. “But if you’re in the middle pack of the workforce, you should continue to see mild wage growth because the market is so tight.”

                      Still, a recent Goldman Sachs report noted wages are on the upswing for lower-paid workers. Though it didn’t dissect the impact of minimum-wage mandates, it showed that wage growth “picked up sharply at the bottom half of the wage distribution, with considerably slower growth in the upper half.”

                      Frick says many workers have the inside track. “We are in, or approaching a high-velocity labor market where employers will start hiring and training new recruits, training and promoting existing employees — and raising wages to keep and attract workers,” he said.

                2. If this was about Obama’s tax return, these Trump cultist’s would be screaming bloody murder.

                  Yeah, why would we possibly want to see the tax returns of a president known to be tax cheat, as well as the guy who set the record for all Americans for income losses in the decade of the 90’s, declared bankruptcy numerous times, is known to have been cut off by all banks but one with a bad reputation, operated a scam “university”, sell steak and water on-line, keeps trying to swing deals in Russia and then lies about it, and acts like Putin has dirty pictures of him and the deed to his house.

                  1. PS If enigma wins a nomination for president – and he probably should – I would demand he release his tax returns, like every other candidate since Reagan.

                  2. “If this was about Obama’s tax return, these Trump cultist’s would be screaming bloody murder.”

                    What Anon is saying is a reflection of his bad habits and bad policy.

                    The rest of the stuff Anon said is his usual lies that he can’t help or discuss in detail because he is ignorant.

  17. The endless stream of tweets such as this, and the sick man they reveal, ensure that I will not vote for Trump in 2020, despite approving most of his policies.

    1. “The endless stream of tweets… ensure that I will not vote for Trump in 2020, despite approving most of his policies.

      That makes you a dummy.

      1. The endless stream of tweets ensures that I will vote for Trump, despite disagreeing with many of his policies. Anyone who can get under liberals’ skin and drive them bonkers the way Trump has deserves a second term.

        1. It seems we have dueling anonymous aliases both seemingly forming opposite opinions based on Trump’s tweets rather than what he has accomplished.

          That the more recent anonymous will vote for Trump is a positive but not his logic. The other Anonymous is completely Brain Dead.

            1. “There are several people posting anonymously.”

              Yes, there are dummies and those that like to associate themselves with dummies. Everyone has the ability to use a different alias so if they don’t use it one can assume they are one of the dummies. I don’t waste my time separating the dummies out into dummy #1, dummy #2, dummy #3, though there is a dummy that leads the pack.

                1. Can’t tell which anonymous is saying this or if a regular poster decided to play the anonymous game and be stupid. Anonymous should look inward because by not picking an individual alias he or she acts as a disrupter and becomes an actual abuser.

                  1. “Anonymous should look inward because by not picking an individual alias he or she acts as a disrupter and becomes an actual abuser.”

                    Nope. I’m not buying it and neither should you.

                    1. Tell us why you are not”buying it”? You obviously have an incentive not to buy it because you are writing as anonymous. Perhaps you are one that has an alias but is afraid to use that alias in this situation. I think that is most likely and I think there is a good chance I know which one you are. No matter. All anonymous’s are dummies.

                    2. Anonymous writes: “Case closed” …“All anonymous’s are dummies.”

  18. ‘Exec rule trumping rule of law? Trump Admin “aspires to be the first of the post-legal era. It lives by a principle enunciated 2,000 years ago by the Roman jurist Ulpian and relied upon by tyrants ever since… What pleases the prince has the force of law”’ -Thomas Drake tweet

    “What Pleases Trump Has the Force of Law”

    “No president I know of has asserted a blanket power to reject any request that doesn’t suit him—until Donald Trump.” by Garrett Epps, Professor of constitutional law at the University of Baltimore

    1. Care to give concrete examples citing the crimes Trump has committed and statutes/laws he broke along with evidence and proof?

        1. Apparently Anonymous cannot read or she would have quoted the important sentences. Case closed about Anonymous’ value.

          1. Allan’s reading-comprehension skills are poor. Dawn’s, too, aparently.

            (It doesn’t pay to expend much time or energy in this blog-space. Read the article.)

            1. Correction:


              Now you kids have a good day, playing on JT’s blog.

            2. Anonymous, you are the one that quoted the article and either didn’t read it or understand it enough to respond to Dawn’s questions.

              Pro tip: Before citing a source make sure you read it and understand it. A modicum of intelligence is required.

              1. “A modicum of intelligence is required.” -Allan

                So, it’s a no-brainer that you didn’t understand it, Allan. This apparently applies to Dawn, as well.

        2. Care to give concrete examples citing the crimes Trump has committed and statutes/laws he broke along with evidence and proof?

    2. Excellent article and one we might hope JT would read, given his willful blindness to the damage being done but the president with the enabling by people like him (his type is referenced in the article). Is it really that difficult for the Trump stooges to understand that lowering the bar means others will cross it too? What goes around comes around, from stealing SC seats to blanket refusal to meet congressional subpoenas, comply with unambiguous laws like the presentation by treasury of requested documents, to the end run around the congressional power of the purse.through false emergencies. It’s just ask too much for our law professor host to grasp. How can we expect the Trump marks to get it? They’re not very bright.

      1. “refusal to meet congressional subpoenas”
        Obviously you’re talking about Eric Holder here.
        Congresses our of control abuse of power will end up before the Supreme Court.

        1. Dawn, the Trump administration is ignoring multiple subpoenas from different committees, all in an effort to protect the President personally. I notice you didn’t bring up the other instances of bar lowering by this administration with assists from GOP members of Congress, so I assume you agree they are unique. I hope you enjoy these new standards when the tables are turned. You know they will be eventually.

          1. I did not ask about the members of Trumps administration. I specifically asked about Donald Trump and for the crime, the statutes/laws you stated Donald Trump of broke and the evidence and proof that Donald Trump did so.

            1. Well then Dawn, I guess we’ll all just have to abide by your definition of the subject matter. Thanks for clarifying. In the meantime I’ll assume you’re in agreement then on the actions of others in the administration though you want to pretend Trump has nothing to do with them.

              1. Your major character flaw Anon is you always “assume” facts not in evidence.

      1. Trump is POTUS which is the chief of the exec branch,. it is coequal with the other branches and there are legit doctrines of separation of powers and respect from other branches of prerogatives. guys, surely you know this from civics 101., dont pretend that every assertion of exec priv is just tyranny or you devalue it too much

  19. DeRp state really needs to reconsider continuing to beat their war drums of impeachment considering the facts so far. The optics have changed considerably in the last few months and Impeach Trump is now translating as Impeach The American People.
    Impeachment is begining to look very much like an attemp to nullify the Election and abolish The American Peoples Right to choose a President.
    People of all political persuasions are begining to sense the weaponization of the Impeachment process is a coup driven abuse of power designed to remove the power to select The President from the hands of Citizens and put it in the hands of the government who will then go from servants to Rulers because, The People will never be able to chose a non elitist government approved President again. Whoever The People elect, deep state will just move in and impeach him or her again and again and again and replace them with the one chosen by themselves.
    The fact the Democrats have been floating the Impeach Pence trial balloon for the last few months hasn’t helped tamp down this impression either.
    The louder, more insanely hysterical the threats and hollow calls for impeachment are, the more it looks like this is the case.

Comments are closed.