The American Sphinx: 20 Questions For Mueller Before Congress

Below is my column in the Hill on the upcoming (and long-delayed) appearance of Robert Mueller, former Special Counsel, before Congress. It will be interesting to watch if Democratic members protect Mueller from having to address some of the glaring contradictions and problems in his report. However, in case there is a modicum of interest in delving into such areas by either party, here are 20 questions that I would ask Robert Mueller.

Here is the column:

The “American Sphinx” will be called to Congress on July 17 to provide answers to our most intriguing questions. Special counsel Robert Muellerspoke only briefly about his Trump-Russia report on May 29 and made clear that he was appointed to ask, not to answer, questions. He said “the report is my testimony” and added: “I hope and expect this will be the only time I speak to you in this manner.”

Sphinxes, of course, are not accustomed to answering questions. And speaking to a sphinx is a precarious practice since, according to mythology, you would be devoured if you got her answers wrong. Of course, Mueller may be aware that, when a sphinx is outsmarted, it is the end of the sphinx. In mythology, the Sphinx threw herself from a great height.

When Mueller ascends Capitol Hill, the question is whether he will take a pass or a header from that great height. If he sticks with his earlier position, he will do little but repeat findings from the report. If, however, Congress truly wants to question this sphinx, here are 20 questions to ask. Most concern the process or the law that should not be subject to any privilege or confidentiality claims as a basis for refusing to answer.

1. When exactly did you determine that no collusion occurred between Donald Trump or his team and the Russian government or other Russian interests either before or immediately after the 2016 presidential election?

2. You met with President Trump after he fired FBI director James Comey. He has said the meeting was an interview for your possible appointment as Comey’s successor. Presumably, Comey’s firing and its basis were discussed. Did Trump explain his reasons to you?

3. Given that you were one of the first outside individuals to meet with Trump on Comey’s firing, didn’t that create a conflict for you as a fact witness in any later investigation? Did you seek an ethics opinion on that alleged conflict?

4. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also was involved in the decision-making on Comey’s firing, including his memorandum detailing Comey’s violations. Did you seek to interview Rosenstein and, as a result, did you raise the obvious conflict of interest in Rosenstein overseeing the investigation?

5. You met with Rosenstein and Attorney General William Barr weeks before your report’s release. Both reportedly told you to identify all grand jury material to allow for the report’s expedited release. Why didn’t you do so?

6. Do you agree that neither you nor the attorney general can release grand jury or “Rule 6(e)” material to the public or to Congress?

7. You have said you do not question that Barr and his staff acted in good faith in the redactions made to the report. Did your staff participate and agree with the 8 percent redactions made to the public report?

8. After the report’s release, you wrote to Barr, asking for the public release of long summary sections. However, these sections had not been cleared for release by career Justice staff who were redacting grand jury and confidential material. Could Barr simply release such sections without such a review? Didn’t some of those sections ultimately include redacted material and, thus, would have been improperly released?

9. Your report references the policy of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) against the indictment of a sitting president. However, the underlying OLC memos do not say anything about finding criminal conduct in a special counsel report, correct?

10. Isn’t it true that Barr and Rosenstein, your supervisors, encouraged you to reach a conclusion on both crimes related to obstruction or collusion?

11. If you were concerned about your interpretation of the OLC memos, why didn’t you follow the standard approach of requesting an opinion from the OLC during the two years of your investigation?

12. Likewise, if there was disagreement on the scope of the obstruction provisions, why didn’t you request an OLC opinion on that issue?

13. Do you believe Barr and Rosenstein violated DOJ policy in reaching a conclusion on obstruction and, if not, why didn’t you follow their requests and reach such a conclusion yourself?

14. You found no evidence that would support a criminal charge related to collusion or conspiracy with the Russians by Trump. Isn’t it true that you found no such evidence by any Trump campaign official or family member to justify an indictment or criminal referral?

15. Your report spends 14 pages discussing the Trump Tower meeting on June 9, 2016. You did not find that the mere meeting with Russians to hear promised evidence of criminal conduct by Hillary Clinton constituted a crime, correct? And you were not limited in any way from indicting Donald Trump Jr. or the other participants in that meeting, correct?

16. In your report, you quote a voicemail message from November 2017 from Trump’s attorney, John Dowd, to counsel for former national security adviser Michael Flynn, saying that “we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of protecting all our interests if we can … .” However, you deleted the rest of the line where Dowd says “without you having to give up any … confidential information.” That obviously is material to what he was asking and left a more sinister impression of the call. Why did you cut out the exculpatory language?

17. Attorney General Barr has said that, while you may have an alternative view of the scope of obstruction, you found evidence of various non-criminal motivations and not clear “corrupt intent.” Is that correct?

18. You describe the testimony of former White House Counsel Don McGahn that he believed Trump ordered him to fire you. However, you do not quote what McGahn precisely said were Trump’s words. Did he testify that Trump directly told him to fire you, or did he say Trump wanted him to raise your alleged conflicts with Rosenstein? Is it a crime for a president to raise a conflict of interest of a special counsel with the attorney general or his designate?

19. If there was evidence that Trump demanded the termination of the investigation, as opposed to the possible selection of a new special counsel, you would have included it in your report, correct?

20. You state that “if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.” Yet, you also claim it would be inappropriate to accuse Trump of criminal acts, since he would not be able to defend himself in a trial. Don’t you do precisely that, with this statement? And, by not reaching a conclusion, don’t you deny Trump the ability to respond to specific findings of the elements of a crime?

It is unlikely that Mueller will answer most, if any, of these questions. He has a curious interpretation of what a special counsel does. Everyone in the White House, Congress, his supervisors at Justice expected him to reach a conclusion. He spent two years and never told a soul outside of his staff that he would reach a conclusion on crimes related to collusion but not on obstruction.

Well, it’s time for some clarity. We know the answers to many of these questions, but we need Mueller to establish that record. He is much like Oscar Wilde’s description of a character as someone who “had a passion for secrecy, but she herself was merely a Sphinx without a secret.”

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

224 thoughts on “The American Sphinx: 20 Questions For Mueller Before Congress”

  1. Congressional hearings are rarely investigative, but rather about creating talking points and sound bites on camera.

    1. I would greatly enjoy if one of the Congressmen simply printed out this list and read it, verbatim.

    2. Karen S. underestimates the value of Congressional investigations and Congressional hearings.
      With the 2020 campaign in full swing, you normally just could not that get that kind of opposition research for free.
      Yet Chairmen like Nadler and Pencil Neck are saving the DNC a bundle; there may not even be a need this time around to pay a law firm to pay Fudion GPS to pay Orbis/Christopher Steele to seek Russian and other dirt on Trump.
      And the free air time for the political advertizements these clowns are producing and directing via their Congressional Committees would normal be very expensive.
      I think that there may be two true fiscal conservatives not even running, at least so far.
      Lipo Gerald and Pencil Neck are shrewd with a dollar, at least when it comes to getting freebies for the DNC.

      1. Your comment is offensive, to repeatedly call people out of their names, and to promote your partisan propaganda, makes you a partisan sycophant trying to normalize the behavior of a total moron who is not only unqualified for the office of President he is unsuitable for the office of President!

        And on the subject of congressional hearings and investigations, they serve no useful purpose in Government or Law, and are unnecessary to the question of Executive competence, corruption, or interference in Constitutional Elective Processes for political advantage to gain the office of President without the benefit of having a Majority Consensus of the People Themselves.

        And just in case you don’t understand the processes defined in Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th Amendment of the Constitution for the selection of the President, there are no Campaigns, no Party Nominations, and no competitive race that can be won to become the President. In this country we have Electors who Vote on behalf of the People, not Electoral College Votes that can be won by candidates, and if you don’t the understand difference I would suggest you return to grade school and retake basic reading and comprehension!

        1. Tom, aside from your resorting to a practice of name calling the same as Preesident Trump – not to his credit or yours, signifying an inability to think and debate – Federalist is correct. You display an appalling lack of understanding of constiutional processes, preferring to act as a polemicist, seemingly without knowing the full picture. Throwing is a comment on Fusion and Steele are telling. You’ve labeled yourself in more ways than one.

          Relative to these hearings, it’s obvious to even the most casual observer that the purpose is to inform the public who by choice largely remain uninformed and ignorant. Mueller has stated in different forms that his findings are in the report, nothing more to investigate except the full background material. That this is not an investigation should be clear since the tools to conduct one lie in starting an impeachment process. Doing this would reveal all the information (to which the country would tune out unless a preview were offered).

          1. Don’t take this the wrong way,Chris, but I don’t give a rat’s *** what you or that loon “federalist” think.

            1. Tom,

              I falsely harbored the impression blog comments were an opportunity to exchange ideas, learn, understand others’ viewpoints. You have appeared to be uninterested in any of this, aiming only to advance your original viewpoint. Sometimes it seemed I might explain it better to you but I couldn’t understand it for you because you had no interest. Sooo … why bother to post at all with this mentality? Why waste your time. It is transparent and other people realize aren’t a serious partner in dialogue. There’s nothing wrong with it but nothing gained. This isn’t something I’ll continue but it was beneficial. I learned not to waste my time in the future because nothing I said was received with considered thought. This thread is antithetical for me … education, work, reading, relationships, discussions.

              Turley’s columns are thought provoking, whether I agree or not. I never expect anyone else to see anything as I do. Everyone views the world through their own lens. What improves is making the effort to understand all viewpoints. If everyone agrees with my view, I don’t’ learn anything. One of us is redundant, the echo chamber. Blog comments as a vehicle to broadcast political views is a poor use of the venue, serves little purpose, should be deleted. Cheers.

          2. Chris, Tom has some anger management issues, so don’t take it personally. Why he thinks anyone values his emotional outbursts more than a rat’s tukkis is a mystery.

            1. JanF./ aka Anon/ aka anon1,
              I noted the selective outrage expressed by federalist, and responded appropriately.
              I don’t post using aliases, not did I come to this site declaring that “it’s a fact” that those who support a given candidate are not sane or ethical.
              You did that in your Feb 24 debut here.
              If you’re in doubt why I talk to pissants like you in a certain way, I think I’ve explained that several times already.

              1. should be “nor” did I come to this site….typo was “not” instead of “nor”.

            2. Jan F says: February 24, 2019 at 2:03 PM
              No informed, sane, and decent person can defend Trump. That’s a fact, not an opinion.

              This is absurd x 2 says: February 24, 2019 at 2:35 PM
              That’s a fact, not an opinion.

              At this point I can’f figure if this remark is indicative of camp or stupidity.

              Jan F says: February 24, 2019 at 3:53 PM
              My remark is a statement of fact. Anyone who doubts it is a moral or mental defective.

              Tom Nash says: February 24, 2019 at 2:46 PM
              It always makes it easier to know which way to go when someone draws a line in the sand like Jan F. just did with her “fact”.

              1. There is a history here that some may or may not be aware of. I posted the above exchange from Feb. 2019 to illustrate how “JanF”, aka “anon” or “anon1”, introduced herself here c. 6 months ago.
                I don’t see any point in being particularly polite or tactful when dealing with an individual like this. If JanF/ anon/ anon1 wants to label that as an “anger management” issue, that’s fine.

            3. Thanks. I don’t take anything personally. It adds to my amusement. Deprived of thinking or ideas, some resort to name calling or more amusingly pointing to others bad behavior in the past. ‘XXX did this in the past’, ‘what about XXX?’, ‘why isn’t XXX investigated?’ It’s quite funny. “We’re all here for a spell. Get all the good laughs you can.” But it would be nice to start with the facts … “Get your facts first. Then you can distort them as much as you wish.”

              1. Maybe you didn’t notice, but JanF/ anon/ anon1 declared a set of her “facts” upon her arrival here.
                Re “Federalist’s” observation….he’d have more credibility if he was consistent.
                I.E., there have been in numerable referenced to “The Fat One”, “Fatso”, the “Orange One” ( he has roseaca), “Orange Cultists”, etc.
                That doesn’t make my use of derogatory nicknames right, but it does make it easier🤔to use them after seeing them applied so freely here.
                I haven’t seen
                “Federalist” lecture about the use of the names I’ve quoted above, so that’s (another) reason not to take him seriously.

  2. The Media Intentionally Mislead Americans on Trump’s Huawei Position…
    Posted on June 30, 2019 by sundance

    With President Donald Trump making massive strides toward peace and stability surrounding North Korea, the media cannot accept -nor allow- the common sense solutions to succeed. President Trump is clearly perceived as a risk because his success highlights just how useless and manipulative a professional political class of consultants, advisors and DC think-tanks really are.

    The U.S. media are desperate to find something to criticize and openly cheering for failure, so long as it provides fuel for their anti-Trump narrative. It is stunning to watch against the backdrop of President Trump cutting the Gordian knot known as North Korea.

    Perhaps by training, by habit or by unintended consequence, the DC proletariat have developed a system for themselves where the process itself as the end result. This allows them to wax philosophically about problems; but it is within the discussion of the problem itself where their industry exists. Solutions are not wanted because that stops the process.

    DC journalism has evolved into reveling about the never ending process and, as a consequence, media completely ignore the end point, miss the bottom line, don’t actually SEE the subject matter, and never actually attempt to discover solutions.

    If you watch this nonsense long enough you realize those inside the industrial media complex avoid the subject matter deliberately; because if they get their heads around it and nail it home, they won’t have anything to talk about – they will have exhausted their stash.

    As part of their unspoken strategy when they encounter a solution driven approach, the media (writ large) fall back on the Gruber Principle: relying on “the stupidity of the American voter” not to understand how the lies and talking points are being distributed.

    Continue reading →

  3. Just one question, Mr. Mueller: When you said your report is the last word on the investigation to which you had nothing to add and when that report exonerated the POTUS, why the Hell would you agree to testify in public to a bitterly partisan committee of Congress hellbent on warrantless impeachment unless you plan to inject yourself into the political debate?

    1. Mespo,
      Under Subpeona or threat of Subpeona, Mueller agreed to speak to in Congressional testimony with conditions that are consistent with his god-like status.
      I think that even when a tall, gaunt, and silent god is summoned to actually speak publically in testimony to the commoners of the American public, there are naturally going to be negotiated conditions under which He restricts testimony, speaking to commoners, going beyond snitty comments about DOJ, etc.
      Hope this clarifies He agreed to be summoned from the mountain.

      1. He can’t be compelled to discuss grand jury testimony which the questions surely involve. He had an out and didn’t take it.

        1. Mespo
          Mueller’s preferred style and “out” seems to be to hiding out after issuing a report that was to a large degree inconclusive.
          Even absent the claimed restrictions because of DOJ policy, I think Mueller would feel constrained by the inability to conduct a secret State Trial even if he were convinced that Trump committed a crime.
          Consistent with the “Mueller does not leak” mantra we’ve heard again and again here, I don’t think he’d be at ease if any details of a trial were known.

          1. “[Muler] seems to be to hiding out after issuing a report that was to a large degree inconclusive.” The only part mandedated i.e. Volume I vindicated the president. Volume II was unnecessary and inconclusive gobblety gook that Muler vindictively included on his way out the door as “special” counsel, much like the way Saddam Hussein lit oil wells on fire as he retreated from Kuwait during first Gulf War.

            1. Yeah, if multiple meetings with Russians about obtaining their help in the campaign with the candidate himself constructing a cover up story, then stonewalling the investigation by refusing to answer questions is “vindication”:.

    2. Mespo, the report did not exonerate the president of anything other than a criminal conspiracies and noted the stonewalling on that investigation from the campaign, including the president.

      1. The notion that the President ‘stonewalled’ is a flat out lie.

        1. “In at least 37 instances, Trump responded to Mueller’s questions — about his campaign’s contacts with Russians and about Russian interference in the 2016 election — by saying he couldn’t recall.”

          The article links to the 37 instances.

          1. Do you remember if you spoke to your neighbor, met with a neighbor or had any communication with a neighbor on June 9 2016.

            Anon, can you honestly say you remember?

            Have you ever been depositioned under oath?

            1. You are not so understanding when it is a Dem who does not remember but then you are a hypocrite and still an idiot.

              1. You are too stupid YNOT. The question was asked to demonstrate it didn’t make a difference what party one is from not to remember an interaction happening a long time ago. You don’t even have the mental facilities to understand the postings.

          2. this WaPoo article provided to you from fomer Beijiing correspondent, Hoo F’lung Poo.

          3. Those 37 instances cited of ” I don’t recall” by Trump were probably topped by numerous other politicians and officials under investigation or giving testimony.
            James Comey may hold the record…..people who track instances of “I don’t recall” don’t have to look far for examples from a variety of people.
            Kamala Harris’ style as a committee has been to rapid- fire questions to people she targets and not giving them a chance to respond, or fully respond.
            She seems to view that as a sort of divine right in her position as a committee member.
            There was one exchange with Jeff Sessions when Sessions complained to Harris that if she didn’t give him time to think about this or that meeting on this or that date and he answered incorrectly, Harris would then call him a liar.
            There are reasons why people respond with “I don’t recall. It might be evasiveness in some cases, and common sense in other cases.

            1. Tom leaves out that it might be that they have something to hide. In the case of Trump, we witnessed him trying to hide contacts with the Russians and Mueller documented 11 other instances.

              By the way, since Trump would not show up for a deposition, he had all the time in the world to answer his questions in writing.

              I remembered the news about what appeared to be Comey’s fading memory.
              I don’t know if anyone will get around to the different, conflicting accounts of Comey-McCabe, Comey-Brennan, Comey-Lynch, etc.on various matters.
              This isn’t a point that was conceded by Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, and many others when they were trying to force Jeff Sessions’ resignation, but people can remember things differently without intending to lie.
              Or they can fail to remember details of meetings, encounters, etc.
              Pelosi and Sen.McCaskel both proved that when they said they’d never met the Russian ambassador, and there was irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
              And they volunteered that “lie” even after Sessions was accused of lying about a meeting with the same ambassador.
              (It was kind of ironic that Sessions stayed around longer than Franken). 😄

              1. Tom apparently did not remember the news about Pelosi and Sessions each meeting the Russian Ambassador. Pelosi met the ambassador at a group function where they were among at least a dozen other people. Sessions met him twice, and one of those was a 1 on 1 meeting in Session’s office.



            3. Not to mention that Gen. Flynn had already been bushwhacked by Strok therefore letting everyone else know that Mueller and his dirtbag Weissmann were playing the same game.

              It will be interesting to see if Harris is called out on her misstatements already made in her POTUS nominee bid.

            1. “Is Anon re-incarnation of Late4Dinner?”

              No, Anon is the re-incarnation of Jan F. who embarrassed himself so badly he left before some people even got to meet him. L4D also known as Diane lied a lot and that is why you might have her confused with Anon.

      2. “…the report did not exonerate the president of anything other than a criminal conspiracies…” OMG the witch hunt started as a quest to determine if there was any “criminal conspiracies” – which there was not. Volume II of Muler’s Report was all about president pushing back on hoax accusations – no crime covered up. Bobby Muler’s feelings got hurt but Trump’s tweets and thoughts about firing his ass. That is why he dumped out convoluted BS Volume II.

      3. What is strange is how easily one can twist words so that supposed graduates of our public school system, like Anon, can’t read behind the words and recognize spin but instead continue to create stupid theories lacking a foundation. The left heavily depends on that type of ignorance.

    3. That is even too simple for you plus a lie about exoneration, didn’t bring your C game today.

  4. After a long, deliberate slow walk, Robert Mueller is finally testifying and Democrats are already downplaying expectations. Meanwhile, Republicans are relishing the opportunity to ask questions.

    This state of affairs is mostly due to the fact that there is little upside to Mueller’s testimony for Democrats and meaningful upside potential for Republicans.

    Unless Mueller somehow decides to transform into political commentator and de facto impeachment counsel for the House, he will do exactly what he’s already stated and will let the report speak for itself with no commentary beyond those four corners. Naturally, in that event, there will be much to be made of Mueller’s body language and the oh so telling subtexts coupled with leaked innuendo from the closed door testimony of Mueller and Weissman which, just as naturally, will be transcript-free so as to give any willing narrator full creative and political license. In other words, narratively intriguing but substantively weak.

    On the other hand, the Republicans can ask significant questions focusing on the following areas:

    1) Bias / Conflict of Interest
    a. Did you ever interview for the FBI Director’s position with President Trump?
    b. Were the reasons for Comey’s firing ever discussed? If so, isn’t that disqualifying? If not, why not?
    c. Did you ever seek/obtain an ethics waiver? If so, for what specific reason(s).
    d. Why did the Special Counsel hire a significantly disproportionate number of Democrats including those that had close ties with the Clinton campaign and foundation? Was the appearance of impropriety ever an issue? If not, why not?
    e. Was Andrew Weissmann your lead prosecutor and was he responsible for hiring as has been reported? If so, why–given his close ties to the Clinton campaign and his controversial prosecutorial track record.
    f. Describe Weissmann’s role with respect to the authoring of the Special Counsel’s report. Regarding obstruction of justice, was he the lead in terms of defining the novel theory of obstruction outlined in the report? Did he play a role in the Special Counsel not making a traditional prosecutorial determination on obstruction? If so, what specifically was his role and what were his contributions?
    g. When did you become aware of the texts that established that lead investigator, Peter Strzok, harbored inappropriate political animus and bias? Did you fire Strzok on that basis? If so, when and why wasn’t this disclosed at that point in time instead of months later? If not, why not?
    h. Describe the chain of events, if any, that led to the deletion of texts and/or erasing of cell phone data between Strzok and Page. What investigatory and other steps did you take to ensure that your investigation did not interfere with evidence gathering processes?
    i. When did you become aware that key members of your team, Weissmann and Ahmad, were involved in the chain of custody of the unverified Steele dossier as has been reported? What steps did you take to determine their role and what steps did you take to ensure that your investigation was free of potential conflicts of interest and bias?
    j. Recent events have revealed that messages from John Dowd and other evidence presented in the report may have been taken out of context and/or omitted exculpatory information resulting in a potentially misleading characterization of facts. Do you still stand by what was written in the report in such instances? Why or why not? What measures did you take to ensure that the report and its findings represent a fair and balanced view of the situation?

    2) Investigation of “Collusion”
    a. Exactly when did you establish that there was no basis for conspiracy/coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia? [If significantly before as reported], why did you elect not to disclose this material fact at that time given the significant political ramifications?
    b. Did you investigate the links between the Clinton campaign, Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele regarding the unverified Steele Dossier? If not, why not? Do you acknowledge that the dossier could have been the deliberate result of Russia disinformation? Why wouldn’t this be a significant point of focus for your investigation into Russian interference?

    3) Obstruction of Justice
    a. Bearing in mind your confirmation that “the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice”, please describe in specific terms why you declined to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. Do you regard this as consistent with you obligations as outlined in the Special Prosecutor regulations? If so, why?
    b. Did you consult with either the AG, OLC and/or other appropriate DOJ offices regarding:
    i. the novel theory of obstruction being considered
    ii. the decision to make a non-traditional prosecutorial determination
    If not, why not and do you view this as consistent with Special Counsel regulations? Were you aware at any point that the DOJ was not in agreement with any of the points above? If so, what steps did you take to reach a resolution.
    c. In the executive summary conclusion to Part II, you state “the evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment”. Please describe specifically what are the difficult issues regarding law (obstruction theory) and difficult issues regarding facts as they pertain to obstruction of justice that would need to be resolved prior to reaching a judgement.
    d. Despite the difficult issues of law and fact that would require resolution and the lack of a prosecutorial determination, some members of Congress and some in the media allege that the evidence you put forth in the report constitutes absolute proof that the President committed obstruction of justice. Do you believe such allegations are accurate based on your report?

    4) Impeachment
    a. Is the report intended to be, in any way, an impeachment referral or playbook of any kind? If so, please explain your role in this process and the underlying authority for such an action?

    This list could go on but the bottom line is unless the Republicans drop the ball here, it’s hard not to see them as being in the driver’s seat.

  5. Question #21: “Given the Report’s indication that text messages were destroyed by some of your witnesses and became unretrievable by your investigators and the fact that Manafort failed to co-operate with your investigation by continuing to lie and withhold relevant information, is it possible that evidence may exist and remain uncovered that there was in fact a criminal conspiracy? In other words, if Manafort is not pardoned by Trump, and he ultimately decides to flip, do you have reason to believe that he has information which could prove a criminally conspiracy? Because you have not exonerated Trump’s conduct, does it not logically follow that he remains a SUSPECT?”

    1. Good question but Mueller will decline on this one. Requires conjecture.

      1. Mueller will be under oath without any privileges. Therefore, he will be obliged to reveal his suspicions. If he will not reveal his suspicions, then he should be asked whether he believes the investigation ought to be closed or if he advises the Congressional committees to keep digging for information.

        1. It is inappropriate for Mueller to talk about his suspicions regarding the conclusions of his report.

          1. Why not? Is it not “politically correct?” Does Trump conceal his suspicions?

            1. Allan: “It is inappropriate for Mueller to talk about his suspicions regarding the conclusions of his report.”

              Jeffrey: “Why not? Is it not “politically correct?” Does Trump conceal his suspicions?”

              Because Mueller is the prosecutor of a case that as far as he is concerned has been finalized with his report. That is the way things are supposed to be in the legal world. I think Turley may have discussed that in a prior post. Lawyers are supposed to follow certain rules that non lawyers do not have to follow.

      2. Objecting to conjecture may be valid in a court of law from a fact witness, but Mueller’s appearance is before a congressional committee which is entitled pursuant to its Constituional authority to know everything that Mueller has discovered and everything that he thinks may be discoverable and why he thinks so.

    2. Your logic makes virtually everyone on this earth suspect including yourself. If you are married and your wife ends up with a bruise is it reasonable to suspect you of beating your wife.

        1. Neither might be multiple bruises or a lot of noise coming from the house. But according to your logic that singular bruise make you a suspect.

        2. and a lot of women are smart enough to slug their husbands in the gut instead of making a mark, when they committ their abuse.. then there’s the women who just cut with their acid tongues

      1. To a feminist every husband is a likely wife abuser. As Rosa Luxembourg said, “marriage is slavery”

      2. I think that Mueller is free to express his suspicions if he wants to go there.
        I don’t think that he’s “obliged” to voice his suspicions….I would be surprised if those questioning him demanded that Mueller reveal “his suspicions”, or if they could compel him to do so.

        1. We will find out soon enough. What we have seen is that Mueller from the time he accepted the job wasn’t the upstanding honest guy many thought he was. Instead he sounds like an insider that doesn’t have the slightest idea of ethics when they apply to him. If he truly were ethical he never would have taken the job and that was the first of many ethical lapses that occurred.

    3. Wake me up when Silberman and Chris get to question or point #100. I think the regurgitation of the DNC talking points has been faithfully accomplished here, but in case there’s something new here , a “value-added” statement beyond the DNC/ Schiff/ Nadler/ Larry Tripe/ etc. talking points, I’ll try to review them later

  6. The WSJ is reporting that ECT (electroconvulsive / shock therapy) is now being seen as useful for select patients. Good news for Democrats!

    Kamala Harris is being skewered by…wait for it…black activists (e.g. Ali Alexander) for not being a Black American! They in turn are getting roasted by the liberal media for casting Kamala Harris in an unflattering yet truthful light.

    ECT for Democrats seems completely acceptable since they are utterly incoherent and tweaking rage, rage, rage

    1. This ineligible imposter is engaged in “cultural appropriation.”

      Kamala Harris will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.

      Kamala Harris’ parents were foreign citizens at the time of her birth.

      – A “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.

      – The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”

      – Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”

      – The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.

      – Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.

      – The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words like “natural born citizen” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations,1758, did.


      Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758

      Book 1, Ch. 19

      § 212. Citizens and natives.

      “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”


      Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:

      “…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”


      To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

      From John Jay

      New York 25 July 1787

      Dear Sir

      I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

      Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

      Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

      which sailed Yesterday.

      Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

      provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

      administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the

      american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

      Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

      Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

      I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

      John Jay

  7. 1. There is audio of Adam Schiif colluding with Russians, did you investigate Adam Schiff?

    2. Hillary engaged in “collusion” and conducted a vast international pay-for-play scheme, obtaining contributions for political favors, did you investigate collusion with officials around the world by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; did you simply audit the Clinton Foundation since inception?

    3. The entire 7th Floor has been decimated, how did Christopher Wray escape scrutiny; what did Christopher Wray know and when did he know it?

    4. If Comey had indicted Hillary, Comey would have convicted Obama, did you investigate Comey’s exoneration of Hillary to protect Obama and Obama’s complicity?

    5. Did you investigate the Obama Coup D’etat in America which began with a false Steele “dossier” contracted for by Hillary Clinton developing into an international scheme to “spy” on candidate/President Trump?

    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, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, 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, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder,

    Brazile, Sessions, Obama et al.

    1. Wow! You left out George Soros, Tom Steyer, John Podesta, Bill Clinton, James Carvel, et al. In addition there was the Obama takeover of Texas with Operation Jade Helm. Special Forces were going to capture the state and force everyone to turn in their guns, Texas to be run by SF teams. Only Governor Abbott and he loyal henchman Dan Patrick saved Texas by calling out the national guard. It’s a good thing Texas had these patriots to save it from Obama.

    1. now i don’t march around with trump hat on,

      but if I”m a restaurant and somebody spits on me because I”m a trump voter, I’ll push my plate to the side, grab their foolish head, rip their eyeballs out of the sockets, and while they lay there writhing in pain with gory sockets agape, I’ll squeeze the little orbs until the aqueous humor squirts out on a piece of bread, which I will eat, and tell them as I do, how their eyeball jelly sandwich is tasting.

      then you’ll have a story

      this is not a story,. this is just another fool who wants thing to happen that they really aren’t ready to handle

      1. Kurtz, the other day I was in an elevator and another unknown couple said something about Trump. We didn’t quickly react saying how bad he was. I didn’t say anything positive. When we left the elevator to street level they were ahead of us coincidentally going in the same direction. They kept stopping people with the apparent hope that those people would get angry at us for our (unknown) Trump views and perhaps spit on us or beat us up. They kept turning around with their vile smiles.

        They were the cowards most frequently noted on the left who try to incite others to violence. We see the result of that type of cowardice in the video of Any Ngo’s being assaulted sufficiently to warrant hospitalization.

        1. these people are often nuts. many of them are not sincere Democrats, they are just nutjobs that latch on to various left wing notions as an excuse to be hostile to strangers. If they get enough steam however, then you can have a really bad situation. that’s the antifa.

          Nature has blessed us however. There are also people in every generation who are quiet antidotes to freaks like these. and they don’t wear rings in their noses and dye their hair pink. they just look like regular schlubs but inside you have something quite the opposite

          1. These people sounded like government employees or teachers.

            It was as if we were in the reconstruction era and like true leftists they were looking around for some supporters to lynch us just like they lynched the blacks so long ago. They remain segregationists. This time they wish to place conservatives into ghettos while keeping them out of restaurants, social media and other places. The world advances but some people remain the same old biggoted jerks.

            1. well they understand something that right wingers often do not

              a) groups matter, control groups and you can control individuals

              b) isolated individuals are weak resistance compared to groups

              c) violence intimidates people and so does public ridicule

              That’s the reality of every people in every nation at every time in history. American conservatives blinded by excessive individualism need to wake up and smell that coffee and fast.

              1. You are right the left acts like pack animals and attacks individuals with overwhelming strength. Just look at the videos taken of Andy Ngo. Their actions are similar to the early actions seen as the Nazi’s came to power.

        2. Run them over with your car next time. That’s the right wing way.

          1. No, that is the way of some people with Mental illness. Fields was mentally ill and had history of problems with anger management. Anon, you have both of those problems in common with Fields.

            For others, at one time I had read that one of the antifa folk had a rifle and was chasing him. Fields killed someone so I am not concerned with whatever sentence he got. I am concerned that anyone, antifa or not, was permitted by the police to have a rifle in such an area where violence was likely to break out.

            Sounds like there was a lot of negligence committed by the Mayor and the police department.

  8. “…And, by not reaching a conclusion (on obstruction), don’t you deny Trump the ability to respond to specific findings of the elements of a crime?”

    A: yes.

    When Rosenstein (and later Barr) realized how critical was this task, they must/should have simply ordered Mueller to a conference, and order Mueller to sign a contract agreeing to perform this task, and if not, all pay from that moment is forfeited/must be returned, and he’d be fired in arears to that date, and barred from ever holding public office again, and he would be subject to every other legal punishment, etc. Of course Mueller could have quit at that moment. A video of the conference could be produced proving Mueller’s dismissal was solely his own choice.

    Rosenstein and Barr dropped the ball.

    Mueller’s failed report is what we got for lack of supervision, period. Barr paid Mueller to mow the government’s lawn, without looking out the window to check the lawn.

    1. I partially agree. What stopped Barr and Rosenstein from putting the request for a conclusion in writing, thereby accepting responsibility for violating standing DOJ regulations (or modifying Mueller’s Terms of Reference in writing to include this step)? Can it be they were unwilling to accept the responsibility and consequences? Or, didn’t relish the possibility of not wishing the preferred answer?

  9. This is a political dog and pony show. And based on the political non-legal special council’s report, and equally absurd press conference by Mueller, you’re just going to have more of the same. I might tune in to it for a good laugh. But that’s about it.

  10. He had the far reaching power to investigate crimes no matter where?

    By implication of the stated purpose of the investigation he failed to do more than the bare minimum and never reached ‘far reaching’ or anywhere near it.

    Given those two FACTS why did he fail to investigate the obvious when it was handed to him on a silver platter?

    The main question remains when is the rest of the problem going to be investigated?

    Don’t much care about the far lefts opinion since theyi would be the targets of a that phase of an honest investigation. So gobbledegookgarbage is eminently skippable.

    But their part has not been forgotten.


    Replace meaningless word collusion with Conspiracy

    Replace Candidate with Candidates

    And add a number of times the word ‘dirty’ as in dirty cops, dirty attorneys, and dirty politicians.

    The Constitutional Centrists wants to know?:

    Why the cover up and why is it still continuing?

    Were those salaries really payoffs?

  11. Turley, you forgot to ask the following question: “When did you stop beating your wife?”

    Still hoping to be appointed as a judge by Trump, eh?

  12. Well JT, You have shown your resume and preference for Trump before, but to use the template that Barr used to get his AG job, maybe you have jumped the shark.

    1. It seems that Fishwings longs for the days of the high ethical standards😇of a Holder or a Lynch.
      Is there’s some theory about a “template”, maybe the “model” DOJ 🙄 under these AGs is more to Fushwings’ liking.
      Or a DOJ with an AG like a marginalized Jeff Sessions, after he’d been knee-capped.

  13. OT: Christians in Africa: “You have three days to go or you will be killed!”
    by Giulio Meotti

    “Christianity originated in the Middle East. Thus, the displacement or evacuation of Christians from the Middle East is very dangerous for the safety of the region… also in the Mediterranean Sea region. Europe is affected by this.” — Egyptian Coptic Pope Tawadros II, in Germany, where he was inaugurating a new Coptic church for his exiled community. Deutsche Welle, May 14, 2019.

    Regrettably, the tragedy of these Christian massacres is directly proportional to the neglect with which they are reported in the West.

    “‘Islamophobia’ looms large; talk of ‘Christophobia’ is almost nonexistent”. — Ross Douthat, “Are Christians Privileged or Persecuted?”, The New York Times, April 23, 2019.

    Algeria — the country of origin of some of the Christian fathers such as Augustine of Hippo — has become a country… where officially there are “no native Christians”. How many other countries will meet the same fate? And will the West ever come to the help of their Christian brethren?

    Continued at:

    The left doesn’t give a shite. “Persecution of Christians in the Middle East is now close to “genocide”, a UK-commissioned report just revealed. The same threat has also become critical for Christian communities in Africa.”

    The Peter Shill’s of the world are waiting for their specific news services to admit to the problem and advocate positive steps. That makes people like Peter Shill or Man of the west being accused of benign neglect where the results are horrid rather than benign.

    How will Africa be able to develop where killers are the one’s dependent upon for progress?

  14. Muller, muller bo bellow…
    bananna fanna fo fellow…
    fee fi moe mellow…
    If the first to a holes are ever the same…
    You drop them both and say the blame..
    Like Dick, Trick, Tricky Dick…
    Banna fanna fo fic..
    Raygun, Raygun…
    Dumb actor dumb gun.

    Say fee fi allimoe/

    There isn’t any name that I can’t rhyme!

    I have heard enough about Mueller.

  15. I would want to know about the conflict of interests of all the members of the team and who chose and the members of the team concentrating on Muellers involvement or lack of involvement.

    Since Russian involvement in our election process was the nature of Muellers job, I would want to know why every path wasn’t followed especially those involving Clinton, her campaign and significant people in her campaign. Were these claims considered and why weren’t these claims discussed in the report whether negative or positive.

    What happened to the text’s on Strzok’z phone? Why weren’t they preserved?

    So many questions but I bet we will get very few answers.

    1. He knows how to talk around the questions and strike attitudes and Fat Jerry will make every effort to rig the proceedings. None of these people are fit to hold the positions they do.

      1. Mueller is a bureaucratic politician who understands how to advance up the ladder while removing himself from responsibility. It says very little for a lot of these people.

  16. 1 How could Mueller determine no collusion before the election when he started May 2017?!

    2 Requires Mueller to be a “witness” which is not his role. It is arguable whether a conversation should become “evidence”.

    3 Not a conflict unless it was discussed.

    5 How is this relevant?

    6 Doesn’t matter, not his decision? Requires court order.

    8 Mueller already said his team prepared the summaries for public release (?).

    9 OLC opinions set DOJ regulations. However, the real barrier was Mueller was directed to follow all regs by TOR. This is disingenuous.

    10 Irrelevant if must follow regs.

    11 What is the point of a “new opinion” if regs must be followed.

    12 OLC is hardly the definitive source for a legal definition of obstruction provisions.

    13 Barr has the authority to reach a conclusion, whether flawed or not unbiased.

    14 Mueller report did not form a conclusion on “collusion”, forced to consider “conspiracy”. Report states there was insufficient evidence of conspiracy by anyone, not that there is nothing constituting “evidence”.

    15 The question is posed with the intent of exonerating everyone at meeting for all actions/intentions, apparently for PR purposes … as if all that occurred is political business as normal.

    18 Whether a crime or not depends on pretext.

    20 Trump can respond to any of the actions labeled to constitute potential evidence of “obstruction”. That he has chosen not to do so is telling.

    When DOJ regs prevent Mueller from reaching a conclusion, i.e. charging, on whether a crime was committed it is a ’throw down’ statement to offer that WH, Congress, DOJ supervisors,xpected a conclusion, a sweeping statement ignoring the reality of DOJ rules. As a thought experiment, if he had concluded obstruction requiring charging Trump, the WH and Republicans in Congress would have screamed it was exceeding authority and violating DOJ regs.

    It’s obvious where Professor Turley stands politically.

    1. ” ‘I’m still butt hurt my gal Shillary lost to Orange Man, and still trying, hopelessly, to undo the election.!’ Signed, TDS patient.”


      1. Princess T.,
        There’s also an old “cowboy joke” that is relevant to the circus going on about the “obstruction issue”.
        In reviewing a case, the sheriff and his deputies said “he didn’t steal that horse, but he’s doing everything he can to interfere with the hanging sentence being carried out”.
        So ultimately, they were still trying to make the case for hanging the guy on the obstruction charges.

        1. Oddly, I think you are totally right. The oddity is Trump may be hoisted on his own petard. He had at least 2 chances to act intelligently. 1) Not firing Comey – election would have been over long prior to what happened, without the significant powers wielded by a special counsel. 2) Cooperate readily and encourage others to do so, and stop everyone (incl Fox News opinionators) from inviting suspicion. The investigation would have gone away and Trump would have been a hero. Even Manafort might have emerged with a slap for foreign agent nondiscloures and transmittal of polling data to Kilimnik. Possible the FBI would not have learned of his money laundering and failure to pay income tax. “Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”

        2. Tom raises the thoroughly rebuked premise that there cannot be obstruction without an underlying prosecuted crime.

          1. It happens regularly enough to not be novel.
          2. It is simple matter of logic that the suspect may either not know if his actions rose to to the level of a crime but still acts to cover it up or definitely has committed a crime but successfully covers it up. Mueller found for insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy – and did not address the a-legal act of collusion – but also noted the successful stonewalling by many in the campaign, from the president down. Therefore, by simple logic, either of those two possibilities apply to Trump and obstruction of justice.

          Those, like JT, who pretend that Trump was exonerated from colluding with the Russians are full of s….

          1. Of course there can be obstruction charges brought in the absence of an underlying crime.
            The point of the “horse thief/ hanging” joke is that you just have to be chicken**** enough to do it.

            1. its been a while I have posted Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” but they apply to the attacks the Left use, now more than ever with their many weaknesses being exposed in the DNC candidates

              The Rules for Radicals – Saul Alinsky

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


              1. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

                This perhaps is the most important Alinsky rule for today and it has to be utilized by the right which is far more intelligent but isn’t quite as violent mentally and physically as the left.

                1. I hate to see either party doing this, deplore it from the left. Guess I’m an idealist for this type of behavior.

                  1. Chris, agreed, it is not necessarily nice behavior but one has to do what they must to protect themselves. There are no safe spaces in real life.

                2. James Carville….he demonstrated it all too well. “drag a $100 bill through a trailer park”. Why Mary Matalin stayed with him I will never know

                  1. They had more in common with each other than they do with normal human beings.

                    What struck me at the time when it seeped out to the public that she was seeing Carville while working for the Bush I Administration is when she said she would never date Republican men because they’re the sort who wear galoshes.

                    I thought at the time that was a bizarre statement (and a gratuitous insult directed at the people you’re supposed to be working with, right?). Some years down the road I realized it was an early sign of what Robert Stacy McCain was pointing out 20-odd years later (making use of Nicolle Wallace as the echt example): the people at the apex and center of the Republican Party actually despise Republican voters.

                    George Bush the Elder should have canned her bony a**. But, of course, irritation of ordinary Republican voters is something that does not embarrass the Bushes all that much.

                    1. TIA X 9……. I worked with James in Texas in early 80’s. James was extremely disciplined….ran 7 miles before 8:30 a.m. each morning…….was reserved, but deliberate. I never saw him drink..and he had a “type”, as far as women…..dark hair, dark eyes, olive skin, like Acadian women. His secret girl at the time, a Jewish political op from Az, fit that description. I still remember what she considered to be “their song”, for some reason, LOL
                      Years later I noted the unmistakable similarities between Matalin, and the Jewish girl, when I saw James and Mary on tv. He became such a clown and show off, after working with the Clintons, but in the early days of his career, he was the most serious, and hardest working, man behind the scenes in politics.

                  2. Apparently she negotiated a better deal then the $100 bill.

                    BTW: Is it true James up on a bestiality & rape charge against the horse Prez Trump road into town on? LOL;)

                3. Trump is good at some of these Alinksky insights, which is part of why i like him more and more

                  1. Kurtz, he turned Alinsky on those using Alinsky on him though Trump didn’t intentionally provoke the threat of violence or theft which Alinsky was more than willing to use.

          2. OK, let congress impeach him for obstruction then., That’s their job if it be provable against him beyond reaonable doubt.

            And yet, they’re not impeaching. So, they must either a) be failing in their duty or b) have reached a similar conclusion that sufficient evidence is lacking.

            Or c, the obvious alternative, fake impeachment investigation until the last minute when it’s too late, to satisfy their sucker voters, and then you guys will forget and reeelect some of them again.

            1. Impeachment doesn’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it doesn’t require any prof at all, it doesn’t require any evidence, it doesn’t require any investigations or hearings, it only requires that as few as 9 States are pissed off for the President thumbing their nose at them and their authority as the Union!

              They can impeach and remove the President for insubordination alone, and the States will vote 100% for his removal if they are protecting their authority!

              Wake up!

              1. “States will vote 100% for his removal if they are protecting their authority!”

                That is an opinion, but Trump hasn’t been taking rights away from states like his previous Democratic counterparts that took part in all sorts of programs reducing the authority of the states.

                On the other hand Trump is turning authority over to the states with regard to healthcare and numerous other things. He has done a tremendous amount of deregulation. He has permitted states to decide on the extraction of oil and fracking. I can go on and on demonstrating how Trump favors the states more than any recent president but you will just find net program that writes a ridiculous reply that is nonsense.

                1. Wow, you really need to wake up. This isn’t about Parties, or any President’s administration, it’s about the Union being the Governing Authority and all other persons, either elected or appointed, are subservient to the Union. And just in case you still don’t know, the Union is an Assembly of the States, the United States, in Congress assembled. What you don’t understand the meaning of words like join, assemble, and Union!

                  The More Perfect Union of the Preamble of the Constitution is the joining of the States into Congress as Equals, and it takes a Consensus of the States as Equals for all Decisions both Foreign and Domestic.

                  If anyone, including the President, doesn’t respect the authority of the Union, then that in and of itself is grounds for impeachment for insubordination!

                  Get you head out of your Party System’s hind parts!

                  And by the way, the President is selected, ultimately, by the States, as they are the people in their collective capacity!

                  I know there may be a few concepts that I have elucidated here that are your ability to comprehend, maybe you should find someone to enlighten you!

                  1. “Wow, you really need to wake up. This isn’t about Parties,”

                    Wow, you really need to get your word processor fixed because it adds discussion where such discussion didn’t exist on my part. I’m not discussing parties or the nonsense you have written. I am discussing the fact that your statement is bogus about a specific person presently President. Trump hasn’t been taking rights away from states like his previous Democratic counterparts that took part in all sorts of programs reducing the authority of the states.

                    “the States will vote 100% for his [Trump] removal if they are protecting their authority!”

                    If the states were going to attack Trump for this they certainly would have attacked the previous administration since as I discussed Trump has been turning authority over to the states.

                    You are one crazy and ignorant dude.

                    1. You are too arrogantly ignorant for me to make a dent in your big head. When you learn to read then I will respect you enough to rebut your comments. Until then keep enjoying playing with yourself.

                    2. Federalistpapers… windbag.

                      I couldn’t find your reply obtained in email but didn’t appear on my browser at this time. You didn’t respond because I showed you where you were dead wrong and your word processor gave up trying to piece your logic together. I will repeat the essence of our difference of opinion and then you can resume what ever you were doing.

                      “On the other hand Trump is turning authority over to the states with regard to healthcare and numerous other things. He has done a tremendous amount of deregulation. He has permitted states to decide on the extraction of oil and fracking. I can go on and on demonstrating how Trump favors the states more than any recent president but you will just find net program that writes a ridiculous reply that is nonsense.”

                    3. Sorry but trump doesn’t have the authority to turn anything over to the States. The President is not a leader or decision maker, the President is only an administrator who implements the Policies, Laws, and Treaties of the States as they are assembled in Congress, the Union which makes us The United States of America.

                      You have heard of the United States before haven’t you? Just to make it easier for your little mind, the Union is in the Preamble of the Constitution and the Union is on every piece of legislation that comes through Congress, the United States, in Congress Assembled.

                      Do you know what that means? A better question is do you know how the Union works to Govern our Country? Sorry, Parties are not Members of the Union, and the President and his administration are not Members of the Union either.

                      I don’t think you can take it that I devalue the Office if the Presidency to that of subservience to the States as the Union.

                      Keep trying to force feed me your Party Propaganda, but it would be easier if you actually read the Constitution before you make a complete idiot of yourself.

                      It’s funny that you don’t know what angle to attack me from because you can’t tell if I’m a conservative or a liberal. Let me help you, I’m a Constitutional Originalist, deal with that, if it’s not in the Constitution then it doesn’t exist, and we shouldn’t be doing it.

                      What are you afraid of, is it the equality of the Constitution, the distributed power of the Constitution, or that is it that the Government established by the Constitution cannot be controlled and manipulated by our factious elements for political gain?

                      And thanks, I take it as a badge of honor that you think I’m a windbag.

                    4. I didn’t bother reading beyond your first sentence because your word processor goes all over the place and you can’t seem to control it. You said: “Sorry but trump doesn’t have the authority to turn anything over to the States.”

                      You have too many short circuits in your brain taking you back to your confused talking points that are pages long. One of the questions faced in this nation is whether the growth of government is good or bad. I personally believe in smaller government. When the President gets rid of federal regulations that returns power to the states. I will repeat what I preiviously said so perhaps this time you can grasp what was said.

                      “On the other hand Trump is turning authority over to the states with regard to healthcare and numerous other things. He has done a tremendous amount of deregulation. He has permitted states to decide on the extraction of oil and fracking. I can go on and on demonstrating how Trump favors the states more than any recent president but you will just find a net program that writes a ridiculous reply that is nonsense.”

                    5. Your problem is that you don’t understand the Government structure we have established in our Constitution, the President is not an authority figure in a republican form of Government, and a President’s administration is not the Government based upon the Federal Principle either, the President is also not a decision maker and has no authority to do anything without the Advice and Consent of Congress, which is an Assembly of the States as Equals, The Union.

                      That is my only talking point and I will keep repeating it like a Sunday sermon of a Baptist Preacher until I’m understood!

                      The Constitution does not establish a Party System in our Country, it forms a Confederated Republic based upon State Equality, and the States must reach Majority Consensus not our Major Parties forming a Bipartisan Majority Consensus, talking point 2.

                      Give it up, Trump was illegitimately elected by the Parties, not by the People who act indirectly through Electors who vote on their behalf, talking point 3.

                      And notice I haven’t said anything about what the Democrats did or didn’t do when they were usurping the power of the People, and Trump is no better, but an argument can be made that he has exacerbated the situation of Party division and dysfunction which We The People don’t need and we don’t have to put up with. Talking point 4.

                      And the only way to fix this problem of Governance is to Reestablish the Governing Authority of the States as the Union, which is quite simple really, because it only takes 1 State to demand the Representation, Suffrage, and share of the debts of our Country as a Member State in the Union to force the Union to retake control of our Government. Talking point 5.

                      Wake up and smell the coffee, this is the United States of America, Not The United Parties! Talking point 6.

                      By the way, my word processor is me, not some propaganda machine generating misinformation and misinterpretations that give the Parties Control over the Government of the People.

                      And if you are so arrogant not to read and consider my words, then you are part of the problem, not the Solution. By the way, you have no idea what small Government means, that’s why you can’t express your view point on the subject. Small Government comes through control over Federal Revenue which is supposed to be coupled with the States Proportional Representation and Suffrage to form the Power of the Purse, meaning all Federal expenditures must be approved and fully funded before the Collection of revenue to pay for the Expenditures through Direct taxation on the States, that’s the control for the size of our Federal Government.

                      And I don’t care. If you consider what I write as worthy of you simplistic ability to read and comprehend, I’ll keep writing until We The People understand, and We The People retake our country from the Parties which are destroying any chance we have for Functional Government Free of the Partisan bickering and divisions which only works for the Elite and Special Interest to Control our Government and transfer the wealth of the People to the enrich themselves at the expense of the People.

                      Yeah, I’m a windbag and I’ll keep blowing until I’m Heard! When you going to start listening instead of trying to talk over me, to drown out my talking points?

                    6. “Your problem is that you don’t understand the Government structure we have established in our Constitution,”

                      federalistpapers…windbag, you are projecting. I described the real life situation on the ground where Trump is giving up power the federal government took from the states and that power is being returned to the states and the people. You stay away from what is actually happening because you don’t understand it and it conflicts with your core beliefs. What you write about the Constitution is merely an attempt at enhancing your false underlying political philosophy and no one should take you seriously.

                      This is the core of the issue: “On the other hand Trump is turning authority over to the states with regard to healthcare and numerous other things. He has done a tremendous amount of deregulation. He has permitted states to decide on the extraction of oil and fracking. I can go on and on demonstrating how Trump favors the states more than any recent president but you will just find a net program that writes a ridiculous reply that is nonsense.”

                      As usual I didn’t read past the first paragraph knowing the rest to be a waste of time. You are going to have to deal with the facts on the ground. Trump has returned power to the people and the states despite what you think you know. Obama took such power away.

                    7. Maybe you didn’t get the memo, the Federal Government is the States as they are assembled in Congress as Equals, not some separate entity from the States that forces its will on the States, and what’s more the President doesn’t form an administration to then become the leader of that Federal Government which is forcing its will on the States and making all the decisions for our Country both Foreign and Domestic.

                      Confederated Republic, Not a National Government, and Federal does not mean National either. The Federal Principle is a consolidation of Sovereign and independent States into a Confederated (compound) Republic based upon State Equality.

                      That’s the most basic principle of the Constitution.

                      I’ll forgo being condescending and hurtful to you!

                    8. “Maybe you didn’t get the memo”

                      Maybe you, federalistpapers…, didn’t get the memo. Reality Trumps your memo’s that are based mostly on fiction.

                      This is the present situation:

                      “On the other hand Trump is turning authority over to the states with regard to healthcare and numerous other things. He has done a tremendous amount of deregulation. He has permitted states to decide on the extraction of oil and fracking. I can go on and on demonstrating how Trump favors the states more than any recent president but you will just find a net program that writes a ridiculous reply that is nonsense.”

                      Deal with it rather than just adding more words to the discussion. Then we delve deeper into the fantasy world.

                    9. You are ignorant, you can’t beat the Constitution with your reality! I’m not going to tell you to stop trying, but just keep playing with yourself that seems to be to only method by which you derive satisfaction.

                      How did you, and those of your ilk that comment on Turley’s post, ever find your way here, it Definitely isn’t because you you have the educational or job related background to comprehend anything that is being discussed here!

                    10. “You are ignorant, you can’t beat the Constitution with your reality!”

                      federalistpaper…windbag, you have a problem. Your version of the Constitution doesn’t seem to manage what has actually occurred. Therefore, you have to explain the specifics of why the following occurred. Repeating your mantra doesn’t advance you closer to the goal. I know that is frustrating but you have deal with the reality of the following before advancing.

                      “On the other hand Trump is turning authority over to the states with regard to healthcare and numerous other things. He has done a tremendous amount of deregulation. He has permitted states to decide on the extraction of oil and fracking. I can go on and on demonstrating how Trump favors the states more than any recent President”

                    11. Just repeating yourself isn’t going to make you right! And I don’t have to explain the Constitution to you, learn it yourself or find someone with the patience to teach you. But in any event, ……, I’ll leave that to your own imagination which seems to be overly active.

                      I think you are a BOT, or at least you are impersonating one!

                    12. “Just repeating yourself isn’t going to make you right! And I don’t have to explain the Constitution to you, ”

                      Federalistpapers…windbag if you understand the Constitution you can certainly manage the little ruffle in what you say. The following has occured providing more power to the states and less to the federal government. The reason you cannot deal with the statement is that your ideology has usurped your mind of the power to relate to the Constitution as it exists.

                      “On the other hand Trump is turning authority over to the states with regard to healthcare and numerous other things. He has done a tremendous amount of deregulation. He has permitted states to decide on the extraction of oil and fracking. I can go on and on demonstrating how Trump favors the states more than any recent President”

                    13. I’ve reached my limit for your kind of entertainment, so I’m out until the next time you spout your ignorance as truth, but feel free to continue to entertain yourself, which seems to be your preferred method of satisfaction!

                    14. “so I’m out until the next time you spout your ignorance as truth,”

                      federalistpaper…windbag, I guess what you have proven is that truth is whatever you wish it to be and is as reliable as a broken clock. You couldn’t take an easy question so I wonder how you deal with anything in life. I think I know. You dream a lot and you have convinced yourself that your dreams are a reality.

                      “On the other hand Trump is turning authority over to the states with regard to healthcare and numerous other things. He has done a tremendous amount of deregulation. He has permitted states to decide on the extraction of oil and fracking. I can go on and on demonstrating how Trump favors the states more than any recent President”

                  2. “It’s funny that you don’t know what angle to attack me from because you can’t tell if I’m a conservative or a liberal.”
                    Jokes on you. Lunacy isn’t a political philosophy. It’s just nuts.

                    1. Thank you for telling me what’s wrong with you, and all you wannabe intellectuals who comment on this blog.

                      What a joke, good thing I’m in the mood to be entertained.

                      I especially love how all of you copy what I say before you make some inept comment.

            2. Dumbocrats just want to create illusion of impropriety regarding Trump but won’t dare vote for impeach for “obstruction” of a phantom crime, dreamed up by……Dumbocrats (HRC funding of Steele dossier). Fat Jerry, Pencil Neck, and Eric Swallows are all a bunch of frauds.

            3. Mr. Kurtz,
              I will add “d’ as a possibility; my best guess on the Democratic strategy is that impeachment is off the table until November of 2020. I don’t think the House leadership and the saner rank and file membership ( that excludes people like Reb. Rapida Tlaib, Rep. Hyphrn-Cortez, and Rep..Mad Max)are convinced that an impeachment is a political winner.
              The strategy seems to be ‘let’s lk about impeachment, but not actually impeach’. So I think they’re going that route as a 2020 election strategy……suggest that Trump has committed impeachable offenses, but not take the politically risky move of impeaching Trump.
              The Democrats have a c.50/50 chance of defeating Trump in 2020, and I’d say an equal chance of taking control of the Senate. I think impeachment is viewed by the Democratic leadership as the “insurance policy” if Trump wins a second term. They don’t have as much to lose at that point, if Trump has been re-elected. Just as Peter Strzok viewed removal or undercutting Trump as “insurance’s” in the unlikely event that Trump would be elected in 2016, I think Democratic Congressional leaders are keeping impeachment on the shelve as the insurance if things don’t work out for them in the 2020 election.

      2. It’s amusing to see someone infer your political views rather than debate issues and points raised. Actually, I’m independent, voted for neither, found both highly unacceptable … Clinton corrupt, Trump incompetent.

        1. In looking over Chris’s 20 point hyper-spin job, it’s interesting that he/she presents him/herself as some objective, non-partisan analyst.
          You’d need a tachometer to measure the RPMs in that 20 point spinning.

          1. ” … sometimes I’ve believed at least six impossible things before breakfast.” “The first principle is not to fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to foo.”

            Everyone has license to think as they wish, or to accept or not accept what others say.

          2. Tom observes Chris’ 20 point hyper-spin job…

            and Chris responds

            Everyone has license to…Guess Im an idealist.

            Life is wonderful for relativistic fools

            “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.”

            1. Clever you just convolved 2 comments to 2 different individuals in response to 2 posts with different contexts, thereby demonstrating intellectually dishonesty. You are ready to sign up to join a political opinion program.

        2. Chris,

          You’re position is just unsustainable. You’re ignoring all the many subgroups on all sides.

          IE: Like the Black Male Gun Owners that supported Trump last time & that many more are likely to do the same coming up.

          But go right ahead standing in the middle the road, out of power, instead of calling/working to demand these damned polecats do what we citizens need to have happen.

        3. this time, Chris, maybe you will vote for the Democrat candidate who pledges to legalize border jumping and give free health care to all illegals? You will pick up the bill in the end. Make your choice.

    2. There was a c.10 month FBI investihation of Russian meddling, and potential coordination of the Trump Campaign with the Russians who were meddling.
      Mueller had “a running start” when he was appointed in May 2017, given the FBI investigation that began in July of 2016.
      Even IF there had no previous FBI investigation for Mueller to build on, the fact that he was appointed 6 month after the election doesn’t mean that he could not investigate what happened in an earlier time frame.
      That’s like saying that embezzlement was going on in a bank in 2016, and because investigators weren’t assigned until 2017, they couldn’t know if embezzlement took place.
      For that matter, using that logic, how could Mueller know what Paul Manafort was doing in 2016, or 2006, when he wasn’t appointed until May 2017?
      So the conclusion (number 1 in the list) presented in the comment is ridiculous.
      Also, Mueller was in fact free to state that a crime / crimes we’re committed if he’d reached that conclusion. That DOJ policy that a sitting president can not be indicted does not prevent a Special Counsel from stating that there was criminal conduct.
      Barr himself has said that in testimony to Congress. It’s a cop-out to claim that Mueller’s hands were tied by DOJ policy if he believed Trump committed crime(s). Mueller was free to state that his report if in fact he believed Trump had committed crimes.

      1. 1. Read Turley’s question. It’s ambiguous. I recognized the ambiguity, chose to address one branch. To the other branch which I ignored … an slow perking FBI counterintelligence nvestigation conducted not to inform the investigated or the public (for obvious reasons due to the impending election), including not subpoenaing the involved or witnesses, can hardly develop the information required to come to a definitive conclusion for the main issue. Put your brain into objectivity, and put away your political lens. Although I never thought Trump colluded, his own actions during the investigation were enough to generate widespread suspicion. He acted stupidly.

        2. So you opine that a prosecutor should conclude a crime (“find criminal conduct”) and do nothing, i.e. not charge the criminal? Imagine how police investigations worked if this practice were followed.

        1. Chris,
          I’ll mention that I didn’t vote for either Clinton or Trump, which I’ve mentioned here.
          So that’s something of area of agreement.
          I also never criticized Rosenstein for appointing a Special Counsel ( I’ve criticized his choice of Mueller, and the directives to Mueller).
          I’ll repeat something else that I’ve said here previously……that firing Comey would not necessarily have resulted in a Special Counsel investigation.
          But Trump’s ill- advised comments to Lester Holt and the Russian diplomats was just asking for trouble.
          I thought I made it clear that, in spite of the unique circumstances with the DOJ policy against indicting a president, that does not require or excuse a Special Counsel’s ducking the question of whether crimes were committed.
          I agree with what Barr said, which I referenced earlier.
          As far as what “I opine” about A prosecutor…..I’ll emphasize A prosecutor….they aren’t prohited by policy from indicting an individual.
          So what I’m “opining ” about Mueller is about SPECIAL COUNSEL investigating a president.
          It dies not follow that what I’ve said about Mueller somehow applies to just any prosecutor.
          The restrictions on Mueller’s ability to indict in no way relieve him of the responsibility of stating a conclusion on whether or not a crime was committed.
          Since he opted not to present a conclusion on the obstruction question, DOJ ( Barr-Rosenstein, primarily), made it for him.
          There was supposedly consultation between Barr-Rosenstein and Mueller leading up to Barr’s summary of Mueller’s conclusion.
          I hope that issue ( consultation/ discussions between these players) us covered comprehensive and publically when Mueller testifies.
          Barr has testified and given and defended his position on his decision on obstruction, and on his summary of the conclusions of the OSC Report.
          Mueller has an unusual penchant for secrecy and (non)- communication.
          It’s not enough to say ”the Report speaks for itself”, then try to disappear again. Not when that report left so many questions unanswered, and is stirring so much debate.

          1. Thank you for the long note. Tom, I think you have to consider Mueller’s life history and long aversion for public exposure and conflict. As NYT explained he is very much a go by the book guy, and his military experience was a defining period. He’s not a guy I would want to work for; he is a guy I would appreciate in combat. I’m not defending him or his actions however, I see him as a buttoned up straight arrow character. I too was expecting a determination, even though his terms of reference had been reported … that he had to follow DOJ regulations. Your point that he could offer an opinion without taking a prosecutorial step is noted. It’s hard to see how that would have worked but OK. I suggested in another note that this would have generated a lot of flak from a different direction.

            I read the whole report. I have time. Barr’s summary was a poor characterization of parts. Mueller was clearlyl annoyed Barr did not release the prepared summaries intended for that purpose. We’ll what Mueller says but my bet is he says nothing more than is already released. The House Committee expectations are out of sync with Mueller’s character and history.



            1. Chris,
              This was one reason why Mueller was a poor choice for Special Counsel.
              There were untold comments here that “Mueller does not leak”, etc.
              I have no reason to question that, but when a presidency is put under a cloud even before the inauguration and it continues for over two years, it’s a good idea to let the American public what you’re donig and where you’re at in the investigation.
              Then, patience was advised until Mueller completed his work and provided “the answers” .
              He didn’t do that, and his “do not leak” virtue became a “do not speak” fault.
              Contrary to what some may still think, Mueller isn’t some god who must be implored ( or be subpeonaed) to come down from the mountain top and communicate with the American public.
              There appears to have been negotiations about the circumstances under which Mueller agreed to testify, so in addition to being “encouraged” to appear, it looks like he had to be mollified by limitations and conditions placed on the circumstances of his testimony.

              1. A lawyer of my acquaintance has suggested that Mueller was a figurehead in an investigation conducted by Hillary donors. Everything was delegated, including the leaking.

                1. Absurd,
                  I know that there were accusations or suspicions about leaks out of the Special Counsel team ( either directly or indirectly contacting the media, members of Congress, etc.)
                  In the absence of any evidence that I saw supporting that allegation about leaks, I think the hyper-secrecy of Mueller probably held for the rest of his team.

                2. Hillary’s crew are some of the sharpest inside operators around. Where normal people can go hire themselves a private lawyer, Hillary could go hire herself a government paid one. I marvel at the slickness of that crew to this day. Talk about running a tight team, my goodness what an impressive racket they have run.

                  However, enough voters saw through it not to stick her in charge.

                  1. Hillary’s crew are some of the sharpest inside operators around.

                    She lost the first presidential election to a community agitprop, and the second to a real estate tycoon. Plus she foolishly, as an alleged genius attorney, strove to win the popular vote knowing the electoral college is the metric that the US Constitution requires

                    Shillary and her minions are an embarrassing group of wannabe monarchs. Even Hugo Chavez accomplished what Hillary could not. Nod to her supporters who are intellectual peasants like supporters of Chavez who were economic peasants

            2. I would not want by my side, a ticket puncher whose biggest failures got him promotions.

              Lets see. Iraq WMDs; botched anthrax investigation and framing of innocent suspect; failed oversight of Boston FBI office which had 2 agents in jail now for colluding with Whitey Bulger murders; botched RICO trial against the Hells angels.

              How do you lose a trial against a RICO trial against the most notorious outlaw biker gang in the world? oh by misusing informants and snitches for starters

              something guys like Mueller are good at

              He’s a pathetic climber. piss on him


                You are welcome to call the judge a liar but the article has links to evidence. Access the links and read a Federal Court decision and opinion from Boston, then read the findings of the House Committe investigating FBI misdeeds, Republican House and committee control (it’s in 2 long volumes that you can download, can’t send in email). You will learn the committee praised Mueller. Your throw down on the Whitey Bulger affair and 2 individuals remaining in prison is off base. Mueller had nothing to do with it (he was on the DOJ prosecutor side and the FBI kept their actions secret, not telling the rest of the DOJ). I only know this because I was curious but it has been known over 15 years. You repeated a favorite right wing accusation has been long debunked and many repeating it or posting it know this. However, it serves their purpose to ignore the real story and continue to peddle a lie following the Russian playbook.

                Whether your other statements are true, I don’t know, haven’t read and am not going to take the time. It would be amusing to see Mueller sue Fox News, website owners, etc. because the accusations have been scathing and it is easy to discover the truth.

                1. Whitey Bulger is the one who got caught. Ask yourself how many other times has FBI colluded with criminal activity by a productive information, and never been exposed.

                  It’s probaby the weakest thing I Threw at him, I’ll agree to that much

                  You don’t know if the other statements I made are true? You never heard of the nonexistent Iraq WMDS Chris? You’re not very well informed, I Fear!


                  1. Robert Mueller is a crystal clear example of how incompetence is rewarded in public service.

                  2. I see. I offered real information and references. Wasted my time doing this, and will stop replying so you may have the last word.

                    Re Mueller and the Bulger case you clearly have no interest in exploring evidence from courts and Republican Committee around FBI actions to learn the truth, would instead prefer to pretend there really is a conspiracy. (If you had read the Committee report out, you might have learned something on FBI behavior. But I understand you wish to write posts in ignorance, making up your own reality with alternate reality friends.)

                    Soooo, Mueller fabricated WMD evidence and was in the middle of the WMD claims?! Hmmm, pray tell us how he did this since the original intelligence came from the British which went to the CIA. Check the record. All Mueller did was reference Powell’s statement having accepted it as true, and warned of terrorist activity if true. Get a grip. Consult original sources, not people who take stories and massage for their own purposes, not the made up stories you read on websites. Or are you so obtuse you believe all of what you read from people who have the same political views, your job to act as an echo chamber and rebroadcaster? It’s ok. Everyone has license to live in the their own world. Make up your own reality! Everyone’s doing it. What’s not to like.

                2. Chris said (about Mueller):

                  “Whether your other statements are true, I don’t know, haven’t read and am not going to take the time.”

                  You should read Mr K’s other statements and then do the necessary research to try to understand…

                  Mueller is no saint, in spite of what you’d like to believe.

                3. It’s behind the paywall and I read it before anyways and was not impressed.

                  You understand that cops work with informants all the time by necessity. I understand that too. but there’s a point of wisdom that says it can go too far. Wisdom is impaired by corruption. Corruption is what was in place in Boston and probably elsewhere.

                  Corruption is manifestly in play with Mueller today. he’s a corrupt prig who sees himself as a kingmaker and a king-breaker above the electorate. the Dems have been playing to his pride all along. He’s not the kind who would take a bribe so they are paying him with fawning praise, which is what his kind always crave the most.

                  It’s time this fool get a kick in the shins. You keep on fellating him like the Dems if you want to, but I’m not on the fluffer bandwagon.

                  1. Nor am I. And I’m a Democrat. Some Dems used to be smart about the FBI and guys like Mueller, but that’s changed for the younger crowd, especially.

                  2. So, the guy Kurtz thinks is corrupt won’t take bribe and repeatedly demurs from being The Man who decides the Trumpster’s fate. Does the guy even think about what he types?

                    Whatever motivates Mueller, it is not corruption.

                  3. Smearing Robert Mueller
                    April 18, 2018
                    Op-Ed Contributor
                    By Nancy Gertner
                    Ms. Gertner is a retired federal judge.
                    Was Robert Mueller, the special counsel, complicit in one of the worst
                    scandals in the F.B.I.’s history — the decades-long wrongful imprisonment of
                    four men for a murder they didn’t commit?
                    This question, which has been raised before, is being addressed again — this
                    time by some of President Trump’s most ardent supporters on the right,
                    especially Fox News’s Sean Hannity but also Rush Limbaugh and others. My
                    friend Alan Dershowitz, the retired Harvard Law School professor, has also
                    weighed in.
                    In an April 8 interview with John Catsimatidis on his New York radio show,
                    Mr. Dershowitz asserted that Mr. Mueller was “the guy who kept four
                    innocent people in prison for many years in order to protect the cover of
                    Whitey Bulger as an F.B.I. informer.” Mr. Mueller, he said, was “right at the
                    center of it.” Mr. Bulger was a notorious crime boss in Boston, the head of the
                    Winter Hill Gang, and also a secret source for the F.B.I.
                    There is no evidence that the assertion is true. I was the federal judge who
                    presided over a successful lawsuit brought against the government by two of
                    those men and the families of the other two, who had died in prison. Based on
                    the voluminous evidence submitted in the trial, and having written a 105-
                    page decision awarding them $101.8 million, I can say without equivocation
                    that Mr. Mueller, who worked in the United States attorney’s office in Boston
                    from 1982 to 1988, including a brief stint as the acting head of the office, had
                    no involvement in that case. He was never even mentioned.
                    The case wasn’t about Whitey Bulger but another mobster the F.B.I. was also
                    protecting, the hit man Joseph Barboza, who lied when he testified that the
                    four men had killed Edward Deegan, a low-level mobster, in 1965. Mr.
                    Barboza was covering for the real killers, and the F.B.I. went along because of
                    his importance as an informant.
                    Robert Mueller was a United States attorney in 1996.Dennis Cook/Associated Press
                    But the evidence — or rather, lack of it — hasn’t stopped the piling on against
                    Mr. Mueller, particularly by Mr. Hannity. In a March 20 broadcast, he said,
                    “Robert Mueller was the U.S. attorney in charge while these men were rotting
                    in prison while certain agents in the F.B.I. under Mueller covered up the
                    He returned to this theme on April 9, noting the Catsimatidis interview with
                    Professor Dershowitz, and said: “Four men went to jail. Mueller was involved
                    in the case. Two of them died in jail. They were all later exonerated.”
                    He made the same case two days later on a show that was promoted by a
                    tweet by President Trump — “Big show tonight on @seanhannity.” Mr.
                    Hannity laid out his case for “Deep State crime families trying to take down
                    the president,” including the “Mueller crime family.” Among Mr. Hannity’s
                    accusations: “During Mueller’s time as a federal prosecutor in Boston, four —
                    four men wrongfully imprisoned for decades framed by an F.B.I. informant
                    and notorious gangster Whitey Bulger, all while Mueller’s office looked the
                    other way.”
                    Rush Limbaugh added his own variant on April 13. “The men would have
                    been cleared but Mueller and the prosecutors withheld evidence from the
                    court,” he said, adding, “Thirty years in jail, four innocent people, from the
                    man of impeccable integrity inside the establishment swamp.”
                    The record simply doesn’t support these assertions. As I explained in my
                    decision, because of the gravity of the accusations made by the imprisoned
                    men, I analyzed the evidence “with special care in order that the public, and
                    especially the parties, could be fully confident of my conclusions.”
                    That said, I was unsparing in my criticism of the F.B.I. and Justice
                    Department officials who were responsible for this wrongful imprisonment. I
                    named names where the record supported it. I resoundingly condemned the
                    government in an unusual court session in which I read my conclusions.
                    Mr. Mueller is mentioned nowhere in my opinion; nor in the submissions of
                    the plaintiffs’ lead trial counsel, Juliane Balliro; nor in “Black Mass,” the book
                    about Mr. Bulger and the F.B.I. written by former reporters for The Boston
                    Mr. Barboza, like Mr. Bulger and one of Mr. Deegan’s killers, Vincent
                    Flemmi, was in the Top Echelon Criminal Informant Program started in 1961
                    by J. Edgar Hoover. The program, as I noted in my opinion, “was strictly
                    confidential, which not only meant that its existence would be kept secret
                    from the general public and other divisions within the federal government,
                    but also from state law enforcement agencies.” Mr. Barboza’s F.B.I. handlers,
                    Dennis Condon and H. Paul Rico, and their superiors, knew that Mr. Barboza
                    had perjured himself and that he was protecting Mr. Flemmi, but they
                    withheld that information from state prosecutors because of his importance
                    as an informant and to protect the informant program.
                    They continued to withhold the truth during commutation hearings for the
                    men; each time the F.B.I. could have disclosed Mr. Barboza’s lie, it did not. In
                    fact, the agency lobbied against clemency.
                    Much has been made about an assertion made by Michael Albano, the former
                    mayor of Springfield, Mass., who served on the Massachusetts Parole Board
                    in the 1980s. He has said repeatedly that he saw a letter from Mr. Mueller,
                    written during the period while he was in the United States attorney’s office
                    in Boston, opposing the release of one of the four men.
                    But no copy of that letter has ever been produced, and Mr. Dershowitz now
                    says in a statement that several days after making his remarks on the
                    Catsimatidis show, The Boston Globe “revealed for the first time to my
                    knowledge that no such letter has been found. I never repeated the allegation
                    after that.” Still, he said, “further investigation seems warranted, since
                    absence of evidence is not conclusive evidence of absence, especially in
                    government files.”
                    Perhaps. But an accusation of such gravity demands more. I found no such
                    letter from Mr. Mueller in the commutation files in the court record. Neither
                    did the lead trial lawyer for the plaintiffs, Ms. Balliro, who has a complete
                    copy of the parole board files of all four men, which were produced in
                    response to a subpoena before the trial. Other letters from federal
                    prosecutors are in those files. But there was nothing from Mr. Mueller.
                    It wasn’t until the late 1990s that another federal judge, Mark Wolf, held
                    hearings that revealed the F.B.I.’s refusal to inform the United States attorney
                    in Boston that Mr. Bulger and his confederate Stephen Flemmi, brother of
                    Vincent, were informants. In a report by the House Committee on
                    Government Reform, which looked into the F.B.I.’s use of secret informants,
                    the only reference to Mr. Mueller was a favorable one. He offered, as F.B.I.
                    director, to work with the committee to reform the agency’s informant
                    When Mr. Hannity and others say Mr. Mueller was responsible for the
                    continued imprisonment of those four men, they are simply wrong — unless
                    they have information that I, Ms. Balliro, the House investigators and the
                    “Black Mass” authors did not and do not have. If they do, they should
                    produce it. If they don’t, they should stop this campaign to discredit Mr.





                    1. Money Shot from Chris’s article::

                      “I was the federal judge who
                      presided over a successful lawsuit brought against the government by two of
                      those men and the families of the other two, who had died in prison. Based on
                      the voluminous evidence submitted in the trial, and having written a 105-
                      page decision awarding them $101.8 million, I can say without equivocation
                      that Mr. Mueller, who worked in the United States attorney’s office in Boston
                      from 1982 to 1988, including a brief stint as the acting head of the office, had
                      no involvement in that case. He was never even mentioned.”

                      Hannity, Dershowitz, and Limbaugh are listed as liars on this faux scandal.

                4. Parroting right-wing BS is a common practice here. They believe all kinds of nonsense from their “special” news sources, which of course explains how they came to support Trump. Everyone who doesn’t drink their Kool Aid must be smeared and there is no shortage of those getting rich telling them what they want to hear. Your article references Hannity, and of course there are at least a half dozen multi-millionaires lying for cash on radio and TV everyday, not to mention the “authors” churning out exposes of Hillary (gotta be a dozen now) and the new absurdity, The Deep State.

                  1. “Former FBI agent and 9/11 whistleblower Colleen Rowley”


                    The Real News Network

                    Published on May 17, 2017

                    “Former FBI agent and 9/11 whistleblower Colleen Rowley says former FBI head Robert Mueller, now appointed to investigate the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, participated in covering up the pre 9/11 role of the U.S. intelligence agencies and the Bush Administration, helped create the post 9/11 national security/surveillance state, and helped facilitate the pre-Iraq war propaganda machine”

                    (RNN is not a right-wing site.)

                    1. 911 Truther BS???

                      Okay, so you’re naive and/or not the brightest bulb…

                    2. Collen Rowley is most definitely not a “911 truther”…

                      (Anon didn’t listen to her and called the report “911 Truther BS.”)

                      Yeah, he or she (Anon) is certainly rational and open-minded, basing his or her conclusions on “evidence”…blah, blah, blah…

                    3. Anonymous’s summary of his link:

                      “…participated in covering up the pre 9/11 role of the U.S. intelligence agencies and the Bush Administration…’

                    1. Ahhh, Ray McGovern, the guy who hasn’t been in the CIA since 1990 (29 years) but claims inside knowledge while appearing regularly on Russia Today, and:

                      “McGovern holds a position that the theft of the DNC emails was an inside job, and not the work of Russian agents (contrary to the findings published by the US intelligence community). In his view, the metadata in the files released by Guccifer 2.0 (whom the US intelligence community identifies as a Russian military intelligence operation) has been manipulated to show that the documents came from Russia, where in fact according to this theory they originated from a computer in the Eastern United States. McGovern subsequently released a VIPS report in support of his theory. Many of the VIPS members however, did not sign the report and expressed a view that the inside job theory itself is a disinformation campaign run by a pro-Kremlin hacker Tim Leonard[33].”

                    2. Sure, shoot the messenger because he holds a view that’s not aligned with some of the BS that you’ve obviously been sold. It’s good to know that you have an open mind. /sarc

                    3. Anonymous doesn’t seem to understand that one can find someone to tell you what you want to hear if you look long enough, and some of those people may actually believe it. The rational among us will look for substantiation from those who value their record for accuracy and in fact that is what they are selling. There are apparently not many on this board who get that basic principle not being fooled, but then they want to be fooled or they wouldn’t follow Trump.

                    4. Operative word on McGovern is “WAS”. Now he’s a regular on Russia Today.

                      Say hi to Putin Ray!

                    5. There is an amusing element from analytical psychology, seeing the attributes of one’s shadow in others. Mueller is not some god, just a guy who has dedicated his life in service of the country. Apparently, what is missing in the Mueller critics is this same level of commitment, or any service commitment requiring sacrifice and risk. The increasing political machinations required to justify Mr. Trump’s statements and actions are amazing, testiments to his brilliance approaching an “emperor has clothes” fairy tale. The contrast between Mueller and Trump is stark. It is indicative of the political divide to manufacture conspiracies about middle of the road lifelong Republican Mueller, labeled by my morning friends as a “RINO”, as if Trump were the paradigm conservative, while at the same time defending Trump for actions absent from any previous Republican platform. It is an amazing world. I guess Bob Dole is next on the target list, followed by HW Bush. It’s not worth posting anything with this crowd any longer. It was interesting for one time.

    3. LOL – it’s pretty obvious where you stand politically too — and that you approached Turley’s questions with that political bias in mind.

      1. I addressed this to Tom … read Turley’s question. It is ambiguous and I addressed one part. In my answer to Tom I addressed the other part. You are welcome to think what you wish relative to any political bias on my part. I read the whole report which is the root of these comments. It is always interesting to read what others infer of your views. I urge you to read and think about the report instead of spending time on blogs.

        1. Chris,
          I read your 20 point comment on the Mueller Report and related issues. I “commented on” a couple of hours comments. Comment #1 was very strange, and you seemed to feel that investigators must simulataneously investigate alleged criminal activity/ inappropriate political activity as it is occuring.
          There were some other points that you made that I felt were questionable, but your first point stood out as the one that was most off-target.
          You’ve mentioned by the importsnce of fact-based exchanges and being informed in some of your comments to me. I think this is the thread with over 600 comments on it, and counting
          I’m not going to re-read all of them, but I don’t think that you even once challenged any factual claims that I made. I don’t mind if someone does that and corrects an error of fact on my part.
          That doesn’t happen very often because I try to be accurate in stating something as a fact. And if you had something in the way of a factual claim I made to contest, I think you would have done so.
          So generalized comments from you telling me about “facts” etc. appear to be a way of discrediting statement(s) of fact I’ve made, without specifically contesting any facts I’ve presented. That approach is not especially useful if you’re actually trying goake a point.

          1. Some typos thanks to the fact that I can’t always see a comment to proofread it until after a comment is posted. One was that “I commented on ”hours’ comment, in relation to Chris’ 20 point post
            That should be “your” comment, not “hours”.

  17. Sphinx is the wrong name. Better is “The Great Manipulator”.

  18. What is wrong with JT? Maybe he should start with reading the Mueller report to avoid asking stupid questions, like his first one. Mueller explicitly said they did not look at collusion, which is not a legal term.

    After that face plant why read the other 19 questions? My barber can do better than JT.

    1. “My barber can do better than JT.”

      As I have stated many times before Anon is arrogant along with being poorly informed.

      1. Thomas Sowell remarked 20-odd years ago that a great deal of liberal discourse reduces to exercises in self-congratulation. You get a dose of that from Anon / JanF. You get rah-rah-sis-boom-bah from Shill; in another part of the country, he might be tailgating in Clemson. From enigma you get discussion (and misapprehension) of small-scale phenomena (derived from an essential resentment). From Natacha, you get the issue of her emotional problems. From Jill, you get the intersection of emotional problems and self-aggrandizement.

        You should see the cr!p that comes over our Facebook wall. About 80% of the political posts (and 90% of the nasty political posts) come from the partisan Democrats in our circle of friends. Another 10% come from the tiresome paulbot among our shirt-tails. These people think in memes and John Oliver clips. The Democratic Party is now a collecting pool of all the jerks in America. The only one’s they’ve missed in their collect-the-set quest are the alt-right types who despise blacks and Jews.

        1. Oh, did you catch how the moderators of the Ravelry forum, notionally devoted to knitting, have banned Trump supporters from their forum? Multiple lawyers of stupidity that, dished out by people who think quite highly of themselves. Idiocracy is now.

    2. Agreed. The first question sounds like it came out of Hannity’s mouth. This is the big lie: Conflating “criminal conspiracy” with “collusion.” What, after all, is the meaning of collusion? Collusion is nothing more than secret co-operation or agreement. The report is replete with instances of collusion.

      1. Jeffrey, people collude all the time. It is not illegal nor intended to be illegal so I don’t know what your problem is.

      2. Jeffrey, John Solomon from the Hill writes: “Newly discovered Samantha Power emails detail secret Obama team effort to thwart and shame Trump during transition”

        That is collusion and to collude in the nature they did required the use of government resources which is illegal if used for political purposes.

Comments are closed.