Mueller Meltdown: Commentators Attempt To Spin Disaster For Democrats

Yesterday, I covered the Mueller hearing with CBS and BBC as painful as that duty proved to be. It was an utter meltdown. Some of us had heard months ago that Robert Mueller had “lost a step” and was not viewed as in control of the final report. The Democrats were aware of that but, in what may be the single greatest political blunder in decades, put Mueller in front of cameras for six hours. He proceeded to stumble through his testimony despite being allowed to repeatedly refuse to answer questions that were neither privileged nor classified. While many of use noted the many contradictions and befuddled performance, media stalwarts for the Democrats nevertheless declared the hearing a success. MCNBC’s Rachel Maddow called it a “remarkable day” in which Mueller gave his ‘blunt” review of Trump. Others declared that it was a “victory” for Democrats and succeeded in creating a groundswell for impeachment. This is the problem with the state of media today. Channels and commentators are now part of formula coverage that requires them to advance the expected position regardless of the actual news. It is advocacy journalism and yesterday is an example of how detached it has become from real journalism.

Not surprisingly, the architects of this pileup declared “victory.” Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin insisted “This is a great victory for the truth and for the possibility of justice in the country, because America finally got to see what Special Counsel Mueller was talking about.” Except that Mueller was barely talking at all. With polls showing almost 60 percent of Americans oppose even starting impeachment proceedings, these painful hearings are likely to only reinforce that view. Yet, these are politicians who refusal to acknowledge failures is a signature skill.

Media and legal analysts are supposed to inform their viewers of the real implications of new developments.

Maddow declared:

“I will tell you, I was not quite sure what to expect from today’s testimony by Robert Mueller. If you had told me that today, we would get from Robert Mueller over the course of these seven hours such a blunt accounting from him… of who in the president’s campaign was compromised by Russia, and how, specifically how they were compromised by Russia, including the president.

Given the unrelentingly dire descriptions he gave about the president’s conduct and the conduct of the president’s campaign and its ongoing implications for the country, it seems like they gave us two big directions today that feel imperative in terms of what we try to figure out next and the paths that we next follow to try to get to the bottom of this still-open scandal,” Maddow explained. “Because of that performance from Mueller today, I think that lights a fire under the need to speak to the people on his team who actually did the work… I think one of the outcomes from today’s hearing is gonna be a renewed interest by Congress in hearing from the people who were on Mueller’s team and did the work beyond the sort of distant figurehead figure of Mueller himself, which was revealed today by what I think was his surprising effect.”

The position that Mueller’s monosyllabic refusals to answer most questions was an unexpected blunt and riveting indictment of Trump is rather bizarre. Mueller has been widely described as confused and rather feeble in his answers. Even advocates for impeachment like Professor Lawrence Tribe admitted it was a “disaster” that sucked the life out of impeachment. Yet, Maddow told her viewers:

“All in all, just look at today as a whole, it was a remarkable day, not just for this presidency but for the presidency,” Maddow continued. “I know the Trump White House and conservative media are trying to, like, chin up tonight, make it seem like they had a great day today… they did not have a great day today.”

That is like calling the Hindenburg disaster a rough landing. Gone is any notion of informing viewers of what actually occurred and its implications for impeachment calls. Instead, viewers heard what they expect from echo journalists: assurance that Trump remains on the ropes and the Democrats are laying a trap.

Likewise, CNN legal analyst Susan Hennessey declared the hearing a success in triggering a “groundswell” for impeachment:

Susan Hennessey@Susan_Hennessey

My guess is that we are going to see a groundswell of support for impeachment after this. Both sides got some favorable tv clips out of it, but the substance overall was just devastating to the president.22.7K3:40 PM – Jul 24, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy12.8K people are talking about this

The “guess . . . that we are going to see a groundswell of support for impeachment” is rather curious given the overall discussion of whether impeachment is now effectively dead on arrival after these hearings.

The Democrats not only succeeded in highlighting the lack of direct support for their claims by Mueller, but devastated Mueller’s public persona. The hearings magnified concerns that Mueller was not in full control of his investigation.

Those views can certainly be challenged and I feel sympathy for Mueller who has finished his public career on a sour note. However, claims of success reflect not the hearing but the state of the media in this age of rage.

In fairness, many liberal analysts did acknowledge the hearings as a huge blunder for the Democrats. Michael Moore posted the following:

Michael Moore@MMFlint

A frail old man, unable to remember things, stumbling, refusing to answer basic questions…I said it in 2017 and Mueller confirmed it today — All you pundits and moderates and lame Dems who told the public to put their faith in the esteemed Robert Mueller — just STFU from now on34.4K12:31 PM – Jul 24, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy28.5K people are talking about this

Those spinning the hearing only highlight the pressure to tell viewers what they desperately want to hear even when it borders on the delusional. IT effectively kicks the can down the road of reality for viewers.

279 thoughts on “Mueller Meltdown: Commentators Attempt To Spin Disaster For Democrats”

  1. How long before the “Quintessential” Fly on the wall Huma Gotcha Abedin has her lawyer seek protection as States Evidence witness.

    Not to mention all those staffers that were involved in more than a few parts of goverenment.

  2. Happy to know AG Barr has been given 100% of the info and documents and 100% backing without waffle words like ‘ wide ranging’ that Meuller used to protect ‘certain parties’ and that the scope was specifically stated

    Now the only thing that remains is ensure the administration remains.

  3. The DNC’s Racist Organized Crime Syndication is America’s Enemy hiding in plain sight.
    The Rules For Radicals Professional Fraudster Community Disorganizer Enemy Obama and Hellary Rotten Clinton need to be Tried For Treason then FRIED like chicken.
    SPYGATE makes Watergate look like the discovery for the cure for Cancer…

    1. Balancing the budget is simple, you don’t need a child’s game to figure it out. The states just need to clamp down on the flow of revenue by diverting all federal revenue to their State treasuries, then only provide federal revenue through their proportional share of expenditures they approve by their proportional suffrage through direct taxes as per The rule of appointment of Article 1 Section2.

      All expenditures must be approved before the collection of revenue. That’s what no taxation without representation means!

      1. A rather boastful response. Care to get into the specifics dollarwise?

        1. “Care to get into the specifics dollarwise?”

          You, first, Allan.

            1. A smart guy like Allan ought to be able to give us some “statistics dollarwise.”

              1. “A smart guy like Allan ought to be able to give us some “statistics dollarwise.””

                No need to, anonymous. A dumb girl like you can’t understand them. I see your alter ego, Diane, had her posting removed again along with the responses. Just for your information the ‘juvenile’ remark by federalist, according to the email response was to Olly not me. Are you too stupid to be able to read correctly?

                Gosh, you keep running after me. It’s flattering but what would anyone want with you?

                1. Go away, little boy with the supersized ego.

                  Stop replying.

                  Oh, he can’t. Allan always has to have the last word.

                  1. If that is the case then why not stay away from me. I know to you I am unresistable but you need not interject yourself into discussions where I am a participant. You have nothing of value to say and you know that I will have the last word.

                2. On my device, it’s clearly a response to Allan:

                  federalistpapersrevisited says: July 26, 2019 at 8:04 PM

                  Wow how juvenile, are you a 12 year old kid, or a 40 year old virgin? Either way just keep playing with yourself, it protects the rest of us from your ability to accidentally procreate.


                  At any rate, keep on making life count… — on the Turley blog.

                  1. “On my device, it’s clearly a response to Allan:”

                    You are not too smart so what you say may not be true. The emails should all be identical. I based the final conclusion on the email. However, I don’t fault anyone that might be looking only at the website.

                    Look at the site carefully. There was a reply under Allan but not under Olly. If he replied directly by pressing reply it would have listed Allan as to whom the reply was directed to. Since there was no reply available under Olly the reply to Olly came off the email that was sent.

                    1. Allan, it was a reply to me. Not that difficult to figure out for anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

                    2. “Allan, it was a reply to me. ”

                      Thanks Olly.

                      I was trying to offer anonymous a modicum of dignity since she is absent of any.

        2. Colorado collects about $100 Billion in revenue through taxes, $20 Billion in State revenue and $80 Billion in federal revenue, of which $10 Billion is returned to Colorado earmarked for Federal programs.

          Why should Colorado pay almost 3x their budget for the pleasure of being in the Union? When Colorado intercepts all revenue they can set up their own collective services leaving them with a $70 Billion surplus. Then Colorado can decide what Federal Collective services they would approve of, including the scope and cost, with their 1.6% Suffrage in the House, followed by their concurrence through their equal Suffrage in the Senate.

          Colorado can set a debt limit that they could work from to control the total amount they are willing to provide in federal revenue without having to return to the people of Colorado for permission to exceed, like 10% of their State Budget.

          This is basic checks and balances according to the Federal Principal utilizing assembly into a bicameral legislature. This is a balance between the large and small states where the large states control the House which gives them the power to set the scope and cost of all expenditures, then the small States must concur with every expenditure giving the small states control of the Senate as protection from the majorities of the large States by population.

          Notice, this only works when Congress is assembled by State and the States have independent rights of Suffrage. It will never work in a bipartisan Party governing system.

          1. If you are calling for a rebirth of federalist principles I won’t object.

      2. “Balancing the budget is simple, you don’t need a child’s game to figure it out. ”

        Allan does.

        1. Anonymous, you are a very stupid and needy woman. I don’t want you. Get that into your head.

            1. “You’ve got a pretty big ego, Allan. And you have it all wrong.”

              Anonymous, to you a pea sized brain and an ego that fits would be huge. You have neither. In any event keep your hands off my ego. Ask Diane if you can borrow hers.

                1. See what I mean Brainless. You had an opportunity to be rid of me but you are so lonely and deprived that you can’t walk away.

                  I note you called me a little boy. Is that what your fantasies are all about. An old woman chasing pre pubescent youth? You sound like Jeffrey Epstein in reverse.

                  1. You’re crazy, Allan.

                    And OILY and Allan — you two lunkheads? I don’t get email related to this blog. And on my device, I’m seeing what I described earlier. But you’ll believe what you want to believe.

                    1. “And on my device, I’m seeing what I described earlier.”

                      That is your underlying problem. You strike out at others rather than what is under discussion and when doing so you don’t or are unable to think things out. Then you stretch the truth and fight with people.

                      Whether or not you also used email in that response I cannot know for sure because we have different platforms but I suspect you might have for logical reasons. There was no reply available for Olly (and I assume that is true for all platforms) so I think all would have to go to the last reply possible which would have been Allan. But it was addressed to Olly which tells me unless the platforms differ more than I believe your reply was a response generated by a reply from email.

                    2. Allan,
                      When the “Reply” option is no longer available under a specific comment, I go back the the email notification I received and click “Reply” there. It brings up a comment box in the thread (not under the comment you are responding to) and when you post the comment, it will go under the comment your email was replying to you.

                    3. “When the “Reply” option is no longer available under a specific comment, I go back the the email notification”

                      Olly, that is exactly what I was trying to say but I cannot be certain about all platforms so I can’t be absolutely sure. I don’t think anonymous has the mental ability to figure these things out. She is shallow and doesn’t think. All she does is throw insults or pat her friends on the back or pretend more than superficial knowledge by quoting the workproduct of others.

    2. That’s Artificial 1 Section 2 Clause 3, just in case I made a mistake. By the way, that’s what the power of the purse means, those with the money get to decide how much they are willing to spend an on what collective services.

  4. Federalist: The Constitution and Executive Privilege
    by MARK ROZELL|21 Comments
    What does Executive privilege protect?
    Executive privilege is the constitutional principle that permits the president and high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public. This presidential power is controversial because it is nowhere mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. That fact has led some scholars (Berger 1974; Prakash, 1999) to suggest that executive privilege does not exist and that the congressional power of inquiry is absolute. There is no doubt that presidents and their staffs have secrecy needs and that these decision makers must be able to deliberate in private without fear that every utterance may be made public. But many observers question whether presidents have the right to withhold documents and testimony in the face of congressional investigations or judicial proceedings.
    Executive privilege is an implied presidential power that is recognized by the courts, most famously in the U.S. v. Nixon (1974) Supreme Court case. There are generally four areas that an executive branch claim of privilege is based: 1) presidential communications privilege; 2) deliberative process privilege; 3) national security, foreign relations or military affairs, and 4) an ongoing law enforcement investigation. In the current controversy over congressional access to Department of Justice documents pertaining to the Fast & Furious scandal investigation, the president and Attorney General Eric Holder are relying on the deliberative process privilege and also the ongoing law enforcement investigation defense.

    Now, what part of “recognized by the courts” do you not understand?

    1. I understand “recognized by the courts” very well, and that plus a quarter will not buy you a glass of water. The courts are not the recognized authority in this Country, the Union is, and the Union derives it’s authority from the Constitution, and if the Union doesn’t recognize Presidential Authority and Privilege, then, I’m sorry, the President doesn’t have any authority or privileges and not even the Supreme Court can give the President any authority over the Union.

      Now I can hear you already, because you don’t understand what the Union is. The Union is the assembly of the States as Equals, The United States, in Congress Assembled, The Union that makes our Country the United States of America!

      The States, not Parties, the Union, Not The President and his contrived administration. By the way, the President has no secrets from the Union, and the Senate can call him in and demand he respond to anything they want, on pain of impeachment for noncompliance or insubordination, and yes, those proceedings remain secret until the Union decides to release that privileged information as part of the Journal of the Senate.

      I can hear you again, the House must impeach the President. Sure, but what is the House, the House is the Assembly of the States by their Proportion of the Population, and each State has Proportional Suffrage to reach Majority Consensus. So when the States decide that they want to remove the President then the States impeach the President in the House, only as few as 9 States are required to form a consensus Majority, then the States will vote in the Senate for removal through their Equal Suffrage, requiring 37 States to form a Consensus Majority.

      And when you are talking about insubordination or defiance of the authority of the States as the Union, the result will be a 100% unanimous consensus for removal of the President. It’s a question of Power, and unfortunately for the President, or anyone else in the Federal Government, the Union has all the Power, and the embodiment of the Union is the Senate, where the States are assembled as Equals with Equal Suffrage to reach Majority Consensus between the States!

      Sorry, the Parties are not Members of the Social Contract that formed the Union, the Constitution, and the Parties have no rights of Suffrage to participate in Congress, or in the Elective Processes by which our Governing institutions are assembled!

  5. A prosecutor cannot declare a person innocent. A prosecutor must prosecute by “proving” the person guilty, not by “proving” their innocence. Nor even by saying no evidence proves or suggests the person is innocent. That is not what prosecutors do. Why doesn’t everyone know this.

    We had a system that always held that the accused was innocent until proven guilty and democrats want guilty until proven innocent?

    The only thing that Mueller proved was that Trump had no ties to the Russian government ,there was no conspiracy and didn’t even know how to get the Trump Tower deal going

    Mueller and Democrats supports Assange persecution and the destruction of journalism because if you believe Mueller Assange was working for RUSSIA?

    It is hard to understand how Mr. Mueller thinks he concluded an investigation into “Russiagate” without ever questioning two of the key players in the matter: Julian Assange and Craig Murray.

    Apparently that information rabbit hole was too much for Mr. Mueller and his team to handle.

    Total joke.

    Mueller implied in his testimony that there was a link between the
    IRA and the Russian government despite an order from a judge for him to
    stop making that connection because there is ZERO evidence!!

    There may be some fireworks with that judge because of Mueller’s
    statements. He was expressly warned by the judge that she would consider
    a range of sanctions were there any repetition. On the other hand, as
    far as I could tell a few years ago when I had last researched the
    topic, federal judges are very reluctant to sanction federal attorneys. I
    could find only one published instance where that had occurred, and it
    was only a measly $500 penalty. (Rule 11 sanctions are supposed to
    compensate the other side for the expenses of opposing an unjustifiable
    position, as measured by the reasonable billing rate of the other side’s
    lawyers, although judges do have authority for departures.)

    Misbehavior by federal lawyers is exceedingly common, I suspect
    precisely because they are so seldom held to account for unprincipled

    That fact Mueller conducted such a shoddy investigation and pushes lies based on zero evidence is no
    surprise to me.

    The democrats use of Mueller ‘hearing’ gave Trump another huge win, along with the Report. 2 plus years that Trump is owned by Russia or that Trump works for Russia was completely deflated. All that time wasted on conspiracy theories by Rachel Maddow (attacking electrical grid, etc.) instead of actually issues threatening existence of humans: war and climate change.

  6. I would really have liked to see and still hope to see someone explain why Mueller was precluded in reaching a finding of criminality in the case of obstruction but not in the case of conspiracy?
    Can we sue Mueller to get our money back?

    1. I think your answer is obvious, and he addressed it in the report. He stated that with the circumstances of stonewalling and lying by the President and administration and campaign members, they could not prove criminal conspiracy with the Russians – not the same bar as the a-legal term collusion – but did demonstrate 10 or 11 instances of obstruction by the president. He did not clear him on these but also decided he could indict or charge.

      1. The President handed over millions of documents and permitted WH staff and attorneys to be interviewed even though he could have demanded executive privilege. No President I can think of has ever been as transparent as Trump. He answered the questions asked and if there was evidence he would have been convicted on the evidence not based on anything he did or didn’t say.

        The special prosecutors office acted outside of acceptable behavior. The interview desired was not to obtain information rather to create a purjury trap. Look at what was done to General Flynn and George Papadopoulos. Reckoning is coming and I think some of the abuses of the special prosecutors office will be better exposed.

        1. What is Executive Privilege, where is it defined in the Constitution, and where in the Constitution does it define the Executive as a Coequal branch of Government with Legislative?

          I know these are hard questions for a partisan sycophant, trying to justify Trumps behavior of interfering and obstructing an investigation into himself, his campaign, and his administration, but Trump has no Authority to choose what request for information or access that is being demanded of him or those within the Executive Department.

          I know what your answer will be, I’m ignorant and stupid, and my questions are nonsense and based upon misinformation and a misguided interpretation of Constitutional Principles.

          And please don’t try to say Article 2 or I will be forced to copy it from the Constitution and post it’s entirety in my rebuttal!

          1. “What is Executive Privilege,”

            Federalist, you just lost an argument with Mespo who demonstrated the ridiculous nature of your postings while trying to help straighten your mind out. You have created your own interpretation of the Constitution which is fallacious and meaningless.

            Tip: Next time you want to interpret anything don’t lock yourself in a dark room until you go stir crazy and then write your own interpretation. It will represent the crazy way you feel at the time.

            1. I didn’t think you had even a clue how to answer that question! Let’s try an easier one! What is the Federal Government, and what is the role of the President and his administration in the Federal Government. While you are considering that, what is the role of the Senate in our Federal Government, and how do they interact with the President and his administration to conduct foreign policy through their role of advice and consent?

              I guarantee you will not answer these questions either, because it is meaningless, frivolous, and ignorant!

              Again, you should refer to Article 2 for your answer, if you can read at the 8th grade level necessary to comprehend what is written in the Constitution!

              1. “I didn’t think you had even a clue how to answer that question!”

                Federalist, it’s impossible for you to have a clue. You are clueless and you don’t even know the answers to your own questions. Mespo showed that very clearly. He understands the Constitution. You barely understand your own interpretation but that is forgiveable because it doesn’t make sense.

                1. You both are a joke, and it goes without saying that neither of you knows the first thing about the Constitution, and what’s worse, you aren’t willing to admit that you have no clue and you march on running down everyone who post that doesn’t agree with you.

                  Grow up, your antics are juvenile!

                  1. “You both are a joke”

                    But the laugh is on you. You can’t defend your Constitutional intreptation. You get mad. We laugh.

                    1. You can’t defend your Constitutional interpretation.

                      The imagery that comes from his postings is what has me laughing. I picture him as that lonely door-to-door salesman schlepping his interpretations from one blog to another and no one is buying what he’s selling. It hasn’t yet dawned on him that maybe his product would sell better to farmers as fertilizer. So when he arrives at the Turley blog, his ego is in tatters and he’s in no mood for another rejection. So he brazenly decides this time, he’s not even going to wait for the rejection. He’s going to make his pitch and tell the customer they are too ignorant to buy it. Guess what? His strategy works! They don’t buy it and he goes away with his ego restored. Brilliant!

                    2. Wow how juvenile, are you a 12 year old kid, or a 40 year old virgin? Either way just keep playing with yourself, it protects the rest of us from your ability to accidentally procreate.

                2. By the way, I’ll take the interpretation of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay over yours and your buddies any day. I think they wrote the Constitution, I might be wrong, it did happen over 230 years ago.

                  1. Along with Mespo and myself, Hamilton, Madison and Jay are laughing at you. The people that provided you with an education are in hiding.

                    1. There are no words for you guys, you are both a pathetic excuse for, insert your favorite derogatory term, and I can’t understand how you can put up with yourselves.

                      Have fun in your echo chamber!

                    2. “Have fun in your echo chamber!”

                      Federalist, are you leaving? Can I hold the door open for you? Thanks for the laughs.

            2. Yeah, I lost an argument to a person who didn’t even recognize the 5th Amendment when he saw it. If you think he is a valuable resource then you can get him to help you answer the questions I posed, since you have no chance on your own.

              Good luck! I hope you have a day job!

              1. Federalist, I would hire Mespo as my lawyer on the spot. He knows what he knows and knows what he doesn’t know. You seem to not know what you don’t know and that leads us to know you are ignorant.

                  1. I see you come prepared dunce cap and all. Is that what you wore to your graduation?

  7. If one were interested in some film of Mr. Robert Mueller lying, prevaricating and attempting not to answer, I offer with some humor almost worthy of George Carlin:

    I am not a “Democrat” or “Republican.”
    I don’t play for the “Blue” Team or “Red.”
    I do subscribe to the proposition that “we” as a nation have been offered ( and some … many … are still offering ) an incredibly popular delusion.
    An incredibly popular national delusion worth of an appendix to or a supplement for the book:
    Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds is an early study of crowd psychology by Scottish journalist Charles Mackay, first published in 1841.
    Why a national delusion?
    Simply, as a nation we are losing, if not lost, to the oligarchy, which manifests in the Military Industrial Surveillance Security State ( M.I.S.S.S. ).
    Although the academic or intellectual class, people like the professor, are not front and center in the oligarchy, please do not kid yourself.
    The professor and people of his ilk are the man, woman and people … the wizard(s) behind the curtain who maintain the status quo, the powers that be, the oligarchy.
    “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” the “Wizard” yells in vain. He has been discovered and they see him for who he really is.
    The Wizard of Oz

    dennis hanna

    1. YouTube people like Jimmy Dore are better than cable “news.”
      Thanks for the link.

      1. i like jimmy dore and watch him a couple times of week. funny and seems like a person of integrity. as many comedians are. how else could they be funny?

    2. dennis i read that book. good chapter on the tulip bubble

      the book by gustave le bon comes to mind as another cautionary script

  8. This was an interesting article done by in March of last year regarding the makeup of the special council staff.

    It was made up of “13 registered Democrats and no registered Republicans, and several team members made donations to Clinton’s campaign in various amounts.”

    Statistically, the idea that you’d have no registered Republicans on a legitimate special council staff is


    Trump noted this and politico rated his observation as “half true” for one reason. Trump didn’t mention Republican Robert Mueller.

    Setting aside that the RNC and other establishment Republicans like Muller did not support Trump, we now know that Mueller doesn’t know what’s in his own report — rendering him irrelevant.

    As I said below, It would be interesting to find out how this special council staff was actually assembled in reality.

    Technically “Mueller hired them.” His signature is on the hiring papers. But his signature is also on “his” report. And we could see yesterday he doesn’t know what’s in it.

  9. I was waiting for some questioner to say, when he refused to answer, “What are the constitutional grounds for your refusal? The 5th Amendment?”

    1. The 5th amendment works in a court of law or a legal proceeding, but Congress is neither and both the House and Senate are free to make the rules for its own proceedings.

      And if they consider your refusal an act of contempt, then they have every right to determine the punishment that they consider appropriate.

        1. Amendment V

          No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

          Just in case you missed the memo, I posted the V. Amendment just so you can read it till you are satisfied that your comment is nothing but BS, try again!

          1. federalistknowsalittle:

            The Right Against Self-Incrimination is larger than the Fifth Amendment. It’s a common law right originating in 17th Century England and Wales and applies in civil cases and legislative hearings, too. Here’s a primer for you and at your level:


            Tell me what “law school” you attended so I can write for your money back.

            1. federalistknowsalittle:

              You might want to also read SLOCHOWER v. BOARD OF EDUCATION(1956) where the US Senate accepted the individual’s right against self-incrimination in Senate investigative hearings. In that case, the US Supreme Court overturned a NY State law disciplining a teacher for invoking his Fifth Amendment rights before a US Senate panel. There are other cases, too, but why bore you with law you know nothing about.

              The right was used extensively during the McCarthy era right up to and continues in use today up to and including a subpoena issued by the Senate against General Flynn.

              While I’m doing that letter, let me know your history teacher so I can get your money back there, too.

              1. federalistknowslessthanithought:
                Well I’ve given you an article, a Supreme Court and a history lesson case showing you you’re just flat wrong. I can give you a lot more but what’s the point. You’re ignorant on the topic and no amount of proof will convince you that you’re out of your league. You’re the paradigm of Dunning-Kruger. Try your unlettered babble somewhere besides a legal blog populated at least in part by lawyers. Nickelodeon is probably is a better choice — or Comedy Central.

                1. No, dumb ass, you are saying the Constitution is flat wrong! Figures, you and your ilk have problems following the other articles of the Constitution as well. Then you bitch that nothing works, so you want to ditch the Constitution all together.

                  When you start thinking for yourself, then maybe you might get some respect for your comments. Till then, just keep it to yourself, you might need it to wipe your mind before you flush.

                    1. Put the shovel down, you are already in over your head. It’s hard for me not to insult you, because you are doing such a good job yourself. I hope you are not in law, if so, change professions, it will do us all a favor.

                    2. “federalist” is worse than the densest patriotard gold fringe flag doofus writing out writs and filing liens on public officials

                      candidate for a ban due to disinformation and incivility

                    3. Sorry, I’m not going anywhere, it’s too fun irritating you clowns. Did you all graduate from the same school? They must not have been able to afford textbooks, you all seem to have cheated off each other’s paper.

                      It’s funny the bunch of you don’t even recognize the Constitution when you see it. And I guess it takes an advanced degree to interpret it to suit your twisted minds.

                      Please tell me where you went to school and what you do for a living? I’m so curious! I’m going to bust out laughing if you tell me that you graduated from an ivy league law school and you sit on the federal bench!

                    4. Mark,
                      If you mind-melded every left wing loon on this blog, that entity’s alter-ego would be this clown. I was going to comment on his first insulting post to you; Wait for it… And then decided to just let it flow.

                      You’ve handled that like any skilled law professor dealing with a middle school blogger.

                      Well done!

            1. What, the Constitution is too good for you too. If you didn’t notice that is the fifth amendment, I cut and pasted it, take that for a falsehood. You can join you buddy, his hole isn’t bug enough, you can dig a little too, maybe you both will get stuck in there and we won’t have to hear from you again.

    1. Excerpt from the Vox article:

      “As President Donald Trump spoke in front of a crowd of young conservatives at Turning Point USA’s student summit on Tuesday, nobody took a second glance at the presidential seal projected behind him. They probably should have, considering that it was altered to poke fun at the president.

      The photoshopped seal contains several details that are meant to troll the president for his friendliness with Russian President Vladimir Putin and expensive golfing habits. The bald eagle in the center has two heads instead of one, and its shield is swapped out for a more rectangular symbol that resembles Russia’s coat of arms. A two-headed eagle is also a symbol of empire and dominance and is featured on the flags of Serbia, Albania, and Montenegro, according to the Washington Post, which first reported on the incident.

      The letters on the banner the eagle holds in its mouth are also altered: Rather than the Latin phrase “E pluribus unum” — “Out of many, one” — it says “45 es un títere,” a Spanish phrase that translates to “45 is a puppet.” And the eagle is holding cash in its talons instead of an olive branch. Take a look:”

      1. This is big news for the left that is supposed to quiet the Mueller question ‘What’s GPS Fusion’. A kid in a rush picked up the wrong presidential seal from Google and it was projected behind the President. This is earthshaking to the left and some of the brainless on the blog. It isn’t earthshaking. It’s just a mistake. People should look at it and then go to Turming Point USA where you have intelligent college students that know how to use words instead of bricks. That organization has been growing superfast.

  10. “Commentators Attempt To Spin Disaster For Democrats”

    Ann is rightfully afraid some might want to do more than spin.

    Ann Coulter

    Dear Bureau of Prisons: Please get Jeffrey Epstein to a super Max prison pronto, or the people who want him dead will make sure we never know the truth. ACT NOW!”

      1. Kurtz, there are many scenarios. We need more facts to determine what actually happened. But Ann Coulter is right. Epstein might need protection from various sources. Along with the political fears one might have one has to consider that inmates frequently beat up child predators.

        1. AB members regularly report that in their facilities they have house rules to murder chomos if they are released into general population. And young inmates can make their bones doing so. It would be awful negligence for him to have been put into general population in the first place especially since news said he was going to inform. That makes him a doubly desirable target for the average young turk prisoner.

          Epstein must be protected until trial so he can receive due process before his punishment, and to set an example for billionaire scum like him.

          The “Supermax” at the top is Florence adx. Marion is the next rung under, from what i hear. I don’t know if there are sufficiently secure facilities in New York but he has to be tried in the proper venue.

      1. “Lawmaker says she’s been told to back off call for probe of Jeffrey Epstein’s work release”

      2. Excerpt from the Miami Herald article:

        “Florida Sen. Lauren Book has reached out to Capitol police after receiving an anonymous warning connected to her demand for a state inquiry into Palm Beach Sheriff Ric Bradshaw’s handling of accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s lenient work release program, the Miami Herald has learned.

        “Book, a vocal advocate for child sexual assault survivors, said she also received more than a dozen calls by Bradshaw’s political supporters asking her to back off on her call for an investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement into Bradshaw.

  11. OT: I posted a Project Veritas video of an engineer insider Greg Coppollo who discussed how Google was discriminating against conservatives. He has been placed on administrative leave and believes he will soon be fired.

    That is how the left acts. It wishes to block all content that disagrees with leftist aims. It calls for the firing of conservatives along with banning them from restaurants and harassing them on the streets. That is a type of political “terrorism” that is happeneing with more and more frequency. Take note how leftists on this blog have demonstrated no concern over these actions. They only believe in free speech when that speech agrees with them.

    I take note that our free speech academic Professor Turley hasn’t written any articles on this most dangerous assault of free speech. Is it lack of concern, fear or monetary?

Comments are closed.