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. The professor spews forth more than a little personal psychobabble and opinion surveys.

    In a word ( most charitably ) he spews, style.

    Substance, however, the professor fails completely and utterly to set forth.

    As evidence for my personal psychobabble assertion, I offer, including, but not limited to,:
    “… as painful as that duty proved to be. …”
    Duty means a legal, ethical, or even a “moral” responsibility. Yes, a secondary meaning can be a task or action required to be performed.
    Here, the professor has a law degree, a law license and, one must assume was paid, to offer legal opinions, or, at least, a legal perspective.
    The professor offered none.
    “… 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. …”
    Here again, psychobabble and opinion survey. Admittedly, the “… some of us …” and “… ‘lost a step’ …” was gossip of and by insiders … The Power Elite … the oligarchs, which is to say not you or me. But, definitely!, the professor.
    If he were to share with you and me the “us” or what it means “lost a step,”* he would be betray the Oligarchic Class, The Power Elite and our Masters.

    As evidence for my opinion survey assertion, I offer, including, but not limited to,:
    the professor offers the opinions of MCNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin,
    CNN legal analyst Susan Hennessey and Michael Moore.
    The professor’s opinion survey offered, at best, the self serving, financially beneficial, electorally self supporting and self congratulatory words of the authors.
    The professor’s opinion survey offered no factual, documentary or legal substance. Nor did the professor.
    The professor did offer his psychological analysis for the authors of the opinions surveyed. Such as, “… Professor Lawrence Tribe admitted it was a “disaster” …” and “… That is like calling the Hindenburg disaster a rough landing. …” ( Rachel Maddow )
    and, of course, the professor’s ( and my favorite ) “… I feel sympathy for Mueller …”
    Again, no legal analysis here or anywhere in the professor’s verbiage.

    Hubris, of course, does not escape the character
    ( integrity? ) of the professor. Why? What do I mean?

    The professor’s one insight, although not legal, “… Media and legal analysts are supposed to inform their viewers of the real implications of new developments. …”

    What legal analysis did the professor offer.

    The facts, writing(s) [ so-called Mueller Report ], testimony showed Mr. Mueller lied, directly lied, at least, 4 times. I stopped counting at over 100 times Mr. Mueller refused to answer or said he would not answer or said it was outside his scope or field. Please note: Mr. Mueller never raised a claim of legal privilege, nor did one person challenge him on what grounds was he not answering the question.

    And so it goes …

    I suggest this is not a legal blog, certainly not a legal blog on the Constitution.

    I suspect, suspect strongly, it is a blog on politics. In a word, gossip. In another word, psychobabble.

    I have said before Messrs. Mueller, Rosenstein, Comey, McCabe, Strzok and other gentlemen and Ms. Page should … must be … charged, tried and a verdict rendered on their violations of their Constitutional duty(ies) and violation( s) of statutory law.

    The F.I.S.C. warrants as to Mr. Carter and others were submitted with lies … perjury …, which is a felony( ies ).

    Restore the rule of law.
    Restore the Constitution.
    Reclaim the Republic.

    dennis hanna

    *
    In defense of Mr. Mueller and an offer of truth through humor, please note:
    In surfing their is a saying: “Good waves; good rides. Bad waves; bad rides.”
    He had “bad” facts ( no facts? ) and, thus, a “bad” report; He had “bad” facts ( no facts? ) and, thus, “bad” testimony.

  2. TO THOSE WHO PAID ATTENTION, MUELLER LAID IT ALL OUT

    The reaction to Mueller’s testimony brings a key lesson to light. If y’all are focused on the 74-year-old lifelong Republican’s performance rather than the substance of what he actually said, you’re playing Trump’s game on Trump’s turf. Here are three of the bombshells from Mueller:

    1) The Russians are still interfering in U.S. politics. “They’re doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it in the next campaign,” Mueller told congressional lawmakers.

    2) The FBI is still engaged in a counterintelligence investigation. When pressed by Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) about how his report did not address false statements made by former national security adviser Michael Flynn, Mueller said, “I cannot get into that mainly because there are many elements of the FBI looking at that issue.” Notice the present tense? Krishnamoorthi did and asked, “Currently?” To which Mueller replied, “Currently.”

    3) The Mueller report does not exonerate the president on charges of obstruction of justice. “The finding indicates that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), using a $50 word (exculpated) to say the president was not declared not guilty of obstruction of justice.

    The first two points are clarion calls for us to pay attention to things that are happening in the here and now that we’re not paying attention to because of Trump’s distraction industrial complex over at the White House. The third point is bound to have folks dismiss it because it’s something we already knew. And while that might be true, it’s always good to have the words said out loud again, since most folks haven’t read the 448-page Mueller report.

    Edited from: “Trump Wins If You Focus On Only Mueller’s Performance”

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. Peter, the disturbing thing about you and your posts is that you function at a lower level than Mueller seemed to function at and Mueller didn’t even know what GPS Fusion was.

    2. “to say that the president was not declared not guilty of obstruction of justice.”

      Did you read that sentence Hill? In this country we now declare someone guilty until they find sufficient evidence to declare you not guilty?

      1. Both Trump and Mueller have used the term exonerate in regards to his case, and that has a different legal definition than not guilty. Confusing the situation and making it unique for a sitting president is the DOJ ruling against indicting one. That has a benefit and – when one has committed 11 detailed examples of obstruction of justice – a downside. Hopefully he’ll have his day in court in 2021.

  3. The key information, other than style comments favored by those here, is that Russia is still doing it – and the GOP blocked an election security bill the same day, while Trump does nothing except take Putin’s side – Trump was not exonerated as he has claims – just another piece of what mespo’s flag might cal Bulls!it – and he can be indicted if we get him out in 2020, but maybe not afterwards.

    Our work is clear.

    1. Trump was not exonerated as he has claims

      Correct. He began and ended the investigation as innocent.

      Thanks

      1. Olly, isn’t it amazing how many left wingers don’t understand the basics of our criminal justice system?

        1. Allan,
          I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they understand the bedrock principles of our criminal justice system. The problem is they reject our system when they are on offense and accept our system when they are on defense. The tell that the Mueller report was not written for our criminal justice system was the determination they could not reach a conclusion to exonerate on the issue of obstruction. Our criminal justice system does not recognize such a standard. The Left’s criminal justice system while on offense does. Something Justice Kavanaugh understands all too well.

          1. Olly, your problem – and ours – is the Justice Dept ruling which predated Trump, questionable as it may be, that a sitting president cannot be indicted. There is therefore no other human in the solar system for whom these conditions would apply.

            Mueller is not from the left.

            1. Not a problem at all. As Mueller clarified from his earlier response to Lieu:

              “I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, ‘you didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion.’ That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said in his statement. “As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.

              In our criminal justice system, that was a dereliction of duty and it means the individual under investigation remains innocent. In your system, that was a political handoff to House Democrats to continue prosecuting the guilty individual until that individual can prove their innocence.

              1. Olly, you’re misreading Mueller’s statement and the reasoning behind it. In the report he wrote. Note the word “determination”:

                “The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice,” he wrote.

                And asked earlier in Wednesday’s hearing by Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA) if he decided not to prosecute Trump, Mueller responded that “we made a decision not to decide whether to prosecute or not.”

                So, Mueller decided early on to neither prosecute or not prosecute based on the OLC. Mueller’s standard for fairness – not the normal determination not to prosecute based on evidence – was behind his reasoning and the also normal assumption of innocence does not apply. As I said, a bit of good with the bad in that decision.

                1. It’s total bullsh*t is what it is. Barr tried to get him to play it fair and do his dam job correctly, but this confusing unfair sack of crap is what they put out there for the Dems and their media to chew on for the next few years. It’s a disgrace what Mueller did here. There’s nothing “fair” about it.

                2. The Justice Department and its Office of Special Counsel put on a united front to end speculation that Robert Mueller contradicted Attorney General William Barr on the decision-making on whether President Trump could be charged with obstruction of justice during his public address.

                  “The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements,”

                  Barr wrote that Mueller did not find that anyone associated with Trump, or any Americans, had conspired with Russia. Barr also stated that he, in conjunction with then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, made the final determination that Trump had not committed obstruction of justice.
                  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mueller-and-barr-blast-misinterpretations-no-conflict-on-obstruction

                  Criminal investigation (our system) closed. Donald Trump remains innocent.

                  However, there’s still the political aspect of this and the House Democrats were handed the cold potato from Mueller. This is now a political calculation and Weissman and company gave nothing for the Democrats to work with; not in Congress and not on the campaign trail.

                  Does the government still run a Waste, Fraud and Abuse Hotline. Americans need to light that damn thing up!

                3. Now all I see is obnoxious talking points saying “Trump is not exonerated!”

                  How is that fair under our justice system? It’s not. It was a purely political hit job on Trump by Mueller and his team of vindictive Trump-hating prosecutors. It’s shameful. Mueller’s performance was shameful and distressing for all Americans.

      1. Lemmings don’t actually commit mass suicide. That myth came about from a Disney film, in which producers shoved a bunch of lemmings off a sea side cliff for dramatic effect.

        The lemming suicide myth is another good example to not believe everything one hears. Vance is another example.

        https://www.britannica.com/story/do-lemmings-really-commit-mass-suicide

        “But the biggest reason the myth endures? Deliberate fraud. For the 1958 Disney nature film White Wilderness, filmmakers eager for dramatic footage staged a lemming death plunge, pushing dozens of lemmings off a cliff while cameras were rolling. The images—shocking at the time for what they seemed to show about the cruelty of nature and shocking now for what they actually show about the cruelty of humans—convinced several generations of moviegoers that these little rodents do, in fact, possess a bizarre instinct to destroy themselves.”

        https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=56

        “According to a 1983 investigation by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation producer Brian Vallee, the lemming scenes were faked. The lemmings supposedly committing mass suicide by leaping into the ocean were actually thrown off a cliff by the Disney filmmakers. The epic “lemming migration” was staged using careful editing, tight camera angles and a few dozen lemmings running on snow covered lazy-Susan style turntable.”

        Not a good moment for Disney. They must have an outstanding PR firm, because this story is little known.

    2. Dear Chronic TDS Victim,
      Please list for readers all the million of incidents in which the “Justice Department” investigated and “exonerated” an individual, ever, for anything. Neutral readers take note: “exonerated” is not a legal term of the criminal justice system.

      BTW, did you stupidly miss or do you only intentionally ignore, as do most progressive twats like yourself, the fact that taxpayers paid Mueller’s team $35m, and Mueller specifically disobeyed orders from his two bosses Rod Rosenstein and AG Robert Barr to list charges OR exonerate Trump for obstruction, this in spite of and contradicting Mueller’s phony excuse that a sitting POTUS can not be indicted. Taxpayers should sue to recover payment till Mueller does his job.

      Any neutral party can make a good case that Mueller disobeyed such orders specifically so he can imply guilt where none exists.

      I noticed you never were legally “exonerated” for beating your spouse, BTW.

      1. Dear DB Trohar –

        From Black’s Law – “What is EXONERATE?
        To lift, remove the stain of being called out for blame, liability, or punishment. It is more that just freeing an accused person of the responsibility for a criminal or otherwise illegal or wrongful act. It is publicly stating that this accused should never have been accused in the first place. Refer to acquit and exculpate.

        As used by both Trump and Mueller the term is not necessarily a legal claim. As noted by Mueller there were 11 incidents he detailed which would constitute obstruction of justice for a person not the president.

        Manafort has agreed to forfeit $42 million in assets, so the investigation was a net winner, not that that matters. Frog walking Trump from the WH on 1/20/2021 will be priceless.

        Both the right and left are unhappy with Mueller’s interpretation of the scope of his mandate. That of course has no bearing on the facts of the matter surrounding the case, which I advise you to further review before embarrassing yourself here again.

  4. Devin Nunes thanked Muler for his service to his country and yielded his time at the end of the afternoon session. Lefty pundit on CNN accused Nunes of being weak in that moment when in reality he showed more compassion to Muler than Fat Jerry or Pencil Neck who propped up Grandpa Muler as part of their shameful Hail Mary attempts to keep impeachment hopes alive.

  5. PS After this column, JT must be looking to get a gig on TV Guide doing content-free reviews of “shows”. This wasn’t a show or even a horse race where the players represent nothing more than the horses in an arcade video game. Actual legal matters were discussed by mostly serious people about a person holding the position that used to be called – before Trump – the leader of the free world. The water on this board is pretty shallow and I think our host is missing more than a couple of steps. Something tells me in a match of wits now, today, he can’t keep up with a supposedly failing Mueller. If he can, maybe he should demonstrate that in his increasingly lame, insipid, and shallow columns.

    1. Looks like Anonymous1 missed his nap time, not at all happy about star witness Muler performance yesterday and lashing out at Jon Turley for calling it like he saw it.

      1. Bill, I don’t come here to get what I can get on ET Tonight and with a prettier hostess than JT. But I guess that’s my mistake.

        1. You are better off watching pretty hostess on ET Tonight vs Rachel “Mad Cow” Maddow on MSNBC. Russian hoax / impeachment initiative died yesterday. Game Over.

  6. “That is like calling the Hindenburg disaster a rough landing.”
    ********************************
    They wouldn’t even concede “rough.” It’s more like saying Hindenburg Captain Max Pruss “stuck” the landing.

  7. Our “host” is an idiot and without principles. How does a recitation of one bad act after another, traitorous behavior, self serving lies, the restatement that our president was not exonerated and can be indicted when he leaves office a victory for him and not news because the messenger wasn’t as slick as a game show host. That’s as shallow as it gets as is the celebration of the majority pygmies in the comments. section.

    The real kicker for shallow idiocy is the noted flag saying “Trump 2020. No More Bulls!it”.

    SAY WHAT!

    Half of every thing this morally deformed human says is Bulls!it. There is no bigger source of Bulls!it in the world today.

    Let’s beat his a.s in 2020 like we did in 2018 – Lock Him Up.

    Enjoy – https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/pants-fire/

    1. Our “host” is an idiot and without principles.
      ********************
      If that is your base assumption, what would you then call a commenter on his blawg? Stupid, unprincipled, hypocrite or all three. I’ll take option 4.

      1. My statement is not an assumption but an observation.Don’t be so hard on yourself mespo. You may be finally be waking up.

      1. Explicit racist attacks are allowed here, but is the host so weak he can’t handle criticism? That’s between him and his mod I guess, but not enough to change my opinion.

          1. “PS This is Anon1”

            We can tell. The arrogance level hit a 10 again.

            1. Allan understands…because his arrogance level is always at ‘a 10’.

              1. There is a difference between arrogance and knowledge. Unfortunately you lack the latter.

        1. Explicit racist attacks are allowed here,

          Since you were telling me a while ago that I’d made ‘racist’ attacks on a commenter I seldom respond to and have not attacked personally, I’m going to assume you favor the Humpty-Dumpty usage of the term, where it’s invoked when the speaker is

          1 Not deferential to Democratic mascot groups and / or

          2. Owning a Democrat in an argument.

          Again, imaginative smears might be entertaining.

        2. One of the things which prevents me from being a racist is the contempt with which I hold the large number of white people out there who say garbage like this. If you stand around and here an accusation of “Racism” it’s usually coming from a white person.

          Ergo, white people are unfit in evolutionary terms, because they suffer to exist inside their own group such a toxic, contrary, sabotaging, element which undermines the group survival ethic.

          These SJW white people are not just obnoxious they are dangerous. They are as bad as an overactive immune system which results in degenerating diseases like lupus, MS, rheumatoid, etc.

          Anyhow, I dislike white people like this, and there are so many, I have decided that I dislike too many white people to be a racist. I am getting to the point where I don’t want to socialize with white strangers in public because I am tired of hearing garbage from mouthy SJWs about the border, collusion, racism, homophobia, etc etc etc. I don’t hear this kind of claptrap from other races, not in person at least. Mostly just white fools. So this annoying litany of self-denunciations has worn too thin for me to tolerate.

    2. The BS complained of is the politically correct, patently false identity politics of the Left. It is divisive and not welcomed by lots of people in the country including lots of the claimed oppressed minorities. People are tired of being told what to think or say. Bill Maher gets it.

      1. So mespo, political opinions you disagree with is BS whereas gross, obvious, and repetitive mistatements of fact is not, and welcomed by you and others?

        Interesting

    3. “Our host is an idiot…” tells readers everything about the poster, and nothing about the host.

      Please, do keep egging on your progressive twats in MSM.

      1. DB Trohar, I think Princesses have twats, so are we to refer to you as a right wing twat? I want to be appropriately chivalrous and politically correct.

  8. It appears Mueller didn’t investigated anything, he was sewing media stories together with not much else when it came to the “collusion” aspect. I’m not clear that Mueller himself did anything ,up to and including, writing or reading it. His appearance makes it clear that Barr is more credible than anyone else when it comes to what Mueller told him.

    How could he really do this investigation without investigating the Russians in the Tower meeting and their connections to Fusion GPS? He didn’t even appear to know who Glenn Simpson or Fusion GPS were.. That should terrify people, and completely abandon the whole impeachment nonsense. Are they going to put Mueller on a witness stand? Seriously?

    As above Rachel Maddow says we need to hear from Mueller’s team members. That statement shows Maddow’s lack of critical thinking skills. Mueller was their gold coin who was supposed to add legitimacy to the Clinton Team of lawyers installed on this political project. Put his team on the stand or in a hearing and Republicans will rip them apart just by reciting some of their relationships with a certain partner and candidate. The team without Mueller, may have well been made up of John Podesta, Sidney Blumenthal, Huma Abedin, and Adam Schiff.

    If I am going to be appointed Special Counsel I am going to appoint a team made up of no one on the original investigation. The lawyers I choose would not be ones the entire public knows the affiliations of. It was no mystery that his team had the affiliations and possible conflicts. Mueller seems to be the only man alive who didn’t know.

    If I am going to be appointed Special Counsel I am going to take a look at the prior investigation but I would run my own starting at square one so as not to be influenced by the possible bad habits of another team. I would verify all evidence from the former team. It looks like they did none of that. This makes me confident that collusion was a place holder for obstruction, an obstruction case that Team Mueller would manufacture by using home and office raids spilled to the press in order to entice Trump into obstructive acts.

    It was all a fraud!

    1. Mueller was their gold coin who was supposed to add legitimacy to the Clinton Team of lawyers installed on this political project.

      Absolutely right! How often have the credentials behind that gold coin been referenced to rebuke anyone questioning the objectivity of what appears to be Weissman’s investigation. Mueller’s a registered lifelong Republican. So and so (Republican) appointed him, yada, yada, yada. He’s a heroic, Vietnam wounded warrior who has honorably served his country. He’s dedicated his life to serve our great nation… As we now have discovered, he’s a washed up actor, straight out of central casting, who hasn’t read the play or memorized his lines in it.

  9. “Professor Lawrence Tribe admitted it was a “disaster” that sucked the life out of impeachment.”

    Tribe has sucked the life out of the perception that despite his strong ideological views he was intellectually honest. Maybe Tribe should learn how to look like Mueller when answering questions so such further decline doesn’t occur.

  10. Anyone remember this? Pay close attention to the part where he says no American was a knowing participant in the Russian interference and that no votes or elections results were changed by the interference.

    1. Ah, a discussion of facts!

      1. The investigation did not look into analyzing if any votes were changed by the Russian interference and made no determination of it’s effect. Given the extent to which the stolen emails dominated the headlines and how much traction false stories promoted by Russian bots, like Hillary is falling down sick, and the narrow margin of popular votes in critical states by which Trump won the EC, it is very hard to imagine it did not have a significant effect and was determinative.

      2. The investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy with Russians, but noted it was stonewalled or lied to by numerous administration officials including the president who, unlike a normal criminal investigation, they determined was impractical to force to interviews.

  11. I always look forward to read your great articles! I’m on the opposite side of political views but I respect your opinions! I only wish we can all respect each other it make Americans great again !

  12. 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.

    1. The wetnurse lawyer sitting with him had previously been retained by one of Hildebeeste’s IT guys when he was under the scope for destroying her Blackberry (which was under some sort of order of preservation). That fellow was supposedly Mueller’s right hand. His deputy was Andrew Weissman, an Obama holdover and Democratic Party donor. It’s a reasonable wager that McCabe, Yates, Weissman &c assembled this crew and had Mueller rubber stamp the appointments. The question would be when they were slated, Comey’s role, and Rosenstein’s role. They were pretty brazen.

  13. THE FALSE TALKING POINT THAT STEELE DOSSIER

    SET-OFF ENTIRE INVESTIGATION

    Yesterday, during the hearings, a Louisiana congressman confronted Mueller with this:

    “There will be a lot of discussion I predict today and great frustration throughout the country about the fact that you wouldn’t answer any questions here about the origins of this whole charade, which was the infamous Christopher Steele dossier, now proven to be totally bogus, even though it is listed and specifically referenced in your report.”

    Rep. Mike Johnson (R La.)

    As has been well-documented, the memos written by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, on behalf of a firm working for Democrats and the Clinton campaign, did not spark the investigation into possible links between the Trump campaign and Russian entities. Even the memo written by the then-Republican majority on the House Intelligence Committee in 2018 — and released by the White House — acknowledged: “The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok.”

    Crossfire Hurricane was the name of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation, which was opened on July 31, 2016, after the Australian government reported that George Papadopoulos, then a foreign-policy aide to Trump, told Alexander Downer, the top Australian diplomat in Britain at the time, during a May meeting that the Russian government had “damaging” material on Clinton and was prepared to release it late in the election campaign.

    Downer sent a cable back to the Australian capital about his meeting with Papadopoulos. He had sought the meeting to gain some insight into Trump’s foreign policy views but decided that Papadopoulos was “surprisingly young and inexperienced” to amount to anything in a Trump administration. Buried in the cable was a reference to Papadopoulos saying the Russians had damaging material on Clinton and were prepared to use it.

    After WikiLeaks started releasing Democratic National Committee emails during the Democratic National Convention, held July 25-28, Downer suddenly remembered “with a shudder” his meeting with Papadopoulos, according to Greg Miller’s “The Apprentice.” He immediately requested a meeting with the top U.S. diplomat in Britain at the time, who in turn alerted the FBI.

    The Steele “dossier,” which contained salacious allegations, certainly generated substantial media attention after it was made public in 2017. The FBI also cited it in a footnote seeking a court order allowing surveillance of a former Trump adviser. Since then, many elements of Steele’s reporting for the “dossier” have not been confirmed and have been called into question by the Mueller report.

    Edited from: “Fact Checking Lawmakers During The Mueller Hearing”

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. They used the Steele Dossier to get the FISA warrants and they were running informants against Trump’s staff for months before the investigation was formally opened.

    2. “THE FALSE TALKING POINT THAT STEELE DOSSIER SET-OFF ENTIRE INVESTIGATION”

      More garbage from Peter. Most people think the entire investigation was started long before the Steele Dossier with some believe it was an extention of the investigation of Flynn that started long before Trump announced his candidacy. Peter is a bit of a nut on these things and is intentionally promoting red herrings. Peter has no credibility, but I don’t think he cares because he never had credibility in the first place.

  14. JT:

    “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.”

    It’s a shame that someone didn’t step in…and do the right thing — even before the ‘final report’ was produced.

    Michael Moore got it right.

  15. DID TRUMP LIE IN TWEET DURING HEARINGS?

    STEVE BANNON TOLD INVESTIGATORS MUELLER DID ‘NOT’ INTERVIEW FOR FBI DIRECTOR

    During yesterday’s hearings The ‘Real Donald Trump’ tweeted:

    “It has been reported that Robert Mueller is saying that he did not apply and interview for the job of FBI Director (and get turned down) the day before he was wrongly appointed Special Counsel. Hope he doesn’t say that under oath in that we have numerous witness to the..”

    In the hearing room, a Florida Republican did Trump’s bidding:
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    “Mr. Mueller, did you indeed interview for the FBI director job one day before you were appointed as special counsel?”

    — Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.)

    President Trump has made a similar claim from the start of Mueller’s appointment in 2017. But the Mueller report quotes Trump aides as privately telling Trump it was silly — and Mueller insisted in the hearing he was not interviewed for the FBI job, which he has already held for 12 years. Instead, he said he came to the White House to discuss the role of the FBI director.

    “It was about the job and not about me applying for the job,” Mueller told Steube. His statement was made under oath.

    Former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told investigators the purpose of the meeting was not a job interview but to have Mueller “offer a perspective on the institution of the FBI,” according to the special counsel’s report, and “although the White House thought about beseeching Mueller to become Director again, he did not come in looking for the job.”

    The Washington Post has reported that when the issue came up of whether Mueller might be interested in once again becoming FBI director, he said he could not take the job unless a law was changed. Mueller has already served a full ten-year term as FBI director and Congress in July 2011 passed legislation allowing Mueller to serve an additional two years.

    According to the report, the president’s advisers — including then-White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, then-White House counsel Donald McGahn and Bannon — “pushed back on Trump’s assertion of conflicts, telling the President they did not count as true conflicts.” Bannon told investigators that he “recalled telling the President that the purported conflicts were ‘ridiculous’ and that none of them was real or could come close to justifying precluding Mueller from serving as Special Counsel.”

    Edited from: “Fact Checking Lawmakers Claims During The Mueller Hearings”

    Today’s Washington Post
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    Are we to believe, as Trump claims, that Robert Mueller actually ‘applied’ for the job of FBI Director? Like Mueller came to the White House and actually filled-out a job application in the reception area outside the Oval Office? And are we to believe that at the end of the ensuing interview, Trump told Mueller he wouldn’t hire him? ..It ‘sounds’ like B S..!

    How sleazy of Trump to put out that lie while the hearing was still in progress.

    1. ““It was about the job and not about me applying for the job,” Mueller told Steube. His statement was made under oath.”

      One has to wonder what Mueller was doing when he talked about the job with the President. Do you think he was providing Trump ideas for redecorating the FBI offices? No one claimed he filled out a government application for the job but it is suspicious that the day before he becomes special counsel he is in the President’s office. Sounds like Mueller wanted to keep everything in the family so with Comey gone Mueller could fill Comey’s shoes and he wouldn’t need the job as special prosecutor. The timing of this should make everyone suspicious that Mueller was playing hanky panky and that this was an attempt to continue a cover up. That is just one of many rationals for this conversation. We have to remember Mueller has aged so maybe he looked at his appointment book from decades before and took note he had an appointment with the President for an FBI position. Who knows. The only thing that we can glean from Peter’s response is that Peter want’s to be appointed as the MSM Head Shill.

      1. Given Mueller’s condition the other day, it’s a reasonable wager he has no memory of ever having met the President.

        1. DSS, there is little doubt in my mind that Mueller’s mental capacity has diminished somewhat, but as I said earlier I believe that part of what we saw was an act.

        1. I know of no reliable sources that have proven who approached whom first. Anon draws conclusions out of thin air and is invariably wrong. Will he be able to provide proof this time? Highly doubtful.

          It makes sense that Mueller approached the President. We are talking about a lot of skullduggery here. Remember when Rosenstein was supposed to wear a wire while speaking to the President? A lot of hanky panky so Mueller initiating the Presidential meeting makes more sense.

  16. Let’s see now, Jon. Yesterday, the Special Counsel appointed to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election testified: 1. That Russia not only interfered, but it continues to interfere;* 2. Trump’s campaign not only knew about it, it welcomed it; (Trump has publicly stated he would accept such help again) 3. Trump refused to be interviewed and deposed, and the answers Rudy Giuliani wrote to questions from the Special Counsel were incomplete and untrue; (therefore, Mueller did NOT have all potential evidence on collusion–the stonewalling worked; Trump is using it again to avoid producing financial records); 4. Trump can be arrested and charged of obstruction of justice when he finally gets ousted from the White House (this, per se, means that Mueller found he did commit crimes); 5. Trump lied when he called Mueller’s investigation a “witch hunt” and “hoax”; 6. His attorney and campaign staff lied to try to cover up all of this; 7. Trump is not a patriot. 8. Trump and his campaign staffers have ties to Russians and other hostile foreign governments that these governments could use to blackmail and/or manipulate Trump.

    It is also obvious that Bill Barr lied about the contents of Mueller’s report, in order to create misleading headlines to capture the gullibles out there before the actual report was released. That was the reason he replaced Sessions. And Jon Turley attacks journalists for misleading the public and becoming pundits? It seems not to bother you that we have an Attorney General who is not representing the interests of the American people or enforcing the rule of law. Instead, he acts as Trump’s personal attorney. Trump is nothing but a crook who belongs in jail along with the rest of his campaign staff and his personal attorney.

    All of this, and all you have to say today, Jon, is that somehow yesterday was a “disaster” for Democrats because a 75 year old Viet Nam war hero wasn’t as slick and polished in answering 5 hours of questions based on over 400 pages of a report covering an investigation involving hundreds of witnesses and thousands of pages of evidence gathered over the course of 2+ years? You wrote this piece to support a fat draft dodger whose father purchased him a deferment for service in View Nam. Did you know that Mueller, despite having knee problems that disqualified him from serving active duty in Viet Nam, pushed through the pain until he met the physical qualifications for active duty, that he was injured in combat, and that he has multiple decorations and awards? Are you aware that he rebuilt the FBI after 911, and that he worked 12 hour days to accomplish this? Yet you, and the other Trumpsters, crow that somehow Trump won something because Mueller’s “performance” was deficient. What the hell is wrong with you? Did you not hear the above points, and why doesn’t the substance of this testimony and its implications bother you? You’ve become nothing but another Faux News pundit. This is all some game that Democrats lost somehow.

    Are Democrats supposed to ignore the fact that Russia assisted the campaign of a presidential candidate that funneled it information to create a false social media campaign that was used to cheat to win an election, and that Trump and his campaign lied about these things under oath? Did you forget that Republicans impeached Bill Clinton for lying under oath, and his lies involved sexual conduct, not national security issues? Those are facts, not political opinions. Where are the pearl-clutchers and chest pounders who demanded honesty and integrity from the POTUS now? I’m talking to you, Lindsey Graham. Trump refuses to cooperate with any congressional investigations, and that’s somehow fine with you, too, apparently.

    The losers in this scenario are America’s democratic principles, respect for the rule of law, respect for veterans and security and integrity for future elections. All of this so that Republicans can continue rolling back consumer and environmental protection regulations and to continue tax breaks for corporations and the wealthiest among us, because getting more money is a higher priority than adhering to the rule of law and American values. America will continue to be the loser until Trump and the Republicans are removed from office. Yes, Wednesday was a remarkable day.

    *Yesterday, Cindy Hyde-Smith, that ignoramus from Mississippi, killed 2 bills introduced in the Senate to address foreign government meddling. Yes, Republicans are in favor of foreign meddling in elections, so long as it helps them.

    1. 1.A Trump *was not* President in 2016 – Obama was President. Any Russian interference in the 2016 election is on Obama, not Trump.

    2. Yes, Natasha, it’s like Season 9 of “Dallas” which turned-out to be one big dream. The American people should now forget that Russia ever meddled in our election. And Professor Turley seems to be promoting that narrative here.

      1. A $100,000 in Facebook adds didn’t turn any votes. Just provided talking point fodder for worthless partisan Democrats.

        1. Tabby, get lost with your dismissive crap. We know that Russian Military Intelligence units took part in the disinformation campaign. It’s all right there for, in the Mueller Report, for anyone who cares to look. What’s more, we know that Russia has meddled in elections all over Western Europe.

          1. Peter, I agree that more concern should have been taking place with regard to Russian interference in the elections but the President of the United States at the time was Obama and as usual he did nothing.

            1. In the summer of 2016, Obama called congressional leaders to the White House to discuss Russian interference. Obama wanted to issue a bipartisan statement condemning the interference and warning state election officials. But McConnell wanted nothing to do with it. McConnell actually told Obama that he would consider such a statement a partisan effort in support of Hillary.

              1. Take note, from the left side of the aisle Politico:

                “Obama team was warned in 2014 about Russian interference
                In 2014, the administration got a report of Russia’s intention to disrupt Western democracies, including the United States.

                The Obama administration received multiple warnings from national security officials between 2014 and 2016 that the Kremlin was ramping up its intelligence operations and building disinformation networks it could use to disrupt the U.S. political system, according to more than half a dozen current and former officials.

                As early as 2014, the administration received a report that quoted a well-connected Russian source as saying that the Kremlin was building a disinformation arm that could be used to interfere in Western democracies. The report, according to an official familiar with it, included a quote from the Russian source telling U.S. officials in Moscow, “You have no idea how extensive these networks are in Europe … and in the U.S., Russia has penetrated media organizations, lobbying firms, political parties, governments and militaries in all of these places.”

                That report was circulated among the National Security Council, intelligence agencies and the State Department via secure email and cable in the spring of 2014 as part of a larger assessment of Russian intentions in Ukraine, the official said.

                There was no explicit warning of a threat to U.S. elections, but the official said some diplomats and national security officials in Moscow felt the administration was too quick to dismiss the possibility that the Kremlin incursions could reach the United States.

                “Even if the Russians and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin had these ambitions, they were doubtful of their capacity to execute them,” the official said of the Obama administration.

                Former White House officials, requesting anonymity to discuss intelligence reporting, confirmed that the administration began receiving increased traffic in 2014 about Russian disinformation and covert influence in campaigns, but said they did not recall receiving that specific warning about Russian inroads in the United States.

                Ned Price, a former spokesperson for the National Security Council, rejected the idea that the administration failed to heed warnings about Russian interference in the U.S. political system or Russian cyberespionage in general.

                “The Obama administration was nothing but proactive in responding to Russian aggression in all of its forms, especially as Moscow became more brazen with and following its military moves against Ukraine beginning in 2014,” Price said, citing sanctions and increased American support to NATO as evidence of the former administration’s seriousness.

                But subsequent events — including Russia’s interference in the American election through hacks of the emails of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta, among other intrusions identified by U.S. intelligence — have left many in the former administration wondering whether they could have done more.

                “People have criticized us … for not coming out more forcefully and saying it,” former CIA Director John Brennan said at the Aspen National Forum in July. “There was no playbook for this.”

                On Oct. 7, 2016, about a month before the election, the administration revealed, through a statement from the director of national intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security, that the U.S. government believed Russia was behind the hacks and was seeking to interfere with the election. The revelation, which many in the White House expected to be bombshell news, was largely overshadowed by the revelation that same day of an “Access Hollywood” tape in which Donald Trump made crude and sexist comments to anchor Billy Bush.

                But others in the national security community say an overly cautious Obama White House could have done more both during the campaign and in the previous months and years to alert Russia that it was aware of its intentions to subvert the U.S. democracy — along with those of some other Western countries — and would retaliate forcefully at the first sign of Russian interference.

                POLITICO spoke with more than a dozen current and former officials from across the national security spectrum, including intelligence agencies, the State Department and the Pentagon. Almost all said they were aware of Russia’s aggressive cyberespionage and disinformation campaigns — especially after the dramatic Russian attempt to hack Ukrainian elections in 2014 — but felt that either the White House or key agencies were unwilling to act forcefully to counter the Russian actions.

                Intelligence officials “had a list of things they could never get the signoffs on,” one intelligence official said. “The truth is, nobody wanted to piss off the Russians.”

                Among the strategies put forward prior to the 2016 election were closing two Russian dachas in Maryland and New York, which were long suspected of being Russian intelligence sites, expelling diplomats and engaging in counterintelligence operations that would alert Putin to the United States’ determination to strike back against any attempts at interference in the U.S. political system.

                Officials outside the White House blamed micromanagement by the National Security Council for the lack of a more forceful response, while a former NSC official says any failure to act forcefully against Russia was because of concerns by the State Department and, less frequently, the Defense Department about potential retaliation by Moscow.

                “The frustrations [about lack of forceful action] are justified and, frankly, were shared by the White House,” said the former official, who requested anonymity due to this person’s continuing work in Russia.

                “The options were being discussed. They weren’t being implemented,” the former official added.

                The State Department and Pentagon often objected to harsher measures endorsed by the intelligence community, one official said, a difference in perspective that some attributed to the fact that diplomatic staff and defense attaches were obvious targets of retaliation, rather than intelligence officers who usually work undercover.

                Concerns about Russian cyberespionage and election meddling largely grew out of the events following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014, followed by an aggressive Russian effort to influence the Ukrainian presidential election that May.

                A Russia-backed cyberattack against Ukraine’s voting infrastructure during the May election was thwarted at the 11th hour. The cyberintrusions — which in some cases could have changed voter tallies — were discovered just hours before what could have been catastrophic outcomes.

                “The reports from sources deep inside the Russian government were alarming,” one current U.S. official who served under the Obama administration said. “We started getting stuff in April, May [of 2014] that was extraordinary about the extent of the threat and the capacities the Russians were building.”

                “We were worried [Putin] would try to test us,” recalled a former Obama administration official.

                The Ukraine crisis — coupled with the Kremlin’s embrace of National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, who continues to be granted asylum by Moscow — was a sobering moment for the White House, one recently departed intelligence officer and the current administration official said.

                Yet the administration still was reluctant to engage in more forceful counterintelligence strategies against the Kremlin, including more aggressively tracking and tailing Russian operatives within the United States, according to five of the officials who spoke to POLITICO.

                Those outside the White House said they received frustrating mixed messages: The White House would subsequently dismiss Moscow’s capabilities while also citing fear of an escalation with Putin.

                Price, the former NSC spokesman, denied those claims.

                “We responded with the same clarity of purpose following Moscow’s aggression against U.S. officials in Russia and, of course, in the face of the Kremlin’s attempt to undermine the integrity of our electoral process,” he said.

                But several senior intelligence and administration officials recall it differently.

                “It just seemed like it was difficult, especially after the Crimea and the Ukraine … there still wasn’t a willingness to more heartily engage in the effort,” the former intelligence officer said.

                In one particularly frustrating instance, officials said, they reiterated a longstanding desire to shut down the two Russian dachas in Maryland and New York. Amid escalating tensions, it was often presented as a way to send a message to Moscow.

                “For quite some time, it was an active option. Secretary Kerry refused to consider it,” the former NSC official said. “We were getting pushback from the head of the agency being harassed. That was a constant frustration.”

                Former Secretary of State John Kerry was overseas and unavailable for comment. But a former senior State Department official, speaking as a representative of Kerry, saw it differently. “Kerry agreed to shut down the dachas, but had not settled on the timing,” the official said.

                Tensions finally reached a fever pitch in the summer of 2016. Just days before Russian operatives began releasing troves of stolen DNC emails, a CIA officer under official diplomatic cover was brutally beaten outside the U.S. embassy in Moscow. The officer managed to slip to safety inside the door of the U.S. compound but was immediately evacuated for medical care.

                U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials worked frantically to compile retaliatory options for the Obama White House. Despite being presented with several strategies — including more aggressively tailing Russian diplomats in the U.S. — it opted to do nothing immediately.

                “There was some real anger,” the former intelligence officer said. “We weren’t going to mug anybody, but we could at least be more overt in our coverages. We could expel some people, we could do more overt surveillance on people.”

                Another former intelligence official put it this way: “The longer we don’t push back, the harder they push.”

                Even after the release of emails designed to damage Clinton’s campaign, the White House was reluctant to respond, something that several recently departed Obama-era officials have lamented.

                After compiling a list of potential retaliatory options in the summer of 2016 — including kicking out more than 100 Russian diplomats, one official told POLITICO — the pushback from national security agencies was so great and varied, the NSC official said, that for months nothing was done.

                “Any of these actions risked a Russian reciprocation,” the former NSC official said. “We were kind of caught in a catch-22.”

                After the election, in December, the White House finally announced the expulsion of 35 diplomats and ordered the Kremlin officials out of the two Russian-owned dachas.

                But in a further indication of the tensions within the Obama team, Kerry rejected suggestions that he personally break the news of the expulsions and closing of the dachas to Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, the former NSC official said. Instead, the job was left to Pat Kennedy, one of Kerry’s undersecretaries.

                The former State Department official, speaking for Kerry, said the option of having Kerry communicate the expulsions and closing of the dachas to Lavrov was never discussed. But the former NSC official was unmoved.

                “The idea of having Kerry doing it with Lavrov was raised several times and he didn’t want to do it,” the NSC official said.

                The expulsions and closing of the dachas were symbolic moves that stung the Kremlin, but for many intelligence officers, it was too little, too late.

                While some Obama White House officials privately concede that they, too, wish there had been a more forceful response, others stand by the decisions that were made.

                “People at the working level don’t necessarily understand” the full scope of policy implications, one former White House official said.

                Now, to the further frustration of some intelligence officers, there is little indication that, for all Trump’s bluster, he’ll be tougher on the Kremlin. In his first months in office, the president has signaled a willingness to work with Moscow on several fronts, and has pushed back hard against his own intelligence community’s assessment that Russia actively worked to elect him to the presidency.

                It’s a bitter pill for many who see Trump’s election as the avoidable outcome of years’ worth of counterintelligence failings against Russia.

                “They were warned. They underestimated it until it was too late,” the current administration official said of the Obama White House and Russia, with a tinge of bitterness. “They just didn’t know how to deal with the bad guys.””

                1. Good post Allan, though I know you discount journalism based on unnamed sources.

                  The update, highlighted by Mueller yesterday, is that the Russians are still doing it and the guy they helped get in the WH is on their side. The GOP congressmen also refuses to act in anyway to block a reocurrence, in fear of being primaried by order of Moscow’s man in Washington.

                  1. The problem is that Obama’s failures predate all of this discussion and you haven’t provided the exact quotes in context just your interpretation. We will always be facing interference in our election process. The most important thing is to make the polls secure. That means voter ID and verifying only one vote per person along with ending ballot harvesting and the like. If it’s too difficult to get to the polls get a doctor’s note or don’t vote. Permit voting by mail only for the disabled and those not in town and providing proof.

                    The second thing needed to promote fair elections is to end Internet banning of content based on politics.

                    In the end we should be jailing with frequency and immediacy all those that violate the law and knowingly illegally vote.

                    1. Predictably Allan waffles. The Russian threat has nothing to do with ballots fraud, a “problem” which even Trump’s hand picked committee folded on because they couldn’t find any and by internal communications is another GOP vote suppression trick.

                      We presently have a traitor in the WH who is not only resisting doing anything to stop those who helped him win the EC in 2016, but is actively and publicly taking Putin’s side against us. The collusion never ends with this guy.

                      Lock his traitor a.s up.

                    2. “Predictably Allan waffles. The Russian threat has nothing to do with ballots fraud,”

                      I thought your fear was that our election process was being subverted. I guess your only concern is political. As I said we always have had a problem with foreign governments trying to interfere in our election process and we always will.

                      The best hope is to keep the ballots clean and hope free speech permits a true American voice to be heard. But I see you only care about Russian interference which no one thought changed the election. However I agree. When that interference is contrary to American law we should act. No evidence was found against Trump after almost 3 years despite a team intent on finding guilt and an FBI trying to create guilt. The Trump question is over but if we wish to continue the investigations I have no disagreement with them but then we have to open up all the players to discovery and that includes Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration and perhaps Obama himself.

                      I am a bit leary of opening that can of worms because we know the corruption we will find and the problems that could create. However, if you insist then we should and we should start with those whose criminality to date was covered up.

                    3. Kurtz is wrong. For obvious reasons – the penalties are severe and the gain virtually non-existent – voter fraud is virtually non-existent. All serious studies, show this, actual cases miniscule, and the committee Trump put together to “investigate” and solve this “problem” disbanded after a poor attempt at manipulating data showing there wasn’t one. This canard is one of several excuses and actions the GOP uses to suppress voting and power by demographic groups unfavorable to it’s maintaining outsized power relative to it’s support.

                    4. I take note how strongly Anon states his case despite the evidence provided on this blog that voter fraud exists and is dangerous. Did he prove that the fraud shown on this list was wrong? Of course not. He just ignores everything that he doesn’t like and then draws conclusions based on factless information that is not warrented. I expect him, like he does with all arguments, to inject his wife or best friend and say that person is a poll worker and therefore he himself is an expert. He states he became an expert on Judaism because he is married to a Jew. He also indicated his expertise on taxes (When Trump’s taxes were being discussed) because he did his own taxes.

                      So far Anon is mostly devoid of fact only able to provide op eds lacking primary sources.

                    5. For Allan and kurtz’s education:

                      “…In one of the most comprehensive investigations of fraud, Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School, Los Angeles turned up 31 credible instances of voter impersonation out of more than 1 billion votes cast between 2000 and 2014. Some of those cases may have been because of clerical errors. Levitt’s investigation suggests that while voter impersonation does indeed happen, it happens so rarely that the rate is approximately one instance out of ever 32 million ballots cast. This is similar to the odds of getting “heads” 25 times in a row on a coin toss.

                      A five-year voter fraud investigation conducted by the George W. Bush administration “turned up virtually no evidence” of organized fraud, in the words of the New York Times. While the investigation did yield 86 criminal convictions as of 2006, many of those appear to have been linked to people misunderstanding eligibility rules or filling out paperwork incorrectly.

                      In 2014, a two-year investigation into voter fraud by Iowa’s Republican secretary of state yielded 27 criminal charges, a number of which, again, were apparently related to mistakes or misunderstandings of voting rules.
                      There even have been research and investigations into voter fraud in the 2016 election. They come to similar conclusions:

                      In December, a Washington Post analysis of news reports found four documented cases of voter fraud out of about 136 million votes cast. That would yield a voter fraud rate of one instance per every 34 million ballots, close to what Levitt’s investigation turned up. Two of those fraud cases involved Trump voters trying to vote twice, one involved a Republican election judge trying to fill out a ballot on behalf of her dead husband, and the last involved a poll worker filling in bubbles for a mayoral candidate in absentee ballots in Florida.

                      A team of Dartmouth researchers undertook a comprehensive statistical investigation of the 2016 results, looking for evidence of abnormal voting patterns. They checked for evidence of noncitizen voting, dead people voting and tampering by election officials. They didn’t find any. “Our findings do strongly suggest, however, that voter fraud concerns fomented by the Trump campaign are not grounded in any observable features of the 2016 presidential election,” they concluded (emphasis theirs). “There is no evidence of millions of fraudulent votes.”

                      Trump’s assertion of widespread voter fraud contradicts statements by his campaign’s lawyers, who stated unequivocally that “all available evidence suggests that the 2016 general election was not tainted by fraud or mistake.” The statement was made in a filing opposing Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount efforts in Michigan.

                      The National Association of Secretaries of State, which represents most of the nation’s top election officials (most of whom happen to be Republican), released a statement Tuesday saying, “We are not aware of any evidence that supports the voter fraud claims made by President Trump.”

                      In Kansas, the Republican secretary of state examined 84 million votes cast in 22 states to look for cases of duplicate registration. The project yielded 14 prosecutions, representing 0.000017 percent of the votes cast.
                      In 2011, Wisconsin authorities charged 20 people with fraudulent voting in the 2008 elections. Most of these were felons who were ineligible to vote.

                      In general, there’s also a whole mountain of academic research into voter fraud, which is largely in agreement that it’s essentially a nonissue, and that isolated cases that may appear to be “fraud” are often attributable to mistakes, clerical errors or carelessness.”

                      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/25/here-are-nine-major-investigations-on-voter-fraud-that-found-virtually-nothing/?utm_term=.180b95d11dc1

                    6. “For Allan and kurtz’s education:’

                      The process of proving voter fraud is very difficult because it involves tracking individuals individually and a lot of cooperation from the states along with a lot of money that no one wishes to spend. Texas found 58,000 cases and other cases have been provided on the blog before totally ignored by Anon.

                      Here is an example of how a Democratic Congressman’s son tries to pervert our voting system.

                      https://www.projectveritas.com/congressman-jim-moran-investigation/

                      The evidence of voter registration fraud abounds and some state laws have been changed because of proof demonstrating how faulty voter registration was.

                    7. Allan,

                      Perhaps we need an operational definition for Foreign Involvement in our electoral process.

                      The fundamental principle purpose of our government is to secure our rights from threats, both foreign and domestic. Interference in our electoral process is a direct threat to our national security. Securing our electoral process from interference by entities outside our territorial jurisdiction (foreign) should be a given. We also need to secure our electoral process from interference by entities within our territorial jurisdiction (Domestic).

                      If a “principled” argument is made on the domestic side that, while we have people in this country illegally, they may be a net positive for our country, then we open ourselves up for a “principled” argument that some foreign entities may be a net positive for our country. We cannot allow that type of argument, either foreign or domestic. And if we cannot allow that, then every effort must be made for that security, without exception.

                    8. Olly, the types of political dealings that went on with Hillary and Biden while they were in power were quid pro quo that benefited only those two families. One could reasonably be of the opinion that they should be in jail.

                      The Russian interference that occurred for the most part cannot be stopped in a free society thought we could try. Their attempt was to sow discord and that they did with a lot of help from Democrats and some Republicans. To prevent such things we have to rely on a free and open transfer of information. Google is doing the opposite.

                    9. Their attempt was to sow discord and that they did with a lot of help from Democrats and some Republicans.

                      An electorate that relies on others to tell them what to think will always be susceptible to malicious influence. One review of the contributors on this blog and it’s not difficult to determine those unable to think for themselves. Some commentary seems as though it’s been playing on a loop for 3 years. Other’s cry foul when they read a post that does not compute. No link! No citation!, as if a link or citation will magically decode what was written. It won’t, if the source is not one of their approved influencers. We’ll always have those that want to sow discord. What we need is an electorate not so ignorant as to fall for it.

                    10. Democrats are hilarious.

                      need a ream of paperwork just to get a refund from a store.

                      I just saw someone that had to pull out a passport to fly because the state issued id was not accepted by TSA.

                      But voting, oh, that’s sacrosanct and nobody should have to provide a valid state ID and proof they can vote.

                      In a country with X millions of non-citizens who have valid state issued ID, voter fraud is certainly a potential issue. We all know the Democrats basically want all these non-citizen immigrants voting because they will vote for them, the open borders crowd.

                      Do we want to “suppress” noncitizens voting? Oh hell yes we do. For sure!

                    11. here’s one from the LA Times.

                      “… 1997 Miami mayoral race ended in shame, becoming one of the worst cases of voter fraud in the country.

                      At the time, Mayor Joe Carollo was seeking a second term and faced a challenge from Xavier Suarez, the city’s first Cuban mayor, who had served in the 1980s and was waging a political comeback. That November, Suarez defeated Carollo in a runoff election. Yet something was amiss.

                      Carollo’s campaign, heeding tips from local political operatives, claimed that absentee ballots in the runoff were forged and even paid for by representatives of the Suarez campaign. An investigation found nearly 400 fraudulent absentee ballots were cast by, among others, dead people and felons.

                      “This scheme to defraud, literally and figuratively, stole the ballot from the hands of every honest voter in the city of Miami,” said Circuit Court Judge Thomas S. Wilson Jr. in his ruling at the time. Wilson, who ruled that no evidence was presented to indicate that Suarez knew about the fraud, threw out the results of the election, leaving the city with an interim mayor for several weeks in spring 1998.

                      Eventually, Carollo returned to his position as mayor, and about 20 people — many from Suarez’s campaign — were arrested.”

                      [la times was making the point that voter fraud is very rare. i agree it is rare. but we may ask ourselves, perhaps, just maybe, CATCHING IT may be rare but does it happen and is it a voting security issue are all different questions indeed]

                    12. Olly, you’ve been led to the water, now drink. Or at least stop with the nonsense about who has a brain and who can’t think. The facts are before you, think.

                    13. The facts are before you, think.

                      Translation: The facts are before, now come to my conclusion.

                    14. Kurtz left out the headline to his article:

                      “Here’s how voter fraud once tipped an election — and why that doesn’t happen very often”

                      If you read, you’ll find that absentee ballots – not voter fraud at the booth, involving faulty ID’s was the prob;em, and the fix for absentee ballots is very different and has nothing to do with IDs.

                      For 2 guys crowing about who doesn’t think, you’re offering beautiful examples.

                  1. Peter, you have an entire article and it is from Politico. Anyone over 8 years old can easily get the article. What more do you want to know?

                    1. Allan,
                      🙂 Reminds me of my 11 year old son whining about the difficulty of doing his chores. He knows how to do them, he knows when he should do them, yet he would rather whine about them longer than it takes to do them.

                    2. “🙂 Reminds me of my 11 year old son ”

                      Olly, my feelings exactly.

        2. You don’t know that – unfortunately a large number of Americans get their :news” on Facebook, which may explain the ignorance of so many posters here – and you ignore the email thefts.

          1. We now have the Mueller report demonstrating that in almost 3 years no evidence of significance could be found to accuse Trump of anything. Yet, for the entire campaign, day after day Trump was accused of things he never did. Hillary on the other hand was guilty of many improprieties and stupidity even though she was never charged.

            It looks like the evidence stacks up that Trump got the worst of the deal, but won anyway. More evidence is being produced about Russian actions and it looks like and makes more sense that they weren’t supporting one candidate over the other, but Anon lives off of excuses so he will continue to whine and moan.

          2. on Facebook, which may explain the ignorance of so many posters here

            never been on any social med apps. We don’t have TV connected at home to any providers and we actually cook meals from scratch, eat, wash dishes together as a family while we discuss our day.

            FB is a godless, soulless, the devil’s playground, unlike JT’s blog

            🙃

      2. Right. The American people should know that Russia meddled in our election by way of the Clinton campaign that actually paid millions of $$ for disinformation they sought in order to hurt Trump! And not only that, the FBI then used this Russian disinformation, paid for by the Clinton campaign and DNC, to investigate and spy on Trump’s campaign! There’s your foreign meddling!

        The American people should also know that Mueller sat there yesterday and lied through his teeth all day long.

        But you keep on watching Rachel Madcow.

    3. Natacha – for reference, Democrats not only knew that Russians were offering dirt on Trump in the Steele dossier, they welcomed it.

      It is intuitively obvious that any politician would be pleased at a negative hit to their opponent. For instance, when Haitians revealed that Clinton donors were paid huge amounts of money to build “hurricane proof” homes in Haiti that turned out to be moldy and leaky trailers. Clinton opponents would welcome such information.

      That has nothing whatsoever to do with collusion. Obviously.

      In an earlier post, Professor Turley obtained foreign satellite images of Area 51, and then considered getting the help of the military attache to the Russian embassy. The help was welcomed, and was not collusion.

      I was happy that many of the allegations against Hillary Clinton were proven by Wikileaks, although I don’t agree with the methods. My welcoming the information did not amount to collusion.

      This is common sense. I really wish more journalists had it, because they are not following the logic of their own conclusions well at all. They often are gladdened to hear damaging information, and of course would not be colluding in their welcome.

      1. Karen: you are a Faux News disciple, and one way they keep you coming is to convince you that you possess logic and reason. You continue to believe that journalists lack common sense, but you don’t know what that is, obviously, just like you don’t know what collusion is. Mueller’s report was damning to Trump, regardless of his “performance” at the hearing. This isn’t some game here. The stakes couldn’t be bigger. We have Russia manipulating our elections. Did you see yesterday’s Intel report that found that Russia did hack into the voter database in Illinois? It is unknown whether they did more than just get in. If they could hack into the system, they could delete names, add names and change votes. These are not unfounded fears–they are facts. So, why are Republicans killing bills aimed at strengthening the security of our elections? Could it be that Russians will help Republicans, who know their base and support by independents is shrinking, so they welcome such help? Maybe you should turn on your Google machine and check it out.

        BTW: just yesterday, Trumpy Bear vetoed a bipartisan bill banning the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia. Why would he do this? Could it be that Jared is trying to or has borrowed money from the Saudis? We already know that he has, because he’s not much of a businessman, either. So given these current and existential threats, why do you and Faux News keep harping about Hillary and Bill Clinton? Kellyanne Pivoting again?

        1. The Russians will never equal the success that Pat Marcy had working the Chicago Democratic machine that was paying $5 a signed, uncompleted ballot to willing voters in Cabrini Green in the 60s.

          Source, When Corruption was King by Robert Cooley

    4. The points Natacha is evading are that Mueller didn’t write the report hasn’t read it, and drew a blank when asked about Fusion GPS; he also appeared before the committee with a wet-nurse (employed by him during the investigation and previously retained by an IT employee of Hellary’s in regard to said technicians destruction of her Blackberry); and had as his deputy an Obama holdover who had contributed to Democratic campaigns multiple times (and whose excursions into creative lawyering had been rebuked 9-0 by the U.S. Supreme Court).

          1. I see you’re everywhere today, Diane. And lying as usual.

              1. Brainless there isn’t much difference between you and ‘dead people’.

          2. Anonymous says: July 25, 2019 at 4:02 PM
            The old SOT (‘Stepping on Toads’) never gives sources.

            ____

            And yet — one in a blue moon…

            There are exceptions to every “rule.”

            Never say never. Should have said “rarely”…

            1. and where’s your apology. he was dead right about it and you called him out now I call you out. chumps

      1. Only Faux News disciples think Fusion GPS has any relevance to the crimes committed by Trump and his campaign. The Steele Dossier did NOT precipitate the Special Counsel’s investigation. Again, you are pivoting to Hillary Clinton–a Faux News frequent foil. Nothing you said in any way mitigates Trump’s campaign and its collusion with Russians or his obstruction of justice.

        What about respect for Mueller and his service to this country? I find it sad and outrageous that people like you and Turley go after Mueller, who is 75 years old, a decorated Viet Nam war veteran and who rebuilt the FBI after 911. Despite his age, he laid out a clear pattern of obstruction of justice, for which Trump can be prosecuted after he is ousted from office. He also clarified that Trump refused to cooperate by sitting for deposition or fully and truthfully answering written questions on his connections with Russia. He just ignored follow up questions, like he is ignoring subpoenas by Congressional committees. What about respect for the rule of law, all of you who keep harping about Hillary Clinton and her e-mails?

        What you should worry about is Russia’s hacking into voter systems in all 50 states and the efforts by Republicans to prevent measures to stop it from happening again. Yesterday, an Intel report was released that stated that Russia did get into the voter database in Illinois, but it is unknown whether they manipulated names or votes. That should scare the hell out of you.

        1. Republicans have for decades strongly backed voter ID measures that the Democrats ALWAYS oppose. Because, racism!

          That tells me all I need to know about who’s in favor of secure elections.

          1. That tells me all I need to know about who’s in favor of secure elections.

            Mr. Kurtz,
            Secure Elections for both political parties is a euphemism for securing power.

            Oddly, it is declared an impeachable offense to conspire (collude) with a foreign government to influence our elections, but advocating and enabling (not preventing) foreigners in our country illegally to vote in our elections, is a platform for nomination as POTUS.

            Do I have that about right?

            1. You apparently have the right wing fantasy right Olly, but not reality.

              “…In one of the most comprehensive investigations of fraud, Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School, Los Angeles turned up 31 credible instances of voter impersonation out of more than 1 billion votes cast between 2000 and 2014. Some of those cases may have been because of clerical errors. Levitt’s investigation suggests that while voter impersonation does indeed happen, it happens so rarely that the rate is approximately one instance out of ever 32 million ballots cast. This is similar to the odds of getting “heads” 25 times in a row on a coin toss.

              A five-year voter fraud investigation conducted by the George W. Bush administration “turned up virtually no evidence” of organized fraud, in the words of the New York Times. While the investigation did yield 86 criminal convictions as of 2006, many of those appear to have been linked to people misunderstanding eligibility rules or filling out paperwork incorrectly.

              In 2014, a two-year investigation into voter fraud by Iowa’s Republican secretary of state yielded 27 criminal charges, a number of which, again, were apparently related to mistakes or misunderstandings of voting rules.
              There even have been research and investigations into voter fraud in the 2016 election. They come to similar conclusions:

              In December, a Washington Post analysis of news reports found four documented cases of voter fraud out of about 136 million votes cast. That would yield a voter fraud rate of one instance per every 34 million ballots, close to what Levitt’s investigation turned up. Two of those fraud cases involved Trump voters trying to vote twice, one involved a Republican election judge trying to fill out a ballot on behalf of her dead husband, and the last involved a poll worker filling in bubbles for a mayoral candidate in absentee ballots in Florida.

              A team of Dartmouth researchers undertook a comprehensive statistical investigation of the 2016 results, looking for evidence of abnormal voting patterns. They checked for evidence of noncitizen voting, dead people voting and tampering by election officials. They didn’t find any. “Our findings do strongly suggest, however, that voter fraud concerns fomented by the Trump campaign are not grounded in any observable features of the 2016 presidential election,” they concluded (emphasis theirs). “There is no evidence of millions of fraudulent votes.”

              Trump’s assertion of widespread voter fraud contradicts statements by his campaign’s lawyers, who stated unequivocally that “all available evidence suggests that the 2016 general election was not tainted by fraud or mistake.” The statement was made in a filing opposing Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount efforts in Michigan.

              The National Association of Secretaries of State, which represents most of the nation’s top election officials (most of whom happen to be Republican), released a statement Tuesday saying, “We are not aware of any evidence that supports the voter fraud claims made by President Trump.”

              In Kansas, the Republican secretary of state examined 84 million votes cast in 22 states to look for cases of duplicate registration. The project yielded 14 prosecutions, representing 0.000017 percent of the votes cast.
              In 2011, Wisconsin authorities charged 20 people with fraudulent voting in the 2008 elections. Most of these were felons who were ineligible to vote.

              In general, there’s also a whole mountain of academic research into voter fraud, which is largely in agreement that it’s essentially a nonissue, and that isolated cases that may appear to be “fraud” are often attributable to mistakes, clerical errors or carelessness.”

              https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/25/here-are-nine-major-investigations-on-voter-fraud-that-found-virtually-nothing/?utm_term=.180b95d11dc1

            2. Sorry Olly, I should have said “excuse”, not “fantasy”. The GOP leadership knows what it’s doing, which is suppressing legal but unfavorable votes for them.

              1. Both major political parties know what they are doing. They are influencing election outcomes. We should all want election results to be reflective of the will of eligible U.S. citizens. Any evidence of voter fraud or voter suppression reduces confidence in the process we use to put people in a position of power. That lack of confidence creates a natural distrust of those in power. Wasting taxpayer money studying the impact of voter fraud could be used instead to fund an initiative to provide eligible voters a tamper-proof voter ID. Another problem area is ballot harvesting. Gerrymandering is a tool used by both parties, and I understand the supreme court upheld it.

    5. Yes Natasha, our host is a weak style commentator covering inconsequential non-events while ignoring the damning facts on the actions of the president of the US because he didn’t like the color of the suit worn by the guy testifying. Good post.

      1. Anon, your host’s ideology appears to be center left. It is amazing how you freeload off of his workproduct and then insult him personally.

        What do we learn from that.
        1) You are arrogant.
        2) You are a freeloader that contributes very little if anything
        3) You pollute the blog with misinformation.
        4) You are narrow minded and cannot see how others would be interested in things that don’t interest you.
        5) You are self centered (see #4)

        You should set yourself up with a psychiatrist and spend your time evaluating your personality disorder rather than commenting here while aligning yourself with people in the same situation as yourself.

  17. Let’s call these hearings what they truly are, an attempt to influence the 2020 elections. The hearings have nothing to do with impeachment or 2016 election interference and corruption. Nor do they have to anything to do with the chaos and dysfunction of the Executive functions of our Government which could get the attention of the World Court for crimes against humanity.

    The truth is that these hearings should never have taken place, and the House is the wrong place to conduct such investigations in the first place, and if they are trying to justify impeachment proceedings, then they need more than to be trying to reach a Bipartisan Majority Consensus in the House, and a 2/3 Bipartisan Majority Consensus in the Senate, both of which are corrupted by conflicts of interest that cannot be resolved by any means.

    I think we are confused in this country because we believe that Bipartisan Assembly and Bipartisan Majority Consensus Equals Consensus Decision making. What we have done, not inadvertently, is to transform the Bicameral Legislature, which is supposed to be the Assembly of the States by two separate modes of assembly with corresponding Suffrage to reach Majority Consensus of the States as the Union.

    Impeachment in a properly assembled Bicameral Legislature is a totally nonpartisan, non political, process which is difficult to the point of impossible to obstruct, corrupt, or interfere with. The House reaches a Proportional Consensus by State requiring only as few as 9 States to constitute a Majority, and the Senate would then reach a 2/3 Majority Consensus of the States as Equals Requiring the Equal Vote of 37 States to constitute a Majority Consensus for removal. There are no conflicts of interest based upon Party Affiliation to reach a Majority Consensus of the States by either mode of Assembly, and the States will only be considering the President’s subordination to their Authority as the Union, which means, does the President properly represent their interest as the Union and does the President take care to faithfully execute the Laws that the States legislated as the Union in Congress.

    Impeachment has nothing to do with obstruction of justice, it has everything to do with the insubordination of the President. Under those conditions a unanimous consensus for the President’s removal would not only be a forgone conclusion, it would be swift in it’s execution, meaning immediate impeachment to put the president under the custody of the Senate, followed by an immediate vote for removal, maybe even before the Chief Justice can make the trip from the Supreme Court to the Senate floor to preside in the Absence of the President of the Senate who would be immediately covering the absence of the President due to the Majority Consensus Vote for impeachment.

    There is no one man, or one Party, with Power in our Country, in the United States of America we have distributed power, equally distributed between the States as Equals, The Union is, and must always be, the predominant Authority in our Government. When the Union is the Governing Authority, then you don’t have these mischiefs of Factions which manifest as conflicts of interest which result in obstruction, interference, and corruption of the Legislative processes which are necessary for a Confederated Republic to function properly as a Government of the People.

    We have a structural problem with the corruption of the assembly, Representation, and distribution of Suffrage to form the Union, and until we correct that problem then we will only become more destabilized as a Government. Right now we are in a state of chaos due to anarchy, the only thing we can expect next is the total collapse of our Governing Systems.

    Maybe that’s what we should be holding hearings about, before it’s too late.

  18. ” MCNBC’s Rachel Maddow called it a “remarkable day” “

    Rachel writes her reports before the news takes place.

    1. her ratings stink. who wants to watch an ugly obnoxious lesbo kvetch on endlessly about her poorly formed opinions

      now if she was a hot lesbo with smart opinions people might be interested

      1. Kurtz:

        Actually, all things equal Maddow’s ratings are pretty good. I’m not a fan but I think she’s got some moxie and some intelligence. I don’t like her androgynous look or the condescending commentary, but she’s thoughtful most of the time. However, like a lot of advocates she’s most disingenuous when talking about topics meaningful to her like gay rights or assessing Trump. Who she sleeps with is her business but how she acts on the public airways is ours. I think if she just calmed down, took her emotions off her sleeve and put that brain to work instead of her heart, she’d be fine. I try not to categorize people based on where they work (at one time a good friend of mine worked at an adult theater, for example) but I do watch her sometimes and find she’s got the candlepower but not the credibility due to her overwhelming partisanship. Too bad.

  19. today some of them are doing “Fake it till ya make it” stuff

    problem is they faked it for 2 years and didn’t make it; time to cut bait

Comments are closed.