The Media Brushes Over Mueller Contradictions After “Blockbuster” Turns Into Bomb

Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the aftermath of the Mueller hearings. This week, the Democrats belatedly moved to get a court order to release Grand Jury material withheld in the Mueller Report. That material represents a tiny percentage of text and the request is months too late. I testified many weeks ago that, if the Democrats were really serious about impeachment, they would have filed soon after the report was issued. Every indication remains that the Democratic leadership is still running out the clock on impeachment while trying to convince voters that they really do want to impeach Donald Trump.

Democrats are now insisting that it was not Mueller but really McGahn that they expected to put away Trump. It would be a sequel to a colossal flop and they are not exactly moving with dispatch . . . as time ticks by.

Here is the column:

I once heard a story about Pia Zadora’s performance as the lead in “The Diary of Anne Frank.” The audience was eager for Zadora’s dreadful acting to conclude. In a closing scene, Nazis broke into the house, shouting “Where is Anne Frank?” The audience shouted back, “She’s in the attic!” just to try to end the play. The story is likely apocryphal but it illustrates that not all live performances are really better than the original books.

I had the same impulse watching more than six hours of former special counsel Robert Mueller offering monosyllabic responses as Democrats read his report to him. Democrats said this would be the “blockbuster movie” for those who “did not read the book” of the report. If so, it was the congressional version of the John Travolta movie bomb “Battlefield Earth” and, for Mueller, the prosecutorial version of “Dazed and Confused.”

The hearing was a disaster for anyone who was hoping for a kickstart to impeachment. Democrats could not produce even a single takeaway moment in six hours of hearings. Instead, Mueller came across more often as befuddled than bemused by the entire exercise. Calling the hearings a “disaster” for Democrats, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, a leading advocate for impeachment, declared, “Far from breathing life into his damning report, the tired Robert Mueller sucked the life out of it.”

But of course, it did not matter. No minds were changed. Furthermore, Democrats did not seem to care that Mueller was in open contempt of Congress by simply refusing to answer questions whenever it suited him. Indeed, that proved to be most questions. The media coverage predictably ignored the fact that Mueller continually contradicted himself on what he would and would not answer. Instead, his curt refusals to answer legitimate questions were immediately described as evidence of his “reticence” and “discipline.” In fact, Mueller never even bothered to cite a legal basis to back up most of his refusals to answer questions.

He was allowed to discuss the underlying law as well as key decisions on the preparation of the report. All of these areas had been discussed by Attorney General William Barr and were neither privileged nor classified. So why did he not answer these questions? The answer is as simple as it is obvious. He did not want to because he often had no answer. Moreover, he knew the Democrats were not going to insist on detailed answers.

For example, Mueller refused to discuss whether Barr and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told him to submit his report with grand jury material identified, to allow for a rapid public release of the report. Indeed, that subject has already been discussed, and Mueller was clearly able to discuss it. However, he refused and no one bothered to point out that the attorney general had already established that this information could be discussed publicly. The fact is that it was Mueller who delayed the release of the report by ignoring the instructions of his superiors.

Likewise, Mueller clearly could have discussed, as did Barr, his legal interpretation of two memos from the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel that he claimed prevented him from reaching a conclusion on criminal obstruction. This is a purely legal question. Mueller answered questions about the Office of Legal Counsel when it suited him and then refused when it did not. He started the second hearing before the House Intelligence Committee by withdrawing part of his earlier testimony before the House Judiciary Committee regarding the two memos.

Mueller is simply wrong in his interpretation of the memos insisting that you cannot indict a sitting president means that you cannot reach any conclusions in a report on his criminal conduct. His two superiors made clear that his interpretation was wrong when they reached a conclusion on obstruction. Nothing in the memos restricted Mueller from reaching conclusions on criminal conduct, as his superiors made clear to him. Yet, Mueller avoided all of that by repeating his “I will not answer that” mantra.

Democrats were left repeating the same mantra that “no one is above the law” and demanding to know why no one has taken action. It was a bizarre objection from a committee that has the authority to impeach President Trump. It was like a cop screaming, “Someone needs to arrest that guy!” Mueller continued with flagrantly conflicted answers. He refused to answer questions about his prosecution but went into detail about his decisions on other issues like not subpoenaing Trump. He did the same in refusing to discuss allegations in his own federal court filings but had no trouble holding forth on how WikiLeaks is a foreign intelligence operation or how answers from Trump were incomplete.

On the latter question, Mueller even discussed other ways of describing the lack of cooperation from Trump after refusing to explain ambiguous lines in other parts of his report. Then he returned to his mantra and said things like “I do not want to wade into those waters.” Committee members shrugged it off, as if that is a new form of aquatic government privilege.

In the end, Mueller testified in the same imperious fashion as his press conference two months ago when he declared, “I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner.” His declining to answer questions left the House committees in a glaring contradiction. When Barr testified substantively for hours without limitations, Democrats attacked him as uncooperative. But when Mueller demanded time limits and continually refused to answer nonprivileged questions that he clearly could answer, Democrats virtually cooed that he was only being reticent.

Yet, Mueller did not seem up to the task of answering questions even when asked the name of the president who appointed him as a United States attorney. When he did answer a question clearly, he stumbled. In the first hearing, he agreed with Representative Ted Lieu of California that “the reason that you did not indict the president” is because of the Office of Legal Counsel opinion “that you cannot indict a sitting president” and then had to start out the second hearing by taking back that answer.

Given his resistance to testifying and his request to have his chief of staff with him, the hearings successfully magnified the lingering questions over his supervision of the investigation. It all was a testament to how a bad movie can ruin a good book. Film critic Joel Siegel once reviewed “The Bonfire of the Vanities” by saying, “This is a failure of epic proportions. You have got to be a genius to make a movie this bad.” If the Democrats wanted to dampen calls for impeachment, they could not have produced a better cinematic suppressant. Call it “The Day Impeachment Died.”

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

135 thoughts on “The Media Brushes Over Mueller Contradictions After “Blockbuster” Turns Into Bomb”

    1. OT:

      I feel obligated to point a few things out about Baltimore since so many kooks are angry at Trump for his comments. Aside from the “Rat Film” and Cummings calling Baltimore names we also have:

      “Baltimore’s Biggest Democrat Rats
      Rep. Cummings praised a Baltimore politician who stole toys from poor children.” but “Back in Baltimore, the search for a public official who hasn’t been indicted or convicted continues.”

      Trump was right Baltimore is a “disgusting rat and rodent infested mess”

      I keep wondering why so many people in Baltimore keep voting for the same leftist lying jerks that keep stealing from them.

  1. It does not matter to Hill and his sycophant if the completed report is contrary to their themes here. They will simply repudiate the findings of the report..


    New Transcripts Obtained of Former FBI Chief of Staff Testifying Russia CONSPIRACY CAME FROM OBAMA’S WHITE HOUSE

    Transcripts obtained from the FBI in a request for information show that James Rybicki, the former FBI Chief of Staff under James Comey, testified that the Russia Conspiracy sham came from Obama’s White House in October 2016.

    By Joe Hoft, Gateway Pundit, July 30, 2019

    We reported last week that businessman Ed Butowsky filed a lawsuit where he outed reporter Ellen Ratner as his source for information that Seth Rich and his brother provided WikiLeaks the DNC emails before the 2016 election, not Russia. This totally destroys the FBI and Mueller’s claims that Russians hacked the DNC to obtain these emails.

    Butowsky claimsin his lawsuit:

    Ms. Rattner said Mr. Assange told her that Seth Rich and his brother, Aaron, were responsible for releasing the DNC emails to Wikileaks. Ms. Rattner said Mr. Assange wanted the information relayed to Seth’s parents, as it might explain the motive for Seth’s murder.

    Today we have exclusive information that Butowsky and his attorney, Ty Clevenger, requested and obtained documents from the FBI related to their case

    According to the duo, they obtained the transcript from former FBI Chief of Staff James Rybicki where he states that the Obama White House was the entity that was pushing the Russia conspiracy as early as October 2016 –

    1. Alan, Fox News was forced to abandon the Seth Rich story. And you think Obama didn’t know about Russia until October of 2016? Obama called congressional leaders to the White House in July of that year to discuss Russian interference. After holding that summit, Obama would have been nuts to ‘fabricate’ a conspiracy.

      And I’m surprised that a ‘patriot’ like you would sympathize with Assange when the latter jeopardized the U.S. military with all the leaks he published.

      1. Peter, you are talking nonsense again. Whether or not Fox News pursued a story is not the issue.

        The question at hand is the following: “Transcripts obtained from the FBI in a request for information show that James Rybicki, the former FBI Chief of Staff under James Comey, testified that the Russia Conspiracy sham came from Obama’s White House in October 2016.”

        Here’s another headline you might have issue with:

        “New York Times Admits Obama Admin Deployed Multiple Spies Against Trump Campaign In 2016”

        …And the story “The New York Times admitted on Thursday that the Obama administration deployed multiple spies against the Trump campaign in 2016, confirming recent comments by Attorney General William Barr that ‘spying did occur’ during the campaign….The New York Times has repeatedly been used by FBI officials who ran the anti-Trump spy operation to launder damaging information that reflects poorly on the agency. Nearly a year ago, the Times confirmed that the U.S. intelligence apparatus was used to spy on Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016.

        While that article included explosive revelations, it downplayed their significance and later curiously denied that any spying had ever occurred:”

        1. I figured you would ask for the complete article so here it is:

          New York Times Admits Obama Admin Deployed Multiple Spies Against Trump Campaign In 2016

          The New York Times admitted on Thursday that the Obama administration deployed multiple spies against the Trump campaign in 2016, confirming recent comments by Attorney General William Barr that ‘spying did occur’ during the campaign.

          Mollie Hemingway
          Following months of angry claims by journalists and Democratic operatives that the Obama administration never spied on Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, The New York Times admitted Thursday that multiple overseas intelligence assets were deployed against associates of the Republican nominee. It is not the first time the Times has revealed widespread spying operations against the campaign.

          In addition to noting that long-time informant Stefan Halper was tasked with collecting intelligence on the Trump campaign, the Times story details how a woman was sent overseas under a fake name and occupation to oversee the spy operation. The woman’s real name is not mentioned in the article, though the Times says she went by “Azra Turk” and has a relationship with an unidentified federal intelligence agency.

          Halper was handpicked by a seasoned FBI counterintelligence agent out of the New York office, according to the article. While the Times does not identify the agent by name, the paper says the FBI agent spoke at a conference organized by Halper about a 2010 case involving Russians posing as Americans. The public schedule for a 2011 conference hosted by Halper about the exact same case shows that three FBI counterintelligence agents were invited to speak on the topic.

          The three agents publicly identified as speaking at that conference on the topic are George J. Ennis, Jr., Alan E. Kohler, Jr., and Stephen M. Somma. Ennis currently serves as the special agent in charge in the FBI’s New York office, according to his LinkedIn profile, and worked closely with Preet Bharara, former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, a virulent anti-Trump activist whom the president fired in 2017.

          The public schedule for a 2014 conference led by Halper shows that Kohler also spoke to the same group about the same Russian case on May 9, 2014.

          “Alan Kohler the FBI representative at the United States Embassy in London will talk about the challenges of modern counter espionage: including the case of Anna Chapman and other Russian illegals,” the schedule noted.

          A representative for the FBI’s office in Norfolk, where Kohler worked as of March 2017, said he is no longer with that office. The representative, who refused to provide her name, did not say when or why Kohler left that office or whether he was still employed by the FBI. The FBI’s New York office did not respond to queries about the current employment status of Kohler, Ennis, or Somma.

          Real estate records show Kohler relocated to the Washington, D.C. area from Norfolk in July of 2017, shortly after special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed to investigate alleged connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. When asked whether Kohler had been transferred to the FBI’s Washington field office, an FBI representative for that office directed the questions to the FBI headquarters in D.C. The FBI refused to comment when asked whether Kohler had been detailed to work on Mueller’s investigation of Trump or whether he was the agent responsible for deploying Halper against the Trump campaign in 2016.

          “Turk,” the U.S. intelligence operative who claimed to work as Halper’s assistant, had previously been identified to George Papadopoulos, whom she targeted, as a spy who rather blatantly tried to plumb him for information about Russia and other topics. After the Times published its article on “Turk,” Papadopolous wrote on Twitter that she “clearly was not FBI” and instead “was CIA and affiliated with Turkish intel.”

          “She could hardly speak English and was tasked to meet me about my work in the energy sector offshore Israel/Cyprus which Turkey was competing with,” Papadopoulos wrote.

          The NYT also admits in its article that the aggressive and unprecedented action of deploying spies and luring American targets overseas to collect intelligence on a rival political campaign “yielded no fruitful information.” It is not clear whether information collected by Halper and “Turk” was used to justify formal spy warrants against any U.S. citizens.

          Why Leak This News Now?

          The New York Times has repeatedly been used by FBI officials who ran the anti-Trump spy operation to launder damaging information that reflects poorly on the agency. Nearly a year ago, the Times confirmed that the U.S. intelligence apparatus was used to spy on Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016.

          While that article included explosive revelations, it downplayed their significance and later curiously denied that any spying had ever occurred:

          The F.B.I. investigated four unidentified Trump campaign aides in those early months, congressional investigators revealed in February. The four men were Michael T. Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said …

          The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said.

          In that case, the ostensible purpose of the leak was to get ahead of what congressional investigators had figured out: the Obama administration targeted the Trump campaign with secret informants.

          The leak that fueled the Thursday NYT bombshell was likely placed in anticipation of the formal release of even more damaging information about how U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies potentially abused their authority to punish the government’s political enemies. The article specifically references the forthcoming release of an extensive inspector general review of potential improprieties at the Department of Justice (DOJ).

          By leaking the information to the friendliest of friendly reporters, including Michael Schmidt at the Times, the individuals who ran the anti-Trump operation are likely hoping to spin the news in their favor.

          This Explains the Anti-Barr Freakout

          So long as anti-Trump operatives controlled the FBI and DOJ, this type of leaking and concealing of information worked well. Most major media outlets have chosen to ignore the spying scandal in favor of non-stop anti-Trump advocacy. That left actual fact-finding and truth-seeking to a small group of media outlets and a handful of elected lawmakers tasked with oversight of the nation’s spy agencies.

          When William Barr took over as attorney general, it was the first time in years the agency had any real political accountability. Trump’s first attorney general recused himself from overseeing anything related to the 2016 campaign, and his deputy who took over is alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to oust the president.

          While Barr was adamant that Mueller’s special counsel probe be unimpeded and his report fully published, he scared the anti-Trump forces in and out of government when he said spying on opposing political campaigns is inappropriate. His public vow to examine whether the widespread spying operation against Trump and his affiliates was lawful and appropriate sent shockwaves through an organized anti-Trump political operation that had completely controlled the narrative until recently.

        2. Alan, I see no links to any N Y Times stories, no dates and no specific headline titles. Therefore I have no way verifying what the N Y Times really said. And this is par for the course with you. For some reason we’re always supposed to take your word for it.

          1. Peter, let’s hear what you think isn’t true and then I will give you all the links since you are too lazy to find them for yourself. I note you didn’t even look at the article to determine its veracity. You determine right and wrong only based on the source rather than the content. The NYTimes has lied over and over again but they now want to spin the news that is coming out so they maintain some credibility. Get used to it because the hidden information will start to become public tomorrow.

            In the article are two quotes from the NYTImes but because you don’t want to read what was written you probably never saw them. Take a look. They exist nearer to the end of the section “Why Leak This News Now?”

            This was written by a journalist that has almost always been correct on these issues and whose veracity is far stronger than the NYTimes or the Washington Post.

            1. Alan, I read the N Y Times every day. I don’t know what stories you’re even talking about. If credible evidence exists that Obama fabricated a plot to frame Trump, that would be a front page story all over the mainstream media. I haven’t seen anything on any of that. And if you can’t supply the links, then I have no idea what you’re even referring to. I don’t know where you even got the text that you posted. But again, you do this all the time.

              1. Too bad Peter. You read only sh1t and you shove it down as if it were lobster. Take note that you don’t comment on what was actually written. You can’t seem to do that.

                Here are some headlines from the NYTimes less than 3 months ago::

                F.B.I. Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Trump Aide in 2016

                Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation

                I posted this article “Here’s another headline you might have issue with:” just to show you that you aren’t even up to date. With all the reading you do this information is almost 3 months old. You were in the midst of trashing a recent article which prompted me to show you how little you knew whether the information was recent or old. You can look all the rest of the stuff up yourself.

                1. Alan, we’ve all known that Horowitz is investigating the FBI’s conduct. Until Horowitz submits his report, no determination will be made regarding the FBI’s conduct.

                  But you seem to imply that the FBI had no justification at all to even look at this matter. Here’s a Letter To The Editor signed “Joe From Boston” that I copied from that N Y Times article:

                  “The conversation at a London bar in September 2016 took a strange turn when the woman sitting across from George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser, asked a direct question: Was the Trump campaign working with Russia?”

                  Now, the Trump administration is arguing that this FBI agent is a spy. So let’s look at the timeline:

                  In May 2016, George Papadopoulos bragged to Alexander Downer, Australia’s High Commissioner to the UK, that the Republicans had “dirt” on the Clinton campaign that the Russians had hacked.

                  In July 2016, that “dirt” was leaked by Wikileaks.

                  On July 31, 2016, after the Australians advised the FBI about the May Papadopoulos-Downer exchange, the FBI opened an investigation based on Papadopoulos’ comments in May 2016.

                  Then in September 2016, the female “FBI spy” talked to Papadopoulos, the source that instigated the investigation.

                  Does the Trump administration suggest for one second that henceforth, all FBI personnel will wear a blue baseball cap bearing the letters FBI in white when they interview anyone? (or will it be a red baseball cap?)

                  Or that each agent will introduce him- or herself to a subject under investigation by saying “Hi. My name is John Jones and I am an FBI agent”?

                  If not, then according to the Trump administration, all FBI agents are just “spies.”

                  Cue up “Send in the Clowns,” because the Trump administration, always is the victim (except when they are not), is nothing more than a bizarre form of a circus.

                  From Reader Comments:

                  “F.B.I. Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Trump Aide in 2016”

                  New York Times, 5/2/19

                  1. “Alan, we’ve all known that Horowitz is investigating the FBI’s conduct. Until Horowitz submits his report, no determination will be made regarding the FBI’s conduct.”

                    Peter, I wish you were more consistant.

                    Just insert Trump’s name for FBI and that would have been acceptable but even after the investigation and significant proof that the investigations and spying against Trump were proven true and the Steele Dossier proven false Democrats continue as if no investigation ever ocurred. You give everything on the left a chance and then an excuse. For the right they are guilty even after the facts are in because you have excuses as to why the facts didn’t prove guilt.

                    I won’t deal with your problem that you don’t even know significant facts that finally had to be accepted by the NYTimes because they know the reports coming out will reveal that certain things they vehemently denied based on what they called good sources was totally wrong and done for political reasons having little to do with providing all the news that’s fit to print. That was demonstrated to you yesterday.

                  2. “But you seem to imply that the FBI had no justification at all to even look at this matter.”

                    I have no problem with the FBI investigating. I do have a problem with selective investigation which is what we saw. If the FBI chose to investigate the Trump team then were obligated to follow the leads into those people not associated withTrump even if they were involved with Hillary which is likely true.

                    The vidence against Trumps is virtually non existent. The evidence against Hillary is staggering and when historians write about this they will want to know how people like you acted so stupidly.

  3. John Solomon

    FBI is trying to stop disclosure of Russia case memos, arguing in court agents have right to privacy that shields their conduct from public scrutiny. But doesn’t public pay their salaries?

    After hearing how important it was to release the Mueller report and all the other stuff suddenly the left is starting to worry and want the information flow to cease.

  4. Let’s cut the crap, Trump won the election and the left just can’t handle it.


    Bernie Sanders compared Baltimore to ‘Third World country’ in 2015, now chides Trump

    Sen. Bernard Sanders compared Baltimore to a “Third World country” in a 2015 interview that’s resurfaced following President Trump’s controversial tweets over the weekend attacking the city and Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland Democrat, over the conditions in his district.

    According to an article posted Dec. 8, 2015, Mr. Sanders toured the West Baltimore neighborhood and spoke to reporters after the arrest of Freddie Gray, a black man who died while being taken into law enforcement custody.

    The article says Mr. Sanders spoke to cameras that “mostly blocked his view of boarded rowhomes and crumbling marble steps” about the poverty in the area, comparing it to a Third World country.

    “Anyone who took the walk that we took around this neighborhood would not think you’re in a wealthy nation,” Mr. Sanders said at the time, according to The Baltimore Sun. “You would think that you were in a Third World country.”

  6. Gee, Trumps a racist for his comments on Baltimore. When Obama called the rioters in Baltimore street thugs he wasn’t a racist. And when Bernie Sanders made remarks about the physical, social and economic condition of Baltimore he wasn’t a racist. There’s no double standard here.



    In a now-viral tweetstorm on Saturday, President Trump characterized Rep. Elijah E. Cummings’s Baltimore-based congressional district as a “rodent infested mess” where “no human” would want to live.

    His criticism rang with a particular irony in Baltimore County, where presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner owns more than a dozen apartment complexes that have been cited for hundreds of code violations and, critics say, provide substandard housing to lower-income tenants.

    In an interview Saturday, Baltimore County Executive John A. Olszewski Jr. condemned Trump’s comments as “an attack on basic decency.”

    “It is certainly ironic that the president’s own son-in-law was complicit in contributing to some of the neglect that the president purports to be so concerned about,” Olszewski (D) added.

    The properties generate at least $90 million in annual revenue. Kushner stepped down as chief executive of the company in 2017, when he became a senior White House adviser.

    A company representative did not address questions Sunday about whether the group agreed with Trump’s characterization of the area, but wrote: “Kushner Companies is proud to own thousands of apartments in the Baltimore area.”

    In 2017, Baltimore County officials revealed that apartments owned by the Kushner firm were responsible for more than 200 code violations, all accrued in the span of the calendar year. Repairs were made only after the county threatened fines, local officials said, and even after warnings, violations on nine properties were not addressed, resulting in monetary sanctions.

    Christine Taylor, a spokeswoman for the Kushner firm, asserted at the time that the group was in compliance with all state and local laws. Then-Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamenetz said that was “a stretch of truth.”

    In the past two years, the Kushner firm and its affiliated entities have been sued multiple times by Baltimore-area residents who allege that the company has charged them excessive fees and used the threat of eviction to pressure them into paying.

    From 2013 to 2017, corporate entities associated with Kushner apartments requested the civil arrest of 105 former tenants — the highest number among all property managers in Maryland during that period, the Sun reported.

    Edited from: “Kushner Owns Lots Of Baltimore Area Apartments. Some Are Infested With Mice”

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. Regarding above:

      Apparently Trump didn’t even think of Kushner’s holdings before he sent Saturday’s tweet. Whatever..! It continues this pattern where Trump says or tweets something with racial overtones. Then Trump denies any racist intent. Inspiring his supporters to take to blogs like this dismissing any possibility that Trump is racist in any way. This peculiar pattern plays out over and over.

      No president who cares about the country deliberately foments racial tensions on a regular basis. Which brings us back to Russian interference. If Trump isn’t working on Putin’s behalf, the latter is pleased just the same. A bitterly divided America is just what Putin seeks.

      1. Hill – I frequently complain that Los Angeles and San Francisco are rat infested hellholes. The fleas on the rats have tested positive for typhus. There’s feces and vomit from all the homeless.

        There is nothing racist about such comments.

        Most people understand the hyocrisy of clergy preaching from the pulpit while sinning in their personal life, or a Christian politician having a mistress. This is the same thing. Congress fought funding Border Patrol, overrun with waves of illegal immigrants, and then complain when they ran out of soap. The allegation is ironic that Kushner has had difficulty ridding his rental properties of rats in allegedly rat-infested Baltimore.

        I disagree with Trump being so rude. I disagree vehemently with Cummings’ rhetoric about Border Patrol and anti law and order attitude. Given the sad state of Baltimore, he doesn’t have any moral high ground to stand on. However, I wish that both sides would work together. That’s never going to happen with the rabid anti-Trump rhetoric, along with Trump’s rudeness right back. Calling Cummiings’ city rat-infested is not going to help, and neither is Cummings declaring that BP is abusing kids. Democrats are trying to impeach Trump, who did not collude with Russia, while ignoring their own politician who did. Rolling over won’t make the bigotry against conrvatives stop. Being rude is often ineffective. When someone fights back, they’ve got to accomplish something other than name calling.

        1. Hill, it appears that you are saying that it was racist for Trump to tell Cummings he had no high moral high ground to stand on complaining about BP facilities when Baltimore was such a mess. But then they did the same thing, and told Trump he had no moral high ground to stand on because his son-in-law’s company (from which he resigned) had low income housing in Baltimore that was a mess.

          This is because it’s not racist to call out hypocrisy.

          1. Karen will defend anything our self serving moral slob of a president says or does, including racist and xenophobic attacks an people actually elected by the voters.

          2. There is no problem with owning low income housing. That is where low income people live. The alternative is that people live on the streets. That is what has resulted in some cities when low income housing is condemned for cosmetic violations rather than safety. Those people move out and no new housing is available.

          3. Let’s not forget the context here: Cummings and other members of Congress criticized the Trump concentration camps for holding people in dehumanizing conditions, so as a Kellyanne Pivot, Trump goes after Cummings and attacks the City of Baltimore. I have family in the suburban Baltimore area, and I’ve yet to see any rats, roaches or other vermin, but even if there are such problems, how would that in any manner excuse Trump for creating concentration camps and subjecting migrants to dehumanizing conditions? And, how or why would vermin in Baltimore be the fault of Representative Cummings? Just another example of racism that Karen wants to excuse.

            1. What are Elijah Cummings, Nancy Pelosi, Ilhan Omar, Sheila Jackson-Lee, etc, all doing dining at famous 5 star restaurants in Venice, Italy?? This is official business paid for by tax payers, no doubt. Oh and this Italian junket is just before their “official” six week vacation from Washington. Working hard, eh? Where to next guys?

              Mind you, Pelosi manages to arrange “official travel” to fantastic places like Italy every few years. In between Italian junkets, she manages to fly to China and Asia and get personal blessings from the Dalai Lama. Oh my, these Democrats are working soooooo hard on behalf of the American people. Not.


        2. Karen, as usual you’re trying to scatter-shoot. That is you’re trying to raise as many issues as possible to create the illusion that critics of Trump have loads to answer for. It’s an all-encompassing “What About?” That’s all you do, Karen.

          Historically presidents weren’t expected to hit back at their critics. Traditional presidents placed themselves ‘above the fray’. That’s what gave them ‘moral authority’.

          But Donald Trump seems to think Job # 1 is responding to detractors in the rudest manner possible. Because in the Fox News bubble that’s what presidents do! Not that they ever did before; that’s beside the point. Fox is all about the Culture Wars so Trump must fight like pit bull.

          How many times does Trump have to spew racist crap before his supporters acknowledge it? These incidents go back to the Birther Movement. There were several more during the primaries of 2016. Like Trump’s reference to the “Mexican Judge” presiding over the Trump University civil case.

          These denials that Trump is racist have gone beyond ridiculous. They are eerie and disturbing. Like 55% of the country keeps imagining Trump is racist for no logical reason?? It’s just a mass hallucination that spreads like wildfire?? Only the most deluded could think that is the case.

          1. “Historically presidents weren’t expected to hit back at their critics. Traditional presidents placed themselves ‘above the fray’. That’s what gave them ‘moral authority’.”

            What a bunch of self serving hogwash.

            1. That’s what gave them ‘moral authority’.

              it’s what cost them elections for appearing weak to Americans. Both Bush presidents had that singular quality: reflecting weak men.

              Reagan hit back with humor.

              Trump hits back with the same bodily excrements the Dems have thrown, starting with LBJ. We are in the midst of a moral collapse in our public squares with conservative media using the same tactics the Left have used for decades. Hopefully Americans will collectively come to their senses and shun both camps soon

              1. Estovir, Peter said “That’s what gave them ‘moral authority’.”. They have no moral authority. They never took responsibility for what they did and they have shifted blame to their opposition instead of where the blame should fall. These guys are animals on the prowl and they get angry because Trump defends himself.

                Reagan hit back with humor but wasn’t under the full blown attack of lies, deceit and attempts to use the bureaucracy and intelligence agencies to remove a President from office. Nor did they investigate Reagan for three years finding nothing and then they didn’t accept the results.

                1. Yeah, Alan, Reagan was a class act all the way. He came of age during the Depression and Reagan understood the importance of holding the country together. Leaders like Ronnie saw no good reason to pursue the politics of division.

                  1. “Yeah, Alan, Reagan was a class act all the way. ”

                    Reagan was a class act, but you guys called him stupid and a racist. He had the advantage that he was somewhat of an insider. Trump wasn’t so. Trump not only had to fight with Democrats but with never Trumpers as well. The other major factor is that the Democrats of the time supported America. Look at the record on important issues. Today in a 2 year period Democrats have changed their positions 180 degrees.

                    Today JFK would be pummelled by the left. We are not dealing with people of which you are one, that are logical or love this country.

                    1. There was no equivalent at that time of the NeverTrumpers, but there were Rockefeller Republicans and political temporizers who made trouble for Reagan to varying degrees. As we speak, vociferous NeverTrumpers are a great deal commoner on op-ed pages than they are in Congress.

                      Also, at the time, the Democratic caucus was chock-a-block with functional pacifists and not a few red-haze types. These people were always taking stances which dovetailed with Soviet policy. It’s just that they weren’t explicit advocates of building a political base via illegal immigration.

                    2. DSS, I have no disagreement with you but we need to remember that the Rockefeller Republicans couldn’t significantly weaponized the bureaucracy or the intelligence services against Reagan. Additionally they never sank so low in opposition. What we are seeing today is not the Democratic Party of a decade ago.

                2. Reagan hit back with humor but wasn’t under the full blown attack of lies, deceit ….

                  I will never forgive the liberal media (e.g. Sam Donaldson, Morley Safer, Dan Rather, et al.) in how they treated Reagan during his second term, ruthlessly mocked his illness during signs of it and certainly after his diagnosis was made public, continually crucified Nancy for everything, and more.

                  I have never seen the liberal media the same since then. When Obama was President and the media fawned over Michelle, all I could recall was how savage they were to Nancy Reagan…true haters

          2. “Fox is all about the Culture Wars so Trump must fight like pit bull.”

            Peter, do you think you can just make sh1t up and people will swallow it. We know you have, but there are a lot of intelligent people out here that know a lot more than you.

            1. There are not ‘plenty of questions’. The birth certificate controversy took precisely the course Ann Coulter predicted. He released his long-form certificate and hobbyists came up with another contrived objection (which contended that the image of Obama’s long-form certificate was a computer generated forgery). Evidently Gov. Lingle’s health commissioner was lying when she said she and the registrar of vital statistics had inspected the hard copy in the archives.

              The whole controversy was silly. You have two residents of Honolulu. Where else would you expect their child to be born?

              1. DSS, I believed that Obama was born in the US but I do not find it objectionable to ask for the proof. A policeman might stop a car and ask for the registration of the car so we are not seeing something all that different.

                That some believed Obama was not a citizen is perfectly acceptable even though I thought differently. They looked at a lot of things surrounding Obama including the book jacket on the book he wrote and the application for schooling I believe did not indicate American citizenship. I believed Obama worked the system which is not appropriate but didn’t exclude him from the Presidency. There may have been hanky panky with who the father was and that might have lead to all this tumult but that also doesn’t exclude him from the Presidency.

                1. I do not find it objectionable to ask for the proof.

                  The proof was eventually forthcoming. Just as Ann Coulter expected, given proof, they raised another objection, because that’s how they roll.

                  Ted Cruz released a digital image of his mother’s birth certificate in response to claims he was ineligible. Yes, a mess of soi-disant forensic IT techs claimed that was a forgery too.

                  You’re not identifying the source of this.

                  1. “You’re not identifying the source of this.”

                    DSS, the source is inconsequential. It was not an unreasonable request and satisfying that request at the beginning would have been relatively easy.

              2. The problem with Obama’s birth certificate is that he is the original birther. In 1991, Obama’s “Dreams From My Father” literary agent included his bio in a promotional brochure that said he was born in Kenya. Harvard Law Review Yearbook published the same thing. In 2004 Obama promoted the Kenya story during his Illinois Senate race. Obama purposely did not correct the record for 16 years until 2007 when he announced that he was running for president. Clinton then picked up the birther issue and pushed it so hard that reporters were sent to Kenya to investigate.


            2. Anonymous: Trump said, in an interview with Meredith Vieira on the Today Show, that he had people in Hawaii investigating Obama, and “you won’t believe what they’ve found”. That last part is true: we probably wouldn’t believe it, but at the end of the day, he came up with nothing, so it was all a big, fat smoke screen and lie.

              Officials in Hawaii confirmed Obama’s birth certificate as true and accurate, there are medical records at the hospital where his mother gave birth, and there was a birth announcement published in the local newspaper. What additional proof do you want, and where could it be obtained?

          3. “But Donald Trump seems to think Job # 1 is responding to detractors in the rudest manner possible. Because in the Fox News bubble that’s what presidents do! Not that they ever did before”

            yes in the old days our top politicians could handle things like gentleman; such as the duel between vp aaron burr and former secretary of the treasury alex hamilton

            you’ll observe that the more irascible of the antagonists actually won the duel; a lesson perhaps?

        3. If Obama had denounced Rand Paul for the “opioid infested disgusting towns of coal country Appalachia”, Karen’s hair would be on fire and rightly so.

          Instead we get tears for “bigotry for conservatives”. Say what? The country club won’t allow them, there’s a “conservatives” water fountain at the grocery store and they have to pick up food at the back door of restaurants?

          1. Anon1,
            “If Obama had denounced Rand Paul for the “opioid infested disgusting towns of coal country Appalachia”, Karen’s hair would be on fire and rightly so.”

            If Rand Paul had criticized Obama over his handling of drug traffickers along the border, then being told to ‘take the log out your own eye’ might be appropriate. What could Rand Paul be doing to stem the opioid crisis in his area? What could Elijah Cummings be doing to deal with the rats and make Baltimore more livable?

            1. Rose, take a lot a border statistics. Apprehensions were at an all-time low when Obama left office. The current crisis began under Trump.

              1. Again Peter lies. These people didn’t just come all of a sudden. They were induced, aided with water and transportation, and given promises all under the eye of leftists that wanted the chaos. Those leftists to obtain their goals worked indirectly or directly with drug traffickers and human trafficking.

                  1. Peter Shill is our resident ink blot Nazi.

                    Peter you fail to understand how to use the proper equations for period motion and waves. When you use them incorrectly the optics are skewed, just like if you think my “ink blot” is now different than usual.

                    Don’t forget to take the square root of the speed of a transverse wave so as to acquire the proper frequency and hence ink blot. capisce?

                    1. “Don’t forget to take the square root of the speed of a transverse wave… ” 😀

                      Estovir, Peter flunked math and probably didn’t do to well in anything else except perhaps theater of the absurd.

                  2. I told you before. The wordpress computer system has screwed up my name and email address and sometimes blocks me. I then change my identity temporarily but continue to use my name Allan that you see on every posting. Unless something screws up my name always exists and if there is a screw up
                    you have already seen that I address it by a follow up posting telling you and others that I wrote the post.

                    I haven’t seen any Alan posting so if you see one with a single L it is not mine. I used a name that is the uncommon one to prevent people from posting with the same name.

                1. “Guys like Allan have an agenda.”

                  Yes, Anon, you are correct. I want to protect the American citizen no matter race or income and I want everyone equal under the law. You have a different agenda. As usual you don’t understand graphs. First, one defines terms so that the method of counting doesn’t change. The methodology has changed. I am not going to provide you a complete course in statistics and the use of graphs. Your mind is polluted and you wish to do the same to others. The problem is that you are not too smart.

                  On your next job try and use straight nails instead of bent ones.

                  1. Take note anonymous (that is not the Brainless one). Your postings become confused with postings by Anon and a few others. Some of your posts are worthwhile and are purely factual. In those cases it doesn’t matter. If you are rendering an opinion it matters greatly.

              2. Does that mean they weren’t very effective at apprehending or there were fewer illegal immigrants to apprehend? 😉

                In any case, it wasn’t at an ‘all time low’. Rates were comparable to the 1970s. Lower than the mid-1990s, for sure.

                What can these two politicians be doing to help the people of Kentucky and Baltimore deal with opioids and vermin?

      2. Kushner’s holdings have little or nothing to do with the problems of the poor in Baltimore. Democratic leaders run the city and call the shots. The Democratic politicians have the blood on their hands.

        “If Trump isn’t working on Putin’s behalf, the latter is pleased just the same.”

        Trump can’t help what other’s do. The Democratic party fulfilled Putin’s dreams so I am sure he is pleased with what has passed but that is what one gets when the leadership of the Democratic Party doesn’t care about the American people.


        ” Inspiring his supporters to take to blogs like this dismissing any possibility that Trump is racist in any way. This peculiar pattern plays out over and over”

        The peculiar pattern is that you and too many leftists play the race card in argument with such frequency that to a sensible individual you become the “racist”. You are the one that “deliberately foments racial tensions on a regular basis.”

      4. ” If Trump isn’t working on Putin’s behalf, the latter is pleased just the same.”

        I’m just wondering, how do you know whether Putin is pleased or not?

        Are you guys tight, or is there a source?

        Last time I heard Russia was sending heavy bombers into our ROK ally’s airspace. Does that indicate pleasure?

        1. That’s brilliant, Kurtz. You’re saying Putin wants America to be strongly unified? Somehow I don’t believe that.

          1. We don’t dispute what Putin wants only causality of how Putin was satisfied. You and the leftists satisfied his needs over and over again making a shambles out of the American Republic where some of the highest Democratic officials were involved. There is no shame on the left only avarice and greed for money and power.

          2. I think probably not. But I don’t know what’s in his head or heart. Do you? and how? that was my question

            as for disunity, the “civil rights agenda” of the past 50 years, pitting every imaginable dissenting group against white male heterosexual adults, has been a gloriously disunifiying thing stuanchly advanced with pride by left wing Democrat leadership.

            Certainly not all Democrats nor even all Democrat leadership but the race baiting, war of the sexes, pro homosexual agenda factions, yes.

            And we heard a lot in the “Red Scare” era about how that was a specific plan of Soviet schemers to sow dissent and disunity in American society. So yeah that is in their playbook.

            But at the time if you pointed that out, they called you a “Bircher” or “paranoiac” or somethingl like that., Now, you Russian Collusion Narrative fans sound like the supposedly paranoaic birchers a lot of times more than you may realize


      Baltimore County is a suburban jurisdiction, bozo. It has no slums.

      1. Tabby, Cummings district is not necessarily slums. It’s medium income is higher than the national average.

        1. I have news for you, Peter. Most of Baltimore City is slum, including and especially the shares Cummings represents.

            1. Let’s hear what the Washington Examiner said:

              “To be sure, the district has its rough areas, including neighborhoods portrayed in HBO’s The Wire, a 2002-08 series about the narcotics scene in Baltimore seen through the eyes of law enforcers as well as the drug dealers and users. And FBI statistics for 2017 placed Baltimore’s homicide rate well above that of any other large American metropolis.”

              And for the gerrymandering crowd: “All eight of Maryland’s House districts are gerrymandered by Democratic lawmakers in the state capital of Annapolis, meant to ensure the party keeps seven out of its eight in party hands.”

            2. Hill – from the reports I saw, Baltimore has not upgraded its infrastructure in Cummings district. Not sure about the others. However, Baltimore would have old infrastructure that needs to be updated and cities need to plan for this. If they are above average economically, they can afford the financial hit to fix the infrastructure.


      Peter, what is a slum property? You don’t know and you call Kushner an owner of slum property like you call others racists and fascists. That is all garbage and a figment of your hateful imagination. How you label people based on political affiliation is disgusting. Prove Kushner owns slum properties in Baltimore County. I don’t think Kushner owns slum properties anywhere and if he has bought some he does so to bring them up to standard.

    4. is it racist to own low income housing? including arguable slum tenaments? because i have a distinguished black gentleman as a friend who owns some. nobody calls him racist.

      i always marvel how these things are measured

  8. Mueller’s investigation was in search of a crime contrary to Special Counsel statute that requires as a prerequisite “The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.” Absent the determination of a crime Mueller’s appointment was not legal.

    1. I like the cut of your jib. Keep goin’ to Article 1, Section 8 to find that Congress has only the power to tax for general welfare not individual welfare, that Congress has the power to regulate only commerce among the several states while no other regulation is constitutional and the right to private property is absolute and Congress has no authority to deprive you of possession or disposition of your private property unless it seizes that property under Eminent Domain and pays market value.

      Keep goin’ and find that the entire American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, HHS, HUD, Education, Labor, Ag, Commerce, Energy, Transportation, Obamacare, Obamaphones, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing,” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc., etc., etc.

      Find that the entire government that is not limited to security and infrastructure is unconstitutional and must be privatized. Industries must self-regulate, control the means of production and centrally plan. Social engineering is the result of the free choices of free people. Charity is the only constitutional method for redistribution of wealth.

  9. Is there one definition for foreign when discussing interference in our elections?

    1. The Steele dossier is the definition.

      Steele use top Russian government officials as his sources and it was all unproved Russian disinformation.

      1. Emma,
        I can see the Steele dossier as an example, but wouldn’t foreign be more than that limited example?

          1. Again, I agreed with that one example. What other examples would define foreign as it relates to interference in our elections? How about a census that counts heads but does not determine if they are legal? How about an election that does not require an individual to prove they are eligible to vote? Surely Russians are not the only foreign interference in our elections.

  10. I particular liked the para with the comment about Cops screaming whyu doesn’t some one do some thing. Obviously because the ones in question are dirty and are referring to their own protection screen disappearing. Same as the DNC, Clinton Staffers and whomever else that group had contact. Strzok’s new book could easily be entitled The Dirties Cop of All – An auto biography .

  11. Even Mueller said first thing in the hearing that the oLC policy didn’t stop him from indicting Trump

    “I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning,” Mueller told the House Intelligence Committee, after testimony before the Judiciary Committee earlier Wednesday.

    “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. 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.”

    Mueller found no crime

    Trump jr committed no crime or Mueller would have indicted him

    There was no crime to obstruct

    Yes, the Constitution Allows Indictment of the President

    But democrats are making Trump even more popular with this satire and witch-hunt

Comments are closed.