“You Don’t Really Believe This, Do You?”: Trump Appears To Contradict His Own Administration On Continued Russian Interference With U.S. Elections

On Thursday, President Donald Trump shocked many in his own party by indicating that he does not believe that Russia is continuing to try to interfere with U.S. elections. In response to a reporter referring Mueller’s conclusion that the interference is ongoing, Trump responded. “You don’t really believe this, do you?”

Here is the exchange:

REPORTER: Mr. President, Robert Mueller said last week that Russia is interfering in the U.S. elections right now. Is that —

TRUMP: “Oh you don’t really believe this. Do you believe this? Ok, fine. We didn’t talk about it. I spoke with President Putin of Russia yesterday. They are having massive fires in their forest. I’ve never seen anything like it. I just offered our assistance because we are very good at putting out forest fires frankly. If they should need it, I offered our assistance. We had a good talk, a short talk but a good talk, and I think he appreciated it.”

Trump’s own Administration, including the FBI, has testified that Russia must certainly is trying to interfere with the elections. Much like Trump’s stance on not calling the FBI with foreign contracts like the one at Trump Tower, this places him at odds with his own intelligence agencies.

In the meantime, the Republicans find themselves in the unprecedented position of being painted as soft on Russia, including billboards appearing in reference to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as “Moscow Mitch” or “Putin’s Mitch.”

The denial of Trump makes it more difficult for Republicans to say that, while denying collusion, the Republicans are outraged by Russian efforts and united to combat them. Trump’s comments suggest that he not only believes that Russian collusion is a hoax but Russian interference is a hoax.

175 thoughts on ““You Don’t Really Believe This, Do You?”: Trump Appears To Contradict His Own Administration On Continued Russian Interference With U.S. Elections”

  1. More on the politics of hate by the Left and living on fantasy island no where near Americans


    Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, Marooned Together on Fantasy Island

    By Frank Bruni, NYT

    You were expecting the two of them to fight each other, because they have overlapping fan bases and because both of them want the progressive mantle? Hah. They were too busy doing battle with the candidates flanking them.

    Those candidates — especially John Delaney, John Hickenlooper, Amy Klobuchar, Steve Bullock and Tim Ryan — portrayed Sanders and Warren as denizens of some lofty, lefty dreamland that would be unrecognizable and unappealing to swing voters between the coasts.

    Sanders and Warren, in turn, cast their critics as merchants of nothing more than “small ideas and spinelessness,” as Warren put it. She didn’t match Sanders’s volume — who can and who would want to? — but her lines were as good or better.

    Like this one: “I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for.”

    Or this: “Democrats win when we figure out what is right and we get out there and fight for it. I am not afraid. And for Democrats to win, you can’t be afraid either.” Fight, fight, fight, fight. There is no syllable more central to Warren’s campaign.

    She’s sharp. She’s stirring. I also think she’s wrong — wrong that enough general-election voters will choose a candidate who aims to take away options when it comes to medical insurance, wrong that enough of them want a government at bitter war with all of corporate America, wrong that enough of them would be comfortable with the scope of federal spending that she proposes.

    …if she winds up with the nomination, it will be after planting herself as firmly as possible on an island of purity.


  2. Do Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders Like You?

    ……they also share a contempt for many of their fellow citizens.

    Beyond policy, the event in Detroit also confirmed that a win for either candidate would guarantee four years of bitter public discourse.

    The sight of Sen. Warren happily rubbing her hands together at the prospect of illegally seizing wealth from rival John Delaney was worth more than a thousand words about her unconstitutional tax scheme.

    Ms. Warren dismissed moderate candidates in her own party as people offering “small ideas and spinelessness.” This was her latest suggestion that Democratic colleagues who oppose her agenda do so not because of honest disagreements but because of character flaws. CNN noted her comments at last month’s debate in Miami promoting a government-run health system and a ban on private insurance:

    “There are a lot of politicians who say, oh, it’s just not possible, we just can’t do it, have a lot of political reasons for this. What they’re really telling you is they just won’t fight for it,” Warren said from her podium in the middle of the stage. “Well, health care is a basic human right, and I will fight for basic human rights.”

    Ms. Warren’s harsh rhetoric didn’t spare our former President, either. The Massachusetts senator alleged a “corrupt, rigged system” in the United States and implicitly included our 44th President, Barack Obama, among its administrators:

    Right now, for decades, we have had a government that has been on the side of the rich and the powerful. It has been on the side of the wealthy. And that means it has not been on the side of everyone else, not on the side of people living on our Native American reservations, people living in inner cities, people living in small farms, and small communities across this country.

    Yes, the white lawyer who claimed to be “American Indian” and then snagged an Ivy League professorship is now complaining about the impact of a “corrupt, rigged system” on Native Americans.

    “Fight, fight, fight, fight. There is no syllable more central to Warren’s campaign,” writes Frank Bruni in the New York Times. He’s among those skeptical that most voters “want a government at bitter war with all of corporate America.”


  3. OT Follow-up: For decades many men have been using and supporting Gillette. They made the brand and now Gillette is telling them F–k Y-u!

    That is almost 4 generations of customers. Great grand father, grand father, father, and son where over a third can’t even shave. It you are a father teaching a child how to shave throw him out of the house if he asks for a Gillete razor. If you are a grand father tell the kid you won’t buy him an apple watch. Buy him a pair of stockings instead.

    For those that missed the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FILwhaFezec

    Gillette boss: Alienating some consumers with #metoo campaign was a price worth paying
    Six months on from Gillette’s controversial ad, the brand’s CEO discusses the intense fallout and why taking a stand is a “necessity” to connect with younger consumers.
    By Molly Fleming 29 Jul 2019

    Gillette’s CEO and president, Gary Coombe, says that angering some consumers with its #metoo campaign was a “price worth paying” if it meant the brand could increase its relevance among younger consumers and turn around its falling market share.

    In January, the shaving brand launched a campaign in response to the Me Too movement that urged men to hold each other to a higher standard and to step up when they see fellow men acting inappropriately. The video received intense criticism on social media, with some even calling for a boycott of the brand

    Gillette made the decision to launch the campaign in a bid to target the millennial market. Coombe said the 188-year-old brand, which is owned by Procter & Gamble, was “gently slipping away for [this] generation” as disruptors such as Harry’s and Dollar Shave Club grabbed attention.

    But Coombe admitted Gillette’s strategy hadn’t helped. He explained: “The worst thing during through that period was, we also lost connection with the millennial generation. Gillette quickly became the brand of the millennial generation’s dads.”


    1. They’ve earned Schlitzification. Too bad for their employees.


    Intelligence nominee drops out amid weak Republican support.

    Peculiar Praise for Chairman Kim and denial that missile tests are hostile.

    Gloating over attempted burglary at home of Congressman Cummings

    Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 4h4 hours ago

    ….John has therefore decided to stay in Congress where he has done such an outstanding job representing the people of Texas, and our Country. I will be announcing my nomination for DNI shortly.

    Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 4h4 hours ago

    Our great Republican Congressman John Ratcliffe is being treated very unfairly by the LameStream Media. Rather than going through months of slander and libel, I explained to John how miserable it would be for him and his family to deal with these people….

    Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 4h4 hours ago

    A$AP Rocky released from prison and on his way home to the United States from Sweden. It was a Rocky Week, get home ASAP A$AP!

    Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 7h7 hours ago

    ….Chariman Kim has a great and beautiful vision for his country, and only the United States, with me as President, can make that vision come true. He will do the right thing because he is far too smart not to, and he does not want to disappoint his friend, President Trump!

    Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 7h7 hours ago

    …..Chairman Kim does not want to disappoint me with a violation of trust, there is far too much for North Korea to gain – the potential as a Country, under Kim Jong Un’s leadership, is unlimited. Also, there is far too much to lose. I may be wrong, but I believe that……

    Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 7h7 hours ago

    Kim Jong Un and North Korea tested 3 short range missiles over the last number of days. These missiles tests are not a violation of our signed Singapore agreement, nor was there discussion of short range missiles when we shook hands. There may be a United Nations violation, but..

    Donald J. Trump Retweeted
    Mike Pence‏Verified account @mike_pence 22h22 hours ago

    Four more years means more JOBS, more JUDGES, more SUPPORT FOR OUR TROOPS, and four more years of draining the swamp! #MAGA

    Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 10h10 hours ago

    Really bad news! The Baltimore house of Elijah Cummings was robbed. Too bad!
    56,400 replies 20,556 retweets 99,432 likes

    1. Regarding Above:

      This particular tweet stands out as unusually weird. Why on earth is Trump praising Kim like this??

      “Chairman Kim has a great and beautiful vision for his country, and only the United States, with me as President, can make that vision come true. He will do the right thing because he is far too smart not to, and he does not want to disappoint his friend, President Trump!”

      In a normal America this particular tweet would be a front page story. Are to believe that Kim of North Korea has a ‘beautiful vision’..??? How bizarre!!!

      1. Peter Shill is pushing for a nuclear war. He wants negative actions from Trump. Peter Shill (at the time) probably advocated dropping nuclear weapons on Ghadaffi rather than convincing him to give up his nukes. Peter’s choice for President then killed Ghadaffi to show that anyone who actually does what we want will be executed. Clinton was stupid and Peter follow’s in those footsteps.

        1. Peter Shill is pushing for a nuclear war

          Peter Shill is racking up characters to charge David Brock for trolling on this blog. Considering it’s the weekend, he has no hot date tonight in West Hollywood and well, what else is a sad sack like him to do?

          1. And here Estovir, the nerdy anti-abortion activist, tries yet another stab at homophobic jokes. What a loser!! Is Estovir a friend of Turley’s??? Why else would this ‘humor’ be tolerated? Is there any moderator on this blog???

            It illustrates how Republicans feel the need to always stoop as low as possible. They know they can’t win on an intellectual level.

            1. DARREN SMITH..!!

              Does Professor Turley approve of homophobic humor?? I want to know why Estovir gets away with this again and again. If you can’t give me an answer, Darren, I’m going to ask the folks at George Washington University if Turley allows this type of humor in his classrooms. Because I am really sick of it. No liberal would be allowed to pull this over and over on these threads. It just shows how desperate Trumpers are to win debates by any sleazy means.

              1. If you can’t give me an answer Darren Im going to….

                Trolls just want to have fun

                Personality and Individual Differences
                Volume 67, September 2014, Pages 97-102
                Erin E. Buckels, Paul D. Trapnell, Delroy L. Paul

                Overall, strong positive associations emerged among online comment- ing frequency, trolling enjoyment, and troll identity, pointing to a common construct underlying the measures. Both studies revealed similar patterns of relations between trolling and the Dark Tetrad of personality: trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, using both enjoyment ratings and identity scores. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior. Enjoyment of other online activities, such as chatting and debating, was unrelated to sadism. Thus cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.


                Trolls exhibit psychopath traits
                Trolls are sadistic.

                1. Conceivably. There is something rather off about Diane. Otherwise, it doesn’t apply. Several of the dissenters here are just juvenile, and YNOT is one. At least three others are the sum of their conceits (they have different conceits, and one hates Jews). Another is a flagrantly disordered shrew; it’s hard to believe she’s even minimally tolerable in any venue. Others are just wrong – pretty much all the time and about everything. Not one of them is interested in a consequential question of policy.

                  1. Some are more sophisticated in trying to rephrase our comments, assert we said x, y or z, and then challenge why we “believe” x, y or z, even if we never said as such.

                    All of them get their kicks out of insulting, demeaning, and offending, i.e. sadists
                    Interacting or engaging them just feeds their sadism

                    Some on here of course are just odd, strange birds but who isnt?

            2. Peter, neither Turley nor Darren is coming with Kleenex to dry your tears. You will have to wait until your mother picks you up.

              1. DARREN: this type of abuse would never be tolerated in any workplace or classroom. It’s basically on par with racist humor.

                Presumably this is the blog of a prominent law professor dealing with legal and political issues. Presumably participants are encouraged to make legal and political arguments.

                But as we’ve known for months, Estovir lacks the intellectual abilities to make legal and political arguments. Instead he functions as a dirty trickster abusing liberal participants.

                Darren, when you ejected Diane from these threads you made a great show of it informing everyone that Diane was being “abusive”. But I seriously question if Diane was ever writing anything as abusive as Estovir.

                Therefore I am led to believe this blog is rigged against liberal participants. This may well explain why Trumpers outnumber liberals by such a large ratio here. It’s because dirty tricksters are allowed to openly abuse liberal participants. But liberal participants are NOT allowed to respond in kind.

                If liberals were allowed to be as abusive as the conservatives, ‘I’ could be the most abusive participant here. I have the creative skills to be monstrously abusive. But what’s the point?? We don’t want this blog to degenerate into a sewer of abuse.

                Would Jonathan Turley allow homophobic humor in his classroom? I scarcely doubt it. I scarcely doubt that George Washington University would tolerate an academic who encouraged that type of atmosphere. No university worth its accreditation would allow abusive homophobic humor in the classroom. No corporation would allow that in the workplace. So why is it acceptable here??

                For the record I am not gay. But even if I ‘was’, that wouldn’t make this abuse any more acceptable. It would be no more acceptable than openly racist humor. And again I have to wonder why a prominent academic would allow his blog to be an abusive forum. It’s a terrible reflection on Professor Turley.

                It’s ironic that Turley frequently writes columns suggesting that political correctness has gone “too far” at universities. In fact, it would not be an overstatement to say that Turley is ‘obsessed’ with freedom of speech issues in academia. One has to wonder if Turley feels that abusive humor is indeed appropriate.

                It also raises questions about Republicans in general. For decades Republicans have had an image of resorting to abuse and dirty tricks. And here in the Trump era we see that every day. Trump himself is the most abusive bully to ever sit in the White House. ‘What starts at the top always rolls down’, as the old saying goes.

                1. I hope that Hill stays away from the beaches. He appears to be the type that would get sand kicked in his face after mouthing off to people, then scream for a lifeguard.

                  1. What a crew of commenters the good professor has attracted: bullies and the like.
                    People without anything better to do with their time.

                    1. And so ‘Anonymous’….what’s your excuse for being here? Nothing better to do with YOUR time? Please….

                  2. Notice how the pussy writing this can’t even sign his name. we know it’s Estovir.

                    1. Hill – you know your language undermines your argument, right? “the pussy writing this”? really?? all the words in the english language tand this is your response?? Come on….

                    2. Which “Pussy ” is Hill challenging? Is it the Sycophant Pussy serving as his lackey, or another Pussy that Hill refers to ?

              2. You will have to wait until your mother picks you up.

                His last post was posted at 1:21 AM according to JT’s server and now he is back less 9 hours later, 10:13 am.

                The trolls are for hire, we know this.
                They bypass IP blocks and return with a vengeance.
                Their comments are insulting, offensive and some, like Peter (a fake name) histrionic indicating a very young person
                I suspect multiple people use the same handle or else we are observing drug induced behaviors as I have jokingly stated in the past which is entirely possible

                oh well. Trolls just wanna have fun

                1. Estovir, the question of paid trolls is an interesting one. Peter doesn’t seem to have the intellectual capacity to be a paid troll as his arguments are convincing only to those with that already agree with what he says and have a low mental acuity. Most others will see him as a fool and be repulsed by his arguments so if anything were to be gained by have a paid troll those paying would be losing money.

                2. Either Peter has a deftly managed set of guises and poses, or he’s on the dance floor here.

                  1. This video proves that Tabby is racist. There is not one person of color in that video.
                    True that the video is black and white but lets not distracted with mundane things


                    @2:29 cute Asian girl dancing with a Latino. Must be photoshopped because we all know Dick Clark was a homophobe, xenophobe, oppressed the poor, wore polyester and used hairspray


        2. Here Alan asserts that American presidents must praise the ‘Dear Leader’ of North Korea to avert nuclear war. ..Another illustration of how rightwing media and Donald Trump have dumbed-down America.

          1. No, Peter, while you are at mommy’s breast one doesn’t expect you to understand the different ways of dealing with people whether enemy or friend. When you mature and are in the school yard and see your frenemy you don’t walk up to him in an aggressive manner because a fight will ensue. Of course you don’t know about these things since you hide in the corner and wait for mommy to come and get you.

      2. Peter Shill is pushing for a nuclear war. He wants negative actions from Trump. Peter Shill (at the time) probably advocated dropping nuclear weapons on Ghadaffi rather than convincing him to give up his nukes. Peter’s choice for President then killed Ghadaffi to show that anyone who actually does what we want will be executed. Clinton was stupid and Peter follow’s in those footsteps.

        1. Alan, even Trump acknowledges that North Korea had conducted 3 recent missile tests. It doesn’t sound like Kim has modified in any way. It sounds like Kim is just a bellicose as ever. So why is Trump ‘praising’ him???

          1. Peter, I’m not going to explain to you how grown ups have different ways of managing difficult problems. Ask your mother.

            1. I’d wager his mother was a contemporary of Ursula Le Guin and he buried her about 10 years ago.

      3. Why wouldnt Trump try to make peace?

        Im sure Kim wants to belong to the larger community and bring Kora together.And why not?

        If blowing smoke stops war Im all for it!!

        Why arent you ?

        1. Emma, if Kim is seeking to normalize he should stop testing missiles. Japan, for instance, doesn’t appreciate these missiles being fired in their direction. Who can blame them? How would we feel if Cuba kept firing missiles towards our Gulf Coast?

          You all typical Trumpers you, Alan and Estovir are in denial on this.

          1. Kim and Trump have a major thing in common that adds to the problem of making a deal. Ghadaffi. Hillary (and Obama) killed Ghadaffi after Ghadaffi stopped his pursuit of nuclear weapons.

        2. Emma, Trump definitely should be trying to make peace, but the obvious point is that he is an abysmal failure at it but won’t change course and doesn’t know how. Possibly he doesn’t care since it is also obvious that his only goal in life, besides food and p…y is maximum attention. He’s satisfied he’s had these ridiculous and harmful love fests because of the press he got and foolishly shared with his lover Kim.

    2. How does your comment have ANYTHING to do with this article?

      I appreciate some latitude here. I posted some things on an earlier article with regard to the Democratic debates that didn’t have to do with de Blasio, who was the center piece of the article.

      But the comments did have to do with the debates.

      Stick, with some latitude, to the topic at hand.

    3. “Intelligence nominee drops out amid weak Republican support.”

      Probably slandered too much by the Democrats because he wasn’ crooked like Clapper.

      “Peculiar Praise for Chairman Kim and denial that missile tests are hostile.”

      Trump didn’t say those missles weren’t hostile. You lie again Peter. His “praise” was not peculiar though Peculiar Peter might not understand what the praise represents.

      “Gloating over attempted burglary at home of Congressman Cummings”

      You lie again Peter. The President said “Really bad news”

      1. It’s actually condign punishment for the political class in Baltimore, who have allowed the place to rot. As a federal official, Cummings isn’t directly responsible, but it’s doubtful you could find a positive contribution to public discourse in anything he’s ever said.

  5. Well again Turley, what exactly is meant by “interference.” Internet posts? And that the American people are dupes? I just find it a laughable position.

    Looks like the main problem with so-called “foreign election interference” is an excuse being used by some platforms to now suppress Americans from putting things on the Internet

    The hacking of computers is certainly a problem, as it was in 2008 when the Chinese hacked the Obama and McCain campaigns. But hacking has been going on for years.

    Note to Podesta: Follow the following simple rules. It’s not rocket science.


  6. Our resident paid troll, Peter Shill spaketh: A time when the truth was a lie and lies were the truth.

    Plagiarism. Peter Shill has been reading works by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI.


    Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be “tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine”, seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.

    We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism.

    It appears that Peter is converting to Catholicism, since he is borrowing from Ratzinger’s thinking, a tremendous demonstration of evolution and growth. This was expected after much evangelization to the demon within him.

    What name will you be adopting at your Confirmation? Agnes might suit you.Saint Agnes is the patron saint of young girl girls and the patron saint of chastity.




    Trump denies that Russia has every intention of meddling in our next election. Nothing new here. It would be unusual if Trump didn’t deny.
    Yet supporters would have have us believe the Mueller Probe was all just a frame-up. Like it’s perfectly normal for presidents to keep denying security threats. The Trump era will be remembered as an age of denial. A time when the truth was a lie and lies were the truth.

    1. The Trump era will be remembered as an age of denial. A time when the truth was a lie and lies were the truth.

      Finally something you and I can agree on. Now, let’s test it.

      Given all available evidence regarding foreign interference in our 2016 election, what parties within the United States conspired with foreign entities?

      1. Olly, no intelligent president, with good intentions, repeatedly denies security threats. That’s not a normal thing! Had Obama denied the existence of ISIS, Republicans would have demanded his immediate removal.

        Had Trump been a man of good intentions (and savvy politician) he would have acknowledged Russian interference in his inaugural speech. Smart leaders know to acknowledge the obvious. Denying the obvious will surely cast suspicion on anyone.

        If an army officer denied enemy troop movements, he would be removed from command and more than likely courtmartialed. If a police captain denied a crime wave in his district, he would be investigated by Internal Affairs. Even in the corporate world, an executive denying aggressive moves by a competitor would probably be fired. Again, denying the obvious casts suspicion on anyone.

        1. “If an army officer denied enemy troop movements, he would be removed from command and more than likely courtmartialed. ”

          An army officer wouldn’t be letting the enemy knows that he knows of their troop movements.

          1. No where did he suggest that he would share his knowledge of the movements with said enemy. I’d say pay attention but you don’t have that ability.

            1. No where does it say Trump doesn’t believe in the threats.

              Go back to breastfeeding.

        2. Hill may not remember the Obama comment comparing them to a minor problem…..something about them putting on a Lakers jersey does not make them Kobe Bryant.
          After they overran a third of Iraq, Obama’s analogy didn’t look too good.

            1. Estovir, if this point is such a great “gotcha”, why didn’t you sign your name to it?? ..How stupid..!

              1. ese no es mi comentario!

                get out of your rat hole, unplug from the internet, go chase some cars down the street and maybe donate your body to science. I understand the military has a pressing need for blowing up bodies to understand the impact therein.

        3. Smart leaders know to acknowledge the obvious.

          Smart leaders know when and how to acknowledge the obvious.

          If you listen to the fans, you’ll find yourself sitting with them. Philadelphia Eagles football coach Joe Kuharich

          1. Olly, your comment here could be described as a “strained” effort to deflect.

            1. Deflection? It was response you don’t accept.

              Why have you not even bothered to answer my question in this post?

              Hill: The Trump era will be remembered as an age of denial. A time when the truth was a lie and lies were the truth.

              OLLY: Finally something you and I can agree on. Now, let’s test it.

              Given all available evidence regarding foreign interference in our 2016 election, what parties within the United States conspired with foreign entities?

              1. If Trump is totally innocent, he wouldn’t be constantly making references to ‘fake news’, ‘witch hunts’ and ‘hoaxes’. Had Trump refrained from using those references in the first place, there never would have been a Mueller Probe.

                1. If Trump is totally innocent, he wouldn’t be constantly making references to ‘fake news’, ‘witch hunts’ and ‘hoaxes’

                  Say what? If he was innocent, that’s exactly what he should do. And as the hoax is being revealed, he is proving he should be trusted far more than the MSM. That’s not a good thing by the way. We need a reliable watchdog on government and the MSM is going to have to earn that back.

                  1. So Olly, are you saying the GOP controlled Senate Intelligence Committee just released report on Russian interference said it was a hoax? Got a link?

                    1. New Evidence Unveils Disturbing Facts About Hillary’s Email Scandal

                      FBI is implicated in destroying evidence to benefit Clinton.

                      August 2, 2019

                      In breaking news, the American Center for Law and Justice or ACLJ (Jay Sekulow’s organization, not related to his role as the President’s attorney), has obtained actual copies of the immunity agreements pertaining to Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson in the Hillary email scandal. This was a stunning litigation win, hard-fought after years of litigation by the ACLJ attorneys, who were unable to extract the documents through the normal FOIA processes, due to a lack of cooperation by the government.

                      In reviewing what the agreements uncovered, keep in mind that Cheryl Mills was Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff at the State Department and then bizarrely, she subsequently served as Clinton’s attorney, representing her in the email scandal. Heather Samuelson worked on Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, and then became a Senior Advisor to her at the State Department, as well as the White House liaison. Somehow, she also became one of Clinton’s personal attorneys during the email scandal.

                      The immunity agreements issued by the government, were crafted so that the agencies could extract information from the parties, despite the fact that this is not necessary because DOJ has the power to require that the information be turned over. Clinton kept classified emails on a private server in violation of Federal law, and the immunity agreements reveal that both Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were actively involved in the cover-up of these emails as well as in the destruction of evidence. According to Jordon Sekulow, Executive Director of the ACLJ, it is extremely unusual for someone involved in a criminal cover up, who needs an immunity deal to ensure the evasion of jail time, later becomes the attorney representing the other potential criminal or co-conspirator.

                      The agreements issued were with DOJ and the FBI. They asserted that Mills and Samuelson would turn over the computers to them, but stipulated that they weren’t turning over “custody and control”. This critical point is a legal and factual bunch of bunk. The FOIA statute applies to information in the agencies’ “custody and control”. Anything not in their custody or control cannot be FOIA’d. It is impossible to have an agency physically have a computer and not have it in their “custody or control.” Custody and control is not something that suspects have to expressly give over or agree to give over. When they give over the evidence, then obviously, as a matter of fact, they are also giving the agency “custody and control” over that evidence. Suspects cannot withhold “custody and control” by mere words or lack of consent, as consent is not required. In other words, these agreements are extremely flawed and whomever signed off on them should be investigated and perhaps prosecuted. It is clear that the purpose of this clause was to make the arguably illegal activities of Mills and Samuelson out of the reach of FOIA — in other words, it would be withheld from the public. This is the very definition of corruption.

                      Additionally, the immunity agreements were broad in scope. There were numerous charges that the agreements gave them immunity from including potential violations of the Federal Records Act, the Classified Information Act and the Espionage Act. According to the ACLJ, nobody has ever gotten immunity from the Espionage Act before. Normally, immunity is for lesser crimes like obstruction of justice, but not espionage. If Mills and Samuelson were charged and convicted of every crime from which they received immunity, they would be potentially subject to twenty-eight years in jail each.

                      After Clinton illegally sent classified emails on a private server and cell phones (and by the way, people have gone to jail for this even when they did so accidentally because it’s that serious), and after Mills and Samuelson purposely worked to cover up and conceal both the emails and the destruction of evidence, and after they were given a sweetheart deal that nobody in history has ever gotten, they became the attorneys for Clinton, representing her in the email case. This shouldn’t be allowed because it is a conflict of interests, and not only gives the appearance of impropriety, but indeed, constitutes actual impropriety.

                      Subsequently, Mills and Samuelson finally gave the computers over to the FBI, which per their agreements, limited the FBI’s investigation. The FBI agreed to limit a) the method by which the emails investigated would be obtained; b) the scope of files which would be investigated, and c) the timeframe parameters for investigated emails. In other words, the FBI agreed in the immunity contracts not to do a full investigation on the Clinton emails. To make matters worse, again, per the immunity agreements, the FBI agreed to destroy the computers that had the back-up emails. As Congressman Jim Jordan referenced during the Mueller hearings recently, the FBI used bleachBit to purge the server so the information could never be accessed in the future and used hammers to smash the cell phones involved. In other words, the FBI and DOJ participated in the destruction of the evidence. In effect, this constitutes is a conspiracy between the Obama DOJ (under Loretta Lynch) and the Comey-led FBI to cover up Clinton’s crimes.

                      Shortly thereafter, Comey came out publicly and held a press conference exonerating Clinton from any criminal activity, knowing full well that she was never thoroughly investigated, and that his own agency had participated in the destruction of evidence.

                      To reiterate Comey’s assertions, he stated that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in her handling of classified and sensitive information, but not “grossly negligent”, even though the definition of grossly negligent is extremely careless. Gross negligence is the language in the statute necessary to prosecute someone who does this and Comey inaccurately professed that no prosecutor would pursue a case based on these facts, even though those with lesser evidence have indeed been charged.

                      Currently, there are investigations taking place pertaining to the Clinton email scandal cover-up, as well as the origins of the Trump investigation by the Mueller team, including the roots of the FISA applications. All of the documents uncovered by the ACLJ’s legal win will constitute valuable evidence for AG Bill Barr, the IG and others. Many who follow what is really going on, on a day to day basis have been repeatedly disappointed in the biased and one-sided investigations and the cover-up or blatant disregard of critical facts implicating the pro-Clinton, anti-Trump teams. But Bill Barr and his team are fairly new to the process. He and others, including John Durham, will finally have the opportunity to get to the bottom of all this — and finally disclose the real collusion, corruption, and obstruction. There’s still hope.

                    2. Throwing more shade – beyond the fact that it’s from the hustler Jay Sekulow’s organization – is the mistatement of a simple fact in Allan’a parrot post.. It was not a violation of Federal law to keep emails on a private server. It was a violation of State Dept rules, which do not rise to the level of law and carry no criminal punishment.

                    3. “Throwing more shade – beyond the fact that it’s from the hustler”

                      Deal with the content rather than sliming the author. This is more than just using a seperate server and implicates a lot of people in illegal actions. Deal with the immunity agreements which are granted when criminal activity occurs. Deal with the attempts to hide information that was not supposed to be hidden. Deal with the fact that immunity agreements weren’t necessary to get information. Deal with the law and those that broke the law rather than your slime.

                2. Your non-answer to this question reflects a complete lack of honesty Shill.

                  Given all available evidence regarding foreign interference in our 2016 election, what parties within the United States conspired with foreign entities?

                  You and your ilk’s credibility are as shot as the MSM’s. At this point I don’t know if it is salvageable. I understand losing an election can be disappointing. Don’t like him, then you always have the next election. But to be disappointed our President didn’t work with the Russians to get elected and instead it was your party that did, should shock the ever-living shi* out of you. It’s one thing for you to ignorantly side with a coup attempt, but if you were a true patriot of this country and respected the rule of law, you should be as outraged as the rest of us with the known facts. And yet you persist in this charade.

                  1. Olly, the Mueller Report, while noting the lying and stonewalling by multiple administration officials, including the president, which hindered their investigation, said they were unable to find evidence sufficient to prove it’s collusion rose to the level of criminal conspiracy.

                    You already know this, right.

                    1. The Mueller report was a public relations effort to mask several realities you won’t acknowledge.

                      1. There was no collusion.

                      2. The FBI was running informants for months before formally opening an ‘investigation’

                      3. They used Democratic Party oppo research to get a FISA warrant.

                      4. The investigation was conducted by a series of dubious characters.

                      5. The investigation was assigned to Robert Mueller, who is non compos mentis or wants you to think that. (Who, by the way stonewalled his way through his congressional appearance).

                      6. The investigation was actually run by an Obama holdover (with a history of prosecutorial abuse) and another chap who was legal counsel to one of the IT techs who set up Hillary’s illegal server.

                      7. Andrew Weissman contrived a self-licking ice cream cone in attempting to assemble a case against the president for obstructing the obstruction investigation. (By defining obstruction in ways contrary to Justice Department policy).

                      8. The president provided scads of documentation on request.


                      Here’s another reality. The Democratic Party is a criminal organization. And the criminality goes all the way down to street-level Democrats. This will not end well.

                    2. I’m sure TIA feels much better after blowing off steam by typing his list of lame excuses for ignoring established facts. Now he should go after the GOP led Senate Intelligence Committee which just published the first of it’s reports, and somehow said nothing in agreement with him. Deep Staters, no doubt.

                    3. “better after blowing off steam”

                      As usual Anon is denying the facts on the table and can’t dispute them. DSS made it simple providing a numbered list so you could answer each one of his statements. You can’t which is what generally happens when specifics and Anon are in the same room.

            2. The point you obviously didn’t grasp is, just because the President is not conducting the affairs of state in a manner that makes sense to you, doesn’t mean he isn’t doing them another way that gets to the same objective.

              1. Olly, what is that “objective” – outside of getting on TV as much a possible?

                1. Good to see you maturing away from the idiotic theory Trump has sold ou to Putin.

              2. Who is it making sense to and what is the objective – other than getting attention? Do you mean the trolling Obama objective?

  8. I do not know if Trump was responding based on having been the target of the Russia hoax, and thought they were implying he was colluding with the Russians. I imagine he must wince every time “Russia’ is mentioned by now.

    In any case, of course all major powers are meddling in elections across the globe. China, North Korea, and Russia are very active in cyber crimes. We are very active in the politics of other countries.

    A goal for no other country to ever take an interest in our politics, make a FB meme, or otherwise try to influence any of our elections is unattainable. It’s also hypocritical as we regularly influence and interfere in other countries’ elections.

    A more effective goal is to shore up cyber security. White hat hackers have shown serious security flaws in election software for years. We ignore this at our peril.

    This is just one arrow in the quiver of election fraud prevention, right along with voter ID, and purging the rolls of illegitimate voters. If Russia wanted to go a step beyond influence, and get right down there to fraud, all they’d have to do is take advantage of the total lack of vote security. We require no ID in many states, so putting in operatives to vote (repeatedly) under many different names would be easy. They could take advantage of how easy it is to get fraudulently on the voter rolls. Democrats fight tooth and nail against voter roll audits. Same day registration is ripe to take advantage of. Plus, there is the aforementioned software security issues.

    It is impossible for social media to do a background check on whoever posts. If photo ID and proof of citizenship is not required to vote, FB can hardly require it too post.

    1. Like the True Faux Disciple, you throw out the phrase: “the Russia hoax”, which is a total lie. Who says so, besides Mueller, who based his assessment on hundreds of witness interviews, thousands of pages of documents and 2+ years of investigation?–Dan Coats, head of the US Intelligence Agency (who got fired for speaking the truth) and Christopher Wray, head of the FBI, who is probably on his way out for the same reason. Who says otherwise? A proven chronic and habitual liar. Oh, and then there’s Rush and Hannity. The liar is motivated on this issue by the same force that motivates everything else–that massive ego. His malignant narcissism won’t allow him to admit the truth, which is that he cheated to “win the victory” with the help of a hostile foreign power. Such acknowledgement would be a tacit admission of the illegitimacy of his occupation of the White House. That’s the same reason he can never admit that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. So, as he has done his entire pathetic existence, he puts himself first–above country in this case–and lies. He, a draft-dodger, but is willing to attack Robert Mueller, a decorated Viet Nam war hero with decades of respected service to this country, to protect that massive ego of his. He fired Dan Coats, who has decades of experience in intelligence and a sterling reputation because he couldn’t be coerced to lie to cover up the truth. He is a malignant narcissist–so what’s your excuse? This is why you garner no respect whatsoever from people like me. This is not a dispute over politics–security of our elections is as sacred a value as there is in this country, and Trump has already admitted he would not refuse such assistance again. It is already happening, but because he thinks it helps him, he will do nothing about it.

      Who says Russia hasn’t stepped beyond influence? It is known that they invaded the voter database in at least 2 Florida counties. While they don’t think it happened, they can’t be sure that they didn’t change votes or purge people who don’t support Trump. Your argument about voter ID is lame–everyone knows it is calculated to make it harder for Democratic voters to vote. For instance, they won’t accept a college student ID, even with a photo. Regardless of whether ID is required, registration is required, one must sign in, and the signature must match that on the registration. So, you’d have to be an expert at forgery to vote under several people’s names. And, bottom line, there’s no proof this has happened to any significant extent. The existential threat is from Russia–you know, those people the Trump Organization is trying to work deals with and borrow money from.

      So why is Moscow Mitch fighting so hard to prevent bipartisan election security measures? Why do you think?

      1. totally retarded Natch. we have to show an ID just to buy a meal sometimes. the idea that it’s onerous and unfair to show ID for voting is totally unserious baloney that nobody normal believes.

        that’s why you, the Democrat talking points crew, can’t get to far with your phony BS about Russia being the bogeyman of elections, because you lack basic creditability due to the voter ID position.

        Voter ID is a basic verification that is a tiny inconvenience and pretty much anybody who is troubled over it shouldn’t vote anyways. You’re too out of it to even have a state issued ID? I have no problem excluding those people from voting. I would exclude a hell of a lot more too.

        Kind of like excluding felons. Hmmmmm, if we let all the thieves vote, then maybe they will vote for who? Take a wild guess. The party of organized, state sponsored thievery!

        1. Voter ID is such an incredibly simple and popular initiative that it has incredible bipartisan suport– AMONG THE VOTERS. Probably not the pollsters, or among the apologists of illegal immigration, and the people they pull for in elections.

          More voter ID is INEXORABLE. Every time you whine about Russians meddling in elections, a normal human being thinks to themself, GEE, LET’S MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAS TO SHOW AN ID, AT LEAST!

          Democrat strategists don’t really seem to get this issue at all, whatsoever.

          I’d bring back literacy tests too. I have no problem with that. Can’t read? Probably shouldn’t vote either. Most people who can read, but haven’t been through the indoctrination camps they call university, would tend to agree with me on that. I know because I have asked people. I am my own pollster.

          1. Mr K,

            You see, Natacha, the DNC & the NAACP are Racist as they all think the Colored People are to stupid to figure out how to get a state photo ID.

            1. The GOP hopes blacks are too stupid to recognize it’s attempt to disenfranchise them asset three voting both. Fortunately they’re not, though obviously some GOP voters are too stupid to realize the facts.

              1. He’s not racist: Black conservatives defend Trump, blast Democratic record in inner cities

                Democrats accused of deflecting attention from failed inner-city leadership with racism charge

                Robert Woodson has devoted his life to fighting inner-city poverty, but he wasn’t one of those accusing President Trump of racism over his blast at “rat and rodent-infested” living conditions in Baltimore. Far from it.

                “I don’t think the president’s racist. I think he’s honest,” said Mr. Woodson, a MacArthur Foundation “genius grant” recipient who heads the Woodson Center in Washington, D.C. “As I tweeted out, he’s rude, crude and true.”

                As Democrats and media figures continue to accuse Mr. Trump of racism for his broadside at “dangerous & filthy” Baltimore, black conservatives like Mr. Woodson have come to the president’s defense, accusing critics of attempting to deflect attention from the wretched conditions in urban areas long run by Democrats.

                “The president is raising a legitimate issue, that the conditions all over this country in low-income black neighborhoods that have been controlled by Democrats for the past 40 to 50 years have gotten worse for the people living there, but not for their representatives,” said Mr. Woodson. “They have personally prospered.”

                Derrick Wilburn, executive director of Rocky Mountain Black Conservatives, said that “what President Trump said is true,” but that Democrats representing inner-city areas want to avoid that conversation.

                “If you were a Democrat helping to run inner-city Chicago, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, St. Louis, take your pick, and you did not do everything in your power to deflect attention away from the results your policies have produced, you’re a fool,” Mr. Wilburn said.

                The racism issue has divided largely along partisan lines. A Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday found 51% of voters say they think Mr. Trump is a racist — 8% of Republicans, 56% of independents, and 86% of Democrats — while 91% of Republicans said he isn’t racist.

                Sen. Tim Scott, South Carolina Republican, has criticized Mr. Trump in the past, condemning the “racially offensive language” of an earlier tweet telling four minority Democratic congresswomen to “go back and help fix” the countries they came from.

                This time, however, Mr. Scott told Fox News, “There’s no doubt that I don’t find his tweets to have been racially motivated. I think we should take the high road and spend more time talking about how to deal with the failed policies of the left, frankly.”

                Republican businessman Herman Cain said, “First of all, the president is not a racist,” but that Democrats, “instead of focusing on rats, they want to focus on race.”

                They pointed to the president’s Opportunity Zones initiative, part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which provides tax breaks for companies to invest unrealized capital gains into low-income rural and urban areas.

                “People in poverty aren’t getting help they desperately need, and the exact opposite is happening because of the president’s Opportunity Zones,” Mr. Scott said.

        2. I don’t know where you eat–probation department cafeteria with your probation officer? Maybe the hospital cafeteria after your therapy session? I have no idea where anyone has to show ID to purchase food.

          I don’t say Russia is the bogeyman–the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the head of the US Intelligence Agency, the head of the FBI, and Robert Mueller, Special Counsel–they say so. They base their assessment on facts and evidence. I believe them. I don’t believe Trump.

          BTW: many states allow felons to vote.

          1. your cute comments are preposterous. i have never been convicted. LOL

            and my therapy is taken in small offices.

            here’s what a normal person experiences in life. ever fly natch?

            let’s say you take a flight.

            you need your valid state iD. It better be in plastic too, the states that give a paper printout as temporary ID won’t cut it.

            they look at your ticket and your id. they run it under UV light to verify some kind of UV watermark. they send you on to the security drill

            there, they x ray all your stuff. they randomly pull some stuff out for hand inspection

            they make you walk through a backscatter detector.

            they swab your hands for explosives.

            maybe you get a physical pat down. I ALWAYS do.

            They always put fingers in my underwear waistband and feel me up that way,. I’m used to it.

            Last time they added this. The guy said there was a “hit” on my groin. I didn’t see it on the screen but he said so anyways. So he had to palpate my genitals and crotch, right there in front of everybody. He was just doing his job, he said sorry but i gotta do it. HE said we could do it in private., I laughed and so uh no thanks if you gotta feel my crotch i prefer if you do in public for my own safety and I”m also in a hurry. So he did. I had nothing of course. It was unpleasant. I am not a homosexual and I”m not accustomed to any man besides a doctor fondling me down there. I was not traumatized but I don’t like it. #METOO

            So if I fly, I have to show ID, and now i Have to have my waistband probed, and my groin fondled by another man, but you think it’s too much for other voters to have to show id?

            You’re in LALA LAND

            1. I just had my lunch–delicious minestrone soup I made from scratch–so please don’t dredge up images of your crotch or anyone fondling it. It gives me dyspepsia.

              1. Dyspepsia would seem to be the very least of Ms. Natacha’s problems.

            2. “now i Have to have my waistband probed, and my groin fondled by another man”

              American sheep

            3. Maybe kurtz can cite where the constitution guarantees the right to board airlines for us, and then the inherent and similar opportunity for deadly terrorism, entering a voting booth entails.We know there is very little risk of fraud.

              1. i find the invasion of my person as a condition of flying offensive but for work reasons i need to fly. or i cant make the bread.

                the inconvenience posed by voting is slight.

                the government has us by the gonads,. literally, in the case of TSA, they have us that way often it seems and now quite literally.

                i sometimes ask them if they want me to squat and cough, too. that’s maybe coming one day as well?

        3. It’s racist for Democrats to claim that black people can’t get ID, while Asians, Latinos, whites, etc have no problem getting them. How insulting. No one is saying, what about the poor who are Asian getting IDs? It always seem seems to be claims that the black community can’t figure it out. It is a terribly racist low expectation. That is why there are videos of people in Harlem showing offense when told that Democrats think they can’t figure out how to get an ID or use a computer.

          Since when is voting supposed to require no personal effort or exertion at all?

          I had to show ID when I used my debit card to buy cupcakes a couple of weeks ago. Is the bakery racist?

          Also, speaking of thieves voting, Democrats in New York passed a law allowing them to serve on juries… Guess that’s a new take on a “jury of the accused’s peers.” Breathtakingly self destructive behavior.


          “The vote was cast several hours after the state conducted its annual memorial for fallen police officers. Several Republicans juxtaposed the two events, pointing to convicted cop-killers who could theoretically serve on juries in the future.

          “On this very day when we remember them, what does this body do?” asked Sen. Fred Akshar (R-Broome), who introduced a hostile amendment that would have classified attacks against first responders as hate crimes. “I’ll tell you what some of them did — you rejected the amendment and you doubled down in your support for criminals.”

          “I am truly beginning to wonder as I sit on this body if we are working for the taxpayer, if we’re working for the law-abiding citizens, or if we’re working for those who are incarcerated and those who violate law-abiding citizens,” Akshar said.”

          1. Karen favors road blocks to voting even there is no demonstrated reason and with the knowledge that singe people don’t have photo is a and they tend to be poor, without internet – both groups disproportionately black – young, or old. All those groups vote disproportionately democratic, a fact we’ll known to Karen and GOP leadership. Her claims of racism are doubly hypocritical as it is her clear racist intent to disenfranchise these groups to win elections.

      2. I have never been asked for a photo ID, or had my signature verified, when I vote in CA. They just ask me my name, check it off a list, and hand me a ballot.

        Why not prevent voter fraud? How can you be against Russian interference, but at the same time resist efforts to prevent voter fraud? That’s a paradox.


        “When President Donald Trump brought up the idea that noncitizens were casting ballots in elections, the reaction was fast and furious. Such a thing, if it exists at all, is exceedingly rare, we were told. But when one state decided to take a close look, it found something quite different.

        After a yearlong voter-fraud probe, Texas discovered that, lo and behold, 95,000 people identified as noncitizens had voter registrations. What’s more, 58,000 of them voted in one or more Texas elections…

        Now, after claiming this problem didn’t exist at all, the left says it doesn’t matter because it’s not “widespread.” But this is a clever dodge. Election fraud doesn’t have to be widespread to be effective. In fact, the very purpose of election fraud is to flip extremely close elections. That doesn’t take widespread voter fraud, just carefully targeted efforts.

        How Can You Handle This Market? Start With These 3 Steps

        In the 2008 election in Minnesota, the now-disgraced Al Franken won by a tiny 312 vote margin. His victory gave Senate Democrats a filibuster-proof majority, which let them pass ObamaCare. One study found that noncitizen voting in the election could have decided the outcome.”

        I would frankly be surprised if foreign actors don’t take advantage of Democrats’ success in combating voter security. Why not? Many of these elections are very close, and could easily tip with voter fraud. In addition, there is the inducement of multiple candidates running who are supportive of Socialism. Why wouldn’t Russia want to help the comrades?

        In actuality, an existential threat is from Socialist Democrats, who would ruin our economy and turn us into a third world country. That may also be in line with Russia’s goals.

        If you think that Trump’s presidency is illegitimate, then you (still) do not understand the Constitution, the Electoral College, or how unfair it would be for a handful of counties to elect our president, while most of the country is ignored. Tyrannical and non representative.

        Jonathan Turley has repeatedly criticized Mueller. Do you think he does so because of his military service, or does that have zero to do with his job performance?

        Your reasoning is skewed.

        1. Karen, there is virtually no voter fraud at the ballot as study after study has shown and even Trump’s special commission set up to investigate folded up with nada, zippo, zero findings. The reasons are obvious: the penalties are severe and the benefit pretty much non-existent. An individual clearly should not expect to have much impact on an election and an organization paying for violators would be hard pressed to keep it secret. The penalty is up to 5 years in prison and $10,000 for individuals.


          Your reasoning is skewed.

          1. Karen your beloved electoral college has not only put the loser in office in 2 of our last 5 elections, but it results in the most populous states being ignored. The only reason you try to justify it is because you liked the last result. If you lose one to the electoral college, I expect to see you back moralizing about the injustice in your usual smarmy manner.

            1. I get how upset you are that the Constitution allowed someone to take office that you don’t like. That must be very difficult.

              Every county gets to vote for our President.

              You may have noticed how much I despised Obamacare. And yet, I also understood that this is how America voted. My hope was to educate voters, who were stubbornly stupid about Obamacare, if they had an employer policy. You seem to have great difficulty accepting same.

              You also seem quite determined to render most of America without representation in the White House. With only a handful of counties king/queen makers, that renders the rest of the country meaningless in the election. The President would never care what happened to them moving forward, and would certainly never address their issues.

              Hillary Clinton lost because most counties in America, by a landslide, rejected her. A few highly populated counties voted for her, giving her the popular vote. The electoral college means that a candidate ignores a region of the country at their peril. Abolishing the electoral college would remove the Constitutional protection against states getting ignored by the President. Were the EC gone, presidents would be encouraged to completely ignore 48 states. Voter fraud would be easy, because they would know in advance which handful of counties would need to be targeted. Since Democrats steadfastly weaken voter security, fraud would be so easy.

              1. Karen, the constitution says nothing at all about winner take all state contests for their electoral college votes. In fact two states don’t use that method. If stars were required to award their votes proportionally, the EC would actually represent the will of the people and still be in full compliant with the constitution. If you’re going to be a drama queen on the constitution while denouncing others, it might help if you actually read and understood it. You could avoid looking like a fool.

            1. Almost everything in that article has been provided for Anon on this list within the past week or so. He just repeats the same statement over and over again. In Anon’s world truth is totally unimportant.

              Any response he provides is from a left wing hit site that doesn’t directly attack the evidence while it contains serious flaws.

              1. Allan, enjoy my post on the Texas debacle. It is not a matter of dispute that the head of the Texas investigation and attempted voter purge you and Karen were so excited about resigned in shame and the State of Texas ended up abandoning their purge while paying damages and court fees to the ACLU and other groups who sued them over it.



                1. Anon you are a deceitful liar.

                  SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CRAWFORD et al. v. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD et al. They were deciding on a law to protect the vote of American Citizens. The decision was YES, that vote ought be protected.

                  FROM THE OPINION:

                  “flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists … demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

            2. Pathetic.

              Karen, that unsigned editorial has been thoroughly debunked and proves you lack judgement in choosing sources and are too lazy or want to believe BS too much to check them.

              The Texas voter fraud investigation wass based on name matches only – and not exact at that – and the drivers license rolls are notoriously old and dated on information like citizenship. In fact over 60,000 people in Texas gain citizenship every year.

              Within 3 months of your column the director of the investigation resigned in shame and the State of Texas settled with civil rights groups, including paying court fees, and abandoned the action.

              Is that clear enough for you? Just because you want to believe something is not reason to do so.

              “…The Friday before, Whitley’s staff had issued a bombshell press release calling into question the citizenship of 95,000 registered voters in Texas. ….Did Whitley know for sure that any of the names on his list had committed crimes by voting as noncitizens? “No,” Whitley answered, according to Anchia.

              “And I said, ‘Well, isn’t it the protocol that you investigate and, if you find facts, you turn it over to the AG?”

              “I do not have an answer for that,” Whitley responded, according to Anchia’s recollection of the Monday meeting.

              Soon after, the citizenship review effort buckled, revealing itself as a ham-handed exercise that threatened to jeopardize the votes of thousands of legitimate voters across the state. The secretary of state’s office eventually walked back its initial findings after embarrassing errors in the data revealed that tens of thousands of the voters the state flagged were citizens. At least one lawsuit was filed to halt the review, and others were likely in the pipeline. And a week into the review, no evidence of large-scale voter fraud had emerged…..

              In 2012, Florida officials drew up a list of about 180,000 possible noncitizens. It was later culled to about 2,600 names, but even then that data was found to include errors. Ultimately, only about 85 voters were nixed from the rolls.

              Around the same time, officials in Colorado started with a list of 11,805 individuals on the voter rolls who they said were noncitizens when they got their driver’s licenses. In the end, state officials said they had found about 141 noncitizens on the rolls — 35 of whom had a voting history — but that those still needed to be verified by local election officials…..

              By Tuesday morning, secretary of state officials had started calling counties across the state to inform them that they had made a mistake. The office had incorrectly included some voters who had submitted their voting registration applications at DPS offices and had been confirmed to be citizens since then, county officials said.

              Things grew even more confusing for Remi Garza, elections administrator in Cameron County. He had originally received a list with just more than 1,600 people to review. When someone from the secretary of state’s office called Tuesday, Garza was told that weeding out applications labeled as “source code 64” — the code that indicates the origin of the application was a DPS office — would remove “well over” 1,500 names from his list, leaving him with just 30 individuals to investigate….

              The secretary of state’s office told the McLennan County elections office to disregard its entire list of 366 voters, the Waco-Tribune Herald reported….”




              1. Anon, culls information from left leaning sites to get the answer he wishes excluding information that proves him wrong. Partial answers can be obtained to prove both sides of the case and that is what we are seeing in argument on the blog. However the last time I discussed this with Anon he called my source a liar by providing information that did not dispute or prove wrong what my source said on video tape. I rebutted what he said and as usual Anon ran away with his tail between his legs.

                His example was something like this. Karen says she was at the ball game. Bob said he didn’t see her there even though video tape existed showing that she was. Therefore because Bob didn’t see her Anon claims Karen was lying and the videotape doesn’t matter. That is the type of reasoning Anon uses all the time

                I have had enough of Anon’s lies, deceitfulness and lack of recognition of evidence provided. One can’t argue based on incomplete facts but one can look at Supreme Court cases and their decisions. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CRAWFORD et al. v. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD et al. They were deciding on a law to protect the vote of American Citizens. The decision was YES, that vote ought be protected.

                FROM THE OPINION:

                “flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists … demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

                1. As I noted, the facts that are not disputable and which Allan avoids are that the Texas official responsible for the bogus data Karen celebrated resigned in shame and the state ended the action, paying a judgement with court costs to the ACLU over it’s attempts to violate it’s citizens rights. You can read my post, largely lifted from the Texas Tribune and the WaPo, unlike Karen’s source, staffed with multiple Pulitzer Prize winners.

                  1. Again, Anon, you are being deceitful. You are providing only parts of the data like you did with the James O’Keefe tape. Tell us what was actually found and proven unfounded. That means you need to explain the error of all 58,000 and not change the subject to a court case that was evaluating not the statistics but the methodology of protecting the vote.

                    In the end the Supreme Court of the United States decided:“flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists … demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

                    Deal with the Supreme Court decision. I’m tired of your BS.

                    1. The Supreme Court majority in Allan’s case referred to a state’s right to regulate voting. There was no data presented by the state showing actual voter fraud and the quote Allan posted is a throw away line by a right wing judge not based on any evidence in the record.

                    2. Anon writes: “There was no data presented ”

                      But the Supreme Court writes: ““flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists” which is contrary to what Anon just said.

                    3. Maybe Allan id deaf.


                      There was also no evidence presented by Judge Stevens to support his wrong statement.

                      The reason for this is there is no evidence that voter fraud due to lack of stringent ID requirements DOES NOT EXIST.

                    4. Anon, you can continue on and on trying to squeeze your garbage back into the tube but you can’t get beyond what the Supreme Court wrote which was in response to voter fraud. “flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists”

                      Apparently the Supreme Court looked at the evidence of fraud and decided that the states had the right to protect themselves from such fraud. Are you trying to say the Supreme Court lied when it discussed documented fraud?

                    5. The court did not look at evidence of fraud. None was presented and Stevens offered none to support his statement. That evidence does not exist.

                    6. “The court did not look at evidence of fraud.”

                      Anon, what do you think was meant by the statement “flagrant examples of such fraud”? Do you think it was made up? Why do you think they didn’t look at the information available?

                      You don’t accept losing and make up stories to satisfy what you wish to believe.

          2. When I vote in CA, no one asks me for ID, or compares my signature. No one asks for proof of residence or citizenship. I just give them my name, and they check it off. I do not know, when I registered to vote in a new district with a change of address, if my name is ever removed from the rolls where I have lived in the past.

            Democrats prevent the auditing of voter rolls to remove fraud, the deceased, those who have moved, etc.

            Therefore, how would anyone know how many people voted fraudulently in CA? Most of us know people who voted illegally. One legal resident from Canada was appalled that he wasn’t supposed to vote. He’d had no idea, with all the drives urging, in multiple languages, for people to vote, with nothing mentioned about the requirements.

            If you don’t verify identity, and won’t remove people from the lists who are not allowed to vote, there is no way to tell how many voted illegally, besides anecdotes or the rare case that gets caught by dumb luck.

            1. This is the Left’s circular logic. Prevent identifying voters. Prevent removing those who are not allowed to vote. Then claim that since it is then impossible to tell if anyone voted illegally, that no one voted illegally.

              I honestly don’t know how they stick to this with a straight face.

              1. Karen,
                I believe you would agree that we need to do everything possible to eliminate foreign interference in our elections. Also, you would agree that we need to do everything possible to ensure only eligible U.S. citizens vote in our elections.

                Anyone not agreeing to do both is unserious about doing either.

                1. “I believe you would agree that we need to do everything possible to eliminate foreign interference in our elections.”

                  Illegal aliens are foreign interference.

                  1. I know. I’ve made that point before, but it was met with the Jedi wave of the hand saying these are not the foreigners you are looking for.

                2. Olly, them you are in disagreement with your leader who is doing nothing to keep Russia frm interfering in our elections and actually continues to take their side against our government.
                  On your other point, perhaps you are not familiar with the fact – this is not opinion – that the ID laws proposed to fix a problem that dissent exist, results in citizens being disenfranchised and losing their right to vote. Again, this is a fact, not an opinion, and the true reason behind the GOPs promotion of this lame idea. To catch 1 out of 100,000 fraud cases, you cause thousands of citizens to lose their vote.

  9. Doofae (plural of doofus), the GOP led Senate Intelligence Committee just issued the first part of their report on the issue, which focuses on the Russian interference in our 2016 election. Do you numb nuts now think the Senate GOP is part of the conspiracy? You’ll believe anything your slob of a leader pukes out. You’re in a cult. Get help.

    1. Says one of many dolts/MIC apologists who “believed” the “intelligence community” about WMDs in Iraq. How’d that work out, stupid? You like spending $10T and killing several million innocent civilian non-combatants around the globe, all of darker skin than you? I’m sure the surviving family members of the innocents we murder around the globe all think very highly of Amurikans, right?

      In the Wikileaks trove, the US ADMITTED TEN YEARS AGO WE KILLED 66K INNOCENT CIVLIAN NON-COMBATANTS in Iraq alone. Next you be telling us the US Military did an accurate account and did not under estimate by a factor of ten. And that was ten years ago.

      I don’t believe an effin thing the “intelligence community” states. Did you forget that sucker Colin Powell’s pictures with a pointer “schooling” the world with the exact WMD locations?

      And why exactly is the US still fighting a war we lost the minute we set foot in Afghanistan, dolt? The phrase “graveyard of empires” is new to you, right, stupid?

      1. You like spending $10T and killing several million innocent civilian non-combatants around the globe, all of darker skin than you?

        We didn’t, and we didn’t.

          1. The sum of civilian deaths up to the close of 2011 was about 120,000. I think the Iraqi insurgency has weapons, and haven’t been shy about using them before or after our departure. (The death toll among civilians since our departure has been about 85,000). Mean expenditure rates on ‘overseas contingency operations’ have been, IIRC, about $130 bn a year. We’d have to be working there for > 70 years to expend $10 tn. Arithmetic is your friend.

      2. Princess, the Intelligence was not wrong on Iraq, the Bush administration sold “wmd’s” as nuclear weapons to suckers – bet you were one, I wasn’t – when the term included old mustard gas from Iraq’s war with Iran. You need to read history instead of whatever half baked anti-semitic (our Princess is a holocaust denier and Jew blamer) conspiracy mongering blogs you spend all your time at.

    2. US Intelligence Lies/Failures have directly caused millions of unnecessary deaths including innocent civilian non-combatants and trillions of dollars in losses.
      Pearl Harbor
      Bay of Pigs
      Tet Offensive
      Yom Kippur
      Iranian Revolution
      Soviet Invade Afghanistan
      Soviet Collapse
      Indian Nuclear Tests
      Iraq WMD


      Yeah, let’s get down on our knees and worship the false god of the “intelligence community.”

      Who’s the dolt? Believers or the skeptical? No matter: what is a bigger threat, Russia or China? Russia or the US debt? The death of the middle class? 75k annual over dose deaths? Inner city rot? Race wars instigated by the Dems? Antifa? 40% of aborted unborn US babies are black. You like black genocide, do you?

      The USA just assassinates or invades nations where it wants regime change. How does that compare to some attempted or real computer hacking?

      1. we prefer to call it “moderating population growth” not genocide

        I sometimes feel like a should send the MIC a thank you note, when i read princess posts

        1. Another population bomb hypocrite. You can lower the population by one right now. Eliminate the person in the mirror.

          No of course not. Only others, specifically the future unborn, must pay the price for your population bomb god.

  10. JT, as an attorney I think you would want to examine the evidence for Russian “interference” in the 2016 election. There isn’t any. But I’m not asking you to take my word for that. Here are some examinations of the evidence claimed by intelligence agencies. I just asking that you read through these because you may not believe in Russian interference once you examine this information.

    Bill Binney did an extensive analysis of the claimed “hack”. There was no hack, it was a leak from inside the DNC. It had nothing to do with Russia.
    He and other people are able to prove this. On the other hand, Mueller never examined the DNC computers. The FBI, in contravention to any notion of good law enforcement, instead got their “information” from Crowdstrike who was hired by the DNC. The “information” they received was a redacted draft report by Crowdstrike for their client, the DNC.

    Here is probably the best take down of Russiagate:
    https://consortiumnews.com/2019/07/29/russiagate-as-organized-distraction/ You can also check out Aaron Mate who gives an excellent analysis of the Russian interference claims.

    Finally, today you might want to listen to Consortium News interview w/Kimdotcom.

    The truth is this: The e-mails were leaked by Seth and Aaron Rich. If you still feel the need to believe in Russiagate no matter what, at least consider that the idea that publishing accurate information about a candidate, even if it comes directly from Satan, is “interfering” in our election–what does that really say about free speech and the right to know things about people who are in or aspire to high office?

    The IC has lied the US knowingly into wars. This has resulted in our own people’s death and maiming. It has lead to untold civilian deaths and it has laid low whole other nations. Why on earth would any person automatically believe anything the IC says? We are citizens, not slaves. It is our duty to examine what the IC says for its truth value.

    You are going to find out that the IC concocted Russiagate. You are also going to find out that may of these “upstanding” people in the IC are actually pedophiles or people who knowingly protected pedophiles. Many of these people are despicable. (See Whitney Webb’s series on this at Mint Press News).

  11. putting aside all the DNC/UK espionage/sedition/terrorism against the US/us/Trump, I agree with what Dr Steve Pieczenik was suggesting to Prez Trump in regards to what the US’s foreign policy should look like.

    That Prez Trump should have already made strong alliances with Russia & India because the real threats now to the US are China & Pakistan.

    One has to know if one follows the big money we’ll all see why there’s been so much effort at blocking Trump/US, Russia & India from hooking up.

      1. OKY1, I’m not advocating this methodology but it demonstrates, despite what our leftists in this country think, that the US is a very good and tolerant nation.

        1. Ya a lot of people haven’t studied Islam & the nut job Satanist that follow it in the least.

          But the Indian people know the nut jobs they are dealing with. They sound like they won’t be out breed & run out of their own country, unlike Western Europe & may even the US given 20-50 years.

          Here is 10 seconds of education as to why many want this trash removed.

          BTW: I see this same type crap multiple time daily in the real news now.


  12. Much ado about nothing. This op-ed is an attempt to point the finger at what is presently relatively low significance or non existent. The real damage is the Democratic use of a nation with nuclear weapons as a foil compromising relationships that might otherwise have helped our foreign policy.

    Professor Turley seems to be fixated at one tree in a gigantic forest.

  13. I’m no Trump fan. However, the Russian collusion narrative was not only false; it was a soft coup attempt against Trump, with US intelligence agencies leading the charge.

    Why should Trump be in alignment with them? Why should he, or the citizenry trust a word they have to say? What does Mueller’s role in the Iraq War say about his competence or integrity?

    If Russiagate was bunk, what are allegations of continuing Russian interference?

  14. I want to file a lawsuit to stop this Russian interference in our elections. I need a witness who voted in some state who can say with truth that he was going to vote Dem Hillary but changed his vote because he read an article in the ______ newspaper, which said that _____ happened and therefore it would be better to vote for Trump.

    Ok. Step forward. Tell us the issue, the newspaper and how that was wrong. Then someone else step forward and tell me how the Russians got that newspaper to write that false information.

    All the way with BSA. (BSA means Bull itShay America).

  15. Trump has no problem with Russian interference because he’s friends with Putin, at a minimum, and is hoping the interference will help him tighten his grip on the USA and result in a change in our government that will eliminate that pesky Congress and the silly idea that people should vote for their leaders and hold them accountable. Trump doesn’t believe in democracy or our Republic.

    1. “Trump has no problem with Russian interference because he’s friends with Putin ….”
      Yeah I’m hoping for a leader with a personal grudge against the leader of a rival nuclear power. The rest of your comment is even more crazy talk. Ever think before you type?

  16. “Trump’s comments suggest that he not only believes that Russian collusion is a hoax but Russian interference is a hoax.”
    If it’s so patently obvious Russia is interfering, let’s see the proof. All we have is a dubious semi-secret intelligence assessment by the same agencies that brought us the Iraq War and some assurances from doddering old Robert Mueller with a spate of never-to-see the light indictments which he used to justify his existence and which involve the princely sum of, at most, $100,000.00 of undirected Facebook ads. By the way, Wikileaks says the Podesta hack was an inside job. So let the proponents put up or shut up.

    1. Agreed. And even taking John Brennan and Co at face value, these are pretty minor vectors within the population of forces which influence a presidential campaign (Facebook ads, &c). And we all know the media would make the controversy go away if they thought Democrats had been the beneficiaries (see the 1996 fundraising scandals, or the IRS scandals in 2013).

      You get the impression with the moderator that he dozed off in 1978 and just woke up.

      1. ’78 Hell. More like ’75 and the Church Committee is when our scales fell off. By ’75 we knew the Swamp could eliminate anyone it chose to by any means it wanted.

    2. I think they interfered by making a forked attack. They attacked Donald with the phony bogus dossier disinformation. the other fork was the small expenditure of ads on Facebook.

      the funny thing is, by engineering the Russia hoax witch hunt against Trump, the Democrats leveraged the small expenditure by Russian strategists a billion-fold in effect.

      it was a masterful stroke but most masterful strokes of strategy actually are just the basics, nothing all that fancy, they just have good timing and surprising effect

      Part of the way we need to “defend” against this sort of thing, is not by more spookery, not with more hyperbole in mass media, but with common sense.

      The kind of common sense judges are supposed to exercise when they see stupidity in the form of false, bogus, probably cause affidavits in support of clearly troubling warrants to spy on rival campaign

      goes right back to the FISA court which apparently took no lessons from Watergate

      and the FISA court needs reform just as a thousand civil liberties advocates said before the whole mess

      a little more common sense could have come from the Democrat leadership which instead of jumping on the Russia baba yaga bandwagon, could have said, hmmm, we ourselves are being manipulated by the Russians, if we give them too much credit in our internecine war against our own POTUS!

      Nobody has benefitted from the scaremongering about Russia more– than Putin himself

      1. and why wouldn’t they do it again. they will attack both candidates and who knows what opportunities that may bring for future propaganda exploitation of the American over-reaction

      2. And somehow passed on the golden opportunity to knee cap Fatso at the same time they did Hillary less than 2 weeks before the election.

        What kind of idiot believes that kind of BS?

        I know, Trump supporters. Already proven suckers and marks.

        Hey kurtz, I got a free bridge for you! The Mexicans are gonna’ buy it for you!

    3. Mespo, take it up with those Deep State loving co-conspirator GOP senators whop control the Senate Intelligence Committee. They just released their report on Russia’s interfernce in our election. You can believe them or believe the lying sack o s..t braggarrt president you are hypnotized by.

  17. Reality show president making his own reality. Perhaps his gaslighting is a tactic to see who will agree with him or will challenge him. (who to reward or who to attack). Or maybe it’s full on dementia.

      1. Any question of fact turns on the quality and quantity of evidence. There are those who believe because of, or in despite of, the evidence. Mr. Trump has demonstrated many times over that his beliefs are not based on the facts. Pick a topic: climate change, size of inauguration crowd, racial/ethic attributes, sexual assault, and any number of others. Yes, we believed that Irag had wmds based on faulty and cherry-picked evidence, but that doesn’t make every conclusion of the intelligence community false. A position that Dear Leader is always right is dangerous.

          1. If Vol 1 of the Mueller report and the sworn testimony of agency heads does not rise above unfounded oral claims, then I cannot offer anything more which would satisfy you. One can be skeptical about such matters but to reject all evidence which conflicts with ones point of view is a symptom of cognitive dissonance.

        1. A position that Dear Leader is always right is dangerous.

          Isn’t it ironic? Don’t cha think?

          The sole reason your ilk has been pursuing Trump since Hillary lost is because she and her minions believe she was the Chosen One to be our nation’s Dear Leader.

          And isn’t it ironic? Don’t you think?
          A little too ironic? Yeah, I really do think

Comments are closed.