James Comey Wants An Apology? This is Myth Becoming Madness

Below is my column on the recent Inspector General report on the conduct of James Comey in removing and disclosing FBI material after he was fired.

Here is the column:

Two years ago, former FBI Director James Comey came out with a book that celebrated himself as a paragon of “ethical leadership,” a subject that he later taught at the College of William and Mary. Comey declared, “Ethical leaders lead by seeing above the short term, above the urgent or the partisan, and with a higher loyalty to lasting values, most importantly the truth.” If that is the case, the new Justice Department inspector general report released on Thursday establishes that Comey is the very antithesis of the ethical leader he described. Comey was found to have violated both federal law and regulations for his own gain, and he made critical decisions that put personal over institutional interests.

Nevertheless, Comey released a statement portraying the scathing report as a type of victory and encouraged his critics to send their apologies to him. It was a “Captain Queeg” moment when myth borders on madness. Rather than rave about who stole his strawberries, as Queeg did in “The Caine Mutiny,” Comey claims someone stole a reputation that he tossed away two years ago. The report states that Comey not only knowingly violated rules governing all FBI employees, but his decisions “set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees.”

It details how Comey removed FBI memoranda and then used his friend, Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, to leak the contents of one memo to The New York Times. Several of the memos were later found to contain privileged, sensitive or classified information. The FBI seized the memos and had to “scrub” the computer of Richman to remove the unauthorized material provided by Comey. The report also says Comey later acknowledged that some of the classifications were “reasonable.”

Of course, facts are largely immaterial in matters of mythology. When Comey removed FBI material and arranged for a leak to the media, the coverage stayed positive despite some of us noting that the “memos” removed by Comey were FBI material and potentially classified. At a minimum, he violated clear rules against leaking such information to the media, a curious decision for the person tasked previously with finding leakers. I noted that such leaks were entirely unnecessary, given other options for getting this information to investigators and to Congress.

Those points were met with furious objections from analysts who insisted that the memos were personal writings akin to diary entries. Legal expert and former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa said they constituted “personal recollections,” and Brookings Institution fellow and CNN legal analyst Susan Hennessey wrote that it is “hard to even understand the argument” for how his “memory about his conversation with the president qualifies as a record, even if he jotted it down while in his office.” When I wrote that the memos were covered by the Federal Records Act and by Justice Department rules barring their removal or disclosures, the arguments were dismissed by the experts on various cable networks.

When former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders described the conduct of Comey as “improper and likely could have been illegal,” she was given two “pinocchios” as having falsely accused him. Comey then turned to social media, much like President Trump, to further pump up his record. He started with tweets under pseudonyms but later put his own name on tweets showing him walking through forests or standing alone while quoting sources like the Bible, “But let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream.”

Comey was building a personal brand, just like Trump, that culminated in his publishing his sensational book “A Higher Loyalty.” Once again, the media was as unrelenting as it was uncritical. Few outlets mentioned the concerns over a former FBI director rushing out a book soon after leaving office in a sharp departure from his predecessors. Comey became an instant millionaire with a book tour where he was essentially met with palm fronds and cries of “hosanna.” He knew that any final reckoning on his conduct would not come before months, if not years, of investigation.

The inspector general has confirmed what was clear and obvious. The memos were FBI material, and Comey did violate provisions of the Federal Records Act and FBI rules clearly barring their removal and disclosure. Moreover, the inspector general agreed that it was not necessary to guarantee an investigation into Trump. Investigations were ongoing and the report cites other “options” that Comey refused to use. The report concludes, “What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.”

Despite Comey’s spin, the Report did confirm that “Memos 2 and 7 contained small amounts of information classified at the ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ level.” In other words, they were classified at the lowest level but still nonpublic, classified material. They were not declassified under 2018. Of course, Comey did not know what classification would apply because he removed them before they were reviewed. Either way, as I said at the time, it was unlikely that he would be prosecuted on such a case and he knew it.

The reason Comey violated these rules was as obvious then as it is now. Leaking the memos was designed to improve his stature in the media, and it worked. Comey transformed himself into a badly needed hero to use against the villain Trump. He knew the memos would change the focus of media coverage to his new role as a federal government whistleblower.

Forgotten were prior calls for Comey to be fired by Democrats and Republicans alike for his poor judgment during the investigation of Hillary Clinton and her use of unsecured servers for communications. There was little need to discuss how the review by former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein found “serious mistakes” by Comey. It was no longer breaking news that Rosenstein also cited a long list of former attorneys general, federal judges and leading prosecutors from both parties who believed Comey violated his obligation to “preserve, protect and defend” the traditions of the Justice Department and the FBI.

Rosenstein also noted that Comey “refused to admit his errors,” including his obvious violation of “long standing Justice Department policies and traditions.” That was even before Comey decided to remove FBI material and leak information to the press, yet he is still refusing to admit his errors. Shortly after the inspector general report was released, Comey returned to spinning his conduct as somehow vindicated by the findings. He tweeted, “I don’t need a public apology from those who defamed me, but a quick message with a ‘sorry we lied about you’ would be nice.”

Comey is referring to the Justice Department decision not to charge him with releasing classified information and no finding by the inspector general of an intentional release of classified, as opposed to sensitive, information. However, many of us who have been critics of Comey have long said that his prosecution was unlikely. Comey is relying on the fact that his memos were not found to have contained classified or sensitive information until after he gave the information to The New York Times.

The inspector general report says that, following the publication of the New York Times article, a classification review was conducted. The reason is that Comey never asked for such a review, any more than he asked for permission as a fired FBI employee to remove the material or leak it to the media. According to the report, senior officials stated they were “stunned” and “shocked” by Comey removing and disclosing the information.

Comey knows that, ultimately for him, none of this matters. He has magnanimously accepted the apologies that no one has offered and claimed vindication that appears nowhere in the inspector general report. That is simply the benefit of being the author of your own mythology.

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

148 thoughts on “James Comey Wants An Apology? This is Myth Becoming Madness”

  1. Anon1:

    “Comey did not release anything to the public”

    What a moron…and a coward to boot for all to see. C’mon kid, let’s see you defend the indefensible again. Seriously, what an obviously stupid thing to say.

    1. Ivan:

      Comey did not release anything to the public

      Now, you prove that’s not true if you think it isn’t. That’s how it works

      Any questions?

      1. How “it works” is you post, I post, and others, if they care, read and judge for themselves.

        The only serious question I have is “do you have a personality disorder?”

        1. I forgot…my other question which you didn’t respond to is if you would meet me in Manhattan? Strictly for a kind chat just to understand…I might even pay for the drinks. Don’t worry, I don’t bite.

      1. Yes Paul, but it is not our obligation to therefore approve of his actions.

        Comey did not release any classified material.

        Trump has repeatedly and ignorantly leaked classified information to the Russians and the world. So get off the high horse with Comey, who has done neither.

        1. Anon1 – everything Comey released was considered Classified at the Confidential level, at least. That is the default position until it is declassified. Comey knows that.

            1. Anon1 – I know you are pretending to be the Village Idiot, however Comey gave several memos to his friend “the public” who then released them to the media. At all times it was classified material. His friend “the public” and the media “the public” and their readers “the public” all had access to classified material thanks to Saint Comey.

                1. Anon1:

                  “Comey did not release anything to the public and no classified information in his memos were seen by the public.”

                  You are lying and and it’s absurdly obvious:

                  Comey himself says he gave his “personal memos” regarding his interactions with the President to his friend Daniel Richman with the express purpose of having him leak the information therein to the press so as to instigate the appointment of a Special Counsel. Your statement that Comey “did not release anything to the public” is a flat out lie unless you want to argue about what the meaning of the word “is” is.

                  Please stop acting like a “public idiot.”

                  1. Comey’s claim that the leaked documents were “personal memos” wouldn’t have saved him from being fired by the FBI/DOJ.

                    The agreement Comey signed as an FBI employee states:

                    “all information acquired by me in connection with my official duties with the FBI and all official material to which I have access remain the property of the United States of America”

                    and that an agent…

                    “will not reveal, by any means, any information or material from or related to FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment to any unauthorized recipient without prior official written authorization by the FBI.”

                    1. I just asked him what his deal is after taking apart his lies and deceptions. I’m curious to see the response.

                  2. Ivan, none of the memos were released to the public. Comey took a picture of one of the memos – the Flynn memo – and sent it to his friend, instructing him to share the contents, but not the document, with NYTs. No classified information from any of the documents has been revealed to the public.

                    1. You are caught in a deliberate lie:

                      You said “Comey did not release ANYTHING to the public.” That is an obvious deliberate lie and your prevarication is obvious for everyone to see again. The documents themselves weren’t released to the public but information contained therein was.

                      This was in blatant violation of his employment agreement.

                      Why do lie and prevaricate like this? Are you paid to do this or are you just putting partisan politics over the truth?

                    2. Ivan – just the act of releasing them to his friend is an act of releasing documents to the public. One person makes up the public.

                    3. Ivan, Comey did not release anything to the public.

                      Information he released to his friend was intended to be released to the public.

                      That information did not include classified information.

                      Any questions?

        2. The President has the lawful authority to release any classified material- that’s part of his job. On the other hand, What Comey did was commit a gross violation of FBI policy for which he would certainly have been fired had Trump not already done so as is made clear by the IG report which actually recommended criminal charges as well- if you want me to post the relevant, painfully clear passages from Comey’s FBI employment contract I will do so.

          I can tell by your clever wording(here and elsewhere) that you know exactly what you are doing…prevaricating. It’s purposefully dishonest. I’m serious: are you paid to do this or are you just putting partisan politics over the truth because you hate Trump…or both?

          1. Trump has stupidly revealed classified information to the Russians and the world for his own purposes. Comey has revealed no classified information to the public. That you think the former is just fine is a measure of your cultish devotion to Trump and willingness to defend and make excuses for anything he does.

            1. Snopes agrees with Anon1.

              https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-claims-that-225-snopes-rates-mostly-true

              Snopes Rates Biden’s Claim That 2+2=5 As ‘Mostly True’
              September 2nd, 2019

              U.S.—Joe Biden recently made a strange claim: that 2+2=5. He was ridiculed for his gaffe after making the statement while speaking at an elementary school. The kids all said, “Hey, dummy! The answer is 4, not 5!”

              But the crack squad of fact-checkers at Snopes quickly got to work on Biden’s incredulous claim. Their findings? Biden’s statement was actually “mostly true.”

              “Sure, Biden got some key details wrong,” said Bob Snopes, founder of Snopes. “But the central concept of what he was saying, that two numbers put together make another number, was completely accurate. Sometimes two and two make four. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. It is not easy to become sane.”

              The website’s 6,000-word defense/fact-check of Biden’s claim further pointed out that 80% of the answer was correct, and it’s only the one additional number that was a mixture of truth and falsehood.

              As the event neared its conclusion, Biden claimed there were five spotlights lighting up the stage even though there were clearly four. One bald man in the back shouted, “There are four lights!” but was dragged from the room for reeducation.

            2. So, no answer as to what your deal is? What’s up? I live in NYC, it would be great to meet up one day and I’m free all the time. I just want to understand. I know you’re not accidentally acting dumb. That’s obvious.

              1. you are acting dumb. Anon1 is employed by Correct the Record, paid to troll, lie and poke people like you

                e
                https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-claims-that-225-snopes-rates-mostly-true

                Snopes Rates Biden’s Claim That 2+2=5 As ‘Mostly True’
                September 2nd, 2019

                U.S.—Joe Biden recently made a strange claim: that 2+2=5. He was ridiculed for his gaffe after making the statement while speaking at an elementary school. The kids all said, “Hey, dummy! The answer is 4, not 5!”

                But the crack squad of fact-checkers at Snopes quickly got to work on Biden’s incredulous claim. Their findings? Biden’s statement was actually “mostly true.”

                “Sure, Biden got some key details wrong,” said Bob Snopes, founder of Snopes. “But the central concept of what he was saying, that two numbers put together make another number, was completely accurate. Sometimes two and two make four. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. It is not easy to become sane.”

                The website’s 6,000-word defense/fact-check of Biden’s claim further pointed out that 80% of the answer was correct, and it’s only the one additional number that was a mixture of truth and falsehood.

                As the event neared its conclusion, Biden claimed there were five spotlights lighting up the stage even though there were clearly four. One bald man in the back shouted, “There are four lights!” but was dragged from the room for reeducation.

                ewe dumba$$!

                🐑

            3. Anon1 – I know this is hard for you to conceive, however the President of the United States may reveal classified information to whomever he wants. He has the last say on classification.

    1. Please explain how the President doing his job fully within the law(releasing any classified information he alone deems worthy) is worse than Comey committing an act that would have certainly lead to his firing by the FBI/DOJ had Trump not already done so?

  2. Comey’s a pretentious, soulless, bureaucratic finagler. If they can find discrete criminal acts properly credited to his account, by all means prosecute. Every person involved in these capers needs to suffer.

  3. The bigger question for Comey is:
    1. Why did you not trust the NYC Field Office to run the Midyear Exam and Crossfire Hurricane cases?
    2. Any American citizen being “groomed” by Russian intelligence is, by the Standard FBI Operation Procedure, entitled to presumption of innocence and is coached privately on how best to deflect the foreign operator(s)…called a defensive briefing. Why did you choose not to give the Trump campaign a discreet defensive briefing in July 2016? Why did you depart from S.O.P? Was Trump afforded a presumption of innocence? Was there a lack of trust? Who decided that?

  4. >>He knew the memos would change the focus of media coverage to his new role as a federal government whistleblower.

    And would spare him from any well-deserved criticism over his handling of the Clinton email inquiry, MemoGate, or how he personally profited from related infamy by snagging a book deal and a teaching gig. The man is a disgrace to the agency he once presided over and anything but a paragon of “Higher Loyalty.”

  5. Turley makes the argument that Comey had other means of getting this information out – While True – even that is probelmatic. Whether Comey had other potentially more legitimate means to acheive the ends he desired. The ends – as well as all other less offensive means remain unethical.

    To this day there remains absolutely no foundation for the investigations – apparently of the Trump, Rubio, Cruz and Clinton campaigns, that the FBI appears to have started in late 2015.

    This entire sordid affair reflects TWO things:

    The efforts of the prior administration, and holdovers to justify an investigation that to this day still does not have a foundation. Just to be clear, Mueller did not just find there was no evidence of collusion, he also found there was no basis beyond what the government knew in approximately September of 2016. At that time the Steele Dossier was “salacious and unverified” today it is “salacious and false”. Whatever it is it never reached the standard of evidence that should have been necescary for a warrant.
    Yet as Mueller noted thousands of subpeona’s and warrants as well as a grand jury were convened.

    ON WHAT BASIS ?

    Are we going to sic the FBI on every politician or political campaign that is targeted by ugly rumors ? I know the 4th amendment has been nearly shredded – and this is just another example of how wrong that is. But I even the tattered shadow of itself that remains should not allow the Steele Dossier to serve as a justification for anything that requires a warrant.

    That is problem number one – and that alone completely undermines any claim that Comey had other means – he did not – BECAUSE what he sought to do was UNETHICAL from the start. Turley’s argument is NOT that Comey could have ethically accomplished his purposes. Turley’s argument is that Comey could have used different unethical means to accomplish his purposes.

    The 2nd problem is “Comey’s purposes”.

    I do not normally encourage speculation into why people do things. We can not read minds. We should focus on ACTS. An act is a fact. It is right or wrong, it is legal or not.

    But Comey’s purpose in his meeting with Trump at Trump tower requires inquiry – not because of some need to read minds, But because there is no possible legitimate purpose. And because in several instances Comey has admitted his desire to use his power as FBI director to do what is little more than spread gossip to the press.

    It is not the role of the FBI director (or any in the executive branch) to “influence” elections, nor to cast judgement on the words, intentions, purported motives of elected officials. It is not their role to decide what gosip the public should here. Pretty much nothing that Comey has sought to assure that the public gain knowledge of is NOT a fact.

    There are almost no verified facts in the Steele Dossier – and those are mundane and were already public. In fact the Steele Dossier appears to be a combination of facts that were previously reported in the press and fantasmagorical speculation arround those facts. The press had the Steele Dossier – if they wanted to print it – they could.
    It was not ethical conduct – and likely not legal conduct for anyone in government to attempt to encourage the press to defame people using “salacious and unverified” gossip.

    What Comey thinks the public needed to hear regarding his conversations with Trump – is NOT for the most part the FACTS of those conversation. It was Comey’s spin of those facts, It was Comey’s speculation regarding Trump’s intentions that Comey wanted made public – and that again is improper – unethical, regardless of the means.

    Every single US citizen gets a voice regarding our elected officials. We express that voice on the first tuesday in november when we vote. Those of us who work in government may not use in any way the power of our offices to express our personal views regarding preferences for who should hold office.

    1. Finding out there was no evidence of collusion was done on the very first day, even earlier. When it may have become a criminal or near criminal act was when Meuller failed to simply say, “Collusion is not a crime’ and failed to do so. It is, to this day still not a day. However it backfired when far from uncovering what was intended it uncovered the criminal acts of not only the Clintons but various others in the Socialist Camp. yes i know they call themselves democrats and they call this a Democracy but like collusion both of those are false claims. That group to my knowledge has never been democratic by any means nor have we ever been a Democracy since The Constitution was accepted by 100 percent of the 13 nation states involved.

      i’m on the side that saw how Comey made public statement that was not his right to make – that belonged to Loretta Lynch – and eith because he was incompetent or on purpose selected one part of the US Code that called for ‘intent’ as an element. the others did not do so. One left intent completely out and another stated a history of such actions were on their own proof of intent.

      In point of fact he lied stating he could not prove intent then played stupid. and further went beyond the bounds of his office (various names misprision or malfeasance) in making the announcement and then we find violated further the regulations on handling classified documents.

      It looks an awful lot like someone got bought off but not just to protect Hillary.

      1. Michael is another who has not even bothered to read a summation of the Mueller Report and is also completely ignorant of it’s findings – it did not find “no collusion”).

        As to Hillary’s “intent” with classified materials, no one has made that claim with any standing and it’s a necessary component according to the SC.

        “…In Gorin v. United States (1941), the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a conviction of a Navy intelligence official who sold classified material to the Soviet Union on Japanese intelligence operations in the United States….

        Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:

        The sections are not simple prohibitions against obtaining or delivering to foreign powers information… relating to national defense. If this were the language, it would need to be tested by the inquiry as to whether it had double meaning or forced anyone, at his peril, to speculate as to whether certain actions violated the statute.

        In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f).

        Without the requirement of intent, the phrase “relating to the national defense” would be unconstitutionally vague. This reading of the statute has guided federal prosecutors ever since, which is why Comey based his decision not to file charges on Clinton’s lack of intent. This is also why no one has ever been convicted of violating 793(f) on a gross negligence theory….

        …Members of the U.S. military have been charged with the negligent mishandling of classified material, but not under 793(f). Criminal charges in military court are brought under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the Espionage Act (although violations of the Espionage Act can be charged under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in military court)…”

        John Ford is a former military prosecutor and a current reserve U.S. Army Judge Advocate. He now practices law in California.

        https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/

        1. Anon1 is a known troll and liar:

          “Comey did not release anything to the public”

          Until you address this lie, I will post your comment. It speaks for itself and for your nature.

            1. That is a straight up lie that I’ll add to your posts when I see them. I did notice quite a number of people in the comments wondering what’s up with your b.s. It’s just what you do.

                1. Anon1 – you do realize that Comey releasing it to his friend is releasing it to the public. The public can be one person. Just as publishing can be speaking to only one person.

                  1. Paul:

                    public

                    adjective
                    1. of or concerning the people as a whole.
                    “public concern”
                    synonyms: popular, general, common, communal, collective, shared, joint, universal, widespread
                    “there is a great public demand for information on food”
                    2. done, perceived, or existing in open view.
                    “he wanted a public apology in the Wall Street Journal”
                    synonyms: known, widely known, overt, plain, obvious, in circulation, published, publicized, exposed

                    1. Anon1 – your definition makes my point.

                      public
                      adjective
                      1. of or concerning the people as a whole.
                      “public concern”
                      synonyms:
                      shared, joint,

                      2. done, perceived, or existing in open view.
                      “he wanted a public apology in the Wall Street Journal”
                      synonyms: known, overt, plain, obvious, in circulation, published, publicized, exposed

    2. Let’s just stop with “….Mueller did not just find there was no evidence of collusion,…”

      No, he did not find that.

      Next?

      1. Anon is playing Simon Says again. Unless ‘Simon Says’ is said first nothing counts unless coming from the Washington Post or the NYtimes. That is a totally idiotic way of thinking.

            1. Your lies and deceptions are everywhere for all to see:

              “Comey did not release ANYTHING to the public”

              Come back when you address the lie.

              1. I know you have no explanation so you will dissemble once again. I will keep posting your own comment to your posts from now on so everyone knows what you are up to. Please feel free to do the same to me as we both know that this is a fight you can’t win. You may want to change your handle soon.

                1. Ivan, I gave you a complete explanation, no holes, no wiggle, blunt facts.. Was there something you didn’t understand?

                  PS There wasn’t any fight.

                  1. Your words have no defense as is obvious for all to see. You have provided no explanation whatsoever. Otherwise, you would defend your comment here.

                    1. Under the name of Jan F. Anon said certain things and then denied them. I quoted what he had previously said. Jan F. (Anon) then ran away and a short time later reappeared under the name Anon trying to hide himself among the others. Ivan you have called Anon out and you are absolutely correct.

          1. Thanks Ivan. I think everyone including Anon realizes that, but he also states mistruths because he is ignorant and arrogant. So was Jan F. his former personality. Things don’t seem to progress for the better where Anon is concerned.

            1. I don’t think he lies out of arrogance or ignorance(maybe I’m wrong?). It’s 100% considered and calculated and he’s not a troll just having fun. He seeks to misinform, distract, and deflect for political purposes. He would fit in perfectly in DC. I wouldn’t jump to saying that he’s a paid shill…I’m guessing he actually has a personality disorder.

  6. If you are a federal investigator your notes of any kind regarding that investigation are presumptively NOT PUBLIC.
    It is at the very least improper and possibly illegal.

    Turley and others have noted that historically such acts do not get prosecuted.

    That is WRONG. If we are going to make a law – we MUST prosecute it. We PARTICULARLY must prosecute those who OPENLY violate it. AND those who were charged to enforce the law and still violate it.

    One of the observations that Comey got close to correct regarding Clinton – is that we DO have different standards regarding classified material for different roles.

    A soldier who commits even a small breach of low level information will likely face SEVERE consequences. A staffer at the Department of Commerce will not.

    The director of the FBI is LAW ENFORCEMENT – the consequences should be HIGH.

    As the IG noted Comey’s choice effected the entire FBI, its moral, its reputation, as well as creating a culture of ignoring policy and the law.
    The consequences to Comey MUST be severe. that is a requirement to assure that no FBI director ever pulls this nonsense again AND to restore the reputation of the FBI AND to send a message that the culture of lawlessness that Comey fostered is at an END.

    Other things in the IG report are even more damning. I am not precisely sure what crime was involved, but Comey’s use of the Steele Dossier in the President Elect Trump meeting, is absolutely unconscionable. That must never happen again.

    We beleive that J. Edgar Hoover engaged in similar tactics – though primarily to enhance the power of the FBI, not for political ends as Comey did.

    Regardless, we MUST send a message that this can not happen again.

    It is the role of law enforcement to investigate allegations of crimes – NOT to create new crimes, not to find ways of blackmailing people.

    Nixon formed the Plumbers BECAUSE the IRS, FBI, CIA, … would NOT go after his political opponents as he wanted.

    What occured during the Obama administration is WORSE – because the instutitions of government were used for purely political purposes.

    1. Paul how would you know in this forum? Natacha’s real name might be George Soros. Depends on who is really dong the writing with these or those who do not provide real names. In this case it could be French or Danish but not English or Russian. The grammatical rule we use in English is a person’s name may be spelled and pronounced any way they see fit much less their gender.

Leave a Reply to Ivan Cancel reply