Democrats Doth Protest Too Much Against The Durham Investigation

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on growing and preemptive criticism of the Durham investigation by Democrats. Given the acknowledgment that United States Attorney John Durham is a widely respected and apolitical prosecutor, the rising criticism of his investigation seems suspiciously premature. For those of us who support full and transparent investigations of both sides of the 2016 election controversy, the campaign against Durham is reminiscent of the attacks on Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Here is the column:

“She doth protest too much, methinks” is often misunderstood as a comment by Hamlet. But it is the response of his mother, Queen Gertrude, after he asks, “Madam, how like you this play?” Hamlet had arranged a performance that was strikingly similar to his suspicion that his uncle and mother murdered his father, the king, and then married. Her response to his “play within a play” only confirmed his suspicions of her guilt.

The same could be said in watching key Democrats “protest too much” to the investigation by United States Attorney John Durham into the origins of the Russia probe. Durham is asking why the Obama administration ordered secret surveillance and investigations of figures associated with the presidential campaign of the opposing political party. So much like Hamlet, this investigation within an investigation is strikingly similar to the allegations against the Trump campaign but involves Democratic figures. There are questions over the solicitation of foreign intelligence in the 2016 election, allegations of undue influence, and the use of later discredited allegations of conspiracy. According to news reports, Durham has now asked for his investigation to be elevated to a criminal investigation.

Both House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff have described the actions of Durham, a previously lionized prosecutor, as an abuse. Indeed, they declared that allowing Durham to look into potentially criminal conduct would cause “new and irreparable damage” to the rule of law. While he acknowledged that Durham is an honest and respected prosecutor, Schiff called the probe illegitimate and indicated that he would likely reject its findings.

It is a strikingly familiar strategy. Schiff himself cried foul last year when President Trump did the same thing to preempt and discredit the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller. Like Mueller, Durham has done high profile investigations under Democratic and Republican administrations and has a stellar reputation as a solid no nonsense professional. Some of us have long supported both investigations. The news, however, that Durham sought the added powers of a criminal prosecution, including the ability to use grand juries, triggered a concerted effort to undermine his findings before he has made them.

The response by the Democrats is particularly glaring because, over the last three years, they have insisted on total transparency and a complete investigation of whether Trump campaign officials conspired with Russia in the 2016 election. Any statements or actions by Trump opposing that investigation have been declared both criminal and impeachable by the Democrats. However, the party that has demanded full disclosure and unhampered inquiry of the Trump administration is now apoplectic about an investigation touching on actions by the Obama administration.

The reason some of us have supported a full investigation of both sides is obvious. If Trump officials conspired with Russians to influence the 2016 election, the implications for our democratic system would be immense. The minute Trump fired FBI director James Comey in the middle of that investigation, many of us declared support for a special counsel. There are equally serious concerns raised by a Democratic administration launching an investigation of figures associated with a Republican challenger. There could well be valid reasons for that inquiry, however, the investigation of opposing political figures is a common practice in authoritarian nations, and it raises troubling implications for our government system.

Those concerns were magnified by the Obama administration relying on the work of former British spy Christopher Steele, paid for by the Clinton campaign, which lied repeatedly about funding his dossier that notably relied on Russian intelligence figures. While concerns were raised about the accuracy of the dossier, the FBI relied in part on it and mentioned only briefly that Steele might have had questionable motivations. Ultimately, Mueller found no evidence that any Trump associate or any other citizen knowingly colluded, conspired, or worked with Russian agents.

That seems ample reason for a full investigation by Durham to parallel the special counsel. With the nation so deeply divided over these allegations, the need for a full investigation of both sides would appear not just fairly warranted but essential to restore public faith in government actions. The protests over the Durham investigation are ironic because Democrats are doing precisely what Trump wrongly did with the Mueller investigation. At the time, I denounced Trump for his disparaging comments on the special counsel as highly inappropriate and reckless. So did the Democrats.

One of their talking points is that lawmakers already investigated the questions being looked into by Durham. Yet the Senate Intelligence Committee did not have the greater resources of a criminal investigation. Durham concluded, after more than a year of looking into the original Russian probe, that such criminal investigative powers would be necessary. He could well reach the same conclusion as the Senate investigators, but he has access to information not available to them. Not only can he review privileged material within the executive branch, but Durham enlisted Attorney General William Barr to secure unreviewed evidence held by foreign countries involving key players in the original probe. That includes tapes of an interview with professor Joseph Mifsud.

As I have previously discussed, Mifsud remains mired in controversy. The Maltese academic appeared to have ties to the Russians and seemed eager to tell former the Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos that the Russians had hacked the Clinton campaign emails. Mueller reported that Mifsud lied repeatedly to investigators but, curiously, did not pursue criminal charges. That has fueled speculation about the true controllers of Mifsud, and Durham could put that controversy and many others to rest.

There are legitimate questions about the Obama administration looking into Trump associates. Those questions are magnified by the shocking bias of key players in the Russian probe, which led to the dismissal of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe and FBI agent Peter Strzok. The Justice Department inspector general referred prior allegations involving officials like McCabe for possible criminal charges, a referral rejected under the attorney general. It is bizarre for Democrats to argue that key officials referring to “insurance policies” against a Trump victory should not concern the public or warrant finishing the Durham investigation.

That is why this investigation within an investigation can produce the most revealing moments. One does not have to believe that there is “something rotten” in the FBI to support the completion of the Durham investigation, from which many are unlikely to emerge unscathed. But the increasing protests over his work only heightens suspicions, and that is exactly why we need more disclosure than drama from Washington.

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

80 thoughts on “Democrats Doth Protest Too Much Against The Durham Investigation”

  1. Why isn’t Turley able to grasp that if the Durham investigation is legitimate – then so were the actions of Trump regarding the Ukraine.

    The question is not whether there is some political benefit to an investigation.

    Everything that any administration does has either political benefits or political costs.

    Further politics is a factor in all decision making in government.

    Durham might be more credible because he is regarded as apolitical – and it is generally wise for us to place politically charged matters in the hands of less obviously politically motivated people. but it is not our motives, but our acts and the facts that determine their legitimacy.

    If Durham has reasonable suspicion – his investigation is legitimate,
    If Trump has reasonable suspicion – he requests of the Ukraine are legitimate.
    If all those involved in crossfire hurricane, its predecessors and successors had reasonable suspicion – their actions are legitimate, and if they did not, then they are immoral, unethical and possibly illegal.

    The standard is the same – Durham. Trump, Comey, Mueller, …..

    1. DSS – Vindman already stepped in it when he stated that Donald Trump was not following the carefully laid out program as set out by the IC and State. Remind me again, who sets foreign policy?

    1. Tabby, I think you’re the only one I know who reads P J Media.

      John McLaughlin, for the record, spent more than 30 years in the CIA. He was a Deputy Director, then Acting Director under George W. Bush. McLaughlin was one of those career civil servants who served under both parties; the kind of people we used to value in government. But Trumpers like you portray career professionals as beneath contempt; reflecting Trump’s disdain for anyone with real expertise.

      That’s why the ‘Deep State’ joke, McLaughlin made on “Face The Nation”, seems amusing to non-Trumpers. Because we know how much Trump despises career professionals. And when presidents, with no experience, come into office expressing contempt for career professionals, they soon have problems with ‘Deep State’. That would happen in any corporate culture.

      If an executive made his career at Pillsbury, marketing cake mixes, then implausibly became CEO of General Motors, he would encounter resistance from GM’s career professionals. Their attitude would be, “I ain’t takin orders from the Pillsbury Doughboy”. And it’s worth noting that Donald Trump resembles a grotesque caricature of the Pillsbury Doughboy.

      Deep State happens when a reality star implausibly gets the White House and tells every career professional he knows more than them.

      1. Deep State happens when a reality star implausibly gets the White House and tells every career professional he knows more than them.

        Shill,
        I don’t care how many names you post under, you are never going to connect with the left half of your brain.

        You are too ignorant to realize that you’re proving President Trump, Republicans and every conservative’s point…the Deep State exists, they believe they are smarter than everyone else, they choose who runs the country (not the American people), and they will destroy whoever gets in their way. That’s called treason. The fact you believe it’s justifiable makes you an enemy of the state.

        1. Olly, historically we elected presidents whose careers were centered on government. There was a reason for that. We wanted career professionals to supervise career professionals.

          In other words, ‘Presidents have to understand how government works, in order to lead the government’. This principle makes perfect sense to everyone outside the rightwing bubble.

          1. Peter, you need to go back to school and learn our history and Constitution. We elect an idependent president for a reason. You are thinking of a different type of government, perhaps an oligarchy.

            1. Quite the opposite, Alan. In an oligarchy all the top players are hacks appointed only for their loyalty to the strongman. That’s the type of government Trump aspire to implement. But Deep State keeps getting in the way.

              1. ha ha no Trump is a populist. the oligarchy is and always has been staunchly behind the hacks at CIA. in fact there’s been a revolving door behind the top CIA hacks and Wall Street all along in case you didn’t know the basic facts of history. read up a little.

                oh and I might add, the top hacks at CIA are not weak. they may be bad but they are smart bold not weak and they are not timid. they are totally capable of an unlawful coup against any president. i remember when you Democrats were sure it had been done before and the target was JFK. seems that story is forgotten or maybe you believe it now after all.

                here let me see if I can think of another Yalie CIA creep that decided he didn’t like a president

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cord_Meyer

              2. As usual Peter doesn’t know what he is talking about. He doesn’t realize that an oligarchy can contain the most powerful members of a country including military leaders that are not hacks and have led troops that are loyal to them.

                Trump aspires to a government based on the Constitution. While Obama violated the Constitution many times and used executive power excessively Trump has been reasonably true to the Constitution and mostly used executive power to cancel out many of the executive orders created by Obama. Obama’s method was scrrew Congress, I have a “Pen and a Telephone”.

                You are not interested in our Constitutional Republic so you are willing to destroy it and the Constitution in order to rid yourselves of the last election and the coming election. You are pushing for a dictatorship and you might win, but remember the dummies that supported the Russian revolution became disenchanted and were killed.

                Don’t bother going back to school. Olly is right. The circuits in your brain do not connect.

              3. Here are some future sockpuppets appropriate for your use:

                B. Arnold
                J. Walker Jr.
                N. M. Hasan
                R. Hanssen
                J. of perhaps E. Rosenberg
                A. Burr
                T. Rose
                A. Ames
                A. Y. Gadahn
                J. Fonda

              4. No, John. Over and over again, Democrats are guilty of what they accuse Republicans of.

                This is another of those cases. The Deep State subverts the will of voters. When bureaucracy and activists in the intelligence community target elected leaders for political purposes, it is anathema to both a Democracy and a Republic. This is how coups occur.

                There would not have been chortling in the room in the video if the Deep State had targeted Obama and tried to unseat him. They only applaud this tyrannical behavior when it serves their purposes, but would be horrified if such a Deep State worked in Trump’s favor.

                Also, an oligarchy, by definition, is rule by a handful of people or an organization, not any one “strongman.” In this case, it is the deep state itself that runs the country, with Congress and the Executive branches relatively irrelevant.

                We witnessed the infiltration of Democrats into the public education system, people who bring their politics to work. They are in the administration of schools, as well. The union donates to Democrats, and forced its members to pay political donations to Democrats. It has become extremely difficult to rein them in, at this point.

                Through a similar process, if you get enough Democrat activists in the government alphabet soup, then they effectively run the country. Its an impenetrable morass of bureaucrats, officials, and the intelligence community, who stay constant as Congress and the Executive rotate out.

                Look at the policies that unelected CARB (California Air Resource Board) has inflicted upon Californians without a single vote.

          2. Presidents have to understand how government works, in order to lead the government.

            Perfect sense, huh? Are you trying to make the case for denying the franchise to voters that don’t understand how the government works? I ask, because they are the people responsible for hiring the Chief Executive and Legislators. I can assure you that every progressive would be removed from office if the only people allowed to vote were those that understood how government was supposed to work.

            Yeah, let’s do that.

            1. Olly, there was a time when most Republicans valued experience in government. And there were many progressive Republicans as well. In fact, Republicans were progressives ‘before’ Democrats.

              Only very recently did rightwing media push this idea that business experience could be more valuable than government experience with regards to presidential candidates. But it never works.

              Before Donald Trump, Herbert Hoover was the closest thing we had to a president whose background was centered primarily in business. Hoover, however, didn’t work out that well.

              We’ve all known successful businessmen who were abusive, neurotic or ignorant outside their fields. People usually succeed in business because they have a keen understanding of how ‘their’ particular business works.

              1. Take note of the failures of these so called experienced people. They are humans and have found a home. Just like bees if you upset their home they will sting you. But, bees make honey and many of the deep state do nothing but suck the teet of big government.

                Trump on the other hand has done wonders for the nation. You are orgasmic over titles and degrees but don’t recognize quality leadership.

              2. Only very recently did rightwing media push this idea that business experience could be more valuable than government experience with regards to presidential candidates. But it never works.

                Again, Barack Obama’s ‘government experience’ consisted of marking time in legislatures. He was, during those years, a recognized maven in no area of policy. The only notable milestones you can detect during those years were the large raises his wife received at opportune times.

              3. But it never works.

                You dodged the voter question. Despite what you and your deep state cronies claim as your higher calling, our constitution provides the voters the opportunity to retain or fire the chief executive every four years. And it is precisely because of the leadership and vision of this president that his particular expertise is working and the reason the deep staters have been trying furiously to remove him before the citizens vote to retain him in the 2020 election.

              4. this criticism from hill is legit to a point; civil service and business endeavors are not the same. likewise legal background is helpful but not strictly necessary.

                large scale real estate development is actually one of the kinds of businesses that makes for strong political experience.

                there’s other large developers who have a lot of political, let’s say, connections, and insight.
                angelo tsakopoulos was one. I don’t think he had any office himself, but he sure funded a lot of elections. look up his donations the past 30 years, quite impressive sums. he may be retired now, but his business isnt gone. California Democrat. his daughter Eleni was ambassador to Hungary. now Lt Governor. of CA.

                business was seen as valuable experience in the past too, you discredit this needlessly. you guys have built Dick Cheney up into Darth Vader for whatever business experience he had, which apparenlty enhanced his image for power, if not virtue. Truman was a small businessman, even if he had a hard time of it. if you turn back to the founders like Washington and Jefferson, they were agricultural magnates, basically.

                1. Again, Shill has been given to extolling Obama for having ‘held high office’ when the man acquired no executive experience in any venue. He’d been a federal legislator for all of 30 months when he began his campaign in 2007.
                  What’s amusing is that the one Democratic candidate who was a seminal figure in an executive position is Bernie Sanders. In Burlington, there’s a before-Sanders and after-Sanders era in the city’s politics. Shill despises Sanders.

                  This year’s crop includes Joseph Biden and Elizabeth Warren, neither of whom have held an executive position. Biden’s a stew of intellectual and character deficits. Warren’s a serial fabulist. Booty-gig has a background as an executive: he’s a perfectly meh business-as-usual small-city mayor who has no accomplishments anyone not at the trough in South Bend would care about. Kamala Harris is the purest example of a casting-couch audition that’s been seen in the history of federal politics. Cycle back to 2008, and your candidates are an empty suit and a couple of skeevy lawyers. You’d have to go back to 2004 to find a quality candidate (Wesley Clark) competing well in a Democratic primary donnybrook and back to 1988 for an example of a quality candidate actually winning the nomination.

                  1. Tabby, all I see here is list of ‘What Abouts’. And ‘What Abouts’ are all we get from Trumpers. Historians will look back and say Trump’s actions were typically defended with ‘What Abouts’.

                    1. Peter – what we are doing it pointing out the rampant hypocrisy of those trying to throw Trump out of office without an election. They can’t even run an impeachment without stacking the deck.

              5. “Only very recently did rightwing media push this idea that business experience could be more valuable than government experience with regards to presidential candidates.”

                Actually, it was quite common throughout our history for business owners, farmers, and military men to hold the Presidency or serve in Congress.

                It used to be considered a civic duty for people to participate in government at all levels, temporarily, and then lay it down and return to their private lives.

                1. Karen, you’re wrong! Until Trump every president had been a Vice President, Senator, Governor or Military General. The only real exceptions were William Howard Taft who had been a Judge and Solicitor General and Herbert Hoover who had been Secretary of Commerce. But even Taft and Hoover had still been in the Federal Government. Trump is actually the first president in history to have absolutely NO experience in government. And that explains his ‘deep state’ problems.

          3. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, madison, Munroe, Adams, Jackson, .. Lincoln.

            These are NOT people whose careers were centered on government.

            No we do not want career professionals to supervise career professionals.

            We do not want people who understand how govenrment works – we want people who understand how the WORLD works’

            Government serves the people – not the other way arround.

            Your “principle” is neither correct, nor a principle.
            If you beleive it, that merely demostrates that you are badly educated.
            I would suggest history, philosophy and logic.

            “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”
            Adam Smith

            Do you think your career public servants are wiser than Adam Smith ?

            Regardless, there is a bubble of badly educated people today – but it is not on the right.

          1. DUH! Every CEO of every organization has subordinates that are more knowledgeable in their AOR than the CEO. Conversely, if the subordinates had the CEO’s expertise, they likely wouldn’t be subordinates, but rather the CEO themselves. So where does that leave us? With insubordinates in the deep state conspiring to remove the CEO without shareholder approval. This is not going to end well for the insubordinates or their deep state handlers.

      2. Oh, I read PJ media too buddy

        The CIA boss admitted the existence of the Deep State and its explicit plan to sabotage the CIC.
        This was no joke even if he giggled. it’s not a giggling proposition.

        He’s exactly why not just Trump but a lot of us out here despise the socalled professionals in the Swamp, too
        along with that other malingerer, saboteur, and plotter Brennan

        “I now no longer believe anything the Agency [CIA] told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity…. “

        — G. Robert Blakey, former Chief Counsel to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, in an addendum to the web page for the Frontline episode “Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?”.

        [Blakey wrote this after learning that CIA liaison George Joannides had been case officer for an anti-Castro group whose members had contact with accused assassin Lee Oswald in 1963.]

        Blakey explained:

        “We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency. Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in that camp.”

      3. What is the record of those career experts in government ?

        I am watching Ken Burn’s Vietnam right now – all those in Defense, CIA, … that got us into Vietnam, that set the policy and direction for fighting it.

        They were no different from those good career people today.
        What of those who led us into Iraq, or kept us in Afghanistan, or helped provoke the disasterous coup in Ukraine or who intervened in libya or Syria or mucked things up with Iran – pick almost any decade in the past century for mucked things up in Iran.

        Experts, Career civil servants, incredibly smart people. Have pretty much universally forked things up atleast back as far as the Wilson administration,

        There is no contradiction in beleiving the experts who advise us, Trump, Obama, Bush, …. are smart, skilled, knowledgeable, well intentioned, and WRONG.

        Fundimentally this is not about expertise, but it is about the misuse of expertise.

        In the free market – ideas – expertise competes in ways that ultimately ensure that even if we do not make the very best choices – that most of the time we make good choices.

        That is NOT true in government.
        Worse still choices within government are binary.
        No matter how many options there are – government will pick ONE,
        Rarely will we concurrently pursue multiple options with better prevailing over worse.

        And finally – government is FORCE Expertise in government ultimately leads to the use of force. We should be far far far more circumspect in that that we are.

        No I do not hold the so called experts in government in very high regard.,
        Government consumers 40-50% of everything we produce – it does not come close to producing a fraction of that value.

        I would trust a drug dealer more than most civil servants – no matter how well intentioned. Drug dealers have skin in the game.

  2. What really irks me is that after multiple reports indicating that the FISA court determined illegal spying was done on Americans the FISA court isn’t forced to disclose the extent of such spying, punishments for the spying or measures put in place to prevent future spying on Americans. They should be forced to weigh in on the issues at hand or risk being dissolved. I am sick of the lack of transparency that the American public is forced to endure.

      1. Anon1 — who hired you to make those calls? You calling the Kremlin as an agent of Hillary Clinton? The DNC? Working for those treacherous Dems? Uh huh…we see you.

  3. TRUMP COULD HAVE AVOIDED..

    MUELLER PROBE AND IMPEACHMENT

    Actors are trained to deal with the moment. They must acknowledge what’s happening in the scene. Stage actors, for instance, have to expect the scene to play differently every performance. So never deny what’s happening on stage.

    Donald Trump should know these rules. As star of “The Apprentice”, Trump displayed canny improv skills. Those skills are the hallmark of Trump’s political rallies. Trump is good at playing off the audience. Yet Trump bungled inexcusably with Russian Interference.

    Trump should have dealt with the moment. Shortly after the election, Russian Interference became a major story. Apparently journalists knew that Russia was trying to influence the election. One could see it on Facebook streams. The Bernie Bros, more than anyone, were posting Russian memes.

    But mainstream media waited until the election was over. To tell the country Russian trolls had run disinformation campaigns. One can argue the election turned on other factors. It doesn’t matter though. Donald Trump should have acknowledged foreign interference.

    Trump should have addressed it in his inaugural speech. He could have expressed concern that hackers had manipulated social media. Trump could have called for a bipartisan commission to investigate the matter. That way Trump would have have covered his butt. Go on record early expressing concern. Smart employees do that at every company.

    But Trump had boxed himself in. By saying stupid things like, “I love Wikileaks”. And, “Vladimir Putin if you’re listening–

    Having uttered such mindless declarations, Trump gave himself no wiggle room. It would have been hard to acknowledge ‘later’ that foreign interference occurred. Journalists might have asked, of course, “Why did you praise Wikileaks?” Journalists might have noted Trump had warned the election would be ‘rigged’. “What did he mean by that?”

    Questions like that would have been uncomfortable. For that reason Trump denied the interference; calling it ‘fake news’. But denial never works when everyone else acknowledges. Which made Trump look guilty of something. A president can’t deny a threat his cabinet acknowledges. The optics are terrible!

    Trump has only himself to blame for the Mueller Probe. And the phone calls to Zelensky should have only concerned commitments to an ally. Yet aside from Hunter Biden, Trump was pursing a wild conspiracy involving Hillary’s server. Aides had to told Trump several times the conspiracy was false. But Trump pushed until the conspiracy blew up in his face! Crackpot conspiracies tend to go that way.

    1. “Actors are trained to deal with the moment. They must acknowledge what’s happening in the scene. Stage actors, for instance, have to expect the scene to play differently every performance. So never deny what’s happening on stage.”

      You deal in the world of make believe, not reality. That is your problem.

      1. You deal in the world of make believe, not reality.

        Allan,
        The changing of characters proves Shill’s not even dealing very well with his make believe world. Whatever name/character he pretends to be, he’s still not connecting with the left half of his brain.

    2. John Burgoyne — the title of the horror movie the Democrat ‘bad actors’ will be watching in November of 2020 is: “Massacre at the Ballot Box.”

  4. “The sham impeachment would never have been possible without the complicity of the mainstream media, both in creating hysteria and in suppressing information. The “democracy dies in darkness” preeners have eagerly embraced a closed-door process for partisan purposes.” #shampeachment -Joel B. Pollak Oct 31, 2019

  5. FALSE NARRATIVE:

    “TRUMP WAS UNFAIRLY TARGETED FOR INVESTIGATION”

    Trump and his defenders have been pushing the narrative that he was the ‘victim’ of conniving plotters at the FBI, CIA and Clinton Camp. This scenario hinges on the premise that Trump was a rational man of integrity respected in the business world. But that wasn’t Donald Trump!

    Long before he announced his campaign, Trump was known for leading the so-called ‘Birther Movement’. To a large segment of the public that movement was regarded as a dog whistle to racists. Nor was Trump that respected in the business world. Most of the major banks had stopped lending to Trump. And it was widely known that Trump had turned to Russian investors as a funding source.

    When Christopher Steele began work on his dossier, he more than likely reviewed the many business journal stories reporting Trump’s links to Russian investors. Those stories could have been googled by any interested party. Trump’s son, Don Jr., was widely quoted for saying the Trump Organization was taking Russian money. Said links were no secret to the business world.

    From the beginning of his presidential campaign, Trump distinguished himself early as rash and immature. There was that shocking incident, during Republican debates, when Trump made ‘jokes’ about Megan Kelly’s periods. In a normal America that should have been the ‘end’ of Trump’s campaign! And it’s strange that Fox News didn’t condemn Trump right there. Kelly was, after all, one of their best-known personalities. But we now know that a culture of sexism existed behind the scenes at Fox.

    During his campaign, Trump shocked the country repeatedly. His speeches at rallies were mostly improvised rants. Rarely did Trump display any real knowledge of domestic or foreign affairs. Nor did Trump display any curiosity regarding topics presidents should know. Instead all we heard from Trump were overtly racist references to ‘Illegals’ from Mexico. At one point Trump even referred to the “Mexican judge” hearing the Trump University case; a malicious slap at a man born in Indiana.

    No sooner had Trump assumed office when he made irrational claims about the crowds size at his inauguration. That was quickly followed by Trump’s demand that a commission be assembled to investigate voting by ‘Illegal Aliens’. Yet Trump had ‘no’ interest whatsoever in investigating foreign interference in the election. Instead Trump kept dismissing that as ‘fake news’; which led to a bizarre disconnect where virtually his whole cabinet acknowledged the interference while Trump kept denying it. This weird disconnect alone justified the Mueller Probe.

    Never had this country had a sitting president actively deny a threat acknowledged by everyone else in government. But Trump’s denials didn’t end there. During his first several months in office Trump broke all records for false assertions by a sitting president. Never had a president so divorced from science and facts. Trump even doubled-down on false assertions while attacking mainstream media. We never had a president so hostile to the press so early in his presidency.

    Therefore this whole premise that Trump was the ‘innocent victim’ of ‘deep state conspirators’ is the biggest lie in recent American history. Never has a president tried so hard to get himself impeached.

    1. “This scenario hinges on the premise that Trump was a rational man of integrity respected in the business world.”

      No, it doesn’t.

      1. Anonymous, the premise makes no sense if one acknowledges that Trump was rash and immature with no experience in government.

        1. Burgoyne, Trump is very successful as President and was very successful as a businessman. His children are successful and none are cokeheads. That you don’t like Trump is clear. Don’t vote for him in 2020 but to delve into lies and insignificant things only demonstrates that your ideology is more powerful than your logic.

            1. “But people know it’s me from my attitude.”

              Maybe in some cases, but it’s also the format that gives you away.

    1. TIA,
      Why are Republicans excluded from this inquiry at all? Impeachment is serious and should not partisan. If there is true wrongdoing, then impeachment would be bipartisan.

      1. Republicans are not excluded from the inquiry or interrogating witnesses. They may call their own witnesses if relevant to the inquiry. As in all house business since it’s beginnings, the majority decides conflicts.

        1. “the majority decides conflicts.”

          One has to be pretty stupid not to know what that means. There is a conflict as to the questions being asked, the witnesses called, the transcripts being released to House members and to the leaks instead of the actual statements being released.

          You should be smart enough to be able to realize that “the majority decides conflicts.” means that Republicans are being excluded from getting to the truth.

  6. Pelosi announced the Trump impeachment inquiry on Sept. 24, saying at
    the time that “the president must be held accountable” for his “betrayal
    of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security, and the
    betrayal of the integrity of our elections.”

    Not one word is anything but Comrade Pelosi describing herself and her crimes against our Constiutional Republic and our Citizens in the most exact manner possible. Each and every word from her mouth is self indicting.

    Four years ago we formed a Constitutional Centrist Coalition. When all the non DNC/GOP factions were counted together as independents it came to 40% of the legal vote in the legal election. Having made it impossible for the far left to win and adding in the non RINO Constitutional Republic sitting elected officials the total became 55% of the legal valid vote – and we did it with no budget.

    The effort was led by off duty members of our standing military who stated ‘ballots not bullets’ thus rebuking the then Commander In Chief’s stated wishes to turn the DNS into a protective echelon or schutzstaffel for his own personal use. As you know there was much more with Clinton the main target and the DNC aka Socialist Party as number two and rInos as number three over a six year period.

    That legal counter revolution has gone on and grown as we ensured the citizens of the country understand the falsely named democrats who are far from being democratic and nowhere near constitutional were exposed as nothing but Socialists. National socialists, international socialists and regressive liberal socialists. The Marxist Leninist, Mussolini spawned triad that indeed are enemies of our Republic and our citizens.

    I call for use of the military who does know what their Oath of Office means unlike Comrade Pelosi to prepare for upholding their oath of office under the anti-terrorist provisions of the Patriot Act preferably using the rules set forth for anti-terrorist actions as needed

    from the independent, unaffiliated, self governing citizens of the acting as a Constitutional Centrist Coalition where The Constitution is the CENTER.

  7. The protests over the Durham investigation are ironic because Democrats are doing precisely what Trump wrongly did with the Mueller investigation. At the time, I denounced Trump for his disparaging comments on the special counsel as highly inappropriate and reckless.

    That’s a false equivalency, as the root of this poisonous tree is of the IC/FBI/DNC/Clinton/foreign actors making. That tree has borne fruit that has undermined the people’s confidence in every institution of our government.

    Your argument reminds me of the feckless military rule-of-engagement requiring US forces to only respond to a threat after they’ve been attacked. Your argument however is far more dangerous. You would require the attack to continue without an appropriate response until it was determined the hostile force was not justified to attack in the first place.

  8. “That has fueled speculation about the true controllers of Mifsud”

    yeah like CIA maybe.

    CIA serves the president. Setting up a bogus investigation and doing assorted other bad things to make him look bad is not serving him it’s essentially pulling an extra constiutional coup d’etat. Something the CIA are reknowned specialists at, just so happens.

    Can’t be allowed or then the bureaucracy is controlling the US not the the people.

    1. It is not my job to decide if Brett Kavanaugh is guilty. It’s impossible for me to do so with incomplete information, and with no process for testing competing facts. But it’s certainly not my job to exonerate him because it’s good for his career, or for mine, or for the future of an independent judiciary.

      That’s right lady, it’s not your job to do either. The fact she is so aggrieved that she cannot return to the court, belies her title as a legal correspondent.

    2. “But always swathed in black robes and velvet curtains, in polite questions, and case names and at least the appearance that this was all cool science, as opposed to blood sport.”

      Oh, it’s not a blood sport until blood is shed. A girl supposedly getting groped back in 1982 at a beer party is not bloodshed.

      But, bloodshed is something that can come especially when people keep raising the stakes in a constitutional crisis. they should not be so sure the cards will fall their way in such a contest.

  9. Have you seen Sidney Watson’s statements to the court regarding the outrageous conduct of the FBI and DoJ. Including Lisa Page admitting to falsifying Flynn’s 302s? It is all hitting the fan at the same time.

  10. Trump must be VERY VERY GUILTY! We all know why Barr started this investigation. It has nothing to do with searching for the truth and using the DOJ as a political revenge tool but, hey, he’s a Republican so it’s A OK,

    1. Andrew McCabe and Andrew Weissman spent 32 months trying to gin up an excuse to accuse the president of a crime. Weissman’s gambit was to pursue an investigation of the president for ‘obstruction of justice’ so he could accuse DJT of obstructing the obstruction investigation. Betwixt and Between, Weissmann organized an entrapment scheme contra George Papadopolous (which failed). And then there was the trumped up charges against Gen. Flynn. You don’t behave this way when your target actually is guilty. This isn’t that difficult.

    2. “Trump must be VERY VERY GUILTY! We all know why Barr started this investigation.”
      **************************
      Ah, the old Alleged Certainty Fallacy. We haven’t seen that canard around for a while. Your bag of tricks must be low.

    3. I wonder if Holmes is trying to compete with the Washington Post that in its headline called al-Baghdadi an “austere religious scholar”. Holmes loses because the WP headline was such a doozie of a lie and so stupid. Keep it up Holmes and one day you might make it to the bottom.

  11. “The same could be said in watching key Democrats “protest too much” to the investigation by United States Attorney John Durham into the origins of the Russia probe.”
    ************************
    Never met a crook yet who liked his pursuing cop.

Leave a Reply