Report: Barr Refused To Hold Press Conference Exonerating Trump Of Ukraine-Related Crimes

The New York Times and other papers are reporting that Attorney General William Barr refused a request from President Donald Trump to hold a news conference to declare that Trump did not violate any laws in his telephone call with Ukraine’s president. I have known Barr for years and I am not surprised by the report. If such a call to Barr was made, it was inappropriate and shows that the President is still acting incautiously and impetuously in managing these scandals. With various investigations going forward on the Ukrainian matter, it would have been deeply troubling for Barr to make such a statement. While no crime has been identified, there could be potential criminal conduct related to the call as well as questions of the abuse of power. Trump has denied the report.

What concerns me is that Trump is continuing to trip wires on such issues. The Russian investigation led to the appointment of a Special Counsel entirely because Trump took the clearly unwise move of firing James Comey in the middle of the investigation. He could have fired Comey at the start of his term or after the investigation. With the exception of Jared Kushner, virtually the entire staff of the White House reportedly told Trump that the firing would cause a huge mess.

Trump has continued to trip wires in other calls to officials, including his reported demand to fire key players like Robert Mueller. He routinely crosses lines of separation with the Justice Department. This is yet another such example. It is deeply disturbing to reach out to the Attorney General to ask for such a press conference. It is the equivalent of asking for a preemptive advisory opinion from a court. Such a press conference would have been unwarranted and unwise for any Attorney General.

I have defended Barr from critics not because of our long friendship but because I believe that he has carried out his promises from his confirmation (I testified in favor of his confirmation). I have not hesitated to criticize him when I disagree with his decisions. However, Barr has protected all of the investigations into the 2016 election — Mueller, Horowitz, and Durham — from interference or pressure. If you look at his record objectively, it has been successful in protecting the Justice Department. This is not always easy and requires maintaining a sometimes difficult relationship with a president who does not respect traditional limits or lines. However, this report highlights how he maintains that relationship while maintaining the integrity of his department.

This does not mean that Barr will not stumble or err in this difficult position with the President. When he does, I will be the first to call him out. However, if true, this was again the right call by Bill Barr.

428 thoughts on “Report: Barr Refused To Hold Press Conference Exonerating Trump Of Ukraine-Related Crimes”

  1. You based a ‘whole article on IF TRUE?’… That makes it FANTASY!… My next blog will be on ‘WHAT IF PURPLE PEOPLE EATERS, REALLY EXIST… lol

    I keep returning here in HOPE that you will get back to reporting FACTS…

    1. Deb – if it is proven scientifically that Purple People Eaters do not exist, I will be heart-broken. I search for them every night in my closet and underneath my bed.

      1. They don’t grow well in basements, step away from the computer and go for a walk.

        1. Tony – there are few basements around here and I don’t have one. So, that is not a concern. I have been for my walk today, thank you.

  2. This type of Anonymous Slander comes right out out of the Democrat playbook. The fact that you would promote it is disappointing.

  3. Recently, Gov. Christie murdered someone in an ambulance who got caught in a traffic jam he instigated. Everyone was appalled. No one in the morally depraved media apologized to him when he was found innocent of that debacle.
    Folks forget Clinton raped Juanita Broaddick. They don’t even know he is responsible for the massacre of 800,000 Rwandans thanks to the Leftists covering his behind.
    Sydney Powell has a bright future as the only lawyer in the U.S. who is outspoken about the sick state of our “justice” department. Leftists are through, thanks in part to Barr’s relentless investigation into the government’s conspiring with the Clintons to destroy Trump. Their debauchery is about to explode across the sky in headlines 10,000 feet high.

    1. The media makes much of Trump’s alleged payment of $130,000 to Stormy Danial’s to cover up an alleged affair (which she now denies) but seem to forget that Clinton paid over $800,000 to shut up Broaddick.

    2. I think i agree the press is phony and rarely apologizes for its many faults most of which go unnoticed

      I do not agree at all the Bill Clinton was responsible for Rwanda. I don’t know where you get such a notion.

      It was Africans of one tribe who hacked the other tribe to death, not Slick Willy.

      If you want to read about it in detail go to this book it’s from the UN forces commander on the ground, Romeo Dalaire, who saw it unfold up close and personal

      1. It was a holocaust and by law slick was required to intervene. He lied. Said he was unaware how desperate their plight was, when in fact he knew all about it. He could have prevented the slaughter of hundreds of thousands while sustaining few casualties, but he looked the other way.

        Do yourself a favor. Do your homework and stop pretending to know more than you do.

        Of course the leftist, drive-by media doesn’t apologize.

        Clinton is reportedly facing fresh allegations of sexual assault by four women, according to the author of a book on the former president. So says Eddie Klein former chief editor of The NYTs Magazine

        1. But Clinton’s claim not to have fully understood the situation is a lie. Clinton knew. Knew there was a genocide, knew its scale. People at all levels of government knew. It was all over the press. In fact, the idea that any informed official at the time could plead ignorance to the Rwandan genocide is laughable. NATHAN J. ROBINSON

          1. the Clinton Administration actually did something much, much worse than failing to intervene. It deliberately attempted to downplay the atrocities, refusing to refer to them publicly as genocide, for fear that doing so would obligate them under the U.S.’s Genocide Convention to take action. As The Guardian reported in 2004, classified documents showed that “President Bill Clinton’s administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction… Senior officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because the president had already decided not to intervene.” “Detailed reports” were reaching the top levels of government; Secretary of State Warren Christopher “and almost certainly the president” had been told mid-April that there was “genocide and partition” and a “final solution to eliminate all Tutsis.” The CIA’s national intelligence briefing, circulated to Clinton, Al Gore, and other top officials, “included almost daily reports on Rwanda,” with an April 23 briefing saying that rebels were attempting to “stop the genocide, which… is spreading south.” As William Ferroggiaro of the National Security Archive explained, declassified documents show that “[d]iplomats, intelligence agencies, defense and military officials – even aid workers – provided timely information up the chain… That the Clinton administration decided against intervention at any level was not for lack of knowledge of what was happening in Rwanda.” Joyce Leader, U.S. Embassy’s deputy chief of mission in Kigali, admitted in 2014 that “We had a very good sense of what was taking place.”

          2. Nathan J Robinson is a sociology major from Harvard who is editor in chief of “Current Affairs” a left wing magazine

            He evidently is no lawyer.

            There’s a lot to pick on where Bill Clinton is concerned, no need to fabricate stuff or quote zany notions that the US had any duty to intervene in central African civil wars when it did not.

            Kissinger had a quote which is relevant to this sort of thing, i forget the exact words, if anyone else recalls.

        2. ” was a holocaust and by law slick was required to intervene”

          would you please give the the citation for the US code which says say? I’m not aware of what you’re referring to

        3. he was a philanderer and in the case of Juanita Broderick a rapist.

          but I still don’t get how you hang the Rwandan civil war on him. Rwanda is not a treaty partner nor one of the states of the union. I don’t know why you say he had a duty to intervene legally I know of no such thing. Since you are telling me to stop pretending i know so much you fill me in on the authorities. Just waiting in all humbleness here.

  4. The truly scandalous, jaw dropping news for today, Nov 7, 2019, is that the non-whistleblower’s attorney screwed himself ala Joy Reid, et al in tweets dating from 2017 whereby he stated he would personally bring down the US President shortly after being elected. Since Turley is fixated on “what if” scenarios from the enemy of the people (aka NYT), it is incumbent upon us non-academics to become aware of these salient facts

    ‘Coup has started,’ whistleblower’s attorney said in 2017 posts calling for impeachment


      Since January 2017, Zaid wrote that a “coup has started” and that “impeachment will follow ultimately.”

      Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, “I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president.” Also that month, Zaid tweeted, “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters.”

      Amid a slew of impeachment-related posts, Zaid assured his Twitter followers that “as one falls, two more will take their place,” apparently referring to Trump administration employees who defy the White House.

      The tweets, which came shortly after President Trump fired then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates for failing to defend federal laws in court, are likely to fuel Republican concerns that the anonymous whistleblower’s complaint is tainted with partisanship. Trump’s call with Ukraine’s leader, which is the subject of the complaint, occurred in July 2019.

      “The whistleblower’s lawyer gave away the game,” the Trump campaign’s communications director, Tim Murtaugh. told Fox News. “It was always the Democrats’ plan to stage a coup and impeach President Trump and all they ever needed was the right scheme. They whiffed on Mueller so now they’ve settled on the perfectly fine Ukraine phone call. This proves this was orchestrated from the beginning.”



    2. Deep State” praise is now being said by former CIA Acting Director John McLaughlin, “he was just being facetious”

      maybe they will say they used the word “Facetiously” too

      I say that the the coup plotters should all be hanged, likewise, just being facetious of course

      being facetious can get out of hand i suppose, the question is the usual one, who is to judge?

      1. I don’t know about that. It’s the end of 2019 and not one indictment. Nothing. Not a single thing to suggest anything but slow walking coverup. They protect their own. Watch.

  5. This story may be a deflection for another story barely mentioned yesterday. Mark Zaid, one of the attorneys representing the intelligence community whistleblower at the center of the Democrats’ ongoing impeachment inquiry, tweeted conspicuously in January 2017 that a “coup has started” and that “impeachment will follow ultimately.”

    Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, “I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president.” Also that month, Zaid tweeted, “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters.”

    Amid a slew of impeachment-related posts, Zaid assured his Twitter followers that “as one falls, two more will take their place,” apparently referring to Trump administration employees who defy the White House. Zaid promised that the “coup” would occur in “many steps.”
    Fox News

  6. PLEASE stop reporting this type of non-news, who’s mere existence violates all principles of good journalism. The NYT, WaPo, etc have ruined their reputation by the prodigious amount of false stories and lies they have reported on, forgoing almost all aspects of journalistic ethics and standards.

    In this article you do what they do: reporting on reporting on a report of a possiblity that something happened – based on a rumor by people who hate the President and want to regain political power. Then imagining all of the possible horrors. IF – IF – IF. It is the worst type of smear and creates a fake news story for political purposes. Then it is repeated until people believe it. It is full of logical fallacies which show you as unable to think logically and worse, possibly a liar and fear mongeror. We need the Trump haters to stop spreading lies, fears, and falsehoods – you all are becoming the Red Guard and Orwell’s worst nightmare.

  7. The New York Times and other papers are reporting this…

    Americans have known the NY Times and “other” papers for decades.

    We know recently, they hate out President, they have lied before and there is no way Barr would stoop to their level and speak to them.


  8. “What concerns me is that Trump is continuing to trip wires on such issues. ”

    What proof do we have that such a thing occurred? Did the anonymous information come from a copycat that lied? This has happened time and time again in order to hurt Trump. Why would the professor consider this claim valid absent proof?

    1. You get the impression from these posts that the Professor is among the least skeptical of the content of The Times and The Post of anyone who cannot be classified as a brain-dead partisan Democrat. Earth to Turley: A.M. Rosenthal retired 33 years ago.

  9. One cannot hold government authority in the United States without voluntarily swearing supreme loyalty to the U.S. Constitution – as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court (or highest court in any given region). During the so-called “War on Drugs” that cost over $1.2 trillion in tax dollars and effectively destroyed 4th Amendment restraints on government authority (without a constitutional amendment). After 9/11, constitutionally oath-sworn officials effectively destroyed the remaining Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment (without a constitutional amendment). Over decades, multiple Attorneys General, FBI Directors and U.S. Attorneys acted as “defendants” in federal court cases against citizen-plaintiffs harmed, defamed or destroyed by unconstitutional practices (ex: Cointelpro subverting constitutional due process). Isn’t the whole point of a legally binding loyalty oath to the U.S. Constitution [Article VI] and granting the U.S. Supreme Court authority to interpret constitutionality, that the Attorney General and DOJ should be protecting citizen-plaintiffs not protecting agencies created more than 100 years after the Bill of Rights? In other words, Cointelpro crime victims face well-resourced “defendants” in court that promised to protect them, not violate their rights. DOJ attorneys that green lighted torture, in violation of Ronald Reagan’s treaty and U.S. law have been promoted to federal appeals court judge and legal professors. The Espionage Act has primarily been used as a weapon against non-spies and journalists since 1917. The DOJ was hip deep in all of this. Doesn’t Barr’s loyalty to the U.S. Constitution and protecting constitutional rights supersede his loyalty to a 20th Century bureaucracy? There are likely thousands of Cointelpro victims harmed or destroyed since 9/11 – where does Barr stand on that violation and disloyalty of one’s Oath of Office?

  10. One problem with FBI and CIA’s counter-intelligence efforts is the dismal record they have of supervising key members of those teams. Google “Robert Hanssen”, “Aldrich Ames” and “Peter Strzok”.

  11. If it’s coming from the NYT and ‘other papers’, I am forced to assume at the very least that facts are being misrepresented. How Prof. Turley can remain so stubbornly naive regarding the media is a real head-scratcher. I believe in the free press, too, but a free press is something we haven’t had for some time.

  12. What bothers the professor is that the President doesn’t act like he’s some lawyer’s bitc*.

  13. I must be missing something. What in the whistleblower’s “testimony” has not already been confirmed by multiple witnesses under oath? Or Mulvaney? Or Trump? You’re following the party line of a man with no actual defense.

    1. You are missing a lot. Did you know that in Mississippi blacks are leaving the DemoKKKrat Party in droves?

      (Down 11% in one county from 2018)

      1. Anonymous……black support for Dems down 11% in one Miss. county?!
        Wait while I make a fresh batch of popcorn and then tell it to me again!

      2. You know the KKK for the most part, left the Democrats in the mid 1960s. They got upset about Democrats supporting the Voting Rights Act after that little incident on national tv on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Then President was half right when he said Democrats would lose the South for a generation. It’s been a few generations now and still counting. The Southern Strategy still works in some places.

        1. “You know the KKK for the most part, left the Democrats in the mid 1960s. ”

          “You know” the Democrats left slavery in the mid 1860’s. Of course the Democrats required a Civil War with over a half a million deaths and amendments to the Constitution.

          1. If it makes you feel better, the death toll for Democrats is way higher than Republicans. They didn’t leave slavery in the 1860s, they renamed it as the Black Codes in which they forced black people into slavery-like conditions, then after Republicans sold black people out with the Compromise of 1877, Jim Crow was ushered in, after most of that was made illegal and racist Democrats left and joined the Republican Party, the Republicans began working on voter suppression (using many of the former Democrat tactics, some of which they still employ) and the elimination of Affirmative Action which has always been more of a cap than a means of letting people in. It would be nice if Republicans represented a viable alternative. As long as they continue to suppress votes, they can’t even be considered.

            1. Yes, Enigma slavery ended and then there were racist laws that were applied to people not because of their character but because of their skin color something that seems to escape you when you discuss today’s world. I won’t deal with your history that is frequently wrong either by omisssion or comission of error. The black vote was surpressed by Democrats because of skin color but when the DNC realized they could get votes from blacks the DNC took blacks from one plantation, that of slavery, to another plantation, the Democratic Party that has done almost nothing for black people. The Democratic Party bought votes but never succeeded in improving their lifestyle of black people to the same degree as the rest of the population. Why should they when what they want is power and to be masters over others.

              Both parties used all sorts of vehicles to get their people elected and that wasn’t limited to just blacks. In fact the DNC wanted Hillary and made sure she was the candidate. Democrats are big time at corrupting all sorts of politics. We see it today in the phony impeachment where only one side has rights. We see it in many large cities with minorities like Chicago. We see it in how the Democratic Party prevents voter ID’s and uses all sorts of tactics to win an election. I never realized until recently how dirty the Democratic Party really is.

              1. Your version of history has the certainy of someone who never experienced any of it. I’m well aware of what the Democrat Party was and is. It should be easy for another Party to present a better option, instead, Republicans choose to be the worse option. They picked the portion of the population they want to please and have doubled and tripled down on that. Demographics are working against you and without voter suppression, Republicans will go the way of the Whigs. Throughout history voting blocs have switched parties based on what was offered. Republicans offer black people far less than the Democrats who only do what they have to as they have many groups to appease. Hint: When an administration is full of white nationalists, they don’t appeal to nonm-white people.

                1. I could only have experienced the history I lived through but there is a lot more than any one person can have experienced in their allotted time. That is why history books are valuable. However, one should live in the present time frame rather than in the decades that passed which is where you seem to reside.

                  It is hard for me to defend Republicans because they don’t please me but when I look at the sins of the Democratic Party I find myself pushed in that direction. I’ll stick with the Constitution and lean towards Classical Liberalism.

                  “They picked the portion of the population they want to please and have doubled and tripled down on that.”

                  It seems that the portion of the population the Republican Party under Trump pleases are those citizens that work or have worked and those that are in true need. There is nothing wrong with that. The Democratic Party has had the black vote for about the past 50 years and has had plenty of chances to do right by that group but they never did. They like being plantation owners and like their slaves to do their bidding.

                  I assume you are talking about white nationalists in the Trump administration which just isn’t true. But what is true is that under this administration blacks have the lowest unemployement they have had.

                  1. Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions; what do they all have in common? There are more including the head man. But you can’t see them for who and what they are, because …

                    1. Enigma, you deal in innuendo not fact. You don’t like policy that doesn’t expand government. You don’t like policy that improves the economy. You don’t like policy that protects America. Those three people stand for those types of policies. I am sure I won’t agree with everything they stand for but that is normal.

                      We can see what your type supports, the culture of death whether it be by killing or unlimited abortion, socialism, weaponization of the intellgence agencies, smearing people etc.

                    2. Enigma, You accuse these three of being white nationalists. I don’t know of any evidence that they are but then again to you anyone white that has a different political viewpoint than you is a white nationalist.

                      i can remember what was likely one of our first encounters. You accused Donald J. Trump of being a racist because of something that happened decades before he was born. It was said that Fred Trump (the father) was at the site of a KKK rally. Some people were arrested and charged but Fred wasn’t.

                    3. You can repeat that as many times as you like which won’t make it true. And Fred was arrested but the lawyer who represented him and the others got him released. I have reprinted my post several times but you keep on lying. I’ve offered anyone who can doucment me saying it (including you) but no one has. Keep lying if it makes you feel better.

                    4. enigma – you father may have been a cattle rustle, doesn’t mean you are one. And I am not conceding that Fred Trump was guilty of anything.

                    5. I agree with you. It’s a claim I never made although Allan keeps repeating a li (kinda like Trump) so often, he perhaps convinced himself it’s true.

                    6. ” It’s a claim I never made”

                      Keep saying that Enigma and maybe you can convince yourself that what I say wasn’t true. Then go to the NYTImes police report to refresh your memory. When I told you that you were wrong to accuse Trump of racism for something happening ~20years before his birth you referred me to the NYTImes. I went to the newspaper and learned that some of the stuff you were trying to feed me was cr-p. Maybe if you go back to the NYTimes yourself your memory will improve.

                      Embarrassment wipes out painful memories.

                    7. “You can repeat that as many times as you like which won’t make it true. ”

                      Enigma, of course it’s true and anyone posting at that time that read your posts on the subject know what I say to be true. Your revised statement doesn’t change what you said at the time.

                      Instead of admitting you were wrong you told me to read the newspaper article on the date the “incident” happened. I did and it showed that your story was full of holes and embellishments. Based on those embellishments and errors of fact happening ~20years before Trump was even born, you called Trump a racist

                    8. Why has no one drawn the same conclusion as you? You make stuff up and repeat it. I don’t need to call Trump a racist because of anything his father did. He has a substantial record on his own.

                    9. Enigma, just because no one chimes in is meaningless since most postings get no replies. If one chimes in that is probably the mode and one did chime in, DSS. You called Trump a racist for a dubious thing that happened about 2 decades before he was even born. At the same time you made a lot of other statements that weren’t true and your characterization of the 1924(?) news article was different than what the news article said. You are totally unreliable and you spin things to make everyone who you disagree with look like a racist.

                      Suffice it to say we all get a little chuckle when you stand on your soapbox preaching.

                    10. You asked for proof before and I gave it. DSS seems to remember the incident. Do you have no recollection of the newspaper article you wrongly characterized and asked me to look at? Do you not remember me referring you to Snopes to show you how Snopes placed red lines around one portion of the article to confuse people into thinking that Fred Trump was guilty? Do you remember that I pointed out that some said they couldn’t even be sure “Fred Trump” was the real Fred Trump. Do you remember me pointing out over and over again that one shouldn’t be calling another a racist because of a questionable incident that happened 20 years before the person’s birth?

                      You have a poor memory.

                    11. Enigma, I don’t expect people to pipe in telling you they remember the discussion, but one did. That is called a witness, but we don’t need a witness since your words are preserved in black and white. All one has to do is go to the prior record which is on a limited number of threads with a limited number of discussions. You called Trump a racist and you did so based on an incident that may or may not have occurred ~20 years before Trump was born. Pretty foolish.

                    12. If that’s all you have to do then do it! You can’t because your specific example doesn;t exist. I have no problem calling Trump a racist. I cam make that claim based solely on hisnown words and deeds. People, especially anonymous ones, have no problem saying much of anything on the Internet. Trump feeds that as well.

                    13. “If that’s all you have to do then do it! You can’t because your specific example doesn;t exist.”

                      Enigma, Are you saying you presented no such statements about Fred Trump being arrested during what I think was a KKK rally? Are you saying that so called event didn’t happen ~20 years before Donald J Trump was born? Are you saying you didn’t tell me to look up the police report from the NYTImes?

                    14. That essay was not written on the blog. Let’s take some questions and answers.

                      Enigma, Are you saying you presented no such statements about Fred Trump being arrested during what I think was a KKK rally?
                      Are you saying that so called event didn’t happen ~20 years before Donald J Trump was born?
                      Are you saying you didn’t tell me to look up the police report from the NYTImes?

                      Since it seems you are admitting to those comments. Tell us why you made those comments.

                    15. “That essay has been posted on this blog multiple times”

                      I’ve never seen it posted even once on the blog but that doesn’t matter because we aren’t talking about what you might have said at another time we are talking about what you actually said. I take note you didn’t deny the discussion and the questions above so they must be true. Why else would you have brought up those things if it wasn’t to prove Trump a racist for an “incident” that occurred ~20 years before Donald J Trump was born?

                      Enigma said Trump was a racist ~20 years before he was born because…
                      1)A Fred Trump was arrested in the vicinity of a KKK rally even though charges were placed against others arrested but he was let go which in our country implies innocence. Some reports aren’t even sure that the Fred Trump discussed was Fred Trump’s father and for all anyone knows he could have been protesting against the KKK or just walking on the street.

                      Why would enigma even bring up the subject except as his proof Trump was a racist.

                      Why would Enigma tell me to look up the police report from the NYTimes if he wasn’t trying to convince me of his kooky story and kookier way of drawing an opinion on another individual?.

                      Enigma is now embarrased so he points to other things he has written but I don’t care about those things. I only care about the actual things Enigma said that were ludicous.

                    16. Because this is from my blog and I have the stats. I note you didn’t even read the post, hence your lack of interest in the truth. If all your bull I don’t bother to respond to must be true. God help us all.

                    17. Enigma, I actually read your post when you first referred it to the blog, but I never saw it printed on the blog. However, that post is merely smokescreen to hide what you actually said on the blog. You know what you said so you talk about other things afraid to admit your discussion of Trump’s father, the newspaper article and a bunch of other things.

                      I’ve heard a lot of villians providing excuses for their crimes and like you they aren’t telling the truth.

                    18. enigma – I just watched/listened to Trump’s speech before the first Blacks for Trump (they choose the title). If that man is a racist, he is doing a horrible job at it.

                    19. Because he’s capable of pandering to blacks doesn’t mean he’s not racist. I missed that video. How big was the crowd? I’ve only seen the couple guys with the signs (one of whom is straight up crazy).

                    20. enigma – watch it for yourself. Please do not take my word for it. It is on YouTube



                      Draw your own conclusions. Go back to his housing discrimination charges, labeling rental applications “C” for colored to deny applications from black people. The full page ad in the NYT advocating the death of the (innocent) Central Park 5. Calling “Some” of the Neo-NAzi’s and Skinheads in Charlottesville, “very good people”. Putting Stephen Miller and Steve BAnnon in the White House. Like Captain America, “I can do this all day.”

                    22. Anyone present has an agenda. Much like the Cabinet members who praise his highness who they are proud to serve before Cabinet meetings begin; there are black people hoping to profit off Trump as well. Don’t presume they are representative of anyone but themselves.

                    23. I did listen to the speech. Forgive me if based on his past history; I don’t believe much of what he says. The approved Federal aid for HBCUs is being held up for no apparent reason and like the Ukrainain aid situation, will expire if not distributed soon. That’s what I’m paying attention to.

                    24. enigma – there are a couple of HBCUs (and I am sure you would agree) that are poorly run. If he is holding up the money until they get their house in order, I have no problem with that, nor should you. However, Obama did nothing for the HBCUs. I am not sure how the money gets distributed, so I am ignorant of where it is in the pipeline. I would appreciate whatever information you have on this.

                    25. He’s holding up Federal aid to ALL HBCUs. There is an Association responsible for accrediting institutions and making sure their affairs are in order. Schools get put on probation and if they don’t do better, they lose their accreditation which is one step before closing. There is already a process for monitoring schools which I’m positive Trump has no understanding of.
                      Lest anyone think HBCUs are getting some unfair advantage. Their funding is signifigantly less than their PWI (Primarily White Institution) counterparts as has always been true.

                    26. enigma – if they are not accredited I can see the problem, although accreditation is a self-serving roller-coaster. Still, this article is from mid Sept, You have anything more up-to-date?

                    27. enigma – that last picture shows a fair sized crowd for an organizational meeting. Show me where Trump has a history of paying people to show up at events. I know the Democrats do and they pay in cash.

                    28. enigma – goodness, it is just like Disney buying 25 tickets in every theater showing its opening film for the opening week and then using those tickets to write hyped reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. 😉

                    29. ” As Trump has a history of paying people to show up at events. ”

                      Enigma, I don’t think he needs too. His rally’s are in huge facilities that hold thousands of people and then thousands are left outside because there isn’t enough room.

                      Example: “Trump’s campaign manager, Brad Parscale, tweeted that there were more than 100,000 RSVPs for Trump’s rally today, with 14,000 indoors and nearly 20,000 people in the streets. Numbers from campaigns are often viewed with skepticism, so we’ll also look at number reports from other sources and compare them.”

                      The article documents the numbers with other reports, pictures and sizes of auditoriums.


                    30. “Draw your own conclusions. Go back to his housing discrimination charges, ”

                      Enigma, you made some errant statements about that incident as well as calling Trump a racist because of an incident that occurred ~20 years before Trump was born. In fact you did it in close proximity to the statement of racism but you didn’t get your facts straight there either. Your extreme prejudice doesn’t help your arguments.

                    31. You saying I’m wrong doesn’t make it true. How many times was The Trump Organization sued by the Federal Government while Trump was President? What’s your explanation for “C for Colored?”

                    32. Enigma, Unlike you I don’t care about the politics of who slashed the balloon. It was vandalism pure and simpe and it seems the man is a nut. When BLM or Antifa cause damage they should be charged with vandalism as well.

                      The only good thing is that the man slashed a balloon instead of a new born baby.

                    33. You are arguing points I didn’t make. In my opinion, he did it because in the Trump Era he thought he could. Might have something to do with the man promising to pay the legal bills of those who assault people (Trump). Trump encouraged violence, of course him paying the legal bills was a lie, although he does have enough legal bills of his own trying to keep anyone from knowing anything about his finances.

                    34. “he did it because in the Trump Era he thought he could. ”

                      Bull. He did it because he is stupid. The left commits these acts all the time and gets away with it. Those are stupid acts as well and we are stupid for not arresting those people also.

                      You stretch your talking points so such an extent that you become laughable.

                    35. Guess what, and this isn’t an indictment of all Trump followers, but a whole lot of stupid people follow Trump. They listen to his lies and believe them (some of the alleged smart ones do too). They think they are above the law because he thinks he is.

                    36. “Guess what, and this isn’t an indictment of all Trump followers”

                      Enigma it is more of an indictment of BLM and Antifa along with a host of left wing groups that have been violent or prevented others from have their right to speak. A bunch of sicko’s.

                    37. enigma – you can prove the three are white nationalists? If so, let’s see the proof.

                    38. No more libraries Enigma. Provide the sentences or your own words proving what you say is true. Then you can provide the “library”.

                      I will say that right under the title of your “library” on Miller it said “Ilhan Omar was right in calling the far-right White House senior policy adviser a “white nationalist.”

                      That says all we need to know about you.Though she didn’t write the piece Omar is provided credibility. I stopped reading. Are you a joke?

                    39. My defense of white nationalists is neither a defense nor a rebuttal. Ilhan Omar was the first name stated on the piece after the headline that you told me to read so what is the purpose? You won’t prove your case by providing quotes in context and a definition of what you call a white nationalist though I am sure most whites that are true conservatives are considered by you to be white nationalists. I’m open to proof about anyone but not the type of proof you provide. That type of proof leads to you accusing Trump of racism becuase of an incident that occurred ~20 years before he was born.

                    40. Being “conservative” has nothing to do with race or racism. There is no proof you’d accept about white nationalists/supremacists. That’s part of your defending of them.

                    41. “Being “conservative” has nothing to do with race or racism. There is no proof you’d accept about white nationalists/supremacists. That’s part of your defending of them.”

                      Of course being a conservative has nothing to do with racism though that seems to be one of your hidden criteria. I accept Spencer as a white nationalist so obviously there is proof. What you call defense is opposition to you calling any Trump supporter that is white a white nationalist. I think you stack the deck with race cards but they have been so misused they have become near worthless.

                    42. “Any Trump supporter? I’ve been very specific. Keep on defending them. Telling on yourself.”

                      I don’t know how that correllates with my statement: “What you call defense is opposition to you calling any Trump supporter that is white a white nationalist.” That doesn’t mean you have called all Trump supporters white nationalists. I have listened to you calling people that support Trump white nationalists. I am of the impression that deep inside you look at those who strongly supposrt Trump as white nationalists (if they are white) just like Hillary called Trump supporters deplorables.

                    43. Allan,
                      I am an American Nationalist. Nothing in that identity involves the demographic filters progressives have used to divide this country for their own power. This article may have been posted before, but it describes my belief very well.

                      Self-determination is the essence of nationalism. It was used to oppose the fascist states that wanted to crush other nations into obedience. Later, the same principle stood against communism, which sought the same worldwide conquest. Nationalism does not rule out cooperation, trade, or alliance—the Atlantic Charter calls for these things, too—but it depends on each nation having a path of its own, which it alone may choose.

                    44. Olly, American nationalism represents the individualism and rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence advanced by the Constitution. Nationalism is unity something the left continuously destroys. When there was forced migration to the ‘Stans’ Stalin manipulated the borders of the states and people enterring those states so there would be multiple ethnic groups in each country. That helped Stalin subjugate the people because they were divided. That is what our leftist friends attempt to do in their own country but do not recognize their actions for what they are.

                    45. enigma – you can prove the three are white nationalists? If so, let’s see the proof.

                      ‘White nationalist’ is the five-syllable replacement for ‘racist’. From observation, you can divine that the actual semantic content of the term ‘racist’ is such that it has two meanings, ‘poopy pants’ and ‘I’m losing this argument’.

                    46. I already provided documentatio on Miller and Bannon. As I was limited to two links per post I didn’t document Sessions but what’s the point? You could be like Lindsey Graham and refuse to read it. You might do what everyone else does and discredit the source (including their own quotes). White nationalism/exists because people refuse to acknowledge it.

                    47. enigma – let’s get this straight. They are white and they are nationalists. So?????? Obama was bi-racial and a globalist. What are you? A black nationalist? Or black and a nationalist? Or????

                    48. DSS, part of the proof Enigma provides is that Ilhan Omar wants open borders and doesn’t care about the security of America.

                      Perhaps Enigma is delighted with Omar.

                    49. Miller Bannon Sessions. You say they are all three white nationalists. I would like you to find any white nationalist in cyberspace who has said so. First off, Miller is Jewish,. Now they’re white, generally, and Miller’s work on illegal immigration is much appreciated by white nationalists, I’m sure, but white nationalists have a question mark in that column. I’m sure Miller doesn’t call himself that. Not sure why you do.

                      Bannon has explicitly rejected white nationalism in favor of “economic nationalism.” He’s been very clear on this even though people just say whatever they want. LIke you do, Facts aside. I rather like Bannon, not that anybody cares what i think.

                      Sessions. I don’t much like that guy. He’s been in government a long time and if Strom Thurmond or possibly Jesse Helms were arguably white nationalists of a sort, Jeff Sessions does not come to either level, Not even close.

                      So basically Enigma I think you have not described any of the three of these correctly.

                    50. Your definition which excludes anyone that doesn’t call themselves a white nationalist one seems limited. I judge them by their actions that speak for themselves.

                    51. “I judge them by their actions that speak for themselves.”

                      Enigma, why not list the actions that make a person a white nationalist and tie them into those you call white nationalists. So far you have made it appear that anyone opposed to the left is a white nationalist.

                    52. Given that one of his links is in violation of Godwin’s Law, I don’t think Enigma is the most discriminating researcher.

                    53. I looked at the video. They were singing “My country tis of thee” in karaoke, not “Horst Wessel Lied.”

                      Some “evidence”

                    54. HBCUs have been admitting gobs of students who don’t finish (presumably to meet their fixed costs). Ideally, about 40% of them would close, so the quantum of physical plant and staffing matches the population of interested (and competent) students. State governments might get the ball rolling by closing some of the weaker ones incorporated into public systems and downsizing others. You’ve got two such colleges in Missouri, one in Ohio, two in Penna and one in New York which could be shuttered. You’ve another in Illinois wherein the state legislature might appropriate an addition to their endowment to meet fixed costs in return for a staffing and admissions cut of about 1/3. Another thing which might be salutary would be an interstate compact between Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, DC, and Virginia which would allow in-state tuition for any school in that set of territories but close most of the extant HBCUs therein, leaving one in Baltimore, one in the DC suburbs, one around Richmond and one in the Tidewater.

                    55. enigma – congrats!!! great honor. Now to the central question. Did the football team win or lose? 🙂

                    56. When I was at Fisk,ship team, went undefeated my freshman year and sent out quarterback to the Jets (J.J. Jones) where he ended up starting some games and a running back to the Seahawks.
                      In a financially related move that many will never forgive the school for. The dropped the football program in the late 70s. We now have a basketball homecoming which isn’t nearly the same thing.

                    57. enigma – sorry to hear that. there is nothing like homecoming with bad floats and the smell of fall. 😉

                    58. enigma – sorry it was raining and there was no fb game. My last homecoming it was 90 degrees and we lost our ass. 😉

                    59. The last time I was on an HBCU campus was yesterday. How about you?

                      Their completion rates are wretched. If I drive down to the Coppin State campus and shlep around, their completion rates will still be wretched.

                    60. Enigma said:

                      “Your definition which excludes anyone that doesn’t call themselves a white nationalist one seems limited. I judge them by their actions that speak for themselves.”

                      This is fair as far as it goes, in the sense that words and deeds must go together.
                      Or as the book of James says, faith without works is an empty vessel, if I recall correctly.


                      I said that Miller was not a white nationalist because he’s Jewish and generally they don’t keep the company of white nationalists, if their “Tribal” sense is keenly tuned into their tribal religion, Judaism; and while I would consider them white, I think the bar of proof is a little higher and it was not met.

                      For Bannon is not a white nationalist because he specifically and vehemently and consistently repudiated white nationalism as ideology in favor of what he calls “Civic nationalism” and “economic nationalism:– i think you have to take his words seriously since he is essentially a strategist and yes his actions confirm that he supports economic nationalism as his key organizing principle– little serious doubt about that.
                      But it happens that I have heard hours of Bannon’s interviews and studied him in some depth but I think probably Enigma has not and is just going on hearsay.

                      As for Sessions because well he’s been around for decades and other than being a white southernor and a Republic, there’s little if any evidence to suggest that he is a white nationalist, unlike say Strom THurmond or Jesse Helms, but you could find plenty of white nationalists with a sense of history who would deny they were ones, too

                      If you look around the internet i think there’s probably at least a million americans or more who probably would call themselves “white nationalists” — it seems to me that their opinions of who is a white nationalists and who is not should matter. it’s clear that they mostly like Trump, they want to restrict illegal immigration, for demographic reasons, and how can you blame them or the Republicans when guys like Enigma are on here say “demography is against you”

                      Enigma: if you make this a racial conflict, then you have to accept the consequences. And perhaps it is a racial conflict. Everybody knows that the changes in immigration law and enforcement since the 1965 Reform act have lead to massive demographic changes in America leading from a strong majority to a paper thin majority. You and every other person who LIKES that can barely conceal it.

                      OK: you can LIKE that all you want, and i am free NOT TO LIKE IT.
                      What you don’t LIKE is when WHITE PEOPLE decide they finally UNDERSTAND WHAT’S HAPPENING AND WANT TO STOP IT.

                      “white nationalism” is actually not a fading brand. It’s a natural outcome of ethnic conlflict. You know they say you have to take the bitter with the sweet. If America wants to dispossess the white majority, ok, but don’t be surprised and outraged when the victims of the effort decide to rebel. Or then you are just fake.

                      But ya know, winners can usually cope with being “Fake.” On the cusp of winning, the effort to crush the resistance to white demographic replacement will accelerate.

                      Enigma said:

                      “Demographics are working against you and without voter suppression, Republicans will go the way of the Whigs.”



                    61. I am not making anything a racial conflict. That conflict began long before either of us was born and denying it still eists only benefits one side. For those who suggest equality was attained after the Civil War, or Civil Rights, or Obama, or anything, is simply denying the need to any longer do anything about the situation.
                      If dispossessing the white majority is removing their inherent advantages and establishing an equal footing? Then yes!

                    62. enigma – I just cannot get behind an article that reference the SPLC as though it is a legitimate organization.

                    63. “Therefore you get to ignore the quotes from Miller? How does that work exactly? He said it but I don’t like the source so I’ll put it out of my mind?”

                      Take note how Enigma doesn’t provide an in context quote of what Stephen Miller said. His source doesn’t provide any emai that would prove anything. This is more of the same sh-t from a person that rakes through garbage to find garbage but nothing of value.

                    64. More BS by Enigma who believes a person is a racist because of an incident that may or may not have occurred ~20 years before the individual concerned was even born. Enigma pro tip: Any time faced with a problem play the race card.

                    65. “A tip for Allan – Let racists find a better defender than you. You’re doing a terrible job and raising questions as to your own views.”

                      No way do I defend racist behavior. You must have been taught that playing the race card permits you to win an argument. I fight against your type of hypocrisy and request proof when you utilize mistruths to prove your point. You are a charlatan and create racism by way of your actions.

                    66. “Methinks you doth protest too much. When you defend racist after racist as you do. You are defending the behavior. Because you agree with it?”

                      Enigma, why are your arguments always based on lies? I don’t protest going after racists when they are proven racists. I do protest at your hypocricy and the way you constantly play the race card. I believe you were asked for proof about the racism of certain individuals. Proof is NOT an incident that may or may not have happened ~20 years before the individual under question was born. That is the problem.

                      You want the freedom to call anyone whose ideas you dislike a racist. That type of attitude makes racism worse and devalues the suffering of those that faced racism. You are a charlatan.

                  2. So because Milo sang Karaoke in a bar with pro-white Richard Spencer, Milo is a white nationalist too? Not a friend of Spencer’s evidently, and, Spencer’s not gay so not that kind of friend either, but, they sang karaoke together. Oh and Milo just leaked a secretly recorded racist rant of Spencer’s from a whiles back. Some associate that Milo! Some friend.

                    So they sang karaoke together. LAME! I sang karaoke once with some Chicoms, am I a Chicom? Ridiculous. If you have a beer with a Hell’s Angel, do you get the patch? If I give a dollar to a homeless guy, am I homeless? Preposterous associations smears.

                    Emails? So what? People emailed about topics of interest. I”m emailing you here in a fashion; are you now associated with bad guy like me?

                    Enigma, you’re smarter and fairer than that. You should be ashamed of imputing ideological labels based on such casual social contacts.

                    1. You’re talking to someone who fancies it a matter of import that Fred Trump was arrested for disorderly conduct 92 years ago.

                    2. Enigma says see GQ article quoting the SPLC a discredited fraudulent gossip machine cum fundraising scam whose glorious founder was just fired for harassing women and people of color who worked for it.

                      But let’s address that substance of that, basically it’s two points.

                      1. Stephen Miller went to Duke with Richard Spencer. and they were in a conservative club together. that’s a big so what. Maybe I went to school with guys who evnetually played in the NFL and ate in the cafeteria and drank beers and even worked out with them. And i did. So what. I havent talked to them in decades.

                      2. Miller doesn’t like the Hart Celler Immigration Reform act of 1965 and liked Cal Coolidge. So what. I like Coolidge and I don’t like the Reform act either. I know, you think that makes me a racist. Whatever!!! as the teenagers say. I have no problem with a nation state defending the founding stock of the people of the nation. NATION as a word comes from “natus” a latin word meaning birth. Birth, birthplace, family, etc, are all valid forms of social identity and even political organization. Not just for your ancestors my good fellow, but mine too.

                      Enigma also says the following, and I’ll put my remarks inside brackets]

                      I am not making anything a racial conflict. That conflict began long before either of us was born and denying it still eists only benefits one side. [OK: FAIR ENOUGH.]


                      if dispossessing the white majority is removing their inherent advantages and establishing an equal footing? Then yes!


                      [see in my mind, government is not a legitimate tool for you to force unending changes on the American population to suit your idea of utopia. it isn’t legit. rather it’s the objective like as any bandit or highwayman: take other people’s stuff because you believe you’re entitled to it. you fashion that is “justice” but it’s not justice for the victims of the schemes. it just sucks! do you expect your marks just to surrender? ]

                      [here’s the equality you want. i got four, the other guy has two. I’m luckier than him? sure i am! So, you take my two, keep one, give it to the other guy, keep one for yourself. simple as that. no equality is achieved, nothing good has happened that advances us all together, but you achieve “income” for the work of taking my stuff, and the other guy gets some of my stuff too, as a consolation prize. that’s your plan! and Dem party politicking at the national level in a nutshell.]

    2. The whistleblower is not a whistelblower; he is a spy, a leaker, out to get Trump.

    3. The man who has no actual defense is Joe Biden. This Burisma scandal will be his undoing. Biden is done. So is the fake whistleblower who is being exposed as a political hit job. His lawyer is being exposed as a partisan operator as well.

      1. Did Joe Biden just pay a $2 million fine to the State of New York for the self-dealing of the now shuttered Trump Foundation? Trump is a criminal, what was his defense for that?

              1. Look at the decades of Clinton family corruption. From her Rodham brothers enriching themselves. To her daughter getting a $675k paycheck from NBC, to her and Bubba providing cover to good friends like sleazebags Harvey Weinstein, Jeff Epstein, John and Tony Podesta. On and on it goes. So to call Trump a criminal is really rich.

                1. enigma — My point is that Trump is far more competent at getting things done and far less sleazy than our other choice for president, Hillary Clinton. We know who the Clintons are, and we gave Trump a chance at the helm. I’m saying America dodged a bullet by keeping the corrupt, incompetent, lying, power hungry Hillary Clinton OUT of office. Trump is a God send for this country. No doubt about it.

                  1. If by competent at getting things done means avoiding little things like legalities. How are the various trade wars working out? Coal mines come back yet? Mexico paying for the wall?

                    1. Always focused on the negative, aren’t we, enigma? Mexico is paying for the wall. Trump had the balls to take on China, and my bet his he will succeed — despite all the Democrats are doing to sabotage U.S. success. What president hasn’t skirted “little things like legalities”? Obama? Give me a break.

                      The point is that Hillary Clinton had every advantage and she ran a shoddy campaign, made fatal errors in judgment, cheated, lied, colluded with Russia and Ukraine, and the media, and the DNC, and still lost.

                      The fact that Trump won — legitimately won the election — speaks volumes about the incompetence, poor judgment, lacking leadership, etc, of overrated, vote for me because “it’s my turn” Hillary Clinton. She does not have what it takes. That’s been demonstrated over and over.

                      Trump was the better choice. And the correct choice. No doubt about it.

                    2. ““Mexico is paying for the wall.” It’s stupidity like that which takes away any credibility.”

                      Enigma, it is your focus on puffery “which takes away any credibility.” There are many ways to make someone pay for things so to focus on something of that nature is pure craziness. The American people and the Mexican people are paying for a lack of the wall and secure borders. The Mexican people have to put up with drug cartels and Americans have to put up with drug deaths, human trafficking and illegal immigration. This should not be a partisan issue but you seem to make it into one.

                    3. the trade conflict is working out pretty well. it’s working out better than being a passive victim of massive IP theft that’s for sure.

                      hey. i don’t have time for a class in economics. either educate yourself, or just wait and see.

                    4. “I’m an economis major, the Trade War is doing what for the farmers?”

                      Enigma, think of a math major that can’t add or subtract.

                    5. Mexico is not paying for the wall but they’ve been doing something better. Improving their own border security on their southern borders, which will help stop the next waves of mass migration from Honduras, etc. Sorry to disappoint you.

                    6. enigma — you did not disappoint! I knew you would latch on to “Mexico is paying for the wall.” As Mr. K and Allan said, there are many ways to “pay for” a wall or border security and Mexico certainly is.

                    7. It jumped out as an obvious lie.

                      Of course it did. Because everyone knows a future-tense campaign promise is a lie the moment it’s made, as opposed to after their presidency? Well, that is if you lack any objectivity and intellectual curiosity. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to the Danbury Baptists that there exists a wall of separation between church and state,. Was he called a liar, because no wall had been built?

                      Why did Trump make any campaign promises regarding the wall? Because he’s fond of building walls? Because he likes pesos? Because the lack of border security is a threat to our national security? How many different ways would a border security wall be defined? How many ways would it be possible for Mexico to pay for our necessary border security wall?

                    8. agriculture is just one component of the trade war.

                      and agriculture has been hurt less than expected.

                      there was an outbreak of swine hemorrhagic fever in china. pork, a much liked food, is now very expensive. there were record exports from the US to China of pork just this year


                      soy exports were also partly excluded from the conflict, if I recall correctly

                      the big factor in US exports is IP intellectual property. the US economy succeeds most well on its advanced ideas, whether it’s computer programs, inventions, or even copyrighted works like movies, all of which are ruthlessly pirated in China. Decades of ignoring this had to stop.

                      You and every other American should thank Trump for taking this hard task on as much as he has. Republicans did not really back him much in this at the start, they had succumbed to a foolish level of free trade zealotry years ago. Now that is over.

            1. So you’re saying Joe Biden did “nothing wrong” because it wasn’t criminal? Decades of Biden family enrichment by way of cashing in on his political office was not actual “wrongdoing” because it was really just gross unethical political corruption? He didn’t break the law or anything, that we know of, so LOOK! Trump!!

              Here’s a clue for you. Trump is far less sleazy than most of the polical leaders out there railing against him.

              1. Trump will prove out to be one of the sleaziest of all time. Why do you think he wants nobody to see his finances. What we have seen (the Trump Foundation) led to them being shuttered and paying a $2 million fine.

                1. “ Trump will prove out to be one of the sleaziest of all time”

                  Those people who initiated the coup d’etat, and their defenders today like you, are the worst sleazebags of all time.

                2. $2 million dollars went to NY State rather than needy veterans. Who sounds sleazy in this scenario?

                  1. No, the $2 million fine paid by Trump went to charities. Ivanka and the dogs dummies all have to take classes in charity work.

                    “A state judge ordered President Trump to pay $2 million in damages to nonprofit groups on Thursday after the president admitted misusing money raised by the Donald J. Trump Foundation to promote his presidential bid, pay off business debts and purchase a portrait of himself for one of his hotels….”


                    1. Alan, Anon, The Trump Foundation was revealed as a sham ‘before’ Trump even took office. But luckily for Trump, that story never gained real traction.

                      Which goes to show that Trump has sparked so many controversies that the American public has trouble tracking them all. Even mainstream media is challenged in its ability to give adequate coverage to every controversy.

                      Therefore this hackneyed accusation that mainstream media is ‘biased’ against Trump is essentially a ‘Trumped-up’ charge. If anything mainstream media has had to limit its focus to only Trump’s very worst abuses.


                    2. “Alan, Anon, The Trump Foundation was revealed as a sham”

                      Such rubbish from Peter as usual. On several occasions people have made statements about the actual contributions made by the foundation and I took those contributions and demonstrated that their impressions were wrong. I am not a big fan of these ways of avoiding taxes because that means others have to make up the shortfall. Look at Warren Buffet whose business career involved avoiding taxes on his massive fortune. He talks about how the rest of us should be happy to pay taxes and the rich should pay more, but what does he do? He donates billions upon his death to avoid estate taxes. What is this business icon telling us? That he and people like Bill Gates know how to spend money better than the federal government.

                    3. The judge proved his wokeness and provided the conduit for where the money should go. One wonders how the choices were made and what benefits were derived by those involved in the transfer.

                      I appreciate the reference to the NYTimes but they have a habit of spinning the news to one side so I would like to see more unbiased opinion as to what the judge was actually ruling on. My understanding is this was a settlement. Settlements with NY State are convenience factors because NY State has the manpower and the time to intimidate people. Had Trump not been President, based on past experience, he would not have settled and eventually the case likely would have been closed with perhaps a tap on the knuckles.

                      If the money went to the picture as the NYTimes explains that would only account for 0.5% of the money but even that is not certain. There were political motives in the claim.Take note the President was not banned from opening another charity foundation.

                      If you have a problem with appearances then you should have a problem with the law since the charitable foundations have been abused and a lot of leftist charitable money has gone to leftist political causes in much higher quantities which is not supposed to happen (happens on the right as well). It’s amazing how we elect the same people over and over again that permit such inequity to abound.

                      In the end the foundation paid the costs.

                  2. The President is, as a matter of proven fact, a selfish pig, lacking morality, civility, or even basic manners.

                    “…a legal settlement announced on Thursday reveals that for Donald Trump, personal interest outranks even the needs of veterans. Under the agreement, a New York judge ordered the president to pay $2 million in damages after Mr. Trump admitted that his now-defunct Donald J. Trump Foundation largely benefited Donald J. Trump.

                    In a stipulation, he essentially agreed that the foundation was what the New York attorney general’s office said it was when it filed suit last year — a piggy bank to pay bills and fund political spending. It’s an interesting admission as the House seems ready to accuse him of using the Pentagon budget for his own political ends.

                    The president acknowledged in the settlement that his 2016 campaign controlled the $2.8 million the foundation had raised at a fund-raiser for veterans in Iowa in January 2016, only days before the state’s presidential nominating caucuses. The fund-raiser was used, in the words of the judge, “to further Mr. Trump’s political campaign.””


                    1. “The President is, as a matter of proven fact, a selfish pig, lacking morality, civility, or even basic manners.”

                      Anon, you would have to define the terms so we know what you are really saying. It may sound a bit harsh but I find you having all those qualities as well just from reading what you write on the blog. By the way before Trump became political those same people cursing him today found him to be civil and well mannered. Trump is no Mother Theresa but neither are you nor I.

                      As far as the NYTimes article I covered that a little while ago so I won’t repeat anything except to say the suit was more of a political nuisance suit that was settled because it interferred with the Presidency. Based on history this suit would have been fought and based on past results the Trump Foundation case likely would have been dropped or the foundation would have been tapped on the knuckles. The end product is that the $2Million already destined to go to charity went to specific charities that were agreed on. Nothing really happened.

                    2. If Allen “covered” the NYTs article previously, he missed the part about the $2 million fine going to charities, not NY State as he alleged and then went of on a toot about.

                      Allen and I can curse each other to our hearts content and it means nothing to national discourse compared to a president who is a slob, moral pig – see collecting for veterans, then spending the money on campaign BS, including his own portrait – and world class compulsive liar. Anyone failing to see this about him has their own moral failings or a completely malfunctioning BS detector. Something not right about them.

                    3. Anon, I did address the money trail. If the Court decided where the money goes and the Court is part of the State then the money in essence goes to the state and then to the end user. What benefit people from the State got is not mentioned but if you look all over the country, even war monuments, you will see the names of the officials in big letters and I think more frequently than not the names of soldiers that died in much smaller letters. This is quite commonplace even though these government officials didn’t earn the money used to build the monuments or any other things that the official’s name hangs onto.

                      “compared to a president who is a slob…”

                      I’ll just take one characterization to demonstrate how inaccurate our friend Anon is. Trump always dresses in a suit and tie and his hygenics seem to be good. You like to throw out names but you never pay attention to details and make a fool out of yourself all the time. You have even proven yourself a liar and one who tries to deceive. For instance you changed your name from Jan F. to Anon among other things.

                    4. That is the end user. All money provided to the State of NY eventually ends up at the end user. NYState decides which the end user is.

                3. I’m suggesting that Trump will prove out to be one of the most transformative presidents of all time. There’s a reason Trump is in office and Hillary is not.

                  1. Anonymous, Trump’s impact will be measured as the ‘most negative’ of all presidents. It will take years to repair the damage he has inflicted on our institutions and government agencies. On just Climate Change alone, Trump’s impact has been catastrophic. Putin could not have picked a more destructive stooge.

                    1. Again with Peter’s Rubbish. I guess what Trump inflicted on us is a growing economy and love of America and its underlying values. What we really need, which is what Peter is saying, is a Hillary that can destroy the economy and Constitution while removing our individual freedoms so that we act on behalf of the elites.

                    2. The economy – except for the short lived effect of Trump’s deficit busting rich man stimulus bill – is carrying on exactly where it was when he got in office, and in terms of job gains, not as well.

                    3. Anon says whatever comes to his mind and what comes to his mind is too often junk. Here are some graphs of the economic performance and how there was a complete shift for the better when Trump replaced Obama.

                    4. PS And by all informed projections, the economy is slowing with somewhere between recession and sub 2% growth next year.

                    5. John Borgoyne said: “It will take years to repair the damage he has inflicted on our institutions and government agencies.”

                      You say that as if Trump — who has been in office less than 3 years — is the sole inflictor of so much damage?

                      Funny you don’t mention the “damage inflicted” by the institutionalized corruption and criminality of the establishment elite, the big giant “uni-party” that has been running the show for decades.

                      Oh no! John B shouts, this “irreversible damage” has been done by Trump — and in only 3 years!

                      Imagine that. In only 3 years, Trump has managed to EXPOSE the political corruption, the arrogance, the elitism, the media corruption, and the damage THEY, the establishment, have been doing to our country for decades. But Trump is the problem, the inflictor of this great damage? You are oh-so-wrong and have it entirely backward, my friend.

                  2. I can agree with much of your first sentence. We probably disagree as to what he’s transforming the country to? He’s given people permission to act in a manner they previously would have been too ashamed.

                    1. Enigma, let us hear some examples of “given people permission to act in a manner they previously would have been too ashamed.”

                    2. Enigma, the balloon wasn’t punctured and it wasn’t just a balloon. It was a giant inflatable balloon that was slashed. You might not know it Enigma but that is vandalism and destruction of private property. I don’t know the laws of the state but one might assess the cost of making that inflateable when figuring out the punishment.


                    3. The crime is called ‘criminal mischief’ in New York law, Enigma, other things elsewhere. Because random strangers don’t have the right under the law to damage one’s property. This isn’t that difficult.

                    4. The damage Trump is doing to our national politics is less with citizens, and more with other politicians and standards of discourse. Beyond the attempts at bullying, juvenile insults, and constant and indiscriminate lying of the president, we have had a congressman publicly threaten the family of a congressional witness and a US Senator call the sitting Speaker of the House stupid in a public speech (both a lie and a juvenile insult) and the failure of the current Senate Majority Leader to stand up for basic respect and comity from the President for his members and his institution.

                      Indirectly, and given the only consistent feature his remaining supporters praise Trump for – he gives their perceived enemies hell – the low road insult driven style will probably be copied by future candidates of both parties. It appeals to LIV like those who get their news from Fox and talk radio and see our politics like cartoons.

                      The damage Trump is doing to us in world affairs is another subject.

                    5. Anon1 – the people in Congress work with Pelosi all the time. They would know better if she was stupid than I would. Do you know her personally? If not, you really should step away from this discussion.

                    6. The damage Trump is doing to our national politics is less with citizens, and more with other politicians and standards of discourse.

                      Are you suggesting Trump is a leader in political discourse? You do realize those that are following his lead have a choice to remain true to their own standards, that is if they were truly their standards. By Trump leading them to abandon those standards, what we are seeing is what their true standards are. And now that they have been outed, we are seeing what else they truly believe. This is a good thing. All the cards are on the table and the American people will be able to make a truly informed decision come November 2020. Which brings us back to why the Democrats have been so desperate to impeach President Trump.

                    7. “Which brings us back to why the Democrats have been so desperate to impeach President Trump.”

                      ” if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.” _Rep Al Green (D)

                    8. The external evidence suggests that Pelosi’s skill set is in the realm of navigating cliques within the Democratic Party. She’s in a safe seat and has never faced a competitive contest. She was elected in 1987 in a special election to replace the late Sala Burton. When Burton found out she was dying of cancer, she anointed Pelosi her successor. She has no experience with competitive electioneering. She was the state party chairman for a number of years prior, indubitably learning from her father, who had been Mayor of Baltimore. Looong ago, she had a brief tour as a schoolteacher. She has a mess of kids, so props for that. There’s no indication she ever had any expertise in the realm of policy or has ever done any serious study of political theory or devoted any serious thought to jurisdictional matters. She was quite privileged within the caucus, landing a seat on the appropriations committee (which has been notoriously ineffectual for about 40 years now). If you look at the legislations she’s sponsored over 32 years, you see trivia, private legislation, ancillary matters, pork, district-specific matters, some meh public health legislation (there were once a great many people with AIDS in her district), some legislation on China, and (long ago) some legislation on COBRA. (Some of what she’s sponsored fits into multiple categories). There isn’t a whole lot of there there.

                    9. it’s fantastic that the debate is “sharpening”

                      i wonder, how will the long haired freaks of ANTIFA work out if things continue to deteriorate? they’re ok for a couple hours in the street until their methadone supply wears off and then the puking begins

                      guys like razorman will be out in a trice and ready for action. with a felony conviction on his record, he’ll step up his plans for the next thing, far beyond what he would have ever done had he got a slap on the wrist misdemeanor. this is the logic of repression and the sort of thing that happens in every LIC

                      the dynamic of suppressing free speech and unfairly punishing right wingers take a long and winding road to it necessary counter-reaction but it will eventually come.

          1. Paul, that money “paid” (I’m not sure of the facts and one can’t trust Enigma as mentioned earlier) I believe came directly from the charity foundation that never would have touched Trump’s pockets. Therefore, recipients of charity lost, not Trump. When it comes to NY and money the State will always use its power to extract money even if that money unquestionably didn’t belong to NY.

            Look at how NY abuses those who might have resided there or temporarily resided there though they are residents of other states. NY goes after them with all its power.

        1. Foundations are corporations, legally distinct persons. Moreover as Paul says, a civil fine not a criminal penalty.

          Of course you knew both those things and extended the smear anyhow.

            1. Oh, he’s plenty smart and knowledgeable, just comes here tossing out the usual propaganda nonsense anyways. It’s like a job for these guys, as you’ve explained many times.

              1. Enigma is a smear merchant.

                Sometimes he weaves a good tale on top of a hole. Don’t fall in.

            1. My understanding was that the money was to go to veterans in need, but it ended up in the hands of New York State. From charity to the greedy hands of government.

                1. “Your understanding is totally incorrect.”

                  Amazing that Enigma should say my understanding is TOTALLY incorrect. First half is that the money went to NYState. Isn’t that what happened?

                  For the other 50% can you tell us what actually happened? I have read numerous accounts that differ from one another and to be honest none of them make complete sense but that is typical when NT State enters the picture.

                  I await your explanation and proof.

                  Amazing that Enigma should say my understanding is totally incorrect. First half is that the money went to NYState. Isn’t that what happened?

                  For the other 50% can you tell us what actually happened? I have read numerous accounts that differ from one another and to be honest none of them make complete sense but that is typical when NT State enters the picture.

                  I await your explanation and proof.

        2. Enigma — Biden will be propped up as long as they can prop him up and keep him in the race, because they need Biden in order to make the argument that Trump was soliciting favors from Ukraine in order to damage his *politcal opponent.*

          Biden is not the actual nominee, so he is not Trump’s opponent. If Biden is forced to drop out of the race, then what’s the allegation? What’s the argument?

          Trump was asking Ukraine to look into corruption? So? Where’s the crime? That’s part of his job. Trump said, let’s find out what happened in the 2016 election, let’s expose the political corruption of the Biden vice-presidency. This is the president’s job.

          1. At the time Trump was trying to extort the Ukrainian government, Biden was the front runner and leading him in every poll by more than 10 points. He still leads Trump by 10+ points nationally and about 5 in battleground states. He now shares the lead in the primaries.

            1. Biden ain’t going to make it. He’s not Trump’s opponent. Have you watched him? He’s a mess. It’s a phony argument. Biden’s corruption should be investigated. He’s not exempt because he’s a presidential candidate.

            2. LIz Warren will do her thing on him. biden’s funding is drying up. he wont get the nod. His only chance is for Pete B to throw his supporters to him, and somehow I don’t see that happening. it could, however, a lot of Pete’s support are moderate to conservative Democrats, believe it or not. He’s definitely to the right of Warren.

              See Democrat party is good on the ground, rotten at the top.

              Republican party is weak on the ground, strong at the top.

              Generally, I put my money on the group with strong leadership, because they can turn on a dime, at least, unlike a mob. call me a fascist, I guess! you wont be the first.

            1. The Dem party is the one’s who’ve done the hard work eliminating Biden. Not Trump. Trump’s request for investigation was legitimate law enforcement inquiry into corruption. It was totally private, nobody knew about it until the “Whisteblower” and the other coup plotters forced Pelosi’s hand to trot out the dirty laundry.

              You guys have your CIA schemers to blame if Biden gets aced out of the nomination. It’s really too bad, if you ask me, Biden is not all that bad, not compared to crazy Liz Warren, wow! What a lunatic she’s become.

              1. let’s be honest. A lot of people that kind of liked Slick Willy, kind of like Joe Biden. He’s got that charm that a lot of 20the century Democrats had. corrupt, yet, somehow, the voters felt like they could trust them. Like the Daleys in Chicago.

                It’s interesting how febrile the Democratic collective has become. It’s sad for our country, the Democrat party has been as much a part of the success of the American nation as the Republicans have. Pathetic to see it succumb to such irrational fads and fashions as it has today. Where’s the party of the working man?


                No working man wants to “have a beer” with a screeching pantsuit harridan like Warren I tell you that.

  14. “However, if true, this was again the right call by Bill Barr.”

    And if it turns out, like the testimony of the “whistleblower” is turning out to be and the Russian colusion story has been shown to be – ideologically-driven hogwash – retractions will be owed Trump that never seem to be given.

    I’m tired of winnowing through press reports on the White House for grains of truth. When “However, if true.. ” has to be appended to everything Big Press says on political stories, perhaps it’s time to concede they’re largely political captives of the Democratic Party.

    1. winnowing through press reports

      It won’t be long until the winnowing will be complete and too many will hear, Beat it. I never even knew who you were.”

  15. Though I have my doubts about the NYT article given their manifest desire to depose a sitting President, IF this is true it’s bad form. Trump should know better. That said, most “IFs” about Trump turn out to be decided ultimately in his favor.

  16. Do we really believe that firing James Comey or not would have led to a different outcome?

    When it has become factual that the “plot of the coup” against a newly sworn in President Trump “began” well into the Obama years in the White House

    1. So many conspiracy nuts, it just an excuse not to accept responsibility. There is always an excuse from losers, try growing up before entering adult conversations.

    1. paul

      NO, because everything says about himself is dishonest, deceptive, or outright lies.

  17. “President Trump asked that Attorney General William P. Barr hold a news conference to declare that he had broken no laws in a telephone call with Ukraine’s president that is now at the heart of the Democratic impeachment inquiry, but Mr. Barr declined, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. ”

    “According to two people with knowledge of the matter”

    Sounds like the byline of a tabloid. Could be legit, could be a load of crap fed to willing journalists, who knows.

    In light of this assertion, what is to be made of this line from the same NYT article?

    “After the release of the whistle-blower complaint about the Ukraine call, a Justice Department spokeswoman put out a statement saying that the criminal division had reviewed the official record of the conversation and determined that “there was no campaign finance violation and that no further action was warranted.” That satisfied Mr. Trump, according to one of the people with knowledge of what took place, and aides were able to redirect his concerns.”

  18. “The Russian investigation led to the appointment of a Special Counsel entirely because Trump took the clearly unwise move of firing James Comey in the middle of the investigation”

    Unwise to fire someone who laundered fraudulent opposition research through a FISA court — or unwise to keep someone around who is shepherding along the illegitimate products of those acts? Let’s be honest that the investigation into Trump began under false pretenses, and would have persisted the same way. Comey was counting on either being fired, or having an investigation to use as a clearing house for smears and leaks. Since Trump chose to fire him, it allowed them to play the obstruction spectacle.

    If an FBI director can’t be fired under certain circumstances, he effectively gains a veto over his boss. If that same director is a political enemy and a subversive, he becomes a very powerful enemy indeed if he can create the circumstances of his own immunity against his constitutional superior (ie, POTUS).

    1. Peter,
      What you wrote made me think of the quote I posted yesterday about why there were barriers between the FBI, CIA.

      “Ironically, from a paper in support of decreasing the barriers between intelligence agencies:

      “The CIA and FBI are two agencies which were initially created with specific and
      separate missions. This separation is to prevent a scenario of an all-powerful government
      agency which would have the powers of both domestic and foreign intelligence agencies.”

      Are there elements of this problem in the Russian investigation/fraudulent opposition research debacle you alluded to?

Comments are closed.