Columns, Criminal law, Media, Politics

Bull Meets China Shop: Why The President Tweets Fail Another Causality Test By The Media

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the Stone controversy. The column suggested that the Trump tweet before the change in the sentencing memorandum in the Stone case may not have been related, but simply another example of Trump triggering a controversy with an irresponsible and ill-timed tweet. After the column, Trump made the situation even worse by publicly complimenting Attorney General Bill Barr. As I mentioned at the time, the “atta boy” was more damaging than the original criticism. Barr responded correctly by criticizing the President’s continued public comments on pending cases and attacks on federal judges. While the President is clearly undeterred, both the change in the sentencing recommendation and the criticism of the President were well warranted.

Here is the column:

Washington awoke this morning to a brand-new scandal, after the resignation of four Department of Justice (DOJ) trial prosecutors in a high-profile case and questions of whether a presidential screed prompted a change in sentencing recommendations for a friend. It is all too familiar: a tweet, a change, and a scandal. 

As with the Russia scandal, the question is one of sequence. It is what academics call a “causality dilemma.” Forget the chicken and the egg — this is the Trump administration. The perennial question is what came first: the bull or the china shop.

Since his arrival in Washington, Donald Trump has clearly relished the image of a raging bull, but he often suggests that the china shop was built around him. The latest broken china, so to speak, is the remnants of what once was the prosecution of Trump confidant Roger Stone.

It is a signature scandal for Trump, who went public after prosecutors sought a seven- to nine-year sentence for Stone; soon afterward, the Justice Department rescinded the initial sentencing recommendation and the four trial prosecutors resigned en masse. Now there are calls for investigations, as well as widespread denunciations of an “infestation” of political interference and a president run amok.

As a threshold matter, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is correct in calling for an investigation into the matter. It is uncommon to see the DOJ suddenly withdraw a sentencing recommendation in a high-profile case, and even more uncommon for a team of prosecutors to resign en masse. Legitimate concerns are raised when a president inappropriately lashes out at his own Justice Department in a case involving not just a close associate but someone who refused to testify against him or his campaign. When that attack is followed by a dramatic change in the case, there is a need to look at whether political influence has corrupted the prosecutorial process. 

This, however, has that familiar feel. 

In the Russian scandal, I supported the appointment of a special counsel after President Trump fired former FBI director James Comey, but I said at the time that I did not believe there was an underlying crime or collusion with Russia. The fact is that the sequence of events creates reasonable questions of presidential interference. It turned out that there was no Russian collusion and that Trump’s call for Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s missing emails was inappropriate but not incriminating. 

The Justice Department — and Trump — have publicly stated that the president had no conversations with the DOJ on the sentencing change. Indeed, the department issued a statement that the decision to change the recommendation was made before Trump publicly denounced what he called a “miscarriage of justice” in the case. If true, the question becomes whether it was inappropriate for Attorney General Bill Barr or officials at Main Justice to demand such a change. Only a full disclosure of the facts can answer that question, but there are reasons why such an intervention might be appropriate on the merits.

While correct in seeking answers to these questions, Pelosi is wrong in her declaration that a change of the sentencing recommendation is, on its face, “outrageous” and that “DOJ has deeply damaged the rule of law by withdrawing its recommendation.” You’ll note she is supported by many of the same experts who declared clear criminal conduct by Trump in the Russia investigation and then the Ukraine investigation. 

The problem is that the DOJ’s new sentencing position is the correct one. When the original sentencing recommendation was filed, many of us denounced it as excessive and ridiculous, given the underlying facts. While it is true that the recommendation was within the sentencing guidelines (albeit on the high end), that was due to DOJ prosecutors stacking counts against Stone for his false statements and tampering with witnesses. I have long been critical of the case as being overcharged, as well as objecting to the prosecutor’s heavy-handed conduct.

In its new filing, the DOJ told the court: “While it remains the position of the United States that a sentence of incarceration is warranted here, the government respectfully submits that the range of 87 to 108 months presented as the applicable advisory Guidelines range would not be appropriate or serve the interests of justice in this case.” That just happens to be right in every respect, from the demand for jail time being warranted by Stone’s conduct to the recognition that he should not be sentenced for the rough equivalent of bank robbery or manslaughter. 

The DOJ also was correct in changing the sentencing recommendation for former national security adviser Mike Flynn. The charge against Flynn for a single false statement to federal investigators was highly dubious from the start; he pleaded guilty to a single false statement about a meeting with Russian diplomats during the Trump presidential transition. The meeting was entirely legal, and Flynn did not deny the meeting. However, he denied discussing sanctions with the Russians, and Robert Mueller charged him. In the meantime, a key figure in that investigation, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, was alleged to have lied to investigators but was not charged with any crime.

In both cases, Main Justice was right to rein in its prosecutors. Indeed, that is one of the core functions of Main Justice. Local prosecutors are not independent contractors meting out justice as they deem fit. They are part of a department of prosecutors, subject to the direction and authority of Main Justice. The U.S. Attorney’s Manual expressly states that “Department of Justice and Criminal Division policies impose limitations on the authority of the United States Attorney to decline prosecution, to prosecute, and to take certain actions relating to the prosecution of criminal cases.” That includes sentencing recommendations. 

Again, none of this means there are not legitimate questions that need to be answered, but the sequence of events may not prove as damning as reported. It comes down to the same causality dilemma of chickens and eggs. Sometimes the answer is not as binary as suggested by the question, as Neil deGrasse Tyson explained in his answer: “Which came first: the chicken or the egg? The egg — laid by a bird that was not a chicken.” The same may be true of eggs laid by a president who is not a prosecutor.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a witness expert in the House Judiciary Committee hearing during the impeachment inquiry of President Trump.

88 thoughts on “Bull Meets China Shop: Why The President Tweets Fail Another Causality Test By The Media”

    1. I can see just from their comments that David B. Benson and Seth Warner have really extended themselves to provide information here in this thread.
      You need to slow down and pace yourself, David B. Benson. The strain of working this hard to come up with one or two words at a time may prove to be too much for you.

  2. Carter Page, Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Svetlana, Roger Stone – Democrats have a lot to answer for and would have sought to discredit Barr regardless. And now what? They think he’s going to hang his head in shame and dutifully resign? Or better yet, hand them his head on a platter? Get real.

    This is feel-good politics, right? It’s not federal governance, it’s not “law and order,” we just feel he should resign. Because he’s been a bad boy, And no doubt, he’ll be badder still in the future.

    The real question is why Stone was put through the ringer to start with. Certainly it wasn’t for tweets – certainly NOT in “free-speech” America – or his claim of contact with Assange, nooo… we ALL knew that to be bogus. So what was it? Was it his decades-old claim that the Clintons were “swingers”? Was that it? Why do I suspect this is a rivalry that goes back decades?

    You know, this isn’t just a case of “excessive and ridiculous” either (although “overcharged” certainly seems appropriate). No, this is a case of “cruel and unusual,” and if I was Stone I’d be jumping right into my prison garb, saying, “Alrighty then, let’s get this baby rolling: Cha-ching!”

  3. Ex-Justice Department Officials Demand Barr’s Resignation 

    More than 1,100 former Justice Department employees signed a public letter Sunday urging Attorney General William P. Barr to resign over his handling of the case of President Trump’s longtime friend Roger Stone — and exhorted current department employees to report any unethical conduct.

    The letter is the latest sign of a crisis of confidence inside the department. Four prosecutors quit the Stone case last week after Barr and other Justice Department leaders pushed for a softer prison recommendation for Stone, who is due to be sentenced this week.

    “Mr. Barr’s actions in doing the President’s personal bidding unfortunately speak louder than his words,” the Justice Department alumni wrote in the letter posted online. “Those actions, and the damage they have done to the Department of Justice’s reputation for integrity and the rule of law, require Mr. Barr to resign.”

    Signatures for the letter were gathered by Protect Democracy, a group that has been critical of Barr’s handling of former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian election interference and Trump.

    The letter acknowledges there is little chance that the signatories’ criticism will lead to Barr’s departure, adding: “Because we have little expectation he will do so, it falls to the Department’s career officials to take appropriate action to uphold their oaths of office and defend nonpartisan, apolitical justice.”

    Edited From: “More Than 1,100 Ex-Juztice Department Officials Call For Barr’s Resignation”.

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. “A DOJ spox declined comment to The New York Times. The petition comes spearheaded by Project Democracy. It presents itself as a nonpartisan, nonprofit group. This isn’t the first time it published an anti-Trump open letter from experts on Medium.” – From today’s “Law and Crime
      ———————–
      Project Democracy organized an earlier letter/ petition call for acting AG Whittaker to resign.
      Among those signing that letter were Eric Holder’s😀spokanesman and Lawrence Tribe😀😂🤣.

      2. Tom Nash (Anonymous), explain how Project Democracy got 1,100 signatures.  That’s a lot for an organization you claim is bogus.

        And explain how Project Democracy is is any less credible than Judicial Watch.

        1. What has Project Democracy done to add transparency to the policy process?

          1. Tabby, Project Democracy just started in2017. They aspire to be a Judicial Watch-like institution. But being new they may not have a big record yet.

            1. “JUST STARTED” ?!?in 2017. Go back to the linked articles and see who started this in Feb. 2017, and their objectives.
              Seth Warner, go back and read the linked articles before asking for explanations.

              1. Anonymous, so what if the project was started by former Obama officials? Are they illegal players?? Arguably they”re just as legit as anyone at Judicial Watch.

                1. Seth Warner,
                  For one thing, I never stated that the Project for Democracy was “illegimate” or “bogus”; those were your words.
                  501c groups have a great deal of leeway j claiming to be “non-partisan”. It can take a good deal of digging to go beyond the headlines; e.g., “1100 former DOJ staff sign a letter calling for Barr’s resignation—to find out that this is a “project” started a month after Trump took office by what we’re described as “Obama lawyers”.
                  The reporters writing the headlines and the stories paid the same whether they know that there was that “project” established 3 years ago, with a starting budget of $1,500,000 behind gathering these signatures, or pretend that this was just some spontaneous outcry by “former DOJ officials”.
                  It’s a farce to claim that the movement behind rounding up these petitions is “non-partisan”.
                  I don’t see any indication that Project for Democracy or these 1100 former DOJ officials exibited any concerns about Fast and Furious Eric Holder or Tarmac Lynch.
                  The group formed long before Barr became AG, and just after Jeff Sessions became AG.
                  In tandem with calls for impeachment from others, as soon as Trump took office, the response to Trump’s unexpected win was the Plan B to undercut the new administration.
                  You are the one who seems to like derailing the discussion by asking about “bogus” or “illigitimate” claims that I never made.
                  You also mentioned Judicial Watch, and Judicial Watch activities are labeled as such.
                  That is an important distinction, especially in relation to how the activities of these groups are unevenly handled in the media.

        2. Seth Warner,
          An organization that has been in existence for 3 years, and was conceived by and intiated by “Obama lawyers”, would not have that much difficulty getting together and coordinating a petition drive against the Trump DOJ.
          It does not not sound like you read any of the links related to this; “explain to me” how you fail to understand the origin and the goals of this group.
          It would be self explanatory to most people.

    3. Let us give them all & the CIA staff at the WAPO/NYT free tickets to a 6 month vacation in Wuhan China. & take the Creepy Porn Lawyer with you & your friends. LOL;)

      We love you guys long time.

    4. i’m glad their names are on record. fantastic!

      free speech equals more information

      information can be useful

    1. “Obama lawyers form ‘worst-case scenario’ group to tackle Trump
      Fearful the new administration will abuse its power, the former president’s lawyers are uniting to fight back.

      By EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE 02/23/2017 05:14 AM EST
      Top lawyers who helped the Obama White House craft and hold to rules of conduct believe President Donald Trump and his staff will break ethics norms meant to guard against politicization of the government — and they’ve formed a new group to prepare, and fight.

      United to Protect Democracy, which draws its name from a line in President Barack Obama’s farewell address that urged his supporters to pick up where he was leaving off, has already raised a $1.5 million operating budget, hired five staffers and has plans to double that in the coming months. They’ve incorporated as both a 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4), allowing them to operate as a nonprofit but participate in some forms of political advocacy as well.” -from the 2017 Politico article

      Wow! Sounds real spontaneous to get these 1100 when it’s the continuation of a 3 year project.

      1. ha, ha, they are trolling for donations.

        trust me, no team of lawyers are the ones who will be prepared for any “worst case scenario”

        you don’t need lawyers when you get down to “worst case” you need operators

        and guess who the operators like? it sure aint Bernie, BHO, HRM, et al.

    2. Of course, they were all minions of BO’s wingman, Eric Holder when they weren’t careerist weasel’s a la Rod Rosenstein. That veterans of a grossly corrupt organization don’t think you should break their rice bowls is no surprise.

    3. LOL! Oh no, 1% of of the DOJ staff no longer with the department have this opinion. Get back to us when you can identify 50% of current doj staff holding a similar opinion.

    4. it’s great news that so many apparatchiks are running scared. that’s a sign of progress!

  6. I agree with Barr on this one that Trump needs to pipe down about pending cases, other than to say that it’s working it’s way through the system and he has every confidence in those handling it.

    But he won’t. I think future presidents will learn from these self inflicted problems. Trump has enough to deal with, without causing more problems with an ill-timed Tweet. He loves to quarrel, and he steps in it from time to time.

    I have been very happy with much of this Administration. His public comments, including Tweets, are unnecessarily creating problems for him when he has serious international problems to deal with. The Covid-19 outbreak in China will have global financial repurcussions. There is suspicion that North Korea has an outbreak and is hiding it. If enough North Koreans die due to the deprivations of socialism and their dishonest government, perhaps there will be a regime change. China’s denials, poor initial response, lyinng, and abuse during the outbreak has some wondering if it might be the impetus the Chinese need for yet another revolution. I thought Hong Kong was toast, but they are still hanging in there. I wanted Hong Kong to become a full member of the UK, not tossed to China. But perhaps the most unlikely of all outcome will occur. Perhaps Hong Kong will inspire the Chinese to get rid of their quasi Communist government living like robber barons, and emulate a free Hong Kong. Maybe Hong Kong will become the new capitol of China, or at least its model. After all, communist China began to rely on limited capitalism, as Communism causes starvation and technological lag. Maybe market capitalism and the Wesern freedoms Hong Kong used to enjoy will sweep through China. Can the culture change? Trump has a lot on his plate to deal with. He doesn’t need to be creating his own bumps when his road is smooth.

    But it is in his nature to enjoy Twitter spats. I expect this particular flaw to continue for the duration. We are still better off than with literally anyone running as a Democrat today.

    1. It’s not Trump who is causing the problems………… Try the group who started it. and has been starting 95% of the problems since 1909.

    2. I want to agree with you, but feel that the MSN simply ignores malfeasance pointed out by our Senators and Congressman (unless they are uttered by the Left). When President Trump stirs things up by shining light on irregularities and possibly illegal actions, he at least gets coverage. I think that we still (unfortunately) NEED his tweets.

  7. Given the many multiple relentless attacks on the President including Mueller, Christine Ballsey Ford, tweeting, his response to a coup, the dynamic conduct of foreign relations, Impeachment, etc., the question begs, is it legal, constitutional for the President of the United States to even breath?

  8. As with the Russia scandal, the question is one of sequence. It is what academics call a “causality dilemma.”

    Stop using the term academic as if it has some higher meaning. It’s pathetic so called academics got played on the Russian bullsh!t and now you once again reach for the same academic formula you were wrong with the first time. Toss it. Throw out everything you’ve been conditioned to believe a President should be. Consider the fact that this President and his AG are not the ones out of step with our constitution. The reality is, before Trump was elected, this government was out of step. And you, your fellow academics, the MSM and millions of ignorant, apathetic and dependent citizens were conditioned to believe our government hadn’t escaped its chains.

    1. Your hitting Center Mass Olly with this post.

      “Academia” is that “Bull” “Sh*t” in our USA China Shop, not Trump.

      It’s that Crap that grows on the inside of toilet stools one has to take a disinfectant, a bush & scrub our azzes off to get it Flushed down the sewer where it belongs!

      Prof Turley, & many more have left the reservation. He’s says here, elsewhere not a damned thing about all the falsified info Hillary/Obama/the DOJ/FBI/US Fed Courts/CJ John Roberts used to get multiple Falsified FISA warrants, Felonies!!!!),that directly lead to the Flynn/Stone/Manaport/ect., charges.

      It’s apparent he & other are in the ever smaller DC echo chamber as Trump’s supporters/public support grows massively & show up in Sub Freezing weather to show our support.

      Turley & his inner circle might well remember that saying, do you lead the Mob or do you get mowed down by the mob.

      Maybe Turley should get on the American Citizen’s side of these battles & argue for Trump to get Kris Tanto Paronto & his Friends Security Clearance back & Pull Obama’s/Hillary’s/ former CIA Jon Brenning/McCabe/Comey/Stroker/Lisa Page/American Hating Commie.Nazis/Vindman’s,etc., pull their security clearance.

      If you don’t like Jones fine, I’ve got other interviews. This is just one of many interviews you can find on “American Hero” Kris Tanto Paronto.

      BTW:

      I’d have liked to posted the interview of Kris a few months back where he opens up about why he & his buds are rightfully pissed at Trump. It’s more in tune about why Turley is so wrong at this point on many public issues.

      I’m sure Kris & those before/after him in the thick of battle the 1st thing they thought of was: “I’d better check with Turley or my lawyer & see what they think…” ( Sarc Off.) lol;)

  9. “Trump pushed CIA to find, kill Osama bin Laden’s son over higher priority targets”

    https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/02/16/trump-pushed-cia-to-find-kill-osama-bin-ladens-son-over-higher-priority-targets/23927760/

    ‘But he was more interested in a young and less influential figure much farther down the list, according to two people familiar with the briefings, because he recognized the name.

    ‘”He would say, ‘I’ve never heard of any of these people. What about Hamza bin Laden?'” one former official said.’

  11. “As with the Russia scandal, the question is one of sequence. It is what academics call a “causality dilemma.” Forget the chicken and the egg — this is the Trump administration. The perennial question is what came first: the bull or the china shop.”
    **********************
    We had enough deft, charming political gazelles to last us a lifetime. Dancing and prancing around the stock is always more watchable to cleaning the shop. Maybe when the detritus is so high, deep and suffocating you need a little blunt force to move it. We’ll see.

    1. Jessie Smollett, who was previously excused from prosecution, has been appropriately indicted again while his derelict, negligent and corrupt prosecutor, Fox, is still being investigated. Mike Nifong accomplished the inverse, he maliciously prosecuted when he should not have and was sentenced to jail.

      McCabe et al. would have been Drawn and Quartered for the treason of challenging the authority of the Sovereign in British centuries past. McCabe, Strzok, Page and the entire 7th Floor (which floor was Wray on?) was exposed and its criminals and traitors, removed, reassigned or retired, but Mr. Deep Deep State, AG William Barr refuses to prosecute them or the corrupt FISA court judges.
      ___________________________________________________________________________________________

      “Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

      – James Comey
      _____________

      I wonder if there is just one “reasonable prosecutor” who would take one or all of these cases.

      Let’s put it up for bid. Let’s take a poll.

      AG Barr should be impeached for blatant and egregious corruption, negligence and dereliction.

    2. No substance to background no reasoning no …. factual information but it does flow nicely out both sides without actually saying anything. .

  13. Ill timed? Hardly hit the X ring again triggering the propa ganderists of the left wing extremist Remnant Party. This weeks special Bloomburger and Pelosi cut their former partys political throat. which… didn’t take much more than a dull table knife.

  14. Harsh sentences and stacking of charges has been common in prosecutions in this country for decades, a policy that is routinely supported by “law and order” conservatives. Now, when Trump is involved in high level intervention to lower the sentencing recommendation, these same conservatives have problems with long sentences. The true scandal is how the well connected get mercy, but everyone else does not. Unless Republican introduce bills to lower the sentencing ranges for all defendants, this sudden conservative concern with fair sentences is just another example of knee jerk Trump defense hypocrisy. And to preempt comments, the “reform bill” that was passed a year or so ago was very limited and the DoJ is fighting tooth and nail to keep those people in prison.

    1. Molly, you nailed it. How a supposed neutral expert on legal matters – our host – pretends to not get it, presumably to protect Barr and/or Trump is embarrassing and will not be forgotten. Civil rights for rich white guys who are the President’s friends is not a legal principle. Does he have any?

      1. No she didn’t as noted. Your interest in this case is entirely driven by malice.

    2. Harsh sentences and stacking of charges has been common in prosecutions in this country for decades,

      You don’t know what you’re talking about. North of 600,000 people are remanded to state or federal prison each year. The mean time served therein is 30 months. About 1/2 the prison population consists of violent criminals, another 20% consists of those enmeshed in the drug trade. They’re proposing to send a 67 year old man up for nine years for a bs process crime.

      1. North of 99.999% Main Justice does not revise the sentencing recommendations of its line prosecutors or hand pick department lawyers to review cases already completed that involve cronies of the president or his political enemies. In the former, doing so for a case about a political crony is beyond unprecedented and is Banana Republic fair.

        The convicted crony in the case in question was uncooperative and convicted of 7 counts of lying and of witness tampering. The prosecutors used the the sentencing guidelines, which to date neither JT or absurd has objected to, nor is the judge not able to temper or sharpen those recommendations as she sees fit.

        This is cronyism of the worst sort, entirely unprecedented, and destructive to the DOJ, and the rule of law as opposed to the will of a strongman.

        1. Again, you want Andrew Weissman’s minions to get away with lying to their supervisors and generating an absurd sentence for a clown guilty of minor crimes. You want that because you are one malevolent piece of work.

        2. I hope Trump is half as bad as you guys make him out to be. Then there’s a chance.

  15. Everything is moving too fast for me. I’m still trying to figure out how a man with no criminal record has a SWAT team at his house, terrorizing his family in the early morning hours and on top of that, CNN is there with cameras to film it all? Wouldn’t 2 FBI agents with the warrant have been sufficient?

    1. You forgot to mention the FBI Frog Men. Apparently they reasonably believed that old Roger was a marathoner who could run and bike 40 miles to the Potomac River with panting FBI agents in his wake, and then jump in, swimming to Cuba for political asylum 🏃‍♂️ 🚴‍♂️ 🏊‍♂️ !!!

  16. This all seems to be an “appearances” sort of outrage – that Trump does stuff outside the main stream of Official Washington’s expectations. A comedy of manners sort of thing where the Upper Crust are all aghast as what they perceive to be social faux pas.

    But as for me, who gives a hoot. Tweet away, Trump!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky, I think Trump reminds some people…..especially his supporters…..of the Rodney Dangerfield character in Caddyshack.

    2. Have you ever thought or said, what is POTUS thinking? Have you ever thought or said, I wonder how POTUS feels about that issue? Have you ever thought or said, I just wish POTUS would be more honest and not beat around the bush? Stop wondering and join Twitter >realDonldTrump.

    3. Squeeky,

      I’m shocked & amazed how many people like Prof Turley are tripping over themselves to volunteer in the latest contest to be the best modern day Tokyo Rose or Bagadad Bob.

      It’s very sad for them, but the least we can do , if we have the extra time, is be the mirror for them.

      Beats everything I every thing saw!

    4. The out of step aghasts are the neo aristocratic establishment who fully fit the definition of faux pas in Our Constitutional Republic. I’d rather be a whole citizen than a self inflicted mmmm papachico

    5. And to think the shocked set still haven’t figured out we picked him for exactly those attributes and abilities. One must make allowances for lack of education or being cement brained in the Collective. Good call Squeek!

    6. Squeeky,

      Check Drudge Report, he’s got a cool picture from China of a ” Scaredy Cat” over the Corona Virus Bio-weapon.

  17. In the Russian scandal, I supported the appointment of a special counsel after President Trump fired former FBI director James Comey, but I said at the time that I did not believe there was an underlying crime or collusion with Russia.
    ______________________________________________

    How Kerry-esque of you! Would the good professor care to explain how he could support the appointment of a special prosecutor when he did not believe there was an underlying crime or collusion with Russia?

    1. putting underlying crime with collusion is clear evidence of illiteracy and just a tad bit too much llke the propagandists of the far left with their alpha soup names.

  18. JTs attempted cover up of Barr’s unprecedented after the fact changing of sentencing recommendations for a political crony of the president stinks. His investigation into other cases involving other presidential cronies and presidential enemies is putrid. This is Banana Republic BS, as was noted by one of the judges.

    1. JTs attempted cover up of Barr’s unprecedented after the fact changing of sentencing recommendations

      The sentencing recommendations were obscene and the issue of Andrew Weismann’s minions. Any supervisor doing his job would have changed them.

  19. Again, your complaint is that a layman is critiquing the discretion exercised by lawyers. We need much more of that, not less.

  20. Jonathan Trump tweets always cause the Dem’s and the Media to go Nuts. They are quick to jump on the tweets and people say Trump is wrong But, he seems to be always 5 steps ahead of everyone and his tweets are designed to get a clear message to his supporters and cause the Media and Dem’s to go Crazy and foolish comments such as Pelosi and etc.

    He is going to keep it up and it has been and will be a Winner. Press hates it for Trump gets around them and gets the message out

Comments are closed.