“They Were Right To Do It”: Swalwell Praises FBI For Using Campaign Briefing To Investigate Trump [Updated]

440px-Eric_Swalwell_114th_official_photoAs I discussed in a column this weekend, Democratic members have spent years mocking allegations that there was any spying or surveillance of Trump or his campaign by the FBI. That was just a conspiracy theory. Now however there is proof that the FBI used a briefing in August 2016 of then candidate Trump to gather information for “Crossfire Hurricane,” the Russia investigation. It turns out that it did not really matter after all and Rep. Eric Swalwell did not miss a step. He simply declared that such targeting of the opposing party and its leading presidential candidate was the right thing to do. That’s it. A conspiracy theory suddenly becomes a commendable act.

The document, a seven-page summary of Trump’s intelligence briefing, undermines past claims that there was no spying or intelligence operations directed against the campaign or Trump.

Nevertheless, Swalwell told Martha MacCallum on Fox: “I hope they do it if a Democratic candidate ever does that with any country … So, Martha, remember right before this meeting occurred, candidate Trump said, ‘Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you have Hillary’s emails.’ And what do they do? They actually did it. So think about it.”

It is indeed worth thinking about. Most people took Trump’s statement as a taunt of Clinton and the press.  He stated “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens.”

Trump insists it was a joke. That is how many took it but, in fairness, he is later asked by NBC reporter Katy Tur whether he was encouraging a foreign country to hack into emails, he said, “Now, if Russia or China or any other country has those emails, I mean, to be honest with you, I’d love to see them.”  That does not sound quite as jovial and many of us criticized him for such an irresponsible statement.

However, that is not collusion with the Russians or a crime of any kind. Indeed, not only did Robert Mueller and the Inspector General find no evidence of any contact by the campaign with Russian intelligence or officials, but former Deputy Rod Rosenstein stated recently that he would not have approved on the continued investigation if he knew about the false information used as the basis for the investigation. He said he would have stopped the investigation and has called for the continued investigation into the bias shown by various officials who were key to the investigation.

There was a time when, after Mueller found no evidence of such collusion, leaders like House Intelligence Committee Chair Peter Schiff assured the public that he had evidence of such collusion.  Schiff never produced the evidence.  So Swalwell and others are left where we began with the campaign statement of Trump to suggest that the statement alone is a fair basis for an investigation into him and his campaign.  Swalwell even justifies the FBI (in a Democratic Administration) using a campaign briefing to gather information on Trump and his campaign.

Note the FBI did not simply call and demand for answers about Trump’s public comments. It used a briefing for investigative purposes while assuring Trump that the briefing was solely for his benefit. This is a briefing that the FBI strongly encourages candidates to accept in the interests of national security.

Swalwell also added “By the way, he says in the meeting, ‘Joe, are the Russians bad?’ It’s like, yes, the Russians are bad and don’t eat glue. Like, should we even have to tell you that? … He told the country for years, but he was never given this briefing.”

They “don’t eat glue?”  The report states that Trump asked whether Russia or China was presenting a greater threat in intelligence activities in the United States. It describes basic questions of comparison by Trump and his aides. Here is what the document actually said:

Trump asked the following question,”Joe, are the Russians ~se they have more numbers are they worse than the Chinese?” Writer responded by saying both countries are bad. The numbers of IOs present in the U.S. is not an indicator of the severity of the threat. Writer reminded Trump the Chinese asymmetrical presence in the U.S [had to be] considered when making comparisons.

During the ODNI briefs, writer actively listened for topics or questions regarding the Russian Federation . During Mull i gan ‘ s brief, he stated the U. S . i s the world leader in Counterterrorism. Trump then asked,” Russia too? ” During a discussion regarding nuclear testing, Russia and Chi na were brought up as cheating o n the Nu c l ear Test Ban Treaty . Trump asked,”Who ‘ s worse? ” – stated,”They are b oth bad , but Russia is worse .” Trump and Christie turned toward each other and Christie commented ,” Im shocked .”

Back to the main issue, the document shows an agent who was reporting on what was said and observed for Operation Crossfire Hurricane.  As stated in the column, my concern is that there has been reporting on this document but little analysis of its implications. We spent three years of analysis on Russian collusion theories that proved to be based on false information. The media eagerly pursued analysis of possible Russian moles or a Manchurian candidate in our midst. Similarly, there was ample (and in my view justified) analysis of how the Ukraine scandal might have involved the use of government authority for political benefit. Yet, there is no substantive analysis of how the Obama Administration conducted an investigation of the opposing party’s leading candidate. Even with new documents showing that the FBI quickly refuted the claims used to justify the investigation, there is no interest in that story.

To the contrary, Swalwell now insists that it was always a good thing if the Trump campaign was targeted or subjected to intelligence gathering.  Indeed, he wants it to happen again if a candidate makes a statement on the campaign trial that is deemed an invitation to a foreign power. According to Swalwell, an Administration not only can but should investigate the opposing party if it deems public campaign statements to be suspicious. So if a candidate like Bernie Sanders says that he wants to declassify most intelligence and be transparent with the Russians, should the FBI investigate him? What if he calls on Russia to supply leadership and support on domestic political issues or publicly supports figures under sanctions by the current Administration?  After all, Sanders was long criticized for visits to Russia and close associations in the country.  Is that now “the right thing to do” in Swalwell’s world to target such a candidate in an election year?

Swalwell has long been an example of rage overwhelming reason in our current politics. Yet, he embodies the dangerous reckless that is taking hold of our national discourse on both sides. Spinning such stories is now more important than maintaining long-standing bright lines against using national security powers to target opposing parties or candidates.

346 thoughts on ““They Were Right To Do It”: Swalwell Praises FBI For Using Campaign Briefing To Investigate Trump [Updated]”

  1. He has been laughable for the last 3 years. He only projects on others what he himself does or approves of doing against his political enemies. He is the worst America has to offer – a totalitarian socialist.

  2. Now it’s at the point where the Regressive Socialist aka National and International Socialist are openly flouting the Constitution and pointing with pride at their use of one or more of the manifestos. It’s gone way beyond taking the oath of office and violating it at the same time with their true allegiance to a foreign ideology. Now they requjirement to take the oath of office is being ignored using the four members of The Squat’s illegal seating as the most current well known criminal act and that was done by the Speaker of The House;

    All good reasons to against any measure and any individual – for they clearly are not true Citizens but imposters and are in no way democratic but the exact opposite – who puts a D or an S behind their name(s).

    Ir matters not what kind of socialist they are and many are a mix including the establishment neo-aristocracy known as Statists, Corporatists or Union Leaders. or a convenient mixture.

    The good news is the flight from that anti American anti Constitutional Republic party from the falsely named Democrats especially in the ranks of union members, as independent Democrats or some other name of their own choosing and the from other groups joining the independent unaffiliated self governing citizens who turned in the largest voting block of 2016 40% of the valid vote in the only legal election.for a loss to the regressive socialists of 45% to the majorities 55%

    Remember as a USA Citizen you are armed with the power of the vote which is a multi use weapon as it covers every level from local village to national level and has more choices than yes or no. Add do not vote, write in or intentionally vote for someone with no chance at all. What we need though is None of The Above.

    Constitutionalism vs socialism
    Freedom vs slavery
    Independence vs fascism.

  3. This is how they ‘think’. The trouble is, you cannot have decorous competition with people who play Calvinball. Eventually, the rules go out the window for every player. The only way you get around this problem is if the malignancy is removed. So, to where do we deport Swallwell?

  4. Prof Turley: “As I discussed in a column this weekend, Democratic members have spent years mocking allegations that there was any spying or surveillance of Trump or his campaign by the FBI. That was just a conspiracy theory”

    Its not called “spying or surveillance” its called investigating.You know as in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. That is their job.
    Spying and surveillance would be what a CIA asset like Carter Page would be doing inside the Trump campaign.

    1. Precisely. However, this is a right wing blog that rivals Foxnews and the Washington Times in bias against the entire left. Trump bases his entire campaign on lies and accusations to pump up the white trash that makes up the mail layer of his base. Trump presents lies and misinformation to get elected and then continues with a daily barrage of BS. Yet, Turley remains attached to the disgrace that is the Presidency and the Senate, in a symbiotic relationship. Turley walks the fence leaning over to the right enough to maintain the right wing nuts on his blog while throwing a bone to the left from time to time. Angling for a Supreme Court spot, perhaps a compromise appointment by Biden, ha. Biden is not that out of it. Turley’s blog is not a runway to the Supreme Court.

      1. “Trump bases his entire campaign on lies and accusations”

        Still waiting for you to list several of his important lies. So far we hae found what were called lies by you in the past were actually the truth and that started with spying.

        This is one facet of your candidate:

        https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/20/senate-transcripts-joe-biden-quoted-n-word-13-times-1985-hearings/

        Senate Transcripts: Joe Biden Quoted N-Word 13 Times in 1985 Hearings

      2. Isacc bacon brain is a Canadian and 100 percent anti constitutionalism and 100 percent pro socialist and is never to be believed except how he acts like a true Democrat Regressive in never offering any proofs, facts or sources. Just your basic Seig Heiler.

          1. Around 50 policemen have been injured and around 20 taken to the hospital. several were blinded with lasers and the only ones that don’t know about the rioting, looting, killing etc. are those that only get their news from the MSM.

            The proof is in the videos and in the records. Those that live in a bubble protecting them from the truth are ignorant of the facts.

            1. The whole mess in portland is beyond beleif.

              The left is making headway at convincing people – even some on the right that Trump is doing something wrong in Portland – when the situation is so bad he could constitutionally send in the military and declare martial law in Portland.

              I am not advocating that he do that yet – but Contra some on the right I have heard – no a state or local is not entirely free to govern as it pleases because it MIGHT have democratic support. That claim is no different than that raised by the south when they seceded.

              When a local government has devolved to chaos. When the social contract no longer exists.

              A4S4
              “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”

              Portland has devolved into non-governance – certainly not republican government.

              There is no equal protection of the law, there is no due process.

              Eisenhower, kennedy, and Johnson all send not just the FBI or national guard but US milittary into the south because those governments failed to secure the rights of their citizens.

      3. The left is fully responsible for the bias against them.

        When you constantly accuse others of lying falsely,
        when you lie yourself constantly

        you can expect that people cease to beleive you.

        The left has no one to blame but itself for its own lack of credibilty.

      4. Frankly many of us wonder why it has taken Turley so long to grasp how horribly bad the left is and how egregious what has been done here was.

        You ranted and raved that Trump could not ask Ukraine to investigate Biden,
        How is that different from what you are defending here ?

        There is far more reason to question Biden’s actions in Ukraine.

        First we have inargable actual facts.

        Biden did demand Shokin’s firing in return for US aide.
        Shokin was investigating Biden’s son.

        More recently the Ukrainians have released a tape of Biden, Kerry and Petro Poroshenko where Burisma and the Burisma investigation is discussed.

        So Biden has repeatedly lied about this.

        It may never be possible to prove that Biden’s motive for getting Shokin fired was to protect his son – it is hard to prove motives.
        But there is no doubt Biden has lied publicly repeatedly.
        There is also no doubt that not just reasonable suspicion – but probable cause exists and has existed for a long time that Biden committed a crime.

        Therefore a request to investigate Biden has ALWAYS been legitimate.

        Conversely it is debateable whether the FBI ever had reasonable suspicion regarding Trump – even though that is a very low standard.
        But it is beyond any doubt that they never had probable cause. And that they knew it.

        BTW the notes of the Trump meeting are exculpatory. They make it clear that Trump’s knowledge of Russia was not that significant.
        That he had no ties to Russia.

        1. Biden did demand Shokin’s firing in return for US aide.
          Shokin was investigating Biden’s son.
          -______________________________________________________________

          That is a nice story but even Shokin does not believe it.

          Shokin has said he did not discover the story that Biden got him fired until long long after he was no longer prosecutor. Shokin has admitted in court under oath that he had no idea he was fired because of the influence Biden. Shokin and everybody else in Ukraine thought Shokin was fired because he had failed to prosecute the murders of 100 people who were killed in the Maidan revolution. Shokin found out he was fired by Biden the same way everyone else found out, because Biden bragged about it in a video.

          The problem with Biden’s false story is there was no billion dollar’s in aid that was released because Shokin was fired and there was no 6 hours until Biden would leave without giving the aid. Nothing about Biden’s fictional story is fact. Biden was just plain lying to make himself look good. But the stupid morons on both the right and the left so desperately want to believe this false story that they don’t give a damn if none of the facts in the story are true.

          1. More fantasy Shokin wasn’t aware of all the reasons but he know what happened.

            Affidavit by former Ukrainian Prosecutor Viktor Shokin

            Check out https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement

            pg 5 #9 “…that I should cease my investigations regarding Burisma . When I did not, he said that the US(via Biden) were refusing to release the USD$ 1 billion promised to Ukraine. He said that he had no choice, therefore, but to ask me to resign.” …

            #10 “I agreed to tender my resignation on this basis.

            #11 “After my dismissal Joe Biden made a public statement, saying – even bragging- that he had me fired. This is when it became clear that the real reason for my dismissal was my actions regarding in Burisma and Biden’s personal interest in that company, which was demonstrated by the following.

            a) it was Biden’s order and wish that I be removed from office, not Poroshenko’s decision;

            He continues stating that “the state officials from the US administration of President Obama – and JoeBiden in particular – who were telling the heads of the Ukraine law-enforcement system how to engage and whom to investigate, …”

            The things they accused Trump of Biden actually did.

          2. That is a nice story but even Shokin does not believe it.

            Shokin’s beleif is not relevant.
            Shokin’s lack of knowledge is not relevant.

            If I falsely claim to your boss that you are a peodophile and you are fired.
            Is my conduct less reprehensible just because you are unaware of it ?

            “Shokin and everybody else in Ukraine thought Shokin was fired because he had failed to prosecute the murders of 100 people who were killed in the Maidan revolution. ”

            So ?

            Porshenko knew that was not true. Biden new that was not true.

            1. Shokin’s belief is not relevant.
              Shokin’s lack of knowledge is not relevant.
              _______________________________________________________
              Ha Ha Ha so you think Shokin had his arm twisted but he did not know it…
              Next you will say that it is not relevant that there was no $1Bn released in exchange for Shokin’s departure.
              You likely will also claim that it is not relevant that Shokin was not fired and the aid released in 6 hours as Biden bragged.
              You will say that the fact that none of the events Biden bragged about actually happened is not relevant.

              The facts show that Biden was lying in that video. What is amazing is that the partisan morons on the both the left and the right are so willing to accept obvious false statements as truth because their partisan echo chambers tell them that is what they should believe.

              Just to be clear. I am not saying that the Bidens were not involved in illegal and unethical dealings with Ukraine. The 2014 Ukraine revolution was obviously an illegal and unethical action by the US and the Bidens were involved in the ongoing corrupt fascist regime that took over with US help, but so was Shokin.

              1. “Ha Ha Ha so you think Shokin had his arm twisted but he did not know it…”
                The entire point was that what Shokin thinks is irelevant.
                It is what happened that matters. It is what is true that matters.

      5. Turley is not going to get a SCOTUS appointment from either party.

        While he might make a good justice, he has been too outspoken for either party

    2. You are right to remain Anonymous. Nobody would want to put their real name on such a silly comment.

    3. Crossfire Hurricane was a “COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE” operation. What do you think happens in a counter-intelligence operation besides covertly spying on and surveilling the targets? Good grief, they went to the Foreign Intelligence SURVEILLANCE Court to get warrants.

      The FBI not only relied on the uncorroborated dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC for the spy warrants, but a corrupt FBI official doctored an email from the CIA to support the application for the spy warrants. I suppose in your view using the fake dossier to support imaginary, fictitious claims that Trump conspired with Russians and doctoring emails is all part of a legit “investigation”.

      The Democrat Party and you are hopelessly lost. God help us if the American people ever reward it with power.

      1. The FBI not only relied on the uncorroborated dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC for the spy warrants, but a corrupt FBI official doctored an email from the CIA to support the application for the spy warrants.
        ________________________________________________________________________________________
        The warrant of which you speak was renewed 3 times by the Trump administration after Trump was elected.
        also
        The fictitious claims of which you speak were dismissed by the FBI as having no basis in fact and that should have been the end of it but the Trump administration hired Mueller to beat this dead horse for 2 more years.

        The entire phony charade of the Mueller investigation was designed to make it look like Trump was engaged in mortal combat with the deep state. But it was all fake because when Trump administration hired Mueller, they knew that FBI had already done a thorough investigation and determined there was no there there.

        1. The FISA court invalidated 2 of those warrants and would have invalidated the rest had they known that the FBI knew the Steele Dossier was crap in August.

      2. Correct – but spying on US persons requires a FISA warrant.
        There was never a warrant for Trump, or anyone in these meetings.

        You seem to think that because you call something a counter intelligence investigation you can do as you please and violate the constitution.

    4. When you send someone in for the purpose of observing and gathering information – that is SPYING.

      Spying CAN be a legitimate investigative tool – but the standard to open an investigation is reasonable suspicion.
      A plausible allegation that has not been discredited YET is enough to start an investigation.
      That is why Horowitz found that the opening of XFH was legitimate – BARELY, but that it failed to be legitimate after mid Jan 2017.
      Recent revlatations about the primary subsource and what the FBI knew about him in August move that Jan 2017 date back to august or September.

      But the standard for spying is higher – probable cause.
      The FBI barely had reasonable suspicion and only for a short time.
      They NEVER had probable cause.

      This is also BTW what the fight over the FISA warrant is all about.
      The standard for a Warrant is probable cause. That should not be surprising as a warrant is required to spy on someone.
      There was no FISA warrant in August. The first one was issues in Oct. 4 were issued total. the FISA court has already determined that two were “improvidently granted” – that they never should have been issued. The difference between the two that have been rescinded and the other two is that the FISA court did not understand that the Steele Dossier was discredited by the FBI before Jan 2017.

      Regardless, you may not investigate merely because you wish to.
      Nor are investigations endless. If as you claim there was some basis to investigate – not only are investigators supposed to look into their target, but they are also supposed to look into the basis for the allegation. The FBI determined fairly quickly that the Downer allegation had no merit. That would have ended XFH – but for the fortuitous emergence of the Steele dossier.
      What we are now learning is that the FBI knew not only that Steele was Full of Schiff, and possibly being used by the Russians – for years, but that his primary subsource was also linked to the democrats and had nothing but speculation about old media stories and idiotic gossit that even he did not beleive as a foundation for the Steele Dossier.

      Put simply they knew it was crap from day one.
      Therefore they NEVER had reasonable suspicion needed to investigate.

      And they certainly never had probablce cause to spy.

  5. Did the voting citizens of Swalwell’s district lose a bet?? LOL Did they really run him as a serious candidate?? Jeeze.
    I guess anything is possible in a political party that hails Barack Obama (R-Manchuria) as a brilliant leader.

  6. Bright lights. No lights. Saturday night.
    Stalling a well with a goal and n your sights.
    There were spaces between Donald..
    And whatever he said.
    Strangers have forced him..to live in his head

    Stalled wells..just come natural.
    Like the first fart..from a baby!
    China isn’t lazy.
    They have evil, sunk deep in their hearts.

  7. That report is nothing more then the FBI agent recounting what was said in the meeting. That is not spying. JT is making a scandal about nothing. There was indication the Russia was helping Trump (which turned out to be true) and members of the Trump campaign did meet with the Russians. It was completely reasonable and expected for the FBI to quietly investigate.

    1. Apparently, you haven’t re what the FBI did that was documented by them.

      Tell us what meeting of Trump campaign officials with the Russians was wrong? You can’t. If you wish to jail Flynn for talking to the Russian ambassador then you have to jail people in a similar position in all the administrations that existed before Trump ran for President.

      You are ignorant of facts, the law and what is usual and customary. First figure out what was illegal and then research it so that you don’t sound so foolish.

      1. You are in effect saying that the investigation was illegitimate because it found no wrong doing at the end. I am saying that given what they knew at the beginning and the possible grave risks to our democracy if the Russians were colluded with Trump, it was quite legitimate to investigate. I would bet that many FBI investigations turn up no crimes. Also also remember that it was confirmed that the Russians were meddling in our election, and continue to do so now.

        And I did read the memo and it just the FBI guy summarizing the meeting.

        1. You are in effect saying that the investigation was illegitimate because it found no wrong doing at the end.

          Or at the beginning or the middle. (Except for the bad acts of federal agents).

        2. “You are in effect saying that the investigation was illegitimate because it found no wrong doing at the end. ”

          No Molly. They had a sliver which was much less than they have on Biden. The big problem is that we now know that the investigation should have been ended within a week or so of its start. The FBI records demontrate no reason for the investigation to continue. A lot of stuff that has been claimed and called untrue by the left is now known to be true and valideated in the FBI reports. That information existed from the start of the investigation so it should have been closed down then.

          Based on what you are saying you may have read one short memoro or so but you have not read the FBI details about when it was known that the investigation was a farce.

          Your comments seem hypocritcal since all the investigations revealed wrong doing on the other side but you don’t recognize any of that.

          Read the testimonies. Rosenstein testified that the evidence was such that if he knew about it he would not have continued the investigation. Time to look at what the participants said under oath which is completely different than what they say under other situations. Time to look at the illegal alterations of FBI documents by FBI lawyers and lies regarding FISA.

          I hope you research a bit before you comment further on these well docuented events. You have been informed of these things many times.

        3. The investigation was illegitimate because there was no plausable claim of malfeasance from the start.

          If I accuse you of being a peodophile – that is not sufficient for law enforcement to investigate you.
          First they must verfiy that my allegation is credible. They must verfiy that I am a reliable reporter, and that my basis for the allegation is itself sufficient – that is all BEFORE they can check into you.

        4. “Given what they know at the begining” – what would that be ?’

          If Trump;s remarks regarding Russia are enough – then why aren’t Biden’s remark’s regarding Ukraine ?
          Or Clinton’s (both Bill and Hillary) remarks regarding Russia.

          It is not sufficient that Trump – like every human alive suspected that Russia had the Hillary’s state department emails.
          It is not sufficient that he hoped Russia would release some of them – or publicly admit that it had them.

          You need an actual link to Russia – that the Downer Papadoulis link collapsed rapidly. It devolved quickly into someone (likely a western, not russian agent) that Russia likely had Clinton’s state department emails – again something EVERYONE suspects.

        5. How can you “summarize a meeting” – where your purpose was to brief the candidate ?

          The FBI was NOT there to gather information on the Trump campaign – that would be illegal.
          They were their to provide information to the trump campaign.

          Both the before and after memo’s make it clear that the FBI was suing its meetings with Trump to spy on him.
          This was true in August – and clearly true of Comey’s meetings with Trump.

          Nor is the spying part speculation – Both the agent, Comey and then later the plan to entrap Flynn ALL reflect the intention of using meetings as a pretext to spy and entrap.

          You are correct that the government can SPY on Trump and his campaign – if and only if there is probable cause – and a warrant to do so.
          Neither existed.
          That makes it illegal.

      2. There is a timeline problem in this.

        Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak took place AFTER the election – not in August when the FBI was using briefings to spy on the Trump campaign.

        1. Horowitz saw this document and found that “spying” on the Trump campaign did not occur. There was a counter intelligence investigation ongoing of the campaign – a secret kept from Americans while Hillary’s was announced – and this was part of that.

          1. “Horowitz saw this document and found that “spying” on the Trump campaign did not occur.”
            Because you say so ?

            Please cite in the Horrowitz report where Horrowitz “saw this document” ?

            ” There was a counter intelligence investigation ongoing of the campaign – a secret kept from Americans while Hillary’s was announced – and this was part of that.”

            You keep repeating this over and over. There is no special counter-intellegence investigation exception to the constitution, the 4th amendment, DOJ procedures or the patriot act – to spy on, to take any active measure on, to target a US person, you must have a warrant. There was no warrant in August 2016.

            1. In the clip John provides here, Horowitz agrees that a hypothetical situation Graham describes is “illegal surveillance”, not a specific act by the FBI, it then end’s abruptly as Horowitz goes into a further discussion of the question.

              Really?

              1. As to the hypothetical.

                Horowitz defered to the court as to whether the surveilance of Carter Page became unlawful.

                The court has answered that. They rescinded the last two FISA warrants.

                That means they were unlawful, and any actions founded on them were unlawful.

                I would separately not that the hypothetical is when did the surveilance become unlawful.

                NOT did spying occur.

                Graham: if you do not have a legal foundation for spying is that bad ?
                Horowitz: It is illegal surveilance.

                FISA court: The last two warrants against page are null and void because the FBI lied to us.

                Conclusion: there was spying, it was without foundation, it was illegal surveilance.

                Modus Ponens.
                a logical rule of inference that dictates that the conclusion follows from the premesis.

                In fact MP is the simplest rule of logic.

                1. In the clip John provides here, Horowitz agrees that a hypothetical situation Graham describes is “illegal surveillance”, not a specific act by the FBI

                  1. Please follow the whole clip from start to finish.

                    It is a short clip.

                    Add to that the fact that the FISA court has withdrawn the last two FISA warrants as they were granted based on fraudulent representations.

                    Then go look up Modus Ponens.
                    It is an inference rule of formal logic.

                    P implies Q.
                    P
                    Therefore Q.

                    If you provide – what you are calling a hypothetical,
                    and the conditions in the hypothetical are met,
                    then it is no longer a hypothetical.

    2. “That report is nothing more then the FBI agent recounting what was said in the meeting. That is not spying.”

      That is precisely what spying is.

      The FBI and others were not sent to find out about Trump and his campaign. That is NOT their business. They were not and should not have been under investigation.

      They were sent to brief Trump – to inform him, not to get information about him.

      These notes not merely indicate what Trump and company said. They also indicate that the FBI agents went into the meeting with the explict purpose not of informing Trump, but of finding dirt on Trump.

      That is precisely what spying is.

      “There was indication the Russia was helping Trump”
      Which turned out to be FALSE.

      We now know that the ICA claim that Putin favored Trump was driven by Brennan – not the intelligence community and not even the CIA,
      We now have memos from actual analysts that indicate that Putin’s choice was Clinton not Trump.

      “members of the Trump campaign did meet with the Russians.”
      Again FALSE.

      “It was completely reasonable and expected for the FBI to quietly investigate.”
      There is actually a DOJ and constitutional standard that must be met to investigate.

      I think you are clueless and dangerous – am I free to investigate you ?
      Can I demand the FBI investigate you ?

      The standard for an investigation is quite low – reasonable suspicion.
      Though I would note that the standard for spying – which this was, is much higher – probable cause.

  8. Swalwell was a prosecutor for seven years. For seven years this creep had the power to put people in prison. If he is willing to misrepresent and stretch facts to indict the President in the court of public opinion to advance the Democrat Party interests, then why wouldn’t he do the same in a court of justice to puff up his resume to advance his career?

    Why wouldn’t he be willing to take advantage of people inadequately represented by, say, public defenders and pressure them into pleading to crimes he could not prove in a court of law? (They got Flynn to plead to a crime he didn’t commit and he was represented by the millionaire white shoe lawyers at Covington and Burling.)

    When I see an unethical scoundrel like Swalwell somehow made it through the vetting process to become a prosecutor, it makes me wish that every single person he got to plead guilty could have their case thoroughly re-examined.

  9. A 20th Century political commentator probably said it best: “Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason.” – Mark Twain

    1. “Of course, we have passed laws that make it a “crime” to solicit or receive electoral support from a foreign government. ”

      False, you can not make it a crime to receive foreign support.

      If you did nearly every federal politician would be a criminal.

      Myriads of foreign govenrments have overt of covert preferences with respect to US elections.
      The Ukrainian ambassador published an attack on Trump in 2016 – does that autmatcially make Clinton a criminal ?

  10. Non-contradiction is a principle of reason. Reason is advanced through argument. But arguments are cheap.

    It follows that we don’t care about reason or about contradicting ourselves. All that’s left is who has power over who.

    It’s bad enough when that’s the way our media and political leaders operate. But it’s intolerable when our “justice” system does the same.

    But it does.

    https://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/shallow-reasoning/

  11. SWALWELL after running around for over 3 years accusing Trump and denying FBI and deep state set up now admits it was Good? This guy is a NUT CASE, LIAR, Traitor to democracy, a FOOL and etc. This country cannot afford the DEM’s to win or retain the House for if they do its going to be a rise of Authoritarian Rule and Power Grab.

    1. Yeah the real authoritarians are today’s leftists who feel amply comfortable spying on their enemies yet seek to impeach a president for the tenth root of this — another abuse of power, btw. They abuse spy powers, impeachment powers, “whistle blower” act powers — everything becomes a tool for the long march through the institutions, to be deformed if it helps foment the revolution. Journalism similarly has been eviscerated of moral structure or content in their nihilistic attempt to take down Trump.

  12. Turley is being too generous to Swalwell (“A conspiracy theory suddenly becomes a commendable act.”) The issue is not a conspiracy theory, but a deliberate subterfuge planted by the Democrats to cover for their political spying. And spying is not just “an FBI investigation”; it is far more intrusive and troubling — particularly when the predicate is supplied by the incumbent party, a tapestry of lies (the Steele dossier).

    Turley has shown more spine than most on the left on this (Dershowitz and Greenwald also come to mind), but he needs to eventually complete where the logic leads and show even more spine and honesty:

    Turley needs to forcefully compare the magnitude of the Ukraine-gate faux scandal as quite small bean (investigating Biden after the fact rather than a priori using spy powers on an active campaign — this after Biden had bragged about a quid pro quo, and there was actually a predicate for the inquiry made) against the spygate scandal now unfolding before our eyes. Because just as Ukraine-gate was largely a fabrication of the left, activist bureaucrats and a fake Dem operative “whistle blower” — so the spygate deployment of paid CIA and FBI operatives wearing wires, intercepting emails, lying to FISA courts represents the greatest scandal of our time — the latter being far more like something that might have transpired in East Germany during the Cold War, or still does in Russia today.

    1. To complete why this logic is so important to state: Ukraine-gate became a predicate for the Democrats’ absurd impeachment effort — whilst they themselves were guilty of Ukraine-gate cubed.

      All this must come out.

    2. “deliberate subterfuge”

      True. They are power hungry. They do not care about the Constitution or the people they directly control. We see that every day in the large Democrat cities where huge numbers are shot and die every day.

      1. There too, the leftist lying is now profuse… Tens of thousands of black lives can be offered up by today’s left — so long as they maintain a highly neuralgic narrative in the media that persuades people by anecdote rather than by statistic. The left has become an emotocracy, trading on people’s deepest social insecurities and emotional reactions to narrative.

  13. We should be thankful that they knew what kind of person he is, and his potential threat to democracy. He will have to use every trick in the thick GOP “How To Steal
    Elections” book because otherwise, he will face criminal charges that traitor BARR can’t protect him from. And he knows it.

      1. I love how “what kind of person he is” can be used to justify a priori political spying — or presumably just about anything else. Politics is the realm of mutual contempt where partisans can always detest “that kind of person”: this is only first base to observe. The point is your contempt should not justify suspending the rule of law to go after your enemies.

    1. Which tricks would those be ?

      One of the problems with those on the left is that everything they accuse the right of

      1). It is not doing.
      2). They are.

      Can you read ? There was not collusion of anykind between the Trump campaign and Russia.
      But there was PLENTY of collsion between the Clinton campaign and Russia, and Ukraine.

      Your idea of GOP election highjinx is trying to reduce the possibility that dead people and micki mouse get to vote.

      Why is it not trivial to agree that our voter roles should not contain decades of people who died. moved, never existed ?

      Why is it not trivial to agree that to vote you should have to prove you are a citizen ?

      Over the past two years the left has amply demonstrate a core tenant of republicans regarding elections – if people do not trust the election – the result will be chaos.

      The problem is that republicans are worried about things that are real. Democrats fret over fake russians.

      We are currently rushing to impliment the least reliable means of running an election that exists – vote by mail.
      That possibility has existed through the entire history of this country – yet until very recently it was never done.

      In the midst of the 1918 spanish flu that killed 600,000 americans out of a population of a bit more than 100M – we still went to the polls to vote.

      Only today are left wingnuts to fragile to get off their asses and vote.

  14. Who the …. is Swalwell and why does this matter. Up against what Trump says on a regular basis, this means next to nothing. Turley, spend some time on the real criminals: Trump, Barr, etc.

    1. Issac, Turley doesn’t spend time on looking for criminality in Trump or Barr because just like you he can’t list any crimes committed by them during this administration.. They don’t exist.

      Maybe if you list the crimes during this administration along with proof and the legal basis Turley will take note and deal with them but until you find them one can only sound like a fool such as Swalwell. I don’t know how many investigations were done by the SC,FBI, IC, Senate, House that came up empty while criminality was found elsewhere but not yet dealt with.

      You should try cleaning your own house before telling others to clean theirs.

      1. At this level, the statements made by Swalwell, who ever the …. he is, Trump and the Republicans are far, far, far worse. Swalwell didn’t commit a crime here.

        ‘Swalwell has long been an example of rage overwhelming reason in our current politics. Yet, he embodies the dangerous reckless that is taking hold of our national discourse on both sides. Spinning such stories is now more important than maintaining long-standing bright lines against using national security powers to target opposing parties or candidates.’

        As far as ‘dangerous reckless’ goes, no one can top Trump. Like I said, let’s spend some time on the bigger problem, a blithering idiot, out of control megalomaniac liar of a President. Let’s get those tax returns out in the open. Let’s get the US a leader, not a snake oil salesman buffoon.

        1. “Trump and the Republicans are far, far, far worse. Swalwell didn’t commit a crime here.”

          Issac, I agree we haven’t seen a crime by Swalwell unless stupidity is considered a crime. However, we haven’t investigated Swalwell yet though some of those stupid statements could be considered suspicious. On the other hand we have investigated Trump for almost 4 years without good reason and despite all the investigations we have found nothing that he did while in office that was criminal.

          Time for you to list your grievances. You can’t and like a true totalitarian person you don’t care about evidence. All you need to convict is what your feelings tell you. Unfortunately, your feelings have been noted on this list and discounted because or inability to attach feelings and reality together. You flub that continuously.

          You get back to the tax returns which by law are not supposed to be open to the public against the individual’s wishes. We can’t get to Biden’s records during his life in PUBLIC office yet you worry about Trump’s life as a private citizen. No one has investigated Biden’s records for criminality but Trump has been investigated over and over in public office and as a private citizen.

          His tax records and his financial records along with his business practices have been investigated over and over again by the FBI, SC, the House, etc. and privately by the IRS, various states, various gaming commissions, along with state, city and federal groups looking into business practices. Moreover he has been in front of the world for years. No one has found criminality. You have been told this numerous times but your feelings seem to overwhelm your intellect.

          You want his taxes revealed. Tell us what is on a persons tax forms that would prove Trump is not legally fit to be President. You can’t do that either. Tax forms tell very little. If one wanted dirt they would look at the other investigations most of which are in the public domain.

          1. The tax records are a red herring. The odds of finding criminality are ZERO. There are probably hundreds of lawyers and accountants who participated in preparing Trump’s tax returns. If there was anything egregious some of them would be headed for jail.

            The fundimental reason that the left wants Trump’s tax returns is to disconnect him from his base.
            To paint Trump as a wealthy billionaire and not as one of them.

            While Trump’s based knows he is wealthy, they do not see him acting in the same way they perceive wealthy people do.
            Trump’s tax returns will make him look more like Warren and Bezos and less like one of them.

            The fight over tax returns is political not criminal.

            1. “The fight over tax returns is political not criminal.”

              Of course it is. That is why one asks the one claiming this nonesense to state what it is that they are looking for. They say the tax forms for lack of anything better to say and that tips everyone off that they of no criminality where Trump is involved.

        2. Except you never mention any of them so I conclude they don’t exist. No facts, no sources just a big fat nothing. As valid as if I said Bacon Boy was really Michael Moore.

        3. As far as ‘dangerous reckless’ goes, no one can top Trump.

          Given your consistent inability to articulate how President Trump is a threat to our country and your complete unwillingness to denounce the illegal and corrupt efforts to remove him from office, the only reasonable conclusion is you and your ilk believe President Trump is only a threat to the power and base of the Democratic party.

        4. No Swalwell did not commit a crime.

          “Trump and the Republicans are far, far, far worse. ”

          They are – then you should EASILY be able to list specifics about how ?

          Have republicans been selling the entire country a gigantic lie – one they KNOW is a lie for the past 4 years ?

          One of the things that people are missing from all the revelations – especially the recent ones is that ALL of these were KNOWN by the FBI and administration from the start. Everyone who has leaked this Trump/Russia nonsense to the press has known all or most of these from the begining. The members of he house and senate that have been publicly selling all of this – also knew, maybe not as recently but certainly LONG before they tried to sell the public on this nonsense.

          Lets be clear – none of this is mistakes, none of this is misunderstanding of the facts. We may not have seen all these memo’s etc – but THEY did.

          Something is really really wrong with the left when Alex Jone’s and Info World and all their conspiracy theories are correct and the New York Times is totally wrong.

          I am not a republican or a Trump fan. But whatever their problems Republicans are not even close to the incredibly liars that democrats are. Nor are they close to the threat to the country that democrats are.

          If Trump and republicans did every single thing that the left claims they intend, the country would survive and probably thrive.

          A muslim ban would be a bad thing, as would be an end to immigration, Ginsberg could be replaced by another Gorsuch or Kavanaugh.
          Federal Troops could be dispatched to end rioting and restore order in our cities, Federal agencies could be dismembered, and nearly all federal regulation eliminated.

          And the country might be a little worse – maybe, but atmost it would be a small step backward that would ultimately be reversed.

          But antifa taking over parts of our cities, radical cuts or elimination of police, ending ICE and CBP,
          Giving even the tiniest power to the children of the left – the AOC’s and Omar’s
          And on and on

          The left wants a modern soviet revolution.

          Eric Weinstein made an interesting observation recently. There are two means by which humans are drawn together.
          The first is genetic and that is billions of years old. That includes bonds of family, clan, race.

          The 2nd is the mutual cooperation that started when man developed agriculture 10000 years ago.

          The destruction of the second means of connection is the overt objective of the left.
          If the left succeeds in what they are after the results will be a return to the first – to racism, tribalism and nationalism.

      2. When did anyone from the socialist left in any of it’s forms offer any thing remotely like facts, proof or sources? Never happen! They are just penny a post slave labor to Soros.

        1. Michael as I said elsewhere the left acts like slaves. They think natural rights come from whomever leads them and when suddenly they are told to loot, riot, burn or kill they say ‘yeh mastah’.

      3. This is a reflection of one of the most fundimental problems of the modern left, and also why ideas, and philosophy matter and have incredible influence beyond the small core of those that action buy into an ideology.

        The left LIES – about everything, and accuses everyone else of lying. It is a norm. Truth does not matter. As AOC actually said
        “Facts Don’t Matter When You’re “Morally Right”” – completely ignoring that you can not be morally right if your are wrong about the facts.
        It is morally wrong to be knowingly or recklessly wrong about the facts.

        The rest of us are constantly somehow obligated to prove that each lie is false.

        After a very small increasing the weeks of July 5 and 11, C19 hospitalizations are sharply down.
        As I indicated multiple times before C19 deaths have a 7 day cycle – and they are headed down again.
        But the long term trend is FLAT not rising and has been for more than two months.
        There is still not a red state in the top 7 number of deaths.
        FL, TX, LA new cases are ALL trending Down – while CA is trending up.

        That is just C19 lies.

        We have now confirmed that the FBI was spying on Trump using candidate briefings starting in August.
        We have confirmed that the FBI knew that both Steele and his primary subsource had no credibility in August, and that the primary subsource was known to the FBI. was a drunk and substance abuser, was tied to the Democratic Brookings Institute and is an associate of a significant number of the Ukraine Faux impeachment witnesses, as well as Rosenstein.

        Rosenstein testified to the Senate that he would have ended XFH and the Mueller investigation had he known what he knows now.
        Well we now know that it was KNOWN in August this was all crap.

        I can go on and on, but the fundimental point is that the left lies – about everything.
        Truth is not a value to them. Morality has no attachment to reality.

        1. LOL. You complain that “The left LIES,” and then you falsely claim that “AOC actually said “Facts Don’t Matter When You’re “Morally Right.”””

          She did use the phrase “morally right,” but she didn’t say — or imply– that “Facts Don’t Matter When You’re “Morally Right.”” Quotation marks mean something, and your outer quotation marks are dishonest.

          The actual exchange:
          Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: “If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they’re missing the forest for the trees. I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.”
          Anderson Cooper: “But being factually correct is important -”
          Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: “It’s absolutely important.”
          cbsnews.com/news/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-the-rookie-congresswoman-challenging-the-democratic-establishment-60-minutes-interview-full-transcript-2019-01-06/

          “C19 hospitalizations are sharply down.”

          That’s false too: https://covidtracking.com/data/us-daily

          “We have now confirmed that the FBI was spying on Trump using candidate briefings starting in August.”

          False again. A classified defensive briefing for a Presidential candidate isn’t “spying,” nor is noting what the people at the meeting said. Unsurprisingly, you’re silent about the fact that when Flynn was in that meeting, he was being paid as a foreign agent by Turkey, and illegally hadn’t disclosed that to the government.

          You say “It is morally wrong to be knowingly or recklessly wrong about the facts,” but you were just recklessly wrong about facts.

          I generally ignore your comments, and will do so again, but the irony of your comment was just too amusing to ignore.

          1. Amazing, CTHD is known for falsification:

            He claimed the proof that Michael Flynn was guilty was in Flynn’s own words.

            Then he claimed they were in the FBI records and provided a link.

            He told everyone else to find the words themselves.

            Good reason for that because those words didn’t exist anywhere. He made them up.

            To CTHD his spin is fact but most of us know him for who and what he is.

          2. “I think there is alot of people more concerned with being precisely factually and semantically correct, than about being morally right”
            AOC

            These things are not independent. If you are not factually correct – you are NOT morally right.

            You get 4 pinochios.

            Cooper threw AOC a bone, but there is no way to reconcile her statement with anything that is true.

            If you are making a claim about facts – and you are not correct – there is no “morally right”.

          3. “A classified defensive briefing for a Presidential candidate isn’t “spying,””
            That is correct – but that is not at all what occured.
            1). This was not a defensive briefing. It was a standard national security briefing.
            2). The FBI agents PRIOR notes specifically stat his intention to use the briefing to seek information from Trump and others.
            That is surveilance, that is spying, that requires a warrant.
            3). There was no defensive briefing EVER – that is also an established fact.
            This was not the last time the FBI used a brief of Trump or Trump surogates to surveil than or set them up.

            This is what is refered to in the DIJ guidlines as “active measures” and it requires a warrant their was none.

            “nor is noting what the people at the meeting said.”
            Actually it is. The agent was their to brief Trump – not to investigate him.
            “Unsurprisingly, you’re silent about the fact that when Flynn was in that meeting”
            Does not help you – there was no warrant on Flynn at the time. Todate we do not know that there was ever a warrant on Flynn.

            You keep trying to elide the requirement for a warrant.

            “he was being paid as a foreign agent by Turkey,”
            I am not sure if that has been established.
            Please provide evidence that Flynn was being paid by the government of turkey.

            “illegally hadn’t disclosed that to the government.”
            That is false. FARA is a requirement that lobbying for foreign governments be disclosed.

            There is nothing illegal about working for a foreign government.
            There is no requirement to disclose it.

            There is a requirement to disclose lobbying the US government while being paid by a foreign government.

            This gets right back to the AOC quote – the facts PRECISELY matter.

            “I went to the store and got some bread”
            Is that legal or a crime ?
            That depends on Precisely what you did – and unlike more recent claims by AOC NOT whether you claim to have needed bread.

            If you took the bread without the permission of its owner – that is theft and morally wrong.
            It is wrong – even you you claim to need the bread.

            Conversely if you took the bread with the permission of the owner – either as part of a free exchange or as a gift, That is moral.
            Whether you need the bread or not.

            Facts – PRECISELY matter – Moral judgements without a foundation of accurate facts are gibberish.

          4. “You say “It is morally wrong to be knowingly or recklessly wrong about the facts,” but you were just recklessly wrong about facts.”

            Except I was not.

            Just like AOC – you elide over critical details.

            You ignore the fact that the constitution requires a warrant for surveilance
            You ignore the fact that the Agents were there to Brief – not surveil.
            That the choice to surveil was premeditated.
            That there is no exception to the requirements of the constitution, the DOJ procedures or the patriot act for “counter intelligence investigations”.

            The FBI can surveil russians without warrants as part of a counter intelligence investigation. It can not investigate americans without reasonable suspicion, and it can not surveil them or any of a large number of other investigative techniques without a warrant.

            “I generally ignore your comments, and will do so again, but the irony of your comment was just too amusing to ignore.”

            The irony is yours not mine. You made exactly the mistakes you accused me of – and you did precisely what was wrong with AOC’s remarks. You presumed your poorly informed moral snap judgement did not require precision regarding the facts.

            Moral judgements in particular ALWAYS require as near perfection on the facts as possible.

            A false moral accusation redounds on the accuser.

            If you call someone a liar – and are wrong – you are immoral.
            If you call someone racist – and you are wrong – you are immoral.

          5. From 1960 to the present CO2 has increase from 300ppm to almost 420ppm – almost half of a doubling.
            Yet according to HadCrut and BEST there has been 0.5C increase since 1950.

            We should have seen about 3/4 of 3.5C or about 2.6C and we should see another .9C by the time CO2 reaches 600ppm.

            You can skew the numbers a bit by jiggering the coeficients and flatening the parabola – except that makes CO2 rise LESS not more of a problem.

            But you can not fix the fact that you have not seen 30% of the rise you would need for you claimed TCRE.

            As I have said repeatedly – the models are OBVIOUSLY wrong. The error could be many places – but the most likely is that the TCRE is below 1.

            But the details do not matter – your hypothesis has failed. Why is your problem. What is relevant to the rest of us is that because it has failed – BADLY, you can not make any claims based on it. Any predictions you make regarding the future are just guesses,

            If you want to be taken credibly – adjust the models to conform to reality.
            Failing to do so makes you religion not science.

          6. And this is why I generally ignore John’s comments — as the exchanges tend to be an exponentially growing cascade on his end of new issues, deflection, false or misleading claims, … Note that he does not acknowledge that the words he put in quotation marks and attributed to AOC aren’t hers. (He wrote “AOC actually said “Facts Don’t Matter When You’re “Morally Right,””” when the only words in that quote that are hers are the phrase “morally right” and nowhere does she suggest “facts don’t matter.”)
            He introduces a different COVID-19 hospitalization data link, but ignores that his link only includes data for ~10% of the US population, even though that link has a pop-up disclaimer explicitly noting this — a pop-up that you have to close before you can even look at the data:
            “Disclaimer
            “The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) conducts population-based surveillance for laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalizations in children (persons younger than 18 years) and adults. The current network covers nearly 100 counties in the 10 Emerging Infections Program (EIP) states (CA, CO, CT, GA, MD, MN, NM, NY, OR, and TN) and four additional states through the Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Project (IA, MI, OH, and UT). The network represents approximately 10% of US population (~32 million people).…” (emphasis added)

            Evidence for my claim that Flynn was working as a foreign agent for Turkey in August 2016 and didn’t disclose this to the government at the time: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/46/united-states-v-flynn/
            But I’m not going to keep addressing what he said, as it’s a waste of time.

            As for Allan, I don’t know why he’s obsessed with me, but he’s posted scores of responses to me despite the fact that I’ve chosen not to respond to him since May. Just about all of Allan’s responses consist of insults and/or false claims. Note that nowhere in his comment to me here does he quote or link to anything I said that substantiates his claims. He cannot.

            1. What is a deflection – beyond a response that you do not like but have no counter to ?

              What is a misleading claim – beyond a claim that you can not refute but do not like ?

              The left likes word mangling.

              Argument is simple. Facts, logic reason.

              No fallacies,

              If something is false – that is provable.

              The valid response to an argument is a counter argument
              not insults – either of the person or the argument.

              Whatever it is that you think is a “deflection”,
              it is either true or false. Valid argument or invalid,
              and you can demonstrate that

              Misleading is a ludicrously stupid claim.
              Either an argument is actually irrelevant – true or false it has no meaning to the original argument
              Or it is relevant and must be dealt with.

              A simple tool would be to eliminate adjectives from your remarks.
              All they do is layer emotion on an argument.
              If you remove all the adjectives – and there is no valid argument left – then there never was a valid argument.

            2. The hospitalization link I have provided is from the CDC, and not only includes the entire population – but also graphs each of several different age groups.

              Further if you go to the CDC the graph is applet based and you can choose whatever sub population you wish.
              You can also select some specific reporting districts.

              The fact is that the CDC’s hospitalization data – both for all hospitalizations, and for each age subgroup is declining.

              Or are you telling me that the CDC is lying ?

            3. A sentencing memorandum is not a fact. It is an assertion made by a prosecutor.

              In this instance by a prosecutor that Sidney Powell has demonstrated has repeatedly lied to the court, and failed to live up to his legal and ethical obligations to the court.

              As to the FACTS, There are very narrow and specific circumstances under which work for foreign governments must be reported, and even fewer in which it is criminal.

              This is a common problem for those of you on the left.
              You are under the delusion that you are entitled to know everything that anyone else does,
              and that you can declare that it is criminal – solely because you do not like it.

              I have worked for defense contractors, and as an independent contractor in defense areas,
              I have worked directly and indirectly for the US government, and directly and indirectly for foreign governments.
              Sometimes on military projects. I have never had to report any of that, and none of it is illegal.

              FARA applies to those who LOBBY the US government on behalf of foreign governments.
              And like Campaign finance violations, FARA violations are not typically criminal.

              Words like Agent have actual meaning.

              Regardless, if you wish to make a valid argument – make it with FACTS,
              Not phoney appeals to authority.

              I do not give a $h!t about the oppinion of some Mueller prosecutor who has a proven track record of legal ethical and moral failure.

            4. “And this is why I generally ignore John’s comments … “Note that he does not acknowledge that the words he put in quotation marks and attributed to AOC aren’t hers. “

              CTHD still hasn’t owned up to any of his lies about Flynn or anyone else. He pretends to ignore anyone that points that out to him while using a backdoor way of responding avoiding having to answer for his misstatements and mistruths.

              I believe John addressed his AOC quote. In that first statement John was clear about your type ignorance and erroneous statements of fact, “completely ignoring that you can not be morally right if your are wrong about the facts.”. Though John didn’t apply that statement to you, I think it fits you perfectly.

              You are a petty person who thrives on libel. John did respond and he provided you with AOC’s actual quote: “I think there is alot of people more concerned with being precisely factually and semantically correct, than about being morally right”. I guess AOC was prescient regarding CTHD’s habits for she described CTHD accurately.

            5. “As for Allan, I don’t know why he’s obsessed with me”

              It is simple. You create false narratives to libel people and then blame others for your problems. You aren’t even polite to your host that provides you your entertainment for free.

              If I see scum forming on the water in my swimming pool I get rid of it. If it reappears I get rid of it again. That may be a bit obsessive, however, I like swimming in a clean swimming pool.

            6. No one is “obsessed” with you.
              You seem paranoid.

              Stick to proveable facts, and valid logic, and reason

              1. Actually, John, Allan doesn’t dispute that he’s obsessed. He even tries to excuse it by falsely claiming that I’ve been posting “false narratives to libel people”: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/07/26/they-were-right-to-do-it-swalwell-praises-fbi-for-using-campaign-briefing-to-investigate-trump/comment-page-1/#comment-1983240
                Note that he does not link to any comments from me providing even a shred of evidence that I’ve done what he asserts.

                And he posts these kinds of comments to me day,
                after day,
                after day,
                after day.
                Sometimes he even invents wild and bizarre imaginings, suggesting that I’m aroused by violence: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/23/protesters-topple-bust-of-george-washington-at-george-washington-university/comment-page-1/#comment-1969754
                He’s obsessed. It’s sick, and it’s tiresome.

                As for “Stick to proveable facts, and valid logic, and reason,” take your own advice.

                1. “Actually, John, Allan doesn’t dispute that he’s obsessed. He even tries to excuse it by falsely claiming that I’ve been posting “false narratives to libel people””

                  The need to respond to your claims is determined by me not by you. You do provide false narratives to libel people though perhaps the one you referred to was not one of them. That series of postings was another affront at Turley by you. You know Turley. He is your host that provides your playpen for free. You were complaining about Turley’s choice of topics…after all you know that you are smarter and better than Turley.. The egotism pours out in your writing along with a lot of intentional mistatements.

                  Anyone can refer to the comment section and determine for themselves why Turley closed the comment section to all. Take note of the egotistical writings of our egotistical blogger CTHD. He doesn’t care that the comment section ended up being closed to everyone because of one fool who thought Turley should do what CTHD told him to do.

                2. CTHD – why does anyone need to link to anyone else’s comments here ?

                  I have read yours. I think I try to be more polite to you than others here.
                  But honestly, I recall no one who has criticized you unfairly.

                  You are NOT interested in honest discussions.

                  Honest discussion is exchange about the REAL WORLD – not some hypothetical world. C19 death trends are flat and have been for 9 weeks. We would all like them to go away completely – or I hope we would – increasingly I am not sure of you, and democrats.
                  Increasingly it appears you would rather see people die than Trump re-elected.

                  Honest discussion requires sticking to facts, logic and reason – not magical false claims, not incessant fallacies.

                  You rant that Allan posts comments to you . So? Are you some snow flake that can not engage in “Honest Discussion” ?

                  You attack Allan and others here – primarily with ad hominem or a wide array of other fallacies – is that “Honest discussion” ?

                  Regardless – no one is stopping you. No one is trying to cancel you are trying to force you out.

                  I would greatly prefer an actual “Honest Discussion” with you – but thus far I have no evidence that you are able to do that.

                  1. “why does anyone need to link to anyone else’s comments here ?”

                    To provide evidence. If person A claims that person B said or believes X, and person A is referring to a comment made by person B on another page — or even elsewhere on the same page, but further away — then person A should link to the comment, so that everyone can see whether person B really did say that or if person A is instead lying/mistaken. You claim to be interested in “proveable facts.” A link provides proof or disproof.

                    “The only valid claim you have made is that the CDC hospitalization graph i have linked to is not for the entire country.”

                    Glad that you’re now admitting this. Initially, you falsely responded “The hospitalization link I have provided is from the CDC … includes the entire population” (https://jonathanturley.org/2020/07/26/they-were-right-to-do-it-swalwell-praises-fbi-for-using-campaign-briefing-to-investigate-trump/comment-page-1/#comment-1983221, emphasis added) But you’re now falsely claiming that “C19 death trends are flat and have been for 9 weeks,” when that is not true nationally.

                    “If there is some radical spike in other states – produce the data”

                    I already gave you a link to a site that has both national data and state data for every state. Moreover, I have no burden of proof for claims I haven’t made. I asserted that your claim — “C19 hospitalizations are sharply down” — was false, and above I just said that your claim “C19 death trends are flat and have been for 9 weeks” is false. I already provided evidence for the former, and you can see that the latter is false on the same site, on their covidtracking.com/about-data/visualization-guide page (scroll down to “daily deaths in the U.S.” I don’t have to break out the state data for you simply because you want to see it. If you want to know which states have increasing #s of hospitalizations and/or deaths, explore the data in the link for yourself.

                    Still waiting for you to admit that your claim
                    AOC actually said “Facts Don’t Matter When You’re “Morally Right””
                    is false, as she didn’t say what’s in the outer quotes (though she did say the phrase “morally right”). Quotation marks matter. You attributed something in quotes to her, when she didn’t say it. She didn’t even imply it.

                    Re: “You are NOT interested in honest discussions,” “You spray your posts with fallacies and ad hominem,” and all your other claims about me: I accept that you *believe* these things, but that doesn’t guarantee that your beliefs are *true*, nor have you provided evidence for your claims.

                    “You rant that Allan posts comments to you”

                    No. I’ve noted that he is obsessed with posting insults and/or false claims about me. I already gave you evidence where he admitted that he is obsessed. I already gave you a link to one of his comments with a sick insult about me, and if you want more examples, just ask for them. Note that we’re limited to two links per comment, though. How many examples do you want? (5? 10? 20? 50?) You can even start on this page with #comment-1983578, which has both insults and false claims. Of course I’m not a snowflake (if I were, I would have left months ago) but his obsession is sick.

                    1. >>”“You rant that Allan posts comments to you”

                      >1)No. I’ve noted that he is obsessed with posting insults and/or false claims about me.2) I already gave you evidence where he admitted that he is obsessed.”

                      The so called admission in #2 would not necessarily be an admission to #1, but that is how you link most of your nasty and untruthful comments.

                      “he is obsessed with posting insults and/or false claims about me.”

                      Why don’t you link to your posts where you were telling others how Flynn lied and then telling everyone to search it out in the FBI files? Better yet why don’t you quote the words of Flynn that proved him guilty?

                    2. “where he admitted that he is obsessed. ”

                      Not quite. Even the word obsession was wrongly used but I let it go. I don’t think about you at all until you post on this blog and I have time to read it. With exception to the misuse of the word obsessed let me answer by quoting my earlier resonse on this subject.

                      “As for Allan, I don’t know why he’s obsessed with me”

                      It is simple. You create false narratives to libel people and then blame others for your problems. You aren’t even polite to your host that provides you your entertainment for free.

                      If I see scum forming on the water in my swimming pool I get rid of it. If it reappears I get rid of it again. That may be a bit obsessive, however, I like swimming in a clean swimming pool.

                    3. “To provide evidence.”

                      Have you heard of the scroll bar ?

                      If you have to link to something that is two screens up – you are getting nowhere.

                      Yes, I am interested in proveable facts.
                      But I do not need proof the moon exists – I can just look up.
                      If you think you have to mash my face into it – you are the problem.

                      I provide ALOT of FACTS here – more than all the lefties here combined – and I am not unique most of those you disagree with provide far more fact than you.

                      There is no need for me to provide cites for my facts – most are obvious, regardless I have nearly always checked them before I posted.

                      If you wish to verify them go ahead. In fact you should until you are comfortably aware that I do check most of what I post, and you can trust it. That is earned by not making many mistakes and being honest about those I do make.

                      You should try it.

                      Those of you on the left – mostly do not use facts. You make fallacious arguments – that is not bad facts, it is well known forms of invalid arguments, Non-sequiturs, Ad Hominem, appeals to authority, appeals to popularity, …
                      Often even your fallacies are bad – your authroities are not authorities, or similar errors.

                      REgardless, you are shy on facts.

                      But there is no shortage of moral accusations. You seem to thing that calling people racists or liars, or hateful, hating haters, is an argument.

                      On the rare occaisons you use facts rather than fallacy, you often get the facts wrong or are very bad at grasping their significance.

                      The net result is that you are not trustworthy. Even when you cite something – I have no reason to trust you and little reason to trust your source – and worse whether your source has credibility problems or not – you usually misunderstand them.

                      In the end reality exists. False claims or the pretense that disagreement over reality, is merely differences of opinion will ultimately be rejected by reality itself.

                    4. It was incorrect to claim that the CDC link I provided WAS the entire country.

                      It is not incorrect to assert that it likely matches the entire country – it includes about 10% of the country and more than 10% of the areas purportedly spiking.

                      I have provided further hispitalization data from other places that is following the same trend.

                      If you have an actual reliable source that provides hospitalization data that is ACTUALLY for the entire country – or even for all of TX, CA, FL, or any other state you think is spiking – I will be happy to check it out.

                      AS of yet, you have made nothing but unsupported claims that hospitalizations are rising – and you are not even close to a trustworthy source.

                      Instead of linking to other peoples comments and making false accusations. Try linking to the facts you claim to be true.

                      “I already gave you a link to a site that has both national data and state data for every state.”
                      And my recollection is that it did NOT confirm your claim.

                      “I have no burden of proof for claims I haven’t made.” but you do for the claims you have made – including those about me or others.

                      And quit fixating on adjectives. I am not interested in a debate with you on how far down numbers have to be to be “sharply down”

                      They are NOT up, They are not even flat.

                      “I just said that your claim “C19 death trends are flat and have been for 9 weeks” is false. ”

                      And you are WRONG about that. I provided the link to Ycharts. It is barely arguable as of today that their MIGHT be a very slight increase in the trend, but it is early to claim that and if so it is small. Regardless, at the time I made the claim, and at the time you said that was false the trend was flat.

                      It us unlikely but possible that tomorow it could be way up. it is also possible and more likely it could head back down.

                      The data is noisy – but there is still no obvious rising (or falling) trend over the past 9 weeks. Todays increase does not even make today the largest of 2nd largest or 3rd largest day or … in the past 9 weeks there have been several small spikes and there is a trough every 7 days.

                      The trend line is not unamiguously up, it may not even be up a tiny bit. Today may be more noise, Or someplace like NH that suddenly reported alot of people who died long ago.

                      As to “your site” – most of the claims you made were not backed by it, and I have no reason to waste alot of time trying to prove you wrong with your own data.

                      Ycharts is getting its data from CDC I beleive – regardless all their data sources are provided.

                      JHU, WaPo and many of the other common sites do not provide the same graphs – but they do use the same data, and you can verify individual points on ycharts.

                    5. I am going to address two more things about the C19 data.

                      First the vast majority of your claims rest on a presumption you have absolutely no evidence of – that magically C19 behaves differently in the US than in the rest of the world – and you want to claim this somehow has something to do with Trump.

                      While that claim is not completely impossible – it is highly improbable.

                      As I have noted repeatedly – and is pretty obvious from inspection of global data. There are no patterns that indicate that any nation found the magic policies that defeated Covid. Every difference between countries and states strongly correlates to demographics, and latitude and diet. None of it correlates to policies.

                      Of course there are problems – because even the US data is inaccurate and noisy, while much of the rest of the world is even worse.

                      Most of what we are dealing with is claims made based on raw data that is NOT a direct measure – positive tests does NOT measure total infections – it correlates to it, but not in a way that can be compared well over time or between countries.
                      Even hospitalizations and deaths are imperfect – but they are far better than positive tests – though they have a bigger lag.

                      Eventually – though it is possible now and some people have done so, we will properly regress most of this data and well will be better able to draw more fine grained conclusions. But it is not likely you will see anything that you are willing to accept for many months.

                      The last and possibly most important point is that you and I can joust over this ad nauseum.

                      But Time will eventually resolve the issue. If deaths jump back to 4000/day for 2 weeks and only do this in the US – Trump will lose the election and I will be wrong about my predictions. If nothing close to that happens – YOU will be wrong, and Trump will likely win the election.

                      Further this will likely be resolved sooner rather than later. The number of positive tests can not continue to increase (and they do not appear to be), while the number of deaths stay fairly stable, without ultimately deciding the increase in positive tests is NOT measuring a steep increase in the number of infections. Frankly. I think that is already resolved. 9 weeks of nearly flat death data is NOT A FLUKE.
                      But you can continue to hope that we will return to several thousand deaths a day so that you can win an election.

                    6. “If you want to know”
                      What I want to know is the actual meaningful trends.

                      I have seen more than enough data to establish that the probability that C19 is actually spiking dramatically is very low.

                      If you have not reached the same conclusion – that is your problem.
                      In the unlikely event you are actually right – the sources I use will eventually reflect that.

                      Put simply I have no reason to try to persuade myself that numerous sources that can be verified against JHU and Wapo and …. are wrong and that your single source is not only right but actually says what you claim – which it did not last time I checked.

                      I am not here to disprove every single bat $h!t claim you make.

                      I have given you MANY reasons to conclude you are wrong.

                    7. “AOC actually said “Facts Don’t Matter When You’re “Morally Right”””

                      That is a reasonable paraphrase of what AOC said.
                      The precise quote exists. Mist anyone listening to it will go “she actually said that ?”

                      But there is something even more important than precisely what she said.

                      People do say stupid things sometimes.

                      The problem with AOC’s remarks is that she meant them. She does not care about facts,
                      And she is does not understand that moral claims that are not PRECISELY backed up by facts are FALSE.
                      Morality is not disconnected from reality.

                      The actual foundation of morality is individual liberty.
                      If we do not have free will – then morality does not exist.
                      If we do have free will, than morality inherently precludes limiting the liberty of one person who is not more significantly limiting the liberty of others.

                      If you disagree – tell us all how you construct a system of morality without free will ?
                      Or how free will can be foundational to morality – while infringements on liberty are not presumptively immoral.

                    8. “No. I’ve noted that he is obsessed with posting insults and/or false claims about me.”
                      I/n otherwords you are engaged in mind reading.

                      “I already gave you evidence where he admitted that he is obsessed.”
                      Evidence of an opinion about the state of someone else’s mind ?

                      You are entitled to your own opinion. Some might agree. But it is still an opinion – not a fact.
                      And what you claim as evidence is neither compelling nor important.

                      You are however making the case that YOU are obsessed with Allan – but that is just my opinion.

                      “I already gave you a link to one of his comments with a sick insult about me”
                      There are way to many insults on this site.

                      I will confess that left wingnuts sometimes provoke me to insults, and that there are a few who are conservative here who offer little more than insults. But the scales tip way over towards the left regarding the frequency and magnitude of insults here.

                      You have accused people of lying – over what was at worst factual errors, and often when YOU have been the one on the wrong side of the facts.

                      I have made clear that false moral claims are possibly the most heinous and least forgiveable thing you can do with words – without using actual force. And yet you are unrepentant.
                      Not surprising, The left skips facts, jumps to insults and from their to unsubstantiated moral denouncements.
                      All the while claiming to be moral.

                      Your not. You ideology is rooted in immorality – you sincerley beleive you are entitled to restrict the liberty of others because you think you have a good idea. Worse your ideas are usually crap. And there is plenty of historical evidence they will fail.

                      “if you want more examples”
                      I do not want ANY evidence of an oppinion rooted in mind reading.

                      “Of course I’m not a snowflake ”
                      That is not self evident.

                    9. “Have you heard of the scroll bar ?”

                      Yes. And I know that a scroll bar will not take you to a comment on another page. And regardless of what page a comment is on, a link takes someone directly to the relevant comment, making clear where I’m quoting from / what I’m referring to. You apparently believe that “If you have to link to something that is two screens up – you are getting nowhere,” but I know that evidence exists in lots of places, not only nearby.

                      As for the rest of your #comment-1984162 (e.g., “most of those you disagree with provide far more fact than you”), you may think your claims are as obvious as looking at the moon, but they aren’t. I accept that you *believe* what you claim, but that doesn’t make your beliefs *true*.

                      Re: “not making many mistakes and being honest about those I do make,” that’s not true. As a simple counterexample, you still haven’t been honest about your false claim that
                      AOC actually said “Facts Don’t Matter When You’re “Morally Right””
                      She didn’t actually say what’s in the outer quotes (though she did say the phrase “morally right”), as I pointed out in #comment-1982945, where I both quoted and gave a link to a transcript of what she actually said. Quotation marks matter. You attributed something in quotes to her, when she didn’t say it. She didn’t even imply it. Why won’t you “be honest” about that?

                      “my recollection is that [your site] did NOT confirm your claim [‘I already gave you a link to a site that has both national data and state data for every state’].”

                      Your recollection is faulty. Check the site again instead of relying on your memory.

                      “I provided the link to Ycharts”

                      Not in our discussion, no, nor have you specified where you did.

                      (Your reference to a link you introduced somewhere else in conversation with an unspecified person is also ironic given your claim that “If you have to link to something that is two screens up – you are getting nowhere.” BTW, maybe you hadn’t realized that for some pages, Ycharts gets its data from the COVID Tracking Project site that I linked to directly — see, for example, the “Source” on this Ychart page: https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_coronavirus_hospitalizations )

                      “‘I have no burden of proof for claims I haven’t made.’ but you do for the claims you have made – including those about me or others.”

                      Absolutely. And so do you.

                      You claiming things like “There is no need for me to provide cites for my facts – most are obvious” is contrary to that.

                      “the vast majority of your claims rest on a presumption you have absolutely no evidence of …”

                      You’re imagining a presumption that isn’t from me. Stop inferring things that I haven’t said and didn’t imply.

                      “you can continue to hope that we will return to several thousand deaths a day so that you can win an election.”

                      No, I can’t, as I have never hoped that. This is just another example of you projecting a belief onto me that isn’t mine. It’s counterproductive and inconsistent with “proveable facts.”

                    10. ““Have you heard of the scroll bar ?”

                      Yes. And I know that a scroll bar will not take you to a comment on another page. ”

                      I am not looking to go anywhere.
                      I read comments ONCE, Usually in my email. I reply to some and delete them all.
                      I have not seen evidence that Allan is “obsessed” with you.

                      If he has insulted you – that is understandable.

                      Regardless, I do not see Allan’s comments and thing – boy he can not let go of “Committed To Dishonesty”

                      So why would I care that you think Allan is obsessed with you and want to link to past comments ?

                      It is self evident who is “obsessed”

                    11. Why do I need you to requote my comment to me ?

                      I wrote it. I know what I said.

                      We have already dealt with the AOC quote.

                      I am not even slightly interested in your diatribe trying to pretend that there is a difference of substance.
                      There isn’t.

                      “Your recollection is faulty. Check the site again instead of relying on your memory.”

                      Why ? There are only two choices – you misunderstood your own site, or you found the one site with data that contradicts everyone else.
                      Neither possiblility gets you anywhere nor interests me.

                    12. ““I provided the link to Ycharts”

                      Not in our discussion, no, nor have you specified where you did.”

                      I am not going to link back to other comments – you are capable of doing that yourself.
                      I have cited the daily death numbers from ycharts several times.

                      Aside from checking past comments – google is your friend
                      google “ycharts daily covid deaths”

                      Or just “daily covid deaths”
                      I sure ycharts and many others will be there.

                      Regardless, you can do your own research.

                      You need lots of practice – I don;t.

                      You have tried to sell lots of false claims and defamed others.
                      No one owes you help or sources or cites.

                      When you have “committed to honest dicussion” for a long time – then maybe.

                    13. “Absolutely. And so do you.”
                      False

                      “You claiming things like “There is no need for me to provide cites for my facts – most are obvious” is contrary to that.”

                      False, you are under the delusion we are equal – I guess that goes without saying – you are a left wing nut.

                      We are not. I have a track record for honesty and accuracy. You do not.

                      I have not made false or unproven moral accusations of others.
                      I rarely make moral claims about others and when I do, I back them up.

                    14. ““the vast majority of your claims rest on a presumption you have absolutely no evidence of …”

                      You’re imagining a presumption that isn’t from me. Stop inferring things that I haven’t said and didn’t imply.”

                      Jawohl mein sturmfuhrer!

                    15. “”you can continue to hope that we will return to several thousand deaths a day so that you can win an election.”

                      No, I can’t, as I have never hoped that. This is just another example of you projecting a belief onto me that isn’t mine. It’s counterproductive and inconsistent with “proveable facts.””

                      Of course you can.

                      can: be physically or mentally able to

                      The question is whether you have or do. I think the evidence is fairly compelling.
                      Regardless, the rational alternative – which I provided, was for you to accept the probability that we will not see a huge spike in deaths.

                      You have other choices – things that you CAN do. none are very good.

                3. “As for “Stick to proveable facts, and valid logic, and reason,” take your own advice.”

                  I have – and you have been free to challenge any fact, claim, argument I make.

                  The only valid claim you have made is that the CDC hospitalization graph i have linked to is not for the entire country.
                  It is however for 10% of the country, including several of the states that are purportedly spiking.

                  If there is some radical spike in other states – produce the data. We are all waiting.

                  Many of the things we are commenting on are of significant public interest.

                  If anything you claimed was true – many of us would like to know.

                  But Allan, I and several others provide actual data, real world information, often links to verify what we say.
                  Not that we are obligated to.

                  We are obligated to present accurate data. We are not obligated to satisfy your demands.
                  We are obligated to make valid arguments.
                  We are obligated to make truthful accusations.

                  And we have an excellent track record of doing so. We can reasonable expect to be trusted – that is the reward for accuracy and honesty.

                  While those including you that had made false accusations, that have offered nothing but ad hominem and other fallacy – you should not expect to be trusted.

                  I have seen Allan correct minor errors several times. I have corrected a small assortment of errors myself.
                  Neither of us make them often – and never about anything important. But we correct mistakes in the rare cases we do make them.

                  That is what “Honest Discussion” requires. ‘

                  How about you – or any of those on the left ?

                  You spray your posts with fallacies and ad hominem – where are the corrections.

                  Ad Hominem and false accusations – require appologies – where are those ?

  15. As long as Trump hides his taxes I will believe he is under suspicion for collusion with Russia and owes big money to that regime. All the boasting by Don Eric and Previously disclosed close ties with Russians makes a look into that seem feasible to me. There is something there.

    1. Nelson– I assume you also believe that Biden should have been investigated by the FBI for his threat to withhold foreign aid unless the Ukraine prosecutor was fired, and the $500,000 speaking fee paid to President Clinton as the Uranium One deal was being negotiated by Hillary, and Hillary Clinton’s destruction of all those emails. Or is your suspicion reserved for Republicans?

      1. “I assume you also believe that Biden should have been investigated by the FBI for his threat to withhold foreign aid unless the Ukraine prosecutor was fired”

        I’m not Ms. Nelson, but I just want to note how ignorant your comment is.

        Biden made that threat to Poroshenko after having informed Congress. There was nothing hidden about it, and no one in Congress thought it inappropriate; not only that, but several Senators — including Rob Portman and Ron Johnson — signed a bipartisan letter of support. Biden’s threat to withhold aid also had support from international allies. Shokin was corrupt, and Biden was pressuring Ukraine into getting rid of Shokin because he was corrupt.

        And the FBI **already** investigated Hillary Clinton about the emails and **already** investigated the Uranium One deal and Bill Clinton’s speaking fee. Did you not know?

        1. It appears that Shokin wasn’t the corrupt one, but one might believe CTHD is what he accuses others of being. For more enlightenment here is a part of Shokin’s affidavit with the location where it is at.

          What was Joe Biden doing telling Ukraine and Shokin to stop investigating Burisma? Joe Biden’s son was involved with Burisma and just so happened to be on the same plane with Joe. It’s amazing how many Biden faminly members have enriched themselves based on Biden’s political positions.

          https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement

          pg 5 #9 “…that I should cease my investigations regarding Burisma . When I did not, he said that the US(via Biden) were refusing to release the USD$ 1 billion promised to Ukraine. He said that he had no choice, therefore, but to ask me to resign.” …

          #10 “I agreed to tender my resignation on this basis.

          #11 “After my dismissal Joe Biden made a public statement, saying – even bragging- that he had me fired. This is when it became clear that the real reason for my dismissal was my actions regarding in Burisma and Biden’s personal interest in that company, which was demonstrated by the following.

          a) it was Biden’s order and wish that I be removed from office, not Poroshenko’s decision;

          He continues stating that “the state officials from the US administration of President Obama – and JoeBiden in particular – who were telling the heads of the Ukraine law-enforcement system how to engage and whom to investigate, …”

          The things they accused Trump of Biden actually did.

        2. “Biden made that threat to Poroshenko after having informed Congress. ”

          You are one of those who bought the collusion delusion. There is no reason to accept what you say – just because you write it.

          Provide PROOF of this.

          Next, Did Biden inform Congress of the conflict of interest that he had ?
          No. Though I would note that informing congress does not aleivate an ethics problem.

          “Biden’s threat to withhold aid also had support from international allies.”
          Irrelevant, and the view of those allies was driven by the US.

          “Shokin was corrupt”
          Because you say so ?
          Again based on your continuous rants over the collusion delusion – and your continued efforts to justify conduct that no prior administration has EVER engaged in – you are not credible.
          You do not get to make accusations without proodf.

          “and Biden was pressuring Ukraine into getting rid of Shokin because he was corrupt.”
          Circular argument.

          Regardless, if Shokin was corrupt – and everyone knew it – including the international community, then you should have no problem coming up with evidence.

          Corrupt prosecutors do not retire modestly on government pensions.
          Corruption implies quid pro quo

          Where is Shokin’s quid ?

          Who is the Oligarch hes is enthral too ?

          You and the left engage in this nonsense all the time.

          When you make a moral accusation against another – you are obligated to prove it – or YOU are immoral.

          With respect to Biden:
          I know that he is unethical. – Because the law and ethics require him to remove himself from decisions that have an appearance of personal benefit – that is personal, not political.
          I know that he has lied about this. First because he would have had to have been stupid and blind not to know that Hunter was involved in Burisma. And 2nd because he and Kerry discussed Burisma contemporaneously with Porshenko according to tapes of those exchanges.

          I do not accuse him of more than poor ethics and lying in public. But there is certainly a basis to investigate corruption.

          1. Your complete ignorance of a matter you still choose to pontificate about is not committ’s problem, it’s yours. Anyone who has read from other sources than the right wing press you quote here all the time knows these things, and among those reporting it were the WSJ, and excellent newspaper if you just ignore the editorial page. It’s been covered by the NYTs, the WaPO, and Bloomberg to name others.

            1. I am sorry the facts do not match your narrative.

              I do not recall quoting right wing press.

              Bidens remarks are on the record.
              Shokin’s tesimony is on the record.
              The fact that Shokin is not living high on the hog is on the record.

              The Kerry Biden Porshenko tape is on the record.

              The 2015 NYT story about Hunter and Burisma is on the record.

              A massive number of emails – from Hunters lawyers to the Ukraine PG, to the state department, emails from state to the VP’s office,
              all on the record.

              I am not quoting any media. I am refering to actual source documents.

              I am not interested in opinion masquerading as straight news regardless of the source.
              I have no problem with opinion on the editorial page.

              Regardless, I do not need a reporter – right or left to explain to me what a source document says, or to explain to me what biden said in his own words.

              1. John demonstrates not only his now willful and complete ignorance on a topic he insists on pontificating about, but explains his problem in not distinguishing between the news collecting departments of our better newspapers – and here I include not only the WSJ, but the NYTs, WaPO, AP, Reuters, and Bloomberg – and the 2nd hand opinion baths he takes daily to “confirm” what he already wants to believe.

                Suffer in ignorance John and get lost. I’ve told you where to look.

                1. BTB

                  You clearly do not seem to grasp that primary sources are far superior to all else.

                  Our better newspapers are pretty bad today. But even if they lived up to their old pre-yellow journalism standards.

                  The prose of a reporter is inferior to the actual primary sources.

                  I would further note that the prose of a reporter is by definition 2nd hand – or sometimes 3rd or 4th hand.
                  Except in the rare instances the reporter actually witnessed some event.

                  Though even their it is inferior to video of the event.

                  We have LOTS of primary sources regarding Biden/Ukraine.

              2. Btb obtains no opinion from any documents until they are predigested and spit out in the form of left wing talking points no matter what media he utilizes.

                When he quotes his media sources he is quoting opinion, not fact or data. In the same journal he might find the contrary opinion that is completely rejected because of the writer’s supposed ideology.

                To make things worse, he frequently mistates his own talking points and has difficulty when they conflict with one another.

        3. “The FBI **already** investigated Hillary Clinton about the emails”
          Yes we are all familiar with that. Clinton broke the law, and Comey gave her a get out of jail card.

          “already investigated the Uranium One deal”
          Nope. There was a tangential investigation that did not involve the clintons. that was stalled and hidden from congress while the U1 deal was approved, and then fizzled later – though there were some successful small prosecutions.
          But the Main U1 issue was ethical.

          “Bill Clinton’s speaking fee”
          Nope.

          You fail to grasp the point – everything that looks bad is not a crime or a basis for a criminal investigation.

          The Clintons are deeply entangled with Russia – that is not a criminal allegation – it is a fact.

    2. Does it never occur to you that Trump has filed his taxes every year with the IRS ? That isn’t hiding. But to refuse to re=fuel the MSM and the likes of you with some little deduction or expenditure that you can amplify into a self righteous claim of suspect behavior – just defies reason. If there had ever been a problem….the IRS, in it’s wisdom, would have caught it. Tax professionals do Mr. Trumps taxes, by the way. He doesn’t sit at the kitchen table with buckets of cash and a calculator.

      1. They use ancient history which in fact was following the laws of NY and NY City but since then nothing. And nothing is what the phony complain is about instead of going after the true criminals like Clintons and Biden.

      2. Not only that his taxes were done by a team FROM the IRS with his own accountants and tax attorneys. And you are claiming the IRS is on the take? How stupid are you?:

    3. Martha…….So, you think Trump had nefarious dealings with the Russians, and then kept the receipts?

      I swear, between you and Swalwell, I feel like I’m watching the Comedy Channel.

    4. Come on, use that brain of yours. Do you truly believe, after all the corrupt and illegal efforts to undermine the Trump campaign, transition and presidency, that these traitors stopped short at the IRS because they considered that to be unethical and/or illegal?

    1. No Swalwell is an idiot.

      Just because those on the left abuse the meaning of words does not mean the rest of us should.

    2. How can he be a traitor when he isn’t even a legal citizen having given his allegaiance to the Socialist Manifestos?

Leave a Reply