Congress, Criminal law, Media, Politics, Uncategorized

Did The FBI Mislead The Senate Intelligence Committee On The Steele Dossier? The Media Is Not Interested

136px-US-FBI-ShadedSealsenate_large_sealI recently wrote a column concerning a pattern of willful blindness by the media as new evidence emerges of serious wrongdoing by the FBI in the origin and continuation of the Russian collusion investigation. The latest information comes from the Senate Intelligence Committee which released a declassified briefing report to the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2018 on the Steele dossier’s Primary Sub-source. It is hard to read the document linked below and not conclude that the FBI misled the Congress on the subject.  This occurred after the FBI misled the FISA court, including the submission of falsified documents to continue the surveillance.

The statement that most stands out from the briefing is that the Primary Sub-source “did not cite any significant concerns with the way his reporting was characterized in the dossier to the extent he could identify it.”

Keep in mind that this is a statement made in 2018.  FBI agents had already warned that dossier author Christopher Steele may have been used by Russian intelligence to plant false information to disrupt the election. Indeed, Steele’s allegations were quickly discredited by the FBI. In 2017, key agents were aware that the basis for the FISA applications were dubious and likely false. Yet it continued the investigation, and then someone leaked its existence to the media.  Both Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified that they would not have signed off on surveillance if they knew this information at the time.  Yet, the media seems uninterested in how this countervailing information was buried, even in briefings to the intelligence committees.

Another declassified document shows that, after the New York Times ran a leaked story on the investigation, even Strzok had balked at the account as misleading and inaccurate the year before. His early 2017 memo affirmed that there was no evidence of any individuals in collusion with Russians. This information came as the collusion stories were turning into a frenzy that would last years.

The reference to the sub-source in the new document is particularly troubling because that individual told the FBI that he “has no idea” where some of the language attributed to him came from in the Steele report. He expressly denied being the source for some of the information. That would seem a tad more than even a “significant concern.” Yet, the Senate was told he had no significant concerns.  In fact, he said that he “never mentioned” the information and  “did not know the origins” of information.  On some point, he said he had no recollection of ever giving the information to Steele.  He also directly contradicted Steele in how he characterized the information.

The report also states that “[a]t minimum, our discussions with [the Primary Sub-source] confirm that the dossier was not fabricated by Steele.”

However, again, the sub-source said that he had no idea where some of the information attributed to him came from. That would seem to contradict this statement directly.  He said that he has “zero” corroboration for some of the information while other claims were just stuff that he heard over drinks or was meant in “jest.”

The point is not that this source is clearly telling the truth or that this proves a deep-state conspiracy. Rather, the question is why this document has received virtually no media attention — as with earlier declassified documents.  It is at best misleading by omission and at worse intentionally false in its briefing of a congressional intelligence committee. The media spent years exploring every possible claim of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, which were found to be baseless. Yet, these recent documents raise serious questions of false statements to Congress to keep that investigation going. These serious allegations of false statements and false evidence in an investigation that targeted figures associated with the opposing party and its presidential campaign. Indeed, the recent documents show, in direct contradiction of prior statements, the FBI used briefings with Trump as part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. The response from the media? Crickets.  Nada.  Not interested.

We should be interested. This is why I continue to support the investigation by John Durham and why former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has called for continuing these investigations. The problem is that there seems a virtual new blackout on the new evidence being declassified. After using tanker loads of ink on the unfounded collusion theories, the media seems unwilling to use a drop of ink on the evidence of misconduct in pursuing that investigation. In today’s echo-journalistic world, there is no place for such stories that challenge the prior narrative.

This declassified document and other related material may be accessed at the following link: judiciary.senate.gov/fisa-investigation.

588 thoughts on “Did The FBI Mislead The Senate Intelligence Committee On The Steele Dossier? The Media Is Not Interested”

    4. CHTD, it looks like they will let Sullivan have his hearing, but I expect they will appeal to SCOTUS. That’s been SOP for this administration.

      I’m surprised JT hasn’t chimed in on the issue so far. Powell’s arguments are being shot down one by one by the judges. As I see it the basic point they are making is that a mandamus is inappropriate due to the fact that Judge Sullivan hasn’t made a ruling on the case. Powell’s argues precedent, but a judge pointed out that precedent was AFTER a judge made a ruling not before.

      1. SCOTUS doesn’t grant most appeals (though I make no predictions here, especially since CADC hasn’t ruled yet and we don’t know what they’ll say), and the writ wasn’t requested by the DOJ, so I doubt that they have standing to appeal the ruling, though of course Powell could appeal.

        1. CHTD, did I hear that right, Wall stated that AG Barr was directly involved in the case and had secret reasons to dismiss Flynn’s case? Now the argument is that the judiciary has no business seeking those reasons? WTF?

          1. I doubt you heard right.
            Regardless, separation of powers precludes the judiciary from second guessing the executive.

            You lefties constantly conflate your guesses regarding motive with actual crimes.

            A motive is the reason that someone acts – usually we have many motives for our actions.

            But an act is legal or not independent of motive.

            If I kill you in self defense – that is not a crime merely because I also hated you and wanted you dead.

            Further, your whole line confuses Sullivan with the prosecutor.
            The courts role is to assure that the law is followed and that defendants are given due process.
            It is not to investigate or prosecute.

        2. CHTD,
          “ “I just wanted to make clear that it may be possible that the Attorney General had before him information that he was not able to share with the court,” acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall said during the arguments. “And so what we put in front of the court were the reasons that we could, but it may not be the whole picture available to the executive branch.”

          WTH? Are they literally moving the goalposts before the court’s eyes ? Suddenly there’s this secret information? That would be a very good reason for Sullivan to hold the hearing he needs to decide. It seems they are deliberately making a mockery of the process so they can sow confusion or exasperation and just dismiss the case.

          1. Yup. and this is a good contrast with what the DOJ did with the Concord Management case when there were classified reasons to dismiss it:
            https://twitter.com/sfoguj/status/1293239901240979456

            Wall also said that even if the AG is on tape taking a bribe, the judge still couldn’t inquire into the reasons for dismissal. Disgusting.

            Now I have to be patient to see what they say in their ruling, and how it plays out from there.

            1. Committ – what Wall also said was that the AG should be reported to the proper authorities. The judge was not the proper authority. Don’t be so disgusted. It was a really oddball question anyway.

              1. It’s not an oddball question. They’re trying to understand whether Rule 48(a) is just a formality. Maybe that doesn’t interest you, but it matters to the case and to what they write in their ruling.

                Wall’s response *was* disgusting. It implies that the A.G. can be totally corrupt and the judge has no choice but to dismiss the case. Maybe you only care about whether the AG is later charged, but many of us are concerned about more than that.

                1. Committ – what Wall was getting at was that the dismissal was on thing and the illegal act was another, but not part of the dismissal.

                2. “It’s not an oddball question. They’re trying to understand whether Rule 48(a) is just a formality. Maybe that doesn’t interest you, but it matters to the case and to what they write in their ruling.”
                  The rule is not a formaility – it is there to protect the defendant from serial prosecution for the same offense.
                  That is why the DOJ can not drop the case unilaterally without prejudice.
                  That is not the case here. Flynn has agreed and the case has been dropped with prejudice.

                  “Wall’s response *was* disgusting. It implies that the A.G. can be totally corrupt and the judge has no choice but to dismiss the case. Maybe you only care about whether the AG is later charged, but many of us are concerned about more than that.”

                  You can be concerned about whatever you want. The courts are still not investigative bodies. If you do not like that – rewrite the constitution.

                  1. Abstract
                    The conventional view of Rule 48(a) dismissals distinguishes between two types of motions to dismiss: (1) those where dismissal would benefit the defendant, and (2) those where dismissal might give the Government a tactical advantage against the defendant, perhaps because prosecutors seek to dismiss the case and then file new charges. In United States v. Flynn, the Department of Justice argues that Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement applies exclusively to the latter category of motions to dismiss; where the dismissal accrues to the benefit of the defendant, judicial meddling is unwarranted and improper. In support, the Government relies on forty-year-old dicta in the sole U.S. Supreme Court case interpreting Rule 48(a), Rinaldi v. United States. There, the Court stated that the “leave of court” language was added to Rule 48(a) “without explanation,” but “apparently” this verbiage had as its “principal object . . . to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment.”

                    But the Government’s position—and the U.S. Supreme Court language upon which it is based—is simply wrong. In fact, the “principal object” of Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement was not to protect the interests of individual defendants, but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants. In other words, it was drafted and enacted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. Flynn: its purpose was to empower the Judiciary to limit dismissal in cases where the district court suspects that some impropriety prompted the Executive’s decision to abandon a case.

                    To be clear, there may be good reason for the district court to grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in United States v. Flynn. But the fiction that Rule 48(a) exists solely, or even chiefly, to protect defendants against prosecutorial mischief should be abandoned. This brief Essay recounts Rule 48’s forgotten history.

                    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3599674

                    1. “The conventional view of Rule 48(a) ”

                      And right at the start you or your source go wrong.

                      There is no “view” there is the law. There is the rule as written, and the rule as historically applied.

                      The left keeps pretending that the law is something that is subject to wide ranging opinion.
                      But the goal of law and statutory interpretation is EXACTLY the OPPOSITE.

                      It is to have the same law understood exactly the same way always and everywhere by every court in the land.
                      That when the court applies the law and the people or the legislature does not like that application – they KNOW they can fix it by changing the law – not by changing the court.

                      The core of “originalism” is NOT paying homage to old dead white men.
                      It is applying the law consistently ALL THE TIME.

                      If that result is wrong – change it.

                      But there is no means to change law that is subject to the changing views of judges.

                      We use judges as the final arbiter of the law – because that is the best option humans have.
                      But the objective is to have one law for all that is always and everywhere the same.

                      So that as each of us engage in the activities of our lives – we have no doubt as to whether our actions are legal.

                      None of us should live in the fear – as Flynn did that they could be jailed because they do not perfectly recall a months old conversation, when being questioned by government agents – who know exactly what he said and are seeking to trip him up.

                      We are not supposed to become criminals – because are recollection is imperfect – or worse because agents and prosecutors are lying to the courts. We are not supposed to become criminals because what is legal in court room 6 is a crime in court room 7.

                3. “Wall’s response *was* disgusting. It implies that the A.G. can be totally corrupt and the judge has no choice but to dismiss the case. Maybe you only care about whether the AG is later charged, but many of us are concerned about more than that.”

                  I certainly am no expert on the law under discussion but rule 48 a and b deals with dismissal of a charge. It deals with a) how the government is able to dismiss a case and b) how a judge is able to dismiss a case. I may be wrong but I know of nothing written in the rule that deals with corruption or even that the judge has some sort of discretion where his opinion of the AG matters.

                  This seems to be another of Needs to be Committed ploys to confuse the issue in order to prove herself right when she is wrong. Since there is nothing in 48 that is pertinent to what NTBC says her confusing the issue is a way that she can promote her lie.

                  1. The question of Wall had a point, and Wall responded properly.

                    Motion for dismisal, is not subject to investigation, inquiry, and 2nd guessing by the court.

                    Judges are not investigators, they are not prosecutors, In this case and much of what is before him, Sullivans SOLE job is to apply the law.

            2. “ Wall also said that even if the AG is on tape taking a bribe, the judge still couldn’t inquire into the reasons for dismissal. Disgusting.”

              I have always thought that cases in court had do at least follow some basic logic, but from what you posted and a few other cases that I have read about logic is a rarity in court unless it involves prosecution not defense.

            3. “Yup. and this is a good contrast with what the DOJ did with the Concord Management case when there were classified reasons to dismiss it:

              When they claimed classified reasons to dismiss against Concord Management, they said so and made an ex-parte submission to back it up. Nothing even close in the Flynn motion to dismiss”
              There is good reason to not Trust Sullivan. Further this is not likely a Classified reason, it is more likely protecting an ongoing investigation.

              Regardless, the DOJ can make the information available to the judge or not, their choice.
              The judge decides only on the information before him.

              DOJ can withold classified information – or provide it to the court. But it can not expect the court to weigh in factors it will not disclose.

              “Wall also said that even if the AG is on tape taking a bribe, the judge still couldn’t inquire into the reasons for dismissal.”

              ” Disgusting.”

              Maybe, but it is the law.

              “Now I have to be patient to see what they say in their ruling, and how it plays out from there.”

              This ends with Flynn’s aquital. The only question is WHEN.

          2. “Are they literally moving the goalposts before the court’s eyes ? Suddenly there’s this secret information?”

            The most likely explanation for that statement is that Durham is preparing to Prosecute someone and that further information exonerating Flynn would expose an ongoing investigation.

            And NO the courts are not entitled to know.

            DOJ made its arguments. The court – including Sullivan must decide based on the arguments and facts before them not those that are not.

            “That would be a very good reason for Sullivan to hold the hearing he needs to decide.”
            Nope, Judges are not investigators. They decide based on what the parties provide.

            ” It seems they are deliberately making a mockery of the process so they can sow confusion or exasperation and just dismiss the case.”
            That would be Sullivan. The process is simple, DOJ correctly moved to drop the case – because there was no valid investigation at the time that Flynn was interviewed therefore there could be no crime.

            That is the end of this. Judges do not get to second guess prosecutors. They do not get to disagree with the prosecutors reasons for prosecutorial decisions. They do not get to question prosecutors motives.

            Judges are limited to the law.

            Honestly it is surprising Sullivan did not throw this out earlier on his own.
            There is ample evidence of prosecutorial misconduct on the part of Van Grack.

            He lied repeatedly to the court.
            He also lied to other courts.
            Further as Sullivan must have seen, substantial exculpatory evidence has come out that Van Grack was required to provide to Flynn Long ago. There is not an exception to Brady for “I do not want to”.

          3. Svelaz,
            You might be interested in Marcy Wheeler’s (a.k.a. emptywheel) discussion of the hearing, including Wall’s comment. She’s very familiar with the details of the case and the evidence, and I generally appreciate the details she gets into in her columns (though I don’t find the other bloggers at this site as interesting, even though their politics are similar to mine): https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/08/11/jeff-wall-it-would-cause-attorney-general-barr-irreparable-harm-if-he-had-to-reveal-his-secret-reason-he-moved-to-dismiss-flynns-prosecution/

            1. CHTD, I finally got around to reading the article you linked to. It’s absolutely fascinating. She does have a very good grasp of the facts in the case and makes it clear the DOJ is clearly being disingenuous with their claims. I was pleasantly surprised at this fact: “ DOJ is not claiming that they can’t respond to these questions, they’re offering up explanations unasked, and then objecting aggressively when asked question about those claims.”

              1. Svelaz,
                Glad that it was of interest to you. Marcy Wheeler regularly digs into evidence in very detailed ways, so you might want to poke around her previous columns, and if there’s something in particular that interests you, you could use the search bar to find relevant columns (say, searching on “Flynn” for other columns about the case).

                I’m curious to see what the court decides, but imagine that will be a few weeks at least.

        3. “It’s just really striking and remarkable. What is the government worried about?” Judge Nina Pillard asked Wall, about the trial judge’s ability to hold a hearing, which the Justice Department wants to short-circuit.“

          This pretty much sums up the basic question before the court. It seems the more the DOJ tries to dismiss the case the more they make the case for Sullivan to have a hearing. It’s his prerogative to investigate the reasoning for dismissing the charges.

          1. Svelaz – the problem is Sullivan is biased and the amicus is out of line. Investigating is fine.

            1. Anonymous, that doesn’t seem to be the case according to the questioning from the appeals court.

              They all agree that Sullivan is entitled to have an argument before making his decision and even the DOJ’s lawyers grudgingly admitted that point.

              The amici’s is completely within Sullivan’s discretion. In fact the Flynn’s lawyers once requested an amicus of their own which was denied by Sullivan. So saying an amicus is out of line is not true.

              1. No the Amici is not. SCOTUS already decided that.

                Judges can not create Amicci.

              2. Flynn requesting an Amicci does not make one legal in a criminal case,
                Regardless, Judges do not get to pick Amicci for themselves.

                That is what Sullivans clerks are for.

                Sullivan is a judge, not an investigator.

        4. “SCOTUS doesn’t grant most appeals (though I make no predictions here, especially since CADC hasn’t ruled yet and we don’t know what they’ll say),”
          I can tell you what it is unlikely they will Say:
          That Sullivan can do as he clearly wants.

          Get a clue – one way or another this is over. Flynn is not going to be prosecuted.
          On the unlikely instance DCCA produces a result that contains the possibility of Flynn being prosecuted, the case will be appealed and SCOTUS will take it.

          I would note that DOJ can appeal any decision that requires them to proceed against Flynn.
          And SCOTUS is NEVER going to allow Sullivan to create his own independent prosecutor out of thin air.

          I strongly suspect that most everyone grasp that Sullivan has lost his marbles on this.

          I would further note that while the En Banc court accepted this appeal (maybe, they could still decide Sullivan could not apeal), the norm is for a judge on the court to ask for an en banc hearing. Lower court judges NEVER do. They can’t, they are not parties.
          Judges do not appeal decisions. Parties do.

          “and the writ wasn’t requested by the DOJ, so I doubt that they have standing to appeal the ruling”
          If the DCCA does anything that results in direction to DOJ – then DOJ can and will appeal, and I suspect that if DOJ appeals it is not only likely but possibly manditory for SCOTUS to hear the case.

          MOSTLY SCOTUS decides its own docket, but there are a few instances of cases involving the government – especially separation of powers cases, that it must take.

      2. That is not what I heard.

        The Pannel is likely to be reluctant to leave the Mandamus asis,
        But they also appeared highly reluctant to allow Sullivan to go forward as judge and prosecutor.

        Whether you, or Sulivan grasp this or not – this is over. DOJ is not going to prosecute.

        Whatever the en Banc court decides – DOJ is not prosecuting, and they can not order it to.
        And Sullivan can not constitutionally get arround that.

        I strongly suspect the en banc court grasps that.
        If they don’t they will be appealed and they will lose.

        More likely they will try to craft another solution.
        No matter what that solution is – Flynn will not be prosecuted.

        If you think otherwise you are engaging in wishful thinking.

  2. Pingback: The Hill's Morning Report – Presented by Facebook – Trump to Democratic negotiators: 'They know my phone number' – Conservative Investing News
  3. Pingback: The Hill's Morning Report – Presented by Facebook – Trump to Democratic negotiators: 'They know my phone number' | InvestingLab.com

  4. The very source of everything associated with the original Russia investigation was about 99% lies mixed in with about 1% truth. That being the case, would one of you legal minds here please explain…is not every single conviction by Mueller so-called fruit from the poison tree? Why can not every conviction be overturned and everyone set free?

    1. The origin of the Russia investigation was info from our ally Australia that Papadopoulos was bragging while drunk that Russians would release information damaging to Clinton.

      Ironically, your claim that “The very source of everything associated with the original Russia investigation was about 99% lies mixed in with about 1% truth” is itself false.

      1. “The origin of the Russia investigation was info from our ally Australia that Papadopoulos was bragging while drunk that Russians would release information damaging to Clinton.”

        ALMOST correct.
        The information was from Andrew Downer – not autrialia. While he is australian ambassador, he did not go through normal channels, he reported this to freinds who reported it to state who reported it to FBI.

        NEXT,
        The initial report the FBI received was that Papadoulis said the Russians would release the DNC emails.
        If Papadoulis had said that – it would constitute reasonable suspicion that Papadoulis was part of or knew of a criminal conspiracy.

        But both Papadoulis and Downer confirmed that was NOT what Papadoulis said.

        At that point absent the Steele Dossier XFH would have been dead.

  5. Turley and Republicans Question Steele Report..

    While Russia Is Actively Interfering In ‘This’ Year’s Election!

    Russia is using a range of techniques to denigrate Joseph R. Biden Jr., American intelligence officials said Friday in their first public assessment that Moscow continues to try to interfere in the 2020 campaign to help President Trump.

    At the same time, the officials said China preferred that Mr. Trump be defeated in November and was weighing whether to take more aggressive action in the election.

    But officials briefed on the intelligence said that Russia was the far graver, and more immediate, threat. While China seeks to gain influence in American politics, its leaders have not yet decided to wade directly into the presidential contest, however much they may dislike Mr. Trump, the officials said.

    The assessment, included in a statement released by William R. Evanina, the director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, suggested the intelligence community was treading carefully, reflecting the political heat generated by previous findings.

    The White House has objected in the past to conclusions that Moscow is working to help Mr. Trump, and Democrats on Capitol Hill have expressed growing concern that the intelligence agencies are not being forthright enough about Russia’s preference for him and that the agencies are introducing China’s anti-Trump stance to balance the scales.

    The assessment appeared to draw a distinction between what it called the “range of measures” being deployed by Moscow to influence the election and its conclusion that China prefers that Mr. Trump be defeated.

    It cited efforts coming out of pro-Russia forces in Ukraine to damage Mr. Biden and Kremlin-linked figures who “are also seeking to boost President Trump’s candidacy on social media and Russian television.”

    China, it said, has so far signaled its position mostly through increased public criticism of the administration’s tough line on China on a variety of fronts.

    An American official briefed on the intelligence said it was wrong to equate the two countries. Russia, the official said, is a tornado, capable of inflicting damage on American democracy now. China is more like climate change, the official said: The threat is real and grave, but more long term.

    Edited From: “Russia Continues Interfering In Elections To Try To Help Trump, U S Intelligence Says”

    The New York Times, 8/7/20

    1. REGARDING ABOVE:

      Is it just ‘me’? Or does it seem like Professor Turley is directly aiding Trump?

      By giving credence to the notion we must ”investigate the investigators’, Turley validates Trump conspiracies.

      We need to get serious about ‘this’ year’s election. Investigating Christopher Steele, The FBI or Robert Mueller is basically colluding with Vladimir Putin. Only a stooge would keep us focused on Christopher Steele while Putin tries again.

      1. I don’t agree. The so-called “Investigators” are Deep State politicians and judges. The Socialist/Democrat Party is bent on destroying the United States, its constitution and capitalism. Why? So they can control ALL of our lives. Turley has a right to bring these false accusations of our President to light. The Cities currently on fire are a direct result of Socialist/Democrats running every single city: NYC (the Mayor is a Communist), Seattle, San Francisco, Portland, Los Angeles, CHICAGO! Do you know of anyone who wants to live in these destroyed cities?

      2. Turley, like many others is reluctantly coming to the position that Trump may be annoying, and disturbing, and sometime out of line,
        but those attacking him are bat$h1T crazy, jhust making things up and lawless.

        And given a choice between Trump and the only alternatives the left offers right now, Turley will hold his nose and support the rule of law.

    2. Trump has done everything to financially incinerate Russia that he can possibly do. Only persons like yourself suffering from terminal TDS can be convinced that Putin prefers Trump to a guy who asks black pro journalists interviewing him, “Are you on crack?”

    3. So say the same people who told us the Steele Dossier was facts,
      the USSR would not collapse,
      that the Russian’s hacked the DNC,
      that Trump conspired with Russia.
      That Sadam was building a bomb.

      and on and on and on.

      The entire Russian economy is smaller than the first US stimulus.
      It is half the size of the US government, the entire Russian economy is barely twice the size of the Pentagon.

      The Chinese economy is slightly larger than the US.

      If purported Russian efforts in 2016 are evidence – Please sir can we have more (Russian interferance).

      Are either Russia or China going to change ballots that have been cast ?

      It is absolutely essential that we not merely secure our elections from Voting Fraud, but that we assure people that there can be no consequential fraud.

      That everyone who voted was a citizen, that the voted only once. That their ballot was unaltered.
      And that their vote was counted.

      Who each voted for is their own business.
      Why they voted as they did – is their own business.
      Whether they were influenced by the health, the policies, the attire, space aliens, Russian or Chinese – is their own business.

  8. So sad to see the sheeple being lead down the primrose path for the millionth time. The US is hopelessly corrupt and will soon be taken over by the Marxists officially. Nothing matters, especially the truth. Gosh the media isn’t interested in exposing a crime they were part of – Shock!!!

    Not only did Epstein not kill himself, Seth Rich was murdered by the RNC. Have a nice day.

  9. As I recall, Judicial Watch published Ohr emails that mentioned coordination with Steele to contact Rosenstein brfore his nomination in December 2016. How was Rosenstein appointed Deputy AG again?
    Rosenstein sicced Mueller and his former Obama administration colleagues on to the fabricated Russian collusion investigation.
    He’s another rotting piece of swamp wood in my opinion.

    1. “How was Rosenstein appointed Deputy AG again?”

      Trump nominated him, and he was confirmed by the Senate. According to you, Trump nominated a “rotting piece of swamp wood.”

      2. Absolutely correct – Rosenstein, like Sessions should not have been appointed.

    2. Rosenstein was the USA in Baltimore. Rosenstein, Mueller, Comey, McCabe, and Wray are life long Republicans.

      1. In re Iraqi WMD, you’ve confused Mueller with George Tenet (and I don’t think there’s definitive evidence that Tenet lied).

        1. Well, maybe he just repeated a lie someone else fed him. I mean did we ever figure out who cooked up the bogus intel? You can analyze this and let me konw.

      3. “Rosenstein was the USA in Baltimore. Rosenstein, Mueller, Comey, McCabe, and Wray are life long Republicans.”

        So ?

        I am not.
        I am not a trump supporter.

        I am just not boiling over with TDS.

        BTW McCabe’s wife ran in VA as a democrat.

  10. – POTUS nominee clearly has Dementia.

    – Antifa/BLM are rioting on a daily basis, and the DNC constantly condones it by dismissing the rioting and looting as “protests”.

    – Ditto for the “Defund the Police” insanity.

    – The Durham investigation is wrapping up, and the Russia bullsh*t will hit the fan big time.

    – Nancy Pelosi looks and acts more and more like Pee Wee Herman in drag, as every day passes. She’s completely losing it.

    All of which:

    =

    Trump will be reelected in November.

    No doubt about it.

      1. Biden is in much better mental and physical shape than Trump

        Thanks for the wishcast. Always entertaining.

      2. Trump is overweight but the guy is lifelong sober, plays golf, and is healthy. I know you guys like to poke fun at all that but health has not been a problem., You keep on saying so but it never quite pans out so far, and may he live a long and healthy life until he hits 100 years

        Joe Biden, appears skinny, says he can do a lot pushups. I believe him when he says he doesnt drink,

        but let’s be honest. he obviously has some sort of cognitive decline, vascular dementia perhaps? I am not qualified to diagnose, I just see him mumbling and messing up easy words all the time.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FUZo0uwsdc

        journalist: ” have you taken a cognitive test?”
        Biden: “no…..are you a junkie?….. if he cant figure out the difference between an elephant and a lion…. anyway”

        1. Trump isn’t simply overweight. He’s obese. He plays golf, but he rides a cart, so it’s not actually that much exercise. There was never any statement from the doctor(s) he saw in his unscheduled medical trip to Walter Reed in November 2019, there are plenty of physicians who’ve voiced concern about his slurred words, lack of balance, frequently dialated pupils, etc., and the memo about Trump’s health from Dr. Conley in June provides little information.

          That Fox video shows Biden biking. Let’s see Trump get on a bike and ride.

          Better still if the two of them are given a comprehensive neurologic exam by the same doctors (with witnesses to make sure that there’s no fibbing in the report), both given a heart stress test, …

          “I just see [Biden] mumbling and messing up easy words all the time.”

          And I see the same with Trump:

            1. Trump isn’t agile. He recently had difficulty walking down a ramp.

              1. Try walking down a steep ramp with leather soled shoes and nothing to hold onto. He was right to be supercautious because even young people can slip and fall.

              3. True.
                Vote accordingly.

                You can have a president who has difficulty with slick ramps.
                Or one who has difficulty with speaking coherently.

          2. “Trump isn’t simply overweight. He’s obese. ”
            I beleive by the charts for his age, height and weight he is merely overweight.

            Regardless, he is what he is and you can vote accordingly.

            “there are plenty of physicians who’ve voiced concern about his slurred words, lack of balance, frequently dialated pupils”
            Do you have an oppinion from someone who has examined him ?

            If we are going to draw conclusions from observations of video – I can draw my own – I do not need some purported experts to tell me what to think.

            My father died from Vascullar Dimensia – his progress was nearly exactly like Biden.
            Nothing about him resembled Trump.

            “That Fox video shows Biden biking. Let’s see Trump get on a bike and ride.”

            No one doubts Biden is more athletic – though we do not want any more stories of Biden as a life guard.

            “Better still if the two of them are given a comprehensive neurologic exam by the same doctors (with witnesses to make sure that there’s no fibbing in the report), both given a heart stress test, …”
            You trust doctors who have not examined them – but not those that have ?

            “I just see [Biden] mumbling and messing up easy words all the time.”

            “And I see the same with Trump:”

            Not even close and you know it.

            Do you think Biden can talk for 45 minutes without a teleprompter ? 15 ? 5 ? 2? 2 sentences ?

            Biden can not handle softball interviews.
            Trump gets hardballs every day, and you may not like his answers but he does not muff them and confuse himself.

      4. Demented “Jim Crow Joe” (you know, that thing, man) is going to win the 2020 presidential election.

        Why in the world are the “snowflakes” and rabid Feminazi White Shirts (beautiful women rule the world – the uglies, not so much, right?) so vigorously vituperative?

        Don’t worry.

        Be happy.

      5. My mother has been suffering from Dementia for over 5 years, Commit.

        As a result, I have become an unwilling expert on the disease, and its symptoms.

        Last Summer I began telling people that Biden obviously has Dementia due to the plethora of symptoms he was displaying on a daily basis while on the campaign trail. His Dementia has now progressed to the point where his handlers have had to hide him in his basement for the past 4+ months because he cannot be trusted to appear in public and actually campaign for office.

        So feel free to keep wishing in one hand, and sh*tting in the other. You’ll find out soon enough which one fills up the fastest.

        There is no way that Joe Biden could run a hot dog stand properly at this point in time. Yet your political Party is about to nominate him for President?!

        Add to all of that, the fact that your Party leader Madam Speaker Pelosi has completely lost her sh*t, and you have a recipe for political disaster.

        Then there is John Durham. Who always dots all of the i’s, and crosses all of his t’s, before lowering the boom. Which means that the Russiagate fiasco will be fully exposed as an attempt at a soft coup.

        Prepare your safe space, Buttercup. You’ll be spending a lot of time there. Make room for Seth.

        1. Rhodes,

          You can’t even be honest about Biden being out and about, instead you lie that “his handlers have had to hide him in his basement for the past 4+ months because he cannot be trusted to appear in public and actually campaign for office,” and Trump is so desperate to encourage these lies that he regularly has his ad team deceptively manipulate photos of Biden: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/trump-campaign-ad-biden-manipulated-altered-edited-2020-election-a9658006.html

          You project all sorts of nonsense onto me because you are too weak to have an honest discussion, and every time you use names like “Buttercup” and “Honeybunch,” you underscore your weakness.

          1. It is a political ad. Since when are these treated as evidence in a criminal trial ?

            O hear Biden adds everytime I get in the car – they are deceptive garbage.

            I do not really want to listen or see EITHER Trump or Biden adds.

            Facebook talked about completely banning political adds and I was cheering.
            But they have bailed on that.

            I mostly watch Streaming TV – it is great, no political adds.
            No political add is going to change how I vote.

            A really good debate by Biden – might. I am not expecting that.

        2. My guess is Durham’s report is released on friday night before labor day weekend, Rhodesy. Going to take a holiday weekend to bury its anti climatic content.

      6. Then lets have lots of debates !

        I honestly hope Biden is not as demented as he appears.
        My father had vascular dimensia, and it is about the worst thing I could wish for anyone.

        But it is increasingly evident that Biden can rarely manage two sentences.

        Biden’s VP nomination will be the most important in history – because they will with near certaintly be the defacto president.

        And he has no good choices.

    2. Trump has a chance. I would say there is plenty of doubt. There is so much doubt, that if you want Trump and a return to law and order, GET OUT THERE AND VOTE
      and turn out ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY TOO

      leave no gas in the tank for this one, leave no stone unturned. it’s all on the table now

      1. When you’re willing to actively and brazenly suppress the vote and to accept help from the Russians there is always a chance, Kurtz. We shall see.

        1. “When you’re willing to actively and brazenly suppress the vote ”

          Are there people at the polls with clubs threatening voters ?

          Then there is no “voter supression”.

          Getting rid of dead people and mikey mouse on the voter rolls is not voter supression.
          Expecting that people can prove they are who they are and that they can vote before letting them vote is not voter supression.

          I understand that those on the left think it is voter suppression to prevent dead people from voting, or fake people from voting.
          And that the can not win elections unless they are able to engage in fraud.

          “accept help from the Russians”
          Right, that too has been debunked.

            1. Nor is there any question that the Trump campaign accepted help from Russia, and in his refusal to do anything about their active involvement in our elections since, his continuing acceptance and, at a minimum, passive encouragement of it now.

              1. “Nor is there any question that the Trump campaign accepted help from Russia,”
                If there is no question – you should be able to point that out – easily.

                Did Natialia bring dirt on Clinton ? Nope. That is the only contact between the Trump campaign and an actual Russian and Natalia met with Glenn Simpson before and after.

                If The Russian’s helped Trump – you should be able to point that out easily.

                Half a dozen really stupid adds, mostly after the election evenly split between Trump, Clinton and Sanders is not “helping Trump”.

                The IC assessment collapsed when subpeonad documents were finally produced and most CIA analysts beleived Putin wanted Clinton not Trump something it does nto take a brain surgean to figure out, Even Comey did not buy the Putin wants Trump nonsense. And turns out the ICA that was not based on the Steele Dossier was ONLY based on the Steele Dossier.

                And Muellers prosecution of Russians purportedly helping Trump ? Crashed and burned – because they actually showed up to defend themselves. OOPS

                And the DNC emails – even Crowdstrike – under oath, will not say that the emails were hacked or the hackers were russian
                OOPS

                “and in his refusal to do anything about their active involvement in our elections since,”

                Right no foreigners should be allowed to influence our elections !!!!! Jail John Oliver. Burn the Gardian. Arrest Robert Deerlove.

                Grow up, There is not only nothing that can be done – there is nothing that should be done.

                As is typical of the left – you think that free speech by those you do not like advocating things your do not like is a crime.
                And we should nuke russia.

                Trump formed a commision to look into election reform – and dems boycotted it, because it was actually looking to do real election reform.

                Fixing voter registration databases – like the ones the Russians purportedly hacked. Eliminating voter fraud.

                You do not want honest elections. You just want your favor of dishonest.

                1. The help Trump received from the Russians in 2016 has been well documented by the FBI and our National Intelligence Agencies, all updated and confirmed by the Trump appointees running them. Help he is receiving in 2020 by the Russians will need to be documented later as he is doing nothing to stop it.

                  1. “The help Trump received from the Russians in 2016 has been well documented by the FBI and our National Intelligence Agencies, all updated and confirmed by the Trump appointees running them. Help he is receiving in 2020 by the Russians will need to be documented later as he is doing nothing to stop it.”

                    IT has ?

                    Then you should be able to find real examples.
                    Not the ones that have been thoroughly debunked.

                    Ni the IC did not say that Trump is receiving help from Russian in 2020 (or 2016), They said Putin prefered Trump.

                    That is obvioulsy idiocy. If you beleive that – then you beleive that Iraq had WMD’s.

                    When Trump and Christy were briefed by the FBI and IC in august of 2016 Trump and Christy were surprised that the IC thought Russia was a more significant threat than China.

                    And you likely agree. You think a country whose military is rusting in place, whose GDP is 1/15 that of China is the more significant threat ?

                    Any analyst that is still trapped in the cold war, is clueless.

              2. “Nor is there any question that the Trump campaign accepted help from Russia, and in his refusal to do anything about their active involvement in our elections since, his continuing acceptance and, at a minimum, passive encouragement of it now.”

                Because you say so ?

                You are right – there is not question – that they DID NOT

                Clinton get more help – from both Russia and ukraine.

            2. When the FBI turns over every rock and stone TWICE, When the press of the entire world spends 4 years going over every inch of the earth looking for Dirt, When the Clinton campaign Pays for dirt and all they get is the steele Dossier,. When every lead you chase turns to drek and many turn and bite you in the ass. When a special prosecutor using the awesome power of the federal government bankrupts you, threatens you kids, and life in jail across dozens of Trump surrogates and the only person he can get to Flip says “Trump is scum, but I got nothing on him”

              That is called DEBUNKED.

              Mother Theresa could not have survived the scrutiny Trump did.

              1. Post the exact words of the Mueller report saying ‘debunked’.

                Your own creative pronouncements don’t count.

                1. The entire basis for the Mueller report has been debunked. Reasonable suspicion died in mid January 2017.
                  Rosenstein never had sufficient basis to reopen an investigation much less appoint a special prosecutor.

                  Regardless, this is not about phrases.

                  The problem with the Mueller report is not its conclusions – it found nothing.
                  The problem was that in the absence of evidence it engaged in speculation.

                  As to “specifics” – we have crowdstrikes testimony.
                  Crowd strike is unable to conclude how the DNC emails got to Wikileaks. While we know the DNC was hacked Twice – Crowdstrike confirmed under oath they can not establish who hacked the DNC or even that the emails were exfiltrated as a result of the hacks rather than as a result of the leak.

                  That means every aspect of the Mueller or any other investigation claiming with any confidence that the Russian’s hacked the DNC is bogus.
                  They might have. But neither Mueller nor anyone else actually knows.

                  And the Crowdstrike testimony is important – because no one else has ever been about to directly forensically examine the DNC servers and network All other forensics regarding the DNC are based on Crowdstrike.

                  And that is the fundimental flaw throughout the Mueller report. It elevates speculation to near certainty.

                  This is just one of numerous major error.

                  Mueller got one oppertunity to question Mifsud and he botched it, and then tried to blame Papadoulis – despite Papadoulis agressive efforts to get the FBI to question Mifsud.

                  Mueller wastes hundreds of pages on exploration of bogus nonsense regarding Trump.

                  It is very nearly impossible to obstruct justice when there is no underlying crime. It is certainly not possible when your investigation is not properly predicated.
                  It is not possible to obstruct justice by acting within you constitutional powers.
                  Merely being accused – or even less being a purported witness does not change your rights. If you are free to do something ordinarily, you are free to do it during an investigation.

                  The fact that Mueller wasted hundreds of pages on something Barr and prior Special Counsels managed to get past in a paragraph is evidence that Mueller was full of Schiff.

                  More specifics – Mueller made a big deal that he was prosecuting some actual russians.

                  Yet Mueller LOST every case he filed against any actual russians. The cases were dropped before trial.

                  Part of this was because Mueller never expected to have to make those cases.
                  He did not expect the Russian companies that he indicted to come to court to defend themselves – but they did, and when the judge pointed out Mueller had no case – he dropped it.

    3. Absolutely, he will win. No way he can lose. Americans are still living here in the US regardless of what the left would have us believe. They live in a vacuum on the left. Only talk to themselves and preach to the chorus. They have no idea what is about to happen. It will be a replay of 2016 only worse. We can replay CNN, MSNBC, NPR, all the cable networks cry and whine. They will do all they can to keep him from being re-inaugurated but it will happen. We have a long slog ahead. Set down, shut up and hang on! The POTUS will ride again for another four years.

      1. wrong, zucchini. Get out there and sign people up to vote and tell them this is a matter of basic law and order, vote Trump.

        We must work, or we may lose. There is no way Republicans should be confident in the outcome. it is a very dangerous moment

        If you have not signed up all your kin and friends to be registered voters then get busy. nobody knows how this will turn out and every vote counts including popular votes iin solid red states. every vote counts– WORK FOR IT.

    4. Today, Trump said that “in 1917, they say … the great pandemic, it certainly was a terrible thing … probably ended the Second World War”
      video here: https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1292956445944606721
      He keeps saying that the 1918 pandemic was in 1917. And I bet if Biden confused WWI and WWII, you’d take it as a sign of dementia. But Trump is the one who confused them.

      1. So Trump is off a few months, and Biden is off a few decades and you think these are equivalent ?

          1. BTB, I think John is confused and/or doesn’t read very carefully, since he claimed “Biden is off a few decades” when Biden isn’t the one who confused WWI and WWII.

            Either that, or John’s referring obliquely to some unspecified thing Biden did say in some other context, and John can’t be bothered to make explicit what Biden comment he’s referring to.

  11. “Did The FBI Mislead The Senate Intelligence Committee On The Steele Dossier? The Media Is Not Interested”

    – Professor Turley
    ______________

    Christopher Wray, William Barr and John Durham are doing damage control for the Deep Deep State.

    The People can’t stop it.

    The Media are not interested.

  12. The Deep Deep State has won – Joe Biden (D-Delaware) has won (the D is for dementia).

    The Deep Deep State ensconced Christopher Wray as FBI Director when Wray should have been thrown in prison with all the co-conspirators in the Obama Coup D’etat in America.

    John Durham is running out the clock in favor of the Deep Deep State – Mr. Durham, the co-conspirators in the Lincoln assassination were dead within three months – you will retain no measure of honor.

    Abraham Lincoln won 1860 with 37.9 % and 1864 with brute military force.

    JFK won having Johnson fix Texas and the Mob fix Chicago.

    Johnson won by blowing JFK’s brains out in conjunction with the CIA, FBI, NSA, ONI, Mob, Dulles, Hoover et al.

    Obama wasn’t even eligible but the Deep Deep State ensconced him.
    _______________________________________________________

    America is in a condition of hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy and rebellion.

    President Abraham Lincoln seized power, neutralized the legislative and judicial branches and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.”

    President Donald Trump must now seize power, neutralize the legislative and judicial branches and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.”

    1. If things (Barr and Durham) do not move forward by Friday, by next mid-week, new things, new info will be revealed that may force a move forward. We now have more than just HOPE.

    2. “John Durham is running out the clock in favor of the Deep Deep State”

      You are vastly underestimating Durham’s character.

      Were it not for the scamdemic, he would have come out of his corner swinging back in April or May.

      As you will see soon enough, he hasn’t done all of this work only to run out the clock. Durham has been running silent, and deep. The MSM has unwittingly helped him in that regard, by pretending that his investigation is non-existent.

      In the meantime, Durham has been gathering cooperators and sweating out non-cooperators.

      There is a whole lot of sunlight that will be shed on the cockroaches.

  13. Halper has quite a bit to explain because, in addition to grooming Page during the Cambridge conference, according to Schrage, Halper seemed amazingly prescient about the fate of Trump’s national security advisor.

    In a January 10, 2017, conversation with Halper that Schrage recorded, Halper told him, “I don’t think Flynn’s going to be around long.” Halper then detailed the Machiavellian maneuvers likely to come: “The way these things work,” Halper said, was that “opponents. . . . so-called enemies” of Flynn would be “looking for ways of exerting pressure.” Flynn would be “squeezed pretty hard,” Halper suggested, and then Flynn’s “reaction to that is to blow up and get angry. He’s really f-cked. I don’t know where he goes from there. But that is his reaction. That’s why he’s so unsuitable.”
    https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/10/what-we-learned-sunday-from-spygate-insider-steven-schrage/

  15. Pingback: Media Carried False Accusations On Mueller Investigation, None On True Accusations On FBI Involvement | peckford42

  16. Does the Brookings Inst have anything to say about their promotion of the Russia hoax while one of their own staff members had first-hand knowledge of the fraudulence of the Steel dossier?

  17. The media spent years exploring every possible claim of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, which were found to be baseless…The response from the media? Crickets. Nada. Not interested.

    What are we to believe? How are we supposed to believe? When we have so many people that feel they have the truth on their side, the question is, what do the facts prove? Clearly the facts can’t prove opposing truths to be true, can they? I know for me, early on, I felt the Trump/Russia collusion narrative didn’t seem rational. The dossier was on it’s face ridiculous. The media narrative was as bad as the dossier and that was before the facts/evidence began to roll in. Today, there is a documented timeline of events, evidence of illegal activity and a coverup that makes Watergate seem a minor event in history. And despite all of this, we still have a significant portion of the media unwilling and/or unable to report what the evidence shows. As Yuri Bezmenov detailed, the American society has become completely demoralized. This post-truth culture clings to their truths as fervently as many cling to a religious doctrine. The difference being that no apologetics can rationalize the disconnect between the truths of today’s Trump/Russia narrative and the facts/evidence debunking it.

    1. See Conservativetreehouse.com for an update on behind the scenes reveal. This is NOT a conspiracy theory, There you will find all the facts (evidence) put together in a many, many page brief. It cannot be denied with this factual and irrefutable report the FBI, DOJ, even Congress (the entirety of the DEEP STATE) were conspiring in a coup to unseat our duly elected POTUS! and it continues as we speak. If Barr and Durham do not move forward by this August 14th, by mid-next week, new information will come forth that will force all this out into the open despite the silent corrupt media of the left. “At midnight we ride! ” said Sam Houston.

  18. Epiphany–I just realized that the little pervert with all his charms would have been a safer mayor for New York City than the monster they have.

  19. The question has to be asked, is Turley on the payroll of the RNC, Trump Campaign, or any super-pac representing Trump or his allies.

    1. “. Rather, the question is why this document has received virtually no media attention ”

      PRIVATE BILLIONAIRE OWNED MASS MEDIA IS THE PAYROLL YOU SHOULD WORRY ABOUT FISHHEAD

      but you are too dense to get it. you serve George Soros and the richest men in the world who have bought off the Democrats

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/16/wealthy-longtime-democratic-donors-boosted-biden-with-big-checks-second-quarter/

      and dont forget Bezos, another globalist, richest man in the world, hates Trump, and owns that very newspaper too

      follow the money? yes, do!

      1. Or maybe you should stop rowing that boat, you’re going to fall off the edge. When reality catches up with you, it’s not going to be pretty.

      2. Mr. Kurtz, Soros is nothing more than a bag man & front man for the people who could buy and sell him many times over.

        The same applies to Gates.

        1. Rhodes, I am not dealing in speculations. I am dealing in facts when I say Geo Soros was the second largest donor to the Dem NC in first half 2020. and he has been a major donor for Pelosi. This is open source verified information

          and that he is very rich is also verified….. I don’t know about people above him. but, Michael Bloomberg is above him, per public information. so i would not know who you speculate is giving Soros orders.

          In my opinion, Soros is no small bag man. Soros was overthrowing countries like Albania just to get his method down. in 1992 he broke the Bank of England. He’s had a lot of other toppled governments to his name since then, many decades ago. He had involvement in the Thai and Korean currency crises, when was that, from memory, 2005?
          also the georgian color revolution, Ukraine, there is a long list. He’s the Keyzer Soze if you ask me.

          the thing about many of these “COLOR REVOLUTIONS,” is that some of them had covert US support as well.
          hence, to put some factual content into your speculative remark, let’s ask:

          does the CIA– or any of its rogue elements– have anything to do with this “Color Revolution” that Soros is attempting on Trump?

          I mean, besides the obvious rogue element, former CIA director John Brennan who openly called for sedition on his twitter page.

          But gee I sure hope not, because, then the CIA would be involved in a plot to undo a Presidency.

          They wouldn’t do such a thing, would they Rhodes?

          https://www.justice-integrity.org/730-former-house-jfk-murder-prober-alleges-cia-lied-seeks-hidden-records

          1. I’m perfectly aware of Soros’ activities.

            Again, he’s just a Billionaire front man for the people who are actually pulling the strings.

            Those people are who Woodrow Wilson was referring to when he wrote:

            “Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

            ― Woodrow Wilson, (“The New Freedom”)

            That “power” has not gone away. So focusing on errand boys like Soros, is just what they want you to do.

            See: “subtle” in the quote above.

            You can’t begin to fight an enemy, if you don’t even know who the enemy is. George Soros could die tomorrow, and it would make no difference to the “power”.

    2. Anyone with half a brain knows, Turley is on the side of the Constitution and rule of law.

      Which clearly, the prior administration, liberals and the MSM do not reverve nor desire to follow!!

    3. Should be a question mark after that sentence, but nobody but you is asking it.

    5. For left wingnuts, it is impossible to beleive that anyone who holds a view different from theirs does so honestly.

      Maybe that is because they do not hold their own views honestly and assume everyone else is the same ?

  20. Yawn. The reason you care about the Durham investigation is because your friend Barr has a lot of stake in how it comes out.

    Again with the claims that collusion was refuted rather than just not acted on by the Mueller team??? JT, you’re competing against the actual wording of the report on this and you do it repeatedly. On top of that, who cares? Popodopolous popping off in a bar, and the multiple communications between the Trump campaign and the Russians (as well the idiotic actions of Flynn) is what got the party started.

    I’m guessing you’re going to fixate on this forever, Jon. Thing is, the republican orthodoxy you began working for in the Clinton years is no more. Your recent turn as a Trumpist will leave a mark going forward. But by all means, continue with the non relevance if you must.

    1. Turley is so impressed with your advice Hank, he didn’t even read it

      Now i suspect he doesnt read any of our comments

      but i have my doubts– i notice i was elaborating on the excessive and certain to fail remedy that the NY AG is pursuing against NRA today– and Turley has apparently the same notion. He put it better than I did. Perhaps we are on the same wavelength!

      Turley haters, don’t bother to wonder. I have never met Turley, he does not know me, and I have never had a single communication with him except directed openly on this web page for all to see. There is no connection between me and Turley whatsoever. I don’t want Professor getting any flack because of me! I’m just a nobody anyhow

      The thing is, there are a lot of nobodies like me. Some of us, think alike, and our wavelength “emanates” too

      Today in Chicago after the looting, there’s thousands more walking down the same mental path that I walked two decades ago. I saw the path, and now it’s a highway.

    2. Do you always “Yawn” when looking into the abyss, Bugs?

      You’re not fooling anybody. Durham is a TDS sufferers worst nightmare come true.

      If you thought that the 27 month long Russian Snipe Hunt (that ended like all Snipe hunts end) wasn’t going to eventually blow-up in your face, you were wrong.

      Now it’s time to pay the Piper.

        1. i will Kurtz. Probably a friday night before the weekend so they can try to act like it never happened by tuesday.

      2. Wow, Mespo is going to shoot us and then Durham will throw our leaders in jail! Or do I have that in the wrong order?

        By the way, not too long ago Olly was telling us how McCabe would be doing time soon. How is that one going?

        1. Your side has been proclaiming “Trump is going down” for 3.5 years, without missing a beat.
          How’s THAT working out snowflake??

        2. I think that those expecting massive indictments from Durham are likely to be disappointed.
          AG Barr decided NOT to prosecute Comey for lying under oath. He also appears to have dropped similar charges against McCabe.

          He should have forced the termination of the Stone and Flynn prosecutions at the same time for the same reason. Thouhg it is far more serious when the FBI lies under oath about anything than when a target is setup.

          I expect that Barr/Durham are NOT going to prosecute anyone absent a strong case and a serious crime. There are myriads of examples of prosecutorial misconduct, and civil rights violations.

          Can you actually name an instance in which anyone in law enforcement was prosecuted for etheir of these ?

          I do not expect Barr/Durham to do so now – despite the fact that we can not expect law enforcement to follow the law unless the law is enforced even more stringently against them.

          Despite claims to the contrary – I expect a damning report for Durham and a few small prosecutions.

      3. You’re not fooling anybody. Durham is a TDS sufferers worst nightmare come true.
        ___________________________________________________________________________

        Oh give me a break. The Durham investigation is just like the Mueller investigation.
        It is one giant nothing burger

        You morons should stick to professional wrestling. There is a lot more reality in pro-wrestling than there is in these phony investigations

    4. Nope,

      We care about the Durham investigation because if there are no consequences for this, we will see it again.

    5. “Again with the claims that collusion was refuted rather than just not acted on by the Mueller team??? ”

      Ah, new idoicy ! Mueller found egregious misconduct and just ignored it.

      That is what SC’s do all the time right ?

      “you’re competing against the actual wording of the report on this and you do it repeatedly.”
      1). The words do not support your claims.
      2). You can not make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

      Mueller was a fizzle. Grow up – there was no there there.

      Nor is this just mueller – the media has rentlessly chased any shiny thing indicating malfeasance, the FBI waster 9 months before Mueller and found nothing. Horowitz found nothing but malfeasance.

      “On top of that, who cares? Popodopolous popping off in a bar”
      Yes, lets stage a coup because a nobody purportedly says something in a bar – and then when the FBI checks it out, turns into a nothing burger.

      “and the multiple communications between the Trump campaign and the Russians”
      That would be “missed connections”.

      Did the Russians give Melania a 500K speaking fee ?

      “(as well the idiotic actions of Flynn) is what got the party started.”
      And yet the FBI found NOTHING.

Comments are closed.