FBI Lawyer In Russian Investigation To Plead Guilty For False Statement

440px-John_H._DurhamWe have previously discussed allegations against FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith who played a key role in maintaining the secret surveillance of Trump campaign advisers in the Russian Investigation, including the falsification of a filing to the secret court.  U.S. Attorney John Durham who is investigating the matter, has announced that Clinesmith will now plead guilty to making a false statement.  The implications of this criminal plea is enormous but the media has engaged in a pattern of willful blindness to mounting evidence of wrongdoing in the Russian investigation by FBI and DOJ figures.

The inspector general previously accused Clinesmith of altering an email about former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page to say that he was “not a source” for another government agency. In fact, Page has was a source for the CIA.  That altered email was part of a third and final renewal application in 2017 to eavesdrop on Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  Clinesmith expressly opposed Trump and sent an email after the election declaring “viva the resistance.”

Notably, Democrats have been opposing any further investigation into the Russian investigation despite the call of former Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein for a full investigation. Both Rosenstein and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates have stated that they would not have approved secret surveillance applications if they knew what they know today about the countervailing evidence.  Yates has also insisted that people should be held accountable for misconduct.

Notably, the plea by Michael Flynn was widely reported as a major conviction despite the fact that the agents themselves stated that they did not believe Flynn intentionally lied.  That was lying about a lawful meeting by the incoming National Security Adviserwho stated the position of the Trump Administration in seeking a new approach with the Russians. Pleas by others of false statements were so minor that they resulted in less than a month of jail, including George Papadopoulos who received only 14 days.  Those pleas were given endless and breathless discussion in the media on the proof of criminality, even though they did not show any collusion with the Russians.  This is a direct and major falsification by a critical figure in the Russian investigation. It follows referrals for criminal charges against other figures like Andrew McCabe.  None of that seems to matter as commentators and politicians decry the continued investigation into the matter.

I supported the Special Counsel investigation as well as the Durham investigation. This is why. We need to achieve full transparency and full accountability.  At what point does the media recognize that there are serious questions of wrongdoing that remain unresolved?


227 thoughts on “FBI Lawyer In Russian Investigation To Plead Guilty For False Statement”

  1. I consider both the Flynn 302 (completed by Strzok and Pientka for their interview of Flynn on 1/24/17) and the Strzok 302 (completed by an unnamed agent for an interview with Strzok on 7/19/17) to be evidence, along with lots of other evidence
    I know what you consider to be evidence. You are ignorant of what a court would accept as evidence to be presented to a jury

    ___________________________________________________________________________You, on the other hand, you want to include the Strzok 302 but exclude the Flynn 302.
    I am relying on the testimony of the two agents who have personal knowledge of the facts as would any court. We have heard from numerous sources that they reached the conclusion that Flynn was not lying. That is pretty much is game over for any prosecution of Flynn as the prosecution has no witnesses and no evidence in support of the contention that Flynn lied.

    There is no possibility of Flynn getting prosecuted if he chose to fight the charges. It is only because Flynn helped the prosecutors that he got convicted.

  2. I’m curious why anybody cares. Isn’t it FAR more important to turn out Trump than anything else? After all, why else would virtually all of the media toss their journalistic integrity overboard and declare their allegiance toward this overarching goal? Viva the resistance, right? Oh this is rich! Then again, it doesn’t matter since a) nothing is going to change amongst the 4th estate, and b) the people who matter have made up their minds. Meanwhile, just 80 more days and our national disgrace will come to an end is the mantra of the Democrats. Me? I hope the President wins re-election if for no other reason than to see how many suffer a stroke.

  3. Change the gender and name and it’s another Russian Attorney found to be at fault in the Trump Towers meeting. Stranger things have happened that one under a pardon request might very well be excused and then made a part of Socialist regressive liberal administration and granted citizenship. Funny part is very few of that party have not openly abandoned our Contitutional Republic and given their allegiance to that same foreign ideology thus rejecting their USA citizenship.

  4. We can confirm that the NYT and WaPo are absolutely the fakest news possible – BECAUSE THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO COVERAGE OF THIS ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THEIR WEB PAGES. They have absolutely no journalistic credibility and are a public relations arm of the liberal democrat political party. All AMerican should be ashamed and alarmed about, as should these journalists. It is an absolute embarrassment.

    1. The story was on the front page of the NY Times (nytimes dot com) last night.

      1. They have nothing there this morning.

        Clinesmith doctored the email sent from the CIA by adding a statement that Page was not a CIA source when he, in fact, was. This is grotesque. The FBI had already known for 2 years that Page was working for the CIA and all the FISA warrants failed to inform the court.

          1. One can’t trust btb. It wasn’t on the Front Page. It was the last of the major articles (four of them) on the politics page.

            NYT often relegates important news they want no one to notice in the middle of a long article and places where thye are least likely to be seen but the cr-p and lies they can place in the top position in their headlines.

                1. You have no credibility based on your anonymous alias. I haven’t seen it on the front page on line though It was the bottom article on the “front page” of the political section.

                  Provide us a copy. Btb, provided us with one and it turned out that was not the front page.

                  Your statement probably reflects what btb saw.

              1. I think there may be some confusion here re: “front page” vs. “home page.” The print version of the paper has a front page, but the website has a home page — https://www.nytimes.com — rather than a front page. Unlike the print newspaper, where the title + text of a few stories themselves may appear on the front page (often started there and then continued on another page), along with a few additional stories identified only with a title and a sentence summary, I’m pretty sure that the home page of the NYT website only has story titles + sentence summaries (and sometimes not even the sentence summary) and photos and links, but seldom if ever has the text of any story on the home page itself. Even on 9/11, the stories themselves for the articles about the attacks weren’t on the home page, but there were multiple titles and links, a couple with 1 sentence summaries: https://web.archive.org/web/20010911224050/http://www.nytimes.com/

                So when SBG said “there is absolutely no coverage of this on the front page of their web pages,” that’s false, because “coverage” on the home page (“the front page of their web pages”) is generally only going to be a title and maybe a 1 sentence summary with a link to the full story, and as you (Anon.) said, that *was* on the NYT.com home page

                FWIW, here’s today’s NYT print version front page:
                The story title + sentence summary appears on the front page of the print version too, at the bottom of the page.

        1. Why should it still be there this morning?
          News doesn’t stop still.

          “adding a statement that Page was not a CIA source when he, in fact, was”

          According to the Statement of the Offense (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.221058/gov.uscourts.dcd.221058.1.0_1.pdf), the actual text of the email was “My recollection is that [Individual #1] was or is “[digraph]” and not a “source” …,” where the words in italics are what Clinesmith added. Individual #1 is Page. “[digraph]” appears to be a reference Page having been an “operational contact” (per Horowitz’s IG report, which explains that the CIA “uses a specific two-letter designation, or digraph, to describe a U.S. person who has been approved … for operational contact”). So the question is whether the CIA treats that digraph and “source” as a synonyms, or if “source” has a narrower meaning.

          What are you taking as evidence that the CIA said Page was a “source” rather than some other kind of contact?

          1. In bringing first Russiagate charge, Durham hints at other crimes

            Prosecutor unveils evidence FBI knew before first FISA warrant in 2016 that Carter Page worked with CIA, wasn’t a Russia stooge, and didn’t inform court.

            Spygate, once derided by media and political elites as a fringe conspiracy theory, is now fact thanks to a court filing that confirms an ex-FBI lawyer who disliked President Trump falsified evidence that was used to keep surveillance against Trump associates going.

            That alone is significant, since Clinesmith was witness to other controversial moments in the failed Trump-Russia collusion probe, including an operation to spy on the future president during a counterintelligence briefing in summer 2016.

            But within the four-plus page criminal information filed in U.S. District Court, Durham also laid out evidence of an additional crime that could be prosecuted in the coming weeks. …

            The court filing notes that Clinesmith “willfully and knowingly” altered a document in June 2017 to falsely claim that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page — one of the main targets of the Russia collusion probe and identified in the court document as “Individual #1” — was not a source for the CIA, identified in the court documents as “Other Government Agency” or “OGA.” In reality, Page was a CIA asset.



            A lawyer for Clinesmith on Friday offered an apology for his client’s action ahead of his guilty plea, but suggested Clinesmith didn’t intend to mislead the court when he altered the CIA document.

            Brock dismissed that argument.

            “The fact that the bureau was advised even before the first application that Carter Page was a source of the CIA and chose not to include it for the first three applications undercuts that argument,” the retired FBI executive said. “It stretches credulity that Clinesmith would claim he believed he was providing accurate information. They already knew it was inaccurate.”…


      1. It wasn’t bad enough for btb to pretend one time. He had to double down on the stupidity.

        Can’t trust btb. That is not the front page. It’s not even in the front section.

      2. Book, I see that Alan attacks you with lies like he does with me. He’s just a venomous old liar who thinks he has the ‘right’ to lie.

    2. SGG you never looked. Those two papers ran the story almost as soon as Turley.

        1. …because Allan says so.

          He happens to be wrong. Again. Not a surprise to many of us.

          1. Anonymous the Stupid, I have a reputation of being credible. You have a reputation of being Stupid.

            I can’t prove it wasn’t on page one but I didn’t see it yesterday or today. That you say you saw it doesn’t prove the question one way or another. You are known as both Stupid and a liar.

            1. Allan wrote: “I have a reputation of being credible.”


              Only in your own mind, Allan, old buddy.

              1. You barely know what the word credible means but of course you shoot duds not having the ability to say much of anything else.

          2. Literally laughed out loud at your sparring partner’s claim that he thinks he has a reputation for being credible, when he often fabricates claims.

            For the record, here’s a snapshot of the NYT website home page when the story was there, close to the top:
            “A former F.B.I. lawyer intends to plead guilty in a criminal inquiry of the Russia investigation.”

            1. Needs to be Committed, I can see why you team up with Anonymous the Stupid. It’s a natural fit. I don’t present opinion as fact like you do most of the time. I don’t say Flynn’s exact statement of lying exists which led to the prosecution of him. I leave that type of lie up to you and to people that are hateful and love to see other people suffer for their own pleasures. Look up the psychiatry of people that have those feelings and get treatment.

              Again you screwed up. It wasn’t a question as to whether or not the story existed. Btb showed it existed and I recognized that fact. My question was did it exist on the front page. Btb and your proof show it in the politics section. Btb 4 down from the top. I never saw it on the front page but that doesn’t prove it was never there. Anonymous the Stupid’s statement is meaningless because he / she is Stupid and it is hard to believe anything he / she says.

              You make a nice couple.

          3. Anon., I tried posting another reply, but it didn’t post for some reason, perhaps the links.

            I think part of the problem here is that SBG’s original claim “there is absolutely no coverage of this on the front pages of their web pages” confuses “front page” (which is for the print versions) and “home page” (which is for websites). The front page of print newspaper is a mixture: there may be a headline, there are stories that have a title plus some paragraphs of text from the body of the story (often continued on another page), there are stories with a title and a 1-sentence summary and a page reference for the body of the story, … Today’s print version of the NYT has this story as a title + 1-sentence summary and page ref. for the body of the story at the bottom of the front page. But the home page of the website seldom if ever has more than a sentence of text from the body of the story; it only has the title and perhaps a sentence, all linked to another webpage with the story. Even on 9/11, where there were titles for multiple stories about the attacks on the home page, the home page didn’t have the text for the body of any of them. So it may be that some of these folks are confused and expecting the body of the story text itself to be on the home page, when that’s just not how the NYT website is set up — for any story.

            In the previous attempt to post this, I linked to both an image of the front page of todays’ print version of the NYT (from the Newseum) and to an Internet Archive version of the homepage of the NYT website from 9/11, but I’m going to omit the links. Maybe my previous comment will show up later.

            At any rate, you’re correct that the story title appeared on the home page of the NYT yesterday, with a link to the body of the article from the home page.

            1. The digital parts of the NYT can change at any time. I could draw no firm conclusion. My statement said the following: “I can’t prove it wasn’t on page one but I didn’t see it yesterday or today.” Btb and another showed the story but it was in the political section not under world news which makes a difference. At the present moment 3 hours ago it was placed on the top of the world section where it belongs. The NYT also sends out their top headlines by email. I didn’t see it there either.

              SBG was pointing something out and I think he was correct. You, as usual are micro parsing, but in this case that is a good thing. It gets you closer to Anonymous the Stupid and that unfortuantely seems to be where you belong.

      1. And most people still don’t know the half of it.

        Snowden should be pardoned, along with Reality Winner, and Assange should go free and be allowed to resume publishing…

  5. This is still being brushed off as a conspiracy theory by way too many people. There is an astonishing number of willfully blind people, who suffer recurring amnesia. What they stridently bugled to be true one day, is on the trash heap of abandoned frauds the next. And on to the next accusation.

    An American president was falsely accused of being a Russian spy, or Manchurian Candidate, in order to undermine his presidency. A decorated general was persecuted and his family threatened, until he fell on his sword and pled guilty to make it stop. This was accomplished through malfeasance by the FBI, as well as his predecessor, President Obama. That’s incredible.

    1. Karen, right now Russia is ainterfering in ‘this’ year’s election. So arguably foiling that interference should be priority.

      What’s more, Trump’s threatened sabotage of the U S Postal system suggests he undoubtedly pulled a quid pro quo in Ukraine.

      In other words ‘sympathy for Trump’ is very hard to find outside the rightwing bubble.

      1. Seth,
        I’m not sure what to think of the assertion of “Trump’s threatened sabotage of the U S Postal system” as of yet, especially in light of the 2006 law that has been tanking the postal system for 14 years. Liberals should be mad as all get-out about that law since it was Bush, a Republican, who signed it into law, right? Of course, we should be mad about it anyway because it was an awful, foolish law–no matter the party of the person who signed it. We should also be ticked our duly elected representatives in the House and Senate who voted on the blasted thing.

        Who was in the 109th Congress back in 2006?


        1. Prairie Rose, agreed about “the 2006 law that has been tanking the postal system for 14 years.”

          Bbut you also say “I’m not sure what to think of the assertion of ‘Trump’s threatened sabotage of the U S Postal system’ as of yet.” Why not? Louis DeJoy, a Trump ally with no USPS experience who was made postmaster general this summer — contrary to the history of the organization, where the postmaster general was non-partisan and had experience with the USPS — has been carrying out all sorts of harmful “cost-cutting” measures:

          “The Postal Service’s warnings of potential disenfranchisement came as the agency undergoes a sweeping organizational and policy overhaul amid dire financial conditions. Cost-cutting moves have already delayed mail delivery by as much as a week in some places, and a new decision to decommission 10 percent of the Postal Service’s sorting machines sparked widespread concern the slowdowns will only worsen. Rank-and-file postal workers say the move is ill-timed and could sharply diminish the speedy processing of flat mail, including letters and ballots. …
          “This week, [Trump] said he opposes emergency funding for the agency — which has repeatedly requested more resources — because of Democratic efforts to expand mail voting. … ‘The slowdown is another tool in the toolbox of voter suppression,’ said Celina Stewart, senior director of advocacy and litigation with the nonpartisan League of Women Voters. ‘That’s no secret. We do think this is a voter-suppression tactic.’ …
          “DeJoy, in service changes last month, has drastically reduced overtime and banned extra trips to ensure on-time mail delivery. His wholesale reorganizations ousted several agency veterans in key operational roles. And the USPS is currently decommissioning 10 percent of its costly and bulky mail-sorting machines, which workers say could hinder processing of election mail, according to a grievance filed by the American Postal Workers Union and obtained by The Washington Post. Those 671 machines, scattered across the country but concentrated in high-population areas, have the capacity to sort 21.4 million pieces of paper mail per hour.
          “Mail carriers, meanwhile, have warned that new cost-cutting measures at the USPS are slowing the delivery of mail ballots in key states. … Postal workers, meanwhile, are concerned over the ongoing removal of mail sorting machines in areas that project to be hotly contested in the presidential race. The machines — Automated Facer-Canceler Systems, Delivery Bar Code Sorters, Automated Flat Sorting Machines and Flat Sequencing Systems — can label and sort tens of thousands of paper mail items, such as letters, bills and ballots, each hour. …”

          Trump has backtracked a bit on the funding, but his appointment of a partisan was inappropriate, and DeJoy is harming the USPS. And those machines cost millions, and they’re reportedly being destroyed. The graphic shows where they’re being removed:

          And yes, of course Congress should rescind the law requiring the USPS to refund its retirements, unlike any other government organization.

          1. Commit,
            Thank you for the links. I was not sure because I have not been paying sufficient attention to the news. That was not a news item I had really looked at yet, so, I cannot form an opinion on something without doing some reading and poking about on the history of the matter. I do not have tv and do not watch the news.

      2. “Russia is ainterfering in ‘this’ year’s election.”

        Seth, did you mean to write “ain’t interfering”? Because Bad Vlad doesn’t need to interfere in anything at this point in time. All he has to do is sit back and watch.

        “when your enemy is executing a false movement, never interrupt him.” – Napoleon Bonaparte

        The ChiComm’s on the other hand, desperately want Biden and the Democrats to win in November. There are a multitude of reasons for that reality. Not the least of which is the leverage they already have on old Uncle Joe and his Blowfeld son. Plus their desperate desire not to held accountable for Covid19.

        So you should just focus on getting back to school, Seth. This is all waaaay over your pinhead.

        1. From the Associated Press:

          “U.S. intelligence officials believe that Russia is using a variety of measures to denigrate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden ahead of the November election and that individuals linked to the Kremlin are boosting President Donald Trump’s reelection bid, the country’s counterintelligence chief said in the most specific warning to date about the threat of foreign interference.

          “U.S. officials also believe China does not want Trump to win a second term and has accelerated its criticism of the White House, expanding its efforts to shape public policy in America and to pressure political figures seen as opposed to Beijing’s interests.

          “The statement Friday from William Evanina is believed to be the most pointed declaration by the U.S. intelligence community linking the Kremlin to efforts to get Trump reelected — a sensitive subject for a president who has rejected intelligence agency assessments that Russia tried to help him in 2016. It also connects Moscow’s disapproval of Biden to his role as vice president in shaping Obama administration policies supporting Ukraine, an important U.S. ally, and opposing Russian leader Vladimir Putin. …

          “‘Many foreign actors have a preference for who wins the election, which they express through a range of overt and private statements; covert influence efforts are rarer,’ said Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center. ‘We are primarily concerned about the ongoing and potential activity by China, Russia and Iran.’ …”

          If you were a patriot, Rhodes, you’d speak honestly about all of it, and you’d be concerned about all of it.

          And you’d also be concerned that it’s the GOP who’s getting in the way of protecting our elections from foreign interference. For example, Trump thanked Sen. Marsha Blackburn for blocking a bill requiring candidates to notify FBI when foreign nations offer election aid: https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2019/06/14/sen-marsha-blackburn-blocks-bill-requiring-campaigns-notify-fbi/1455094001/

          1. ““U.S. intelligence officials believe that Russia is using a variety of measures to denigrate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden ”

            Needs to be Committed (NTBC) quoted the above. Who has been running the intelligence community ? People like Comey, Clapper, Brennan etc. This is evidence? I suppose if Clinesmith said that Flynn was guilty she would consider Clinesmith impartial.

            Rhodes, (NTBC) is pulling a fast one but you already know that. She is full of half truths. In a recent post her source stated ” the nonpartisan League of Women Voters”. who are anything but nonpartisan.

            1. For almost all of Trump’s presidency the National Director of Intelligence was his appointee, former GOP senator Dan Coates. He fully agreed with the assessment of his agencies that Russia acted in the interests of his boss and against Hillary in the 2016 election and warned of their efforts coming in 2020.

              1. BtB:

                And the current DNI is Trump loyalist John Ratcliffe, whose office released the following a week ago:

                Here’s the excerpt from the DNI:

                Many foreign actors have a preference for who wins the election, which they express through a range of overt and private statements; covert influence efforts are rarer. We are primarily concerned about the ongoing and potential activity by China, Russia, and Iran.

                CHINA – We assess that China prefers that President Trump – whom Beijing sees as unpredictable – does not win reelection. China has been expanding its influence efforts ahead of November 2020 to shape the policy environment in the United States, pressure political figures it views as opposed to China’s interests, and deflect and counter criticism of China. Although China will continue to weigh the risks and benefits of aggressive action, its public rhetoric over the past few months has grown increasingly critical of the current Administration’s COVID-19 response, closure of China’s Houston Consulate, and actions on other issues. For example, it has harshly criticized the Administration’s statements and actions on Hong Kong, TikTok, the legal status of the South China Sea, and China’s efforts to dominate the 5G market. Beijing recognizes that all of these efforts might affect the presidential race.

                RUSSIA – We assess that Russia is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden and what it sees as an anti-Russia “establishment.” This is consistent with Moscow’s public criticism of him when he was Vice President for his role in the Obama Administration’s policies on Ukraine and its support for the anti-Putin opposition inside Russia. For example, pro-Russia Ukrainian parliamentarian Andriy Derkach is spreading claims about corruption – including through publicizing leaked phone calls – to undermine former Vice President Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party. Some Kremlin-linked actors are also seeking to boost President Trump’s candidacy on social media and Russian television.

                IRAN – We assess that Iran seeks to undermine U.S. democratic institutions, President Trump, and to divide the country in advance of the 2020 elections. Iran’s efforts along these lines probably will focus on on-line influence, such as spreading disinformation on social media and recirculating anti-U.S. content. Tehran’s motivation to conduct such activities is, in part, driven by a perception that President Trump’s reelection would result in a continuation of U.S. pressure on Iran in an effort to foment regime change.
                __________________________________ [end quote]

                But if I’m the one noting it, Allan can’t accept it even if it comes from a Trump loyalist like Ratcliffe, all because of Allan’s bizarre imaginations about me (sometime projecting violent desires onto me, for ex., claiming “CTHD, you are a violent individual”; sometimes imagining me being “sexually arroused” or saying “I don’t imagine you anything except in the men’s bathroom at a truckstop”; and above all projecting feelings and beliefs onto me that aren’t mine and claiming that I’ve lied — “You had glee in your words to see a respected general convicted of a crime he didn’t commit. It’s your hatefulness more than your rhetoric that is disturbing. Your lying comes in second” — when he doesn’t actually link to any comments to support his claims or even quote anything supporting it).

                Allan is sick. Though his attacks are sometimes funny. Recently he said that I’d “shown an ability to recall information in sentences but put together the sentences have very little meaning,” ironically revealing that *he* doesn’t understand the meaning, and he’s projecting his own lack of understanding onto me. [facepalm]

                1. “But if I’m the one noting it, Allan can’t accept it even if it comes from a Trump loyalist like Ratcliffe”

                  What don’t I believe? The Russians have gone after both sides. I think they want to promote discord. You can only see one side because the ability to look at things impartially escapes you.

                  “all because of Allan’s bizarre imaginations about me”

                  I don’t imagine you. Why would I want such a nightmare? You are a hateful person who doesn’t care about the damage she wishes on other people just so her ball team can win. Sexual? that’s you speaking. Some people get sexual pleasure off of such hate. I don’t know for sure that you do but the more you speak the more obvious it becomes. …And where does one get such cr-p to write? One place is the walls of the men’s room where junkies can write the type of things Needs to be Committed feeds off of.

                  Needs to be Committed writes: “Allan is sick. I understand that is your opinion, but that is what the mentally ill say about their doctors and nurses.

                2. This is all that matters as it relates to the topic, Commit:

                  “The Spies Who Hijacked America

                  As a doctoral candidate at Cambridge working under “FBI Informant” Stefan Halper, I had a front-row seat for Russiagate”


                  The spooks are idiots who left a trail behind them a mile wide. Which is why Horowitz made all of those criminal referrals to Durham.

                  So you can squeal about Russians and ChiComm’s till your hoarse. But that’s not going to change a single aspect of what John Durham is going to unleash.

                  And BTW, it’s not just Democrats in Durham’s crosshairs, there are also Republicans. Which is why so many of them suddenly decided to announce their retirement after the Mueller investigation found “No Collusion” and “No Conspiracy”.

                  Unlike you, I’ve got no partisan dog in the hunt. So I’m just making popcorn.

                  1. “This is all that matters…”

                    No, it isn’t.

                    Apparently it’s all that matters to *you*, but you don’t determine what matters to other voters, you don’t determine what matters to the courts, you don’t determine what matters to Congress, …

      3. Joe Biden brags, on camera, about a quid pro quo in Ukraine, and nothing gets done about it. Trump quarrels over the USPS funding, because of concerns about massive mail in voter fraud, and Democrats pretend that means he pulled a quid pro quo in Ukraine?!!

        I am all for appropriate absentee voting, such as for the military or the sick. But there needs to be safety measures in place to combat fraud. Ballot harvesting is also ideal for voter fraud.

        I think we can make arrangements to vote safely during a pandemic without creating a free for all for vote fraud. I like the idea of drop off boxes, for example. Perhaps we could do curbside voting.

        We need to ensure that there’s one vote per person, and that the rolls are regularly purged of the deceased, duplicate registrations, convicted felons, illegal aliens, and outright fraudulent entries. However, the Democrat party vigorously fights against such measures. It makes it very difficult to clean up the voter rolls and ensure election integrity otherwise.

        Organizing an infrastructure for voting during crisis like a pandemic, or natural disaster, is very important.

        In addition to fraud, there are also concerns about accidentally making your vote invalid. In this NY case, 20% of the votes weren’t counted, for things like a missing signature on the inner envelope, or lack of postmark. That’s a problem.

        Honestly, I think this November’s election is going to be fraught with problems like this, and cries back and forth of foul play. It’s going to be a circus, and that’s not even counting the shenanigans of the candidates themselves.


        1. Karen, all those points you just make reflect what some might call ‘White Privilege’. And even though I find that term problematic it kind of applies to your perspective.

          As I recall you live in a ranch-like community. Which is totally cool to me. But chances are voting in person is probably not a hassle for residents of your district. It might be a high school with extra parking for sports. You might only wait in line for maybe 20 minutes.

          But urban residents are often designated to vote at sites with inadequate parking. Long lines are common. Which is taxing on low wage workers who may have time restraints. Working parents who ride public transit could be spending 3 hours per day on buses. They’re too tired to stand in line for an hour after work. And they’re not going to vote before work if they see a long line.

          With this pandemic long voting lines are a danger to public health. We shouldn’t risk unnecessary deaths because Donald Trump wants to hassle Voters. Voting in 2020 shouldn’t be a threat to one’s health. Only mean, stupid people would let Donald Trump poison this election weeks in advance.

          Not long ago Voting By Mail enjoyed wide support among both Democrats and Republicans. Internal pollsters told Donald Trump that could be a problem for him. If voting became too easy Trump could easily lose by double-digit margins.

          So our ‘genius’ Donald Trump has set about to poison this election weeks in advance. That’s why the U S Postal System is front page news today. Trump has to destroy the Post Office so he has a pretense to claim the election was ‘fraudulent’.

          You see it’s all about Trump. The rest of us don’t matter. Our institutions mean nothing to Donald. The Post Office, Social Security, CDC, FDA, EPA, The Federal Reserve, Mainstream Media, Meteorologists, etc, etc. Anyone in Trump’s way must be destroyed. That’s the price they pay for annoying Donald Trump.

          1. A few headlines off of Duck duck go mostly from the left:

            28 Million Mail-In Ballots Went Missing in Last Four Elections
            California legalized ballot harvesting

            84,000 mail-in ballots disqualified in NYC primary election

            New York’s Election Failure Is a Warning for November …

            The net is littered with reasons why 2020 election should not use mail in for the entire country.

    2. I did watch this video tonight, I think it should be viewed for those interested as to why things are happening to them & their familys regarding all politics, economies, big pharma AMA medicine, etc….

      Please pass it along on all other of your msg bb. Thanks!

      “Oky1 says:
      August 14, 2020 at 7:39 PM

      Al right! Millie got her piece out into the wild on Obama/Hillary Anti-American Trash, illegal spying on Americans even through those same forces manages to get her arrested today. I just found it a minute ago, haven’t watched it all yet. ”

    3. This was accomplished through malfeasance by the FBI, as well as his predecessor, President Obama. That’s incredible.
      The facts don’t support your theory.

      The FBI said they had concluded in Feb, 2017 that Flynn had committed no crime:

      The FBI agents that interviewed Flynn said they believed he was not lying. That means there is no possibility of successfully charging Flynn for alleged false statements due to lack of evidence..

      Then the Trump DOJ appointed a Special Counsel in May 2017 that took the Russia-election-interference investigation away from the FBI. The FBI was ordered by the Trump DOJ to stand down. There was no case against Flynn since both eye witnesses to the alleged crime were saying there was no crime.
      The Trump DOJ authorized the prosecution of Flynn and Flynn himself made his impossible prosecution possible by providing all the evidence for his prosecution.

      1. “Then the Trump DOJ appointed a Special Counsel in May 2017 that took the Russia-election-interference investigation away from the FBI.”

        Rosenstein appointed Mueller because of his concerns about McCabe’s ability to properly handle the investigation in a fair and equitable manner.

        You seem to under the false impression that all the Durham investigation encompasses is the time period beginning in May of 2017. That is an incorrect assumption. Barr has clearly stated that the investigation goes back well before that time period.

        Flynn is nothing more than a sideshow.

        Clinesmith will now be singing like a Canary on crystal meth in order to save his own sorry ass.

        1. Rosenstein appointed Mueller because of his concerns about McCabe’s ability to properly handle the investigation in a fair and equitable manner.
          When the Trump administration hired Mueller the FBI thought the investigation was a nothing burger.
          Strzok and Lisa Page did not want to be roped into the Mueller investigation because they thought it was a dead end. Strzok wrote to Page “there was no there there”

          But Mueller and White House leaks turned it into 2 year spectacle. Like the Pied Piper Mueller led the moronic Democratic children on a wild goose chase thru the weeds for years even long after the Special Counsel’s office was closed.

          See if you can spot the highlights from the Mueller investigation in this video:

      2. Time didn’t stop in February 2017, or in July 2017, jinn.

        “The facts” include ALL of the evidence, not just the evidence you endlessly focus on, jinn. Much of the evidence was gathered later. It includes:
        * the text messages, emails, and call records of Flynn’s communication with the Transition team in Mar-a-Lago before and after the Kislyak calls, something they didn’t have when they interviewed him on 1/24/17.
        * the multiple interviews with K.T. McFarland later about her discussions with Flynn.
        * Flynn’s false FARA declarations in March 2017, which they didn’t charge him with in the charging document, but which are stated in the Statement of the Offense that he pleaded guilty to, and which they very likely would have charged him with if they’d instead gone to trial.
        * subsequent interviews with Flynn in late 2017, which are noted in the SCO’s Report (the 302s for which have never been made public, but IIRR were presented to Judge Sullivan under seal)

        You know all of this, as I’ve pointed it out to you previously. You choose to ignore it because you prefer your bizarre conspiracy theory.

        I don’t know whether you’re so sick that you believe your conspiracy theory, or if it’s a bizarre means of trolling entertainment for you, or if you’re paid to promote it, or if there’s some other explanation. I don’t care; regardless of the explanation, it’s still a conspiracy theory.

        “The FBI agents that interviewed Flynn said they believed he was not lying”

        You’ve admitted that you cannot quote them, only what others have said, and you cherrypick from what others (e.g., the Mueller Report, Comey, McCabe) reported about all of the evidence. I won’t respond further; I’ll just refer back to the previous discussion: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/10/newly-declassified-document-shows-fbi-mislead-senate-intelligence-committee-on-steele-dossier/comment-page-1/#comment-1989099

        1. the evidence was gathered later. It includes:
          None of what you list is evidence that Trump lied to the FBI

          You have to have TDS to think any of that is evidence of false statements by Flynn on Jan 24.

          The only evidence against Flynn is the Statement of Offense that Flynn swore to the court was true and correct.
          Without that evidence the case against Flynn for a sec. 1001 violation is is hopeless.

          As for conspiracy theories you are the one that is promoting the delusional conspiracy theory that the trump campaign coordinated with the Russians to fix the 2016 election in spite of the fact that Mueller established that after spending 10s of millions of dollars looking for the evidence they could not find it.

          1. “None of what you list is evidence that Trump lied to the FBI”

            ROFL that you confuse Flynn and Trump. Trump refused to be interviewed. He did answer written questions from the SCO, but refused to answer a significant subset, including about his knowledge of Flynn’s discussions with Kislyak.

            As for what I cited being evidence that **Flynn** lied to the FBI, here are some examples:

            The Strzok-Pientka 302 for their interview of Flynn says “FLYNN noted he was not aware of the then-upcoming actions as he did not have access to television news in the Dominican Republic and his government BlackBerry was not working,” “FLYNN did not know about the Persona Non-Grata (PNG) action until it was in the media,” “he did not know the expulsions were coming.”
            But the Flynn-Kislyak phone transcripts show that Flynn did know, because he himself introduced things like “they’re looking like they’re gonna, they’re gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the country,” a reference to the PNG action that was part of the sanctions. The SCO got copies of emails and texts between him and the Transition Team about it (e.g., “At 2:07 p.m., a Transition Team member texted Flynn a link to a New York Times article about the sanctions”), and K.T. McFarland (Flynn’s incoming deputy) stated that she and Flynn discussed the sanctions before Flynn spoke to Kislyak; she wanted Flynn to be aware of the Transition team’s concerns about them. And apparently Flynn told the SCO in one of his November, 2017 interviews that he “recalled that he chose not to communicate with Kislyak about the sanctions until he had heard from the team at Mar-a-Lago. …. Flynn then spoke with McFarland for almost 20 minutes to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to Kislyak about the sanctions. On that call, McFarland and Flynn discussed the sanctions, including their potential impact on the incoming Trump Administration’s foreign policy goals. McFarland and Flynn also discussed that Transition Team members in Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the situation. They both understood that Flynn would relay a message to Kislyak in hopes of making sure the situation would not get out of hand. Immediately after speaking with McFarland, Flynn called and spoke with Kislyak.” (quoting the Mueller Report).

            The Strzok-Pientka 302 for their interview of Flynn also says “On December 28th, KISYLAK sent FLYNN a text stating, “Can you call me?” FLYNN noted cellular reception was poor and he was not checking his phone regularly, and consequently did not see the text until approximately 24 hours later. Upon seeing the text, FLYNN responded that he would call in 15-20 minutes, and he and KISLYAK subsequently spoke.” But we know it’s false that he didn’t see the text until the 29th, because he communicated with the Transition team about it during the 24-hour period when he claims he hadn’t yet seen it.

            You want to accept what *others* report Strzok and Pientka said, while rejecting what they themselves wrote in the 302, and pretending that their 302 can’t be accepted as evidence, despite it already being in the court record.

            Again, I don’t know whether you’re so sick that you believe your conspiracy theory, or if it’s a bizarre means of trolling entertainment for you, or if you’re paid to promote it, or if there’s some other explanation. I don’t care; regardless of the explanation, it’s still a conspiracy theory.

            1. Commit, your feeble attempts at going off topic are useless.

              You have a huge Durham problem looming, a nominee with Dementia, and like old Uncle Joe, Kamala also supports defunding the police.


              Your Party is a political trainwreck .

            2. “None of what you list is evidence that Trump lied to the FBI”

              ROFL that you confuse Flynn and Trump.

              Sorry didn’t mean to confuse you
              None of what you list is evidence that Flynn lied to the FBI.

              The fact remains you have zero evidence.
              You seem to think that your opinion about what the Strzok-Pientka wrote in a 302 is important evidence against Flynn but the opinion of Strzok and Pientka that Flynn was not lying is not evidence.
              The problem is your opinion is not admissible in court but their’s is.

              pretending that their 302 can’t be accepted as evidence

              Well I’m sorry but you are the one pretending it would be used as evidence in a contested trial.

              1. “didn’t mean to confuse you”

                You didn’t, as should be obvious from my having noted and corrected your error.

                “You seem to think that your opinion about what the Strzok-Pientka wrote in a 302 is important evidence against Flynn but the opinion of Strzok and Pientka that Flynn was not lying is not evidence.”


                I consider both the Flynn 302 (completed by Strzok and Pientka for their interview of Flynn on 1/24/17) and the Strzok 302 (completed by an unnamed agent for an interview with Strzok on 7/19/17) to be evidence, along with lots of other evidence. You, on the other hand, want to include the Strzok 302 but exclude the Flynn 302.

                “you are the one pretending it would be used as evidence in a contested trial.”

                LOL that you attempt to move the goalposts from “can[] be accepted as evidence” (i.e., is it admissible) to “would be used as evidence”.

                Of course documentary evidence with probative value is admissible in a trial. That would include not only the relevant 302s (Flynn’s multiple 302’s — for his interviews on 1/24/17 and in Nov. 2017; Strzok’s, McFarland’s, …), but also the texts and emails between Flynn and others, and the records of Flynn’s phone conversations with Transition team members at Mar-a-Lago on 12/29, the Flynn-Kislyak call transcripts, … More importantly, Strzok and Pientka and Flynn (unless he pleads the 5th) could be questioned under oath about what was said in the interview. As could other relevant witnesses, like K.T. McFarland.

              2. “Throw enough mud at the wall and some of it will stick.”

                – Anonymous

                This is a slavering, rabid, fanatical, communistic, Feminazi White Shirt mud thrower.

                Hey, OJ Simpson got off, right?

                One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor.

                This floor is Obama’s ceiling – and last layer of protection and line of defense.

                The truth must not be discovered.

                All roads lead to Obama.

                The Beast is approaching.

                Mud must be thrown in vast quantities.

  6. “Comey cornered President Trump and commenced to go rogue and blackmail him, presenting the dossier.”

    – K.T. McFarland (paraphrased)

    James Comey is the reincarnation of the very “swishy” J. Edgar Hoover.

  7. This video might help some lefties sort out one portion of the story and avoid a lot of argument. Another benefit is it shows btb that Horowitz did find things but was limited in what he could do.

    1. I should add that Clinesmith was part of the Mueller team before being removed. The result of Clinesmith’s criminal action lay in the Mueller report. That should reaffirm that the Mueller report wasn’t being straight with the American public. The removal of Clinesmith from the Mueller team makes one wonder what Mueller knew and when he knew it.

      Imagine that. A criminal working for Mueller. I wonder how much that criminal is talking about activities in the FBi and those regarding the Mueller investigation.

      1. The removal of Clinesmith from the Mueller team makes one wonder what Mueller knew and when he knew it.

        From Mueller’s performance in congressional hearings (with his minder at his side), it’s a reasonable wager Mueller hardly knew whether he was coming or going. Weismann would have had him removed as a PR liability, same as Sztrok.

        1. ” it’s a reasonable wager Mueller hardly knew whether he was coming or going. Weismann would have …”

          DSS, when one head rolls others often follow.

  8. As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

    H. L. Menken

    As Donald Trump represents the inner soul of almost half of all Americans and is unequivocally a downright moron, it appears that a great many of those who post on Turley’s blog, perhaps Turley himself, have reached their heart’s desire.

    It is time for the majority to elect a new moron. Hopefully this next moron will not also be an unmitigated liar and blithering idiot as is Trump.

    1. Issiac you are either blind, or just plain not intelligent, or educated on any of the facts.
      Sorry to break it to you snow flake, but the 2016 Russian Hoax was paid for by yours truly Hillary and the DNC.
      Read about it

    2. Issac, Liar, Really? He has kept all of his promises to his base…all of them and more. Now go vote for you favorite “Politician” and let me know after 4 years how many promises he kept? So please vote for your enlightened “Politician.” “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan”……Now that’s a lie, a lie that negatively affected millions of people!

        1. Stop lying. Trump kept all his promises to his base or at least attempted to do so. I’m still waiting for my $2,500 dollars in savings from Obamacare.

          He did all this while the IC was setting him up and the democrats continuously tried to impeach him. Manufacturing did come back, the economy did improve, unemployment fell with black and hispanic unemployment at their lowest, he has pushed for infrastructure, he kept us out of wars, the wall is approaching 300 miles and illegal crossings are markedly reduced. On and on we can go but Needs to be Committed can’t see that through the barred up windows in her rubber room.

  9. So Mr. No Name will get sentenced and Obama & Co not only walk, but at least one of the conspirators stands an excellent chance of being elected President. Gee what a victory for justice. Is Durham sharing a basement with Biden? Similarly, Ghislaine Maxwell, who admittedly is not a nice person to put it mildly, seems to be in the position of having to pay for everybody else’s crimes. Clinton, Prince Andrew, the whole merry band of perverts on the Epstein flight logs, they’re falling all over themselves applying for Greek citizenship where pedophiles actually receive a state subsidy and Maxwell is sitting around in paper pajamas waiting for her moment to accidentally commit suicide. Kind of ironic that Maxwell was born on Christmas Day. Her conviction will wash away the sins of the elite. Feminists: crickets. I mean granted Maxwell is a tough person to defend but a) she is innocent until proven guilty like everybody else and b) she shouldn’t be the only person sitting in jail right now. If she were a black guy everybody would say “why is the black guy the only one to pay?” but since she is female, nobody cares.

    1. “Gee, what a victory for justice.”

      – Allison, Turley Blog


      I like the way you think; clearly.

      If you are actually female, I am no longer a misogynist.

  10. Hmm.

    Elizabeth de la Vega (lawyer): “Nowhere does the Clinesmith indictment allege the words “not a source” are false. Nowhere does it allege that these words are material to the matter under review. Will be interesting to see how the court responds to Clinesmith’s plea, given the insufficiencies in the allegations.”

    1. Needs To Be Committed,

      Chill out, girlfriend!

      “Jim Crow Joe”* is going to win.

      Where’s the rub?

      Don’t worry.

      Be happy.

      * Diamond and Silk

    2. “Nowhere does the Clinesmith indictment allege the words “not a source” are false.

      The indictment does assert that it was a materially false statement and entry.
      It does not offer much to back up that assertion. It says the FBI has been given some document before the first FISA application that said that Page was a operational contact from 2008-2013 for some “Other Government Agency”.

      It appears that whether the FBI knew or didn’t know Page was or was not a source depends on details in some document the FBI had from the start.

      It is said that Page was a subject of another FISA warrant in 2014. Apparently being an “operational contact” was not a problem for getting a warrant in 2014.

      1. “It says the FBI has been given some document before the first FISA application that said that Page was a operational contact from 2008-2013 for some “Other Government Agency”.”

        Not all “contacts” are “sources.” The CIA uses “source” (and “sub-source,” etc.) to mean specific things. The statement of the offense — https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.221058/gov.uscourts.dcd.221058.1.0_1.pdf — notes that Clinesmith included the info about Page having been a “[digraph],” which is a kind of contact.

        “The indictment does assert that it was a materially false statement and entry.”

        It says that adding “not a source” to the email made the sentence materially false. But it doesn’t state that “not a source” is itself false, and if “not a source” isn’t itself false, it’s hard to see how adding that phrase to the email could make the sentence a materially false statement. So I hope that the judge asks about this at the plea hearing.

  11. Manhattan D A Rejects Trump’s Demand For Subpoena Explanations

    Investigation May Involve Bank And Insurance Fraud

    The Manhattan district attorney’s office said on Friday that President Trump was not entitled to learn more about the scope of its criminal investigation into his business dealings, rejecting Mr. Trump’s latest effort to block a subpoena for his tax returns.

    The office of the district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., wrote in a pair of new court filings that Mr. Trump should be treated like any other recipient of a subpoena, who is typically unable to access details of secret grand jury proceedings.

    The filing came in response to Mr. Trump’s renewed efforts this month to stop Mr. Vance’s prosecutors from accessing eight years of his personal and corporate tax returns.

    Earlier this week, Mr. Trump’s lawyers said in a court filing that the subpoena was too broad and amounted to illegal harassment. They wrote a letter to a Manhattan federal judge asking for a hearing to discuss whether Mr. Vance’s office should be forced to disclose the justifications for the subpoena.

    In limited circumstances, the recipient of a subpoena may force more details about the investigation to be disclosed through a specific legal process — but only after offering evidence that a subpoena was issued in bad faith, the office said. Even in that case, the target of the investigation likely would not learn the details, and the information would not become public.

    Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance have been locked in battle for almost a year over the demand for the president’s tax returns.

    The latest back-and-forth follows a decision by the Supreme Court, which last month ruled against Mr. Trump, who had asked the court to block the subpoena. In a 7-to-2 ruling, the justices rejected the president’s argument that he was immune from all criminal proceedings while in office, but opened the door for him to challenge the subpoena on other grounds.

    Mr. Vance’s office has accused the president’s legal team of using delay tactics to slow the investigation until the statute of limitations on any potential crimes runs out.

    When the Manhattan district attorney’s office subpoenaed the president’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, in August 2019, the investigation appeared to be focused on hush-money payments made in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election to two women who said they had affairs with Mr. Trump. The payments were arranged by Michael D. Cohen, the president’s former lawyer.

    But this month, in response to Mr. Trump’s argument that the subpoena was “wildly overbroad,” Mr. Vance’s office said it had a wide legal basis to obtain the financial records.

    The office suggested in a court filing that it was investigating the president and his company for possible bank and insurance fraud, a much broader investigation than prosecutors had acknowledged in the past.

    Edited from: “Trump Is Not Entitled To Details Of Tax Returns Inquiry, D A Says”

    Today’s New York Times

  12. The New York Times has a knack for downplaying and subverting context for any news that doesn’t comport with their obvious agenda. How sad it has made itself irrelevant as an objective news source.

  13. This is not law enforcement, this is the biggest whitewash in the history of human governance. This is not dereliction and negligence, this is conspiracy to obstruct justice. Durham is covering up the crime and the criminals. Durham and Barr are now accessories to the Obama Coup D’etat in America. The Obama Coup D’etat in America is Watergate on steroids; Watergate with an exponent. If Watergate was he–, this is a mother——!

    Comey could not prosecute Hillary because he would have convicted Obama.

    Durham can’t prosecute all the conspirators in the Obama Coup D’etat in America because he would demolish the democrats and the entire American welfare state.

    The Winners write the history – Barr and Durham will be heroes. You can’t fight city hall. You can’t drain the “swamp.” You can’t throw off the yoke of the wholly unconstitutional communist Deep Deep State.

    What was the American Revolution – what did the American Founders do?

  14. Snowden is an American hero, with 10 times more guts that you’ll ever have, Seth.

    But I have little doubt that old Uncle Joe no longer has any idea who he is.

    1. ‘Hero’, Rhodes..?? Tell that to all the U S intelligence sources overseas whose covers were blown by Snowden.

      1. You don’t know what you’re talking about, Seth Warner.

        Give us some proof of your claims.

    2. Basically, Snowden blew the whistle on high criminal Intel agencies which were violating the constitutional rights of Americans, right? Seems like that would be a good thing for people who actually adhered to the Constitution of the United States. I could be wrong. I can see where the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) would be averse to losing any form or degree of power.

  15. We no longer have much of a media. Instead what we have that folks mistake for media is a Democrat Party publicity/propaganda arm that works 24/7 for the election of Joe Biden and other fellow travelers. And frankly, it’s rather frightening that they are perfectly fine with doing this job. We have the worst political scandal since Watergate, perhaps one of the worst in American history, where the incumbent used the force of the state security agencies to interfere with the election of a rival, and then sought to cover it up.

    If this isn’t an enormous scandal, then I don’t know what is.

    Meanwhile, said “mis-leadia” is busy compiling lists of words that one is prohibited from using to describe Kamala Harris. Now that’s nasty.

    Kim G
    Boston, MA
    Where there are dirty tricks being played on Alex Morse, by his own friggin’ party!

    1. LOL that you think Obama tried to interfere, and the way he did it was by being silent about Russia’s interference while Comey testified publicly about the Clinton investigation.

      1. The “Deep State” chumps have to ignore this fact commit as well as the fact that Comey and the other FBI “plotters” all kept their lips sealed on the Trump campaign investigation while spilling the beans on Hillary’s 2 weeks before the vote. According the the 538 analysis this was sufficient to elect Trump as it cost her 1 to 4 points. John Say posted a graph showing it costing her 2 points. She won by 2 points, but lost 3 states by a razor thin margin (77k total in those 3 combined) that another 2 points would have almost certainly have turned for her.


    2. Kim G we have never seen your name before. Just popped in for this comment?

        1. Kim G, each day ‘rare commenters’ like you suddenly pipe in with posts that correspond with the puppets who haunt these threads. Funny how that goes.

          1. Paint Chips, she makes rare appearances demonstrating the stupidity that exists on your side and then you don’t hear from her. The rest of us are left with your stupidity day after day

          2. I’m neither puppet nor bot. Frankly, I had not heard of Jonathan Turley until the whole impeachment debacle, when I heard his eminently sensible testimony. I’ve enjoyed reading his blog since. (Though someone here has already called me an idiot, haha.) Cheers.

      1. You call me an idiot, and then try to prove your point by using one of the media outlets that I’ve pretty clearly indicated that I don’t trust. How idiotic is that? LOL…

        1. You’re an idiot – and so is JT – for acting like and stating (he did above) the “media” doesn’t cover news items like this. It does and it did. Hillary’s emails were on the front page of the “media” for months before the election.

          No wonder you don’t know anything. You read what you confirms your ignorance and nothing else.

          1. P.S. Surely that statement couldn’t apply to you, right? You read what you confirms your ignorance and nothing else.

            Thanks for the laugh! Cheers!

            1. Kim, it’s funny how your messaging corresponds so closely with the puppets of this blog. Just a coincidence, I guess, that you and someone named ‘Cindy Hall’ are attacking mainstream media a half an hour apart. It’s what the puppets parrot all day on these threads.

              1. The biggest user of puppets, PaintChips, accuses everyone else of being puppets. He is the King of hypocricy.

                Some names, just a few he has used in the past sometimes more than one at a time. He actually talks to himself.

                Will Kane, John Russel, Jon Elder, Nick Barkely, patriot, anonymous, Deke Thornton, Captain Lochart, Joe Starret, Philip Skene, July Johnson, Ethan Edwards, Roy coffee, and those are some of the more recent ones.

                One has to laugh at this kook.

                1. Alan, all those names are characters in well-known western movies and TV shows.

                  And I am shocked you wouldn’t recognize Captain Lockhart That was James Stewart in “The Man From Laramie”. Stewart, one might note served on a bomber in WWII flying multiple missions of German lines. Stewart then continued serving as a reservist well into the post-war era.

                  So isn’t it funny that a so-called ‘real American’ like Alan can’t recognize Captain Lockhart? Any real American knows James Stewart’s western heroes. Only a punk chickenhawk overlooks Captain Lockhart.

                  1. Paint Chips you aren’t original and such use of characters isn’t new. We have even discussed some characters used on the blog.

                    You are different than others in that you constantly accuse others of using more than one alias when you have a closet full. Even more laughable is that you will sometimes bring out a couple of aliases at the same time to talk to each other and affirm that what you say is correct. Totally laughable.

                    Your best alias was Peter Shill which described you in one word.

              2. We can disagree on politics, but if you think the mainstream media is telling the whole truth about things, then you are mistaken. Those of us who have seen both sides think that folks who mostly believe the mainstream “mis-leadia” are the puppets, or at lest the low-information. Here’s a simple example. Yesterday NPR did an entire segment on the Israel/UAE peace deal without once mentioning the fact that it was brokered by the Trump administration. Or how about the “fine people hoax” where the media showed videos of Trump in the aftermath of the violence in Charlottesville where he said (of the folks concerned with Confederate statues), “There are fine people on both sides. I don’t mean the Neo-Nazis; they should be condemned totally.” Well, they mostly left off the second sentence, and indeed to this day, Joe Biden continues to perpetrate this lie. So if you still believe the NY Times, WaPo, NBC, ABC, NPR, etc, you’d do well to look at some right-leaning sites and then piece together the truth. Cheers.

                1. Kim G, if you actually read newspapers, maybe you’d know that the Charlottesville rally was promoted nationally and attended by neo-Nazis and white supremacist organizations. There were no concerned grannies and normal citizens carrying torches and chanting “Jews won’t replace us” there to constitute “fine people”.

                  Your premise is wrong and your ignorance proves that sad fact.

                  1. It’s pretty obvious that you haven’t really thought this through. There were counter protesters, right? One of the big stories of this event was the car that plowed into them. You didn’t see that? So not every single last person there was a neo-Nazi. And yet you are still 100% sure that there were no others there who were protesting to keep the statues, but who were not neo Nazis.

                    And no, I’m not referring to the neo nazis, though your cleverly worded reply implies it.

                2. “Yesterday NPR did an entire segment on the Israel/UAE peace deal without once mentioning the fact that it was brokered by the Trump administration”

                  What NPR report yesterday are you referring to?
                  Here’s one that mentions Trump:

                  And another from the day before:
                  “The historic deal was brokered during a call between leaders of the two nations and President Trump.”

                  1. I’m referring to what was broadcast on the radio, to which I cannot send a link. Sorry, old-school. Cheers.

                    1. I’m a regular NPR listener, and of course you can send a link.
                      NPR has online audio for all of the stories they broadcast (as contrasted with the brief top of the hour news updates), each with a link and often with a transcript.
                      If you don’t want to look it up, OK, but that’s not because you can’t.

                3. Kim G, perhaps you should review a study of the 2016 election coverage which showed the problem was negative stories lacking much information on issues or positions, but about equally negative on both major candidates:

                  “….As Clinton was being attacked in the press, Donald Trump was attacking the press, claiming that it was trying to “rig” the election in her favor. If that’s true, journalists had a peculiar way of going about it. Trump’s coverage during the general election was more negative than Clinton’s, running 77 percent negative to 23 percent positive. But over the full course of the election, it was Clinton, not Trump, who was more often the target of negative coverage (see Figure 1). Overall, the coverage of her candidacy was 62 percent negative to 38 percent positive, while his coverage was 56 percent negative to 44 percent positive….”


                  If you’re getting your news from FaceBook, YouTube, or Fox, you’re just getting your bias’s confirmed, including that everything else is “fake news”. Avoiding the Opinion Pages – unless you like that and can separate it’s content from news – read the NYTs, WSJ, WaPo, AP, Reuters, and probably your local paper which I can nearly guarantee needs your support or it will disappear soon.

            2. REGARDING ABOVE:

              Kim G, the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are having a very difficult go of victory.

              “Jim Crow Joe” is going to win in November yet the extremist, radical, activist, communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) Bolsheviks are slavering and frothing at the prospect; pervasively deploying their legions of self-replicating bots.

              It’s an inexplicable conundrum of paradoxical irony.

              No worries.

              I’m sure we’ll all get used to Comrade General Secretary and Dear Leader Kamala Harris after a few years in the Gulag.

        2. Btb can’t stand that Hillary lost. If Comey had followed through earlier and done what he was supposed to do by the time the election came she may have been sporting orange. Comey provided a big favor to Hillary.

          1. Indeed as the U.S. Code concerning revealing classified information does not require intent, something that Comey made up out of whole cloth when he made his dramatic announcement about the emails. And no one in our congressional brain trust thought to look it up first, so they were not able to challenge a clearly-wrong Comey either.

            1. “Comey cornered President Trump and commenced to go rogue and blackmail him, presenting the dossier.”

              – K.T. McFarland (paraphrased)

              James Comey is the reincarnation of the very “swishy” J. Edgar Hoover.

  16. THREE YEARS???

    What’s wrong with this picture?

    Swift Justice – The American Way?

    On April 15, 1865, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated.

    On May 1, 1865, President Andrew Johnson ordered a military tribunal to try eight suspects in the Lincoln assassination case.

    On July 7, 1865, Lewis Powell, David Herold, George Atzerodt, and Mary Surratt were hanged for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

    – January 20, 2017 President Trump was inaugurated.

    – “On March 4, 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump wrote a series of posts on his Twitter account that accused former President Barack Obama of wiretapping his phones at his Trump Tower office late in the 2016 presidential campaign,” Wikipedia.

    – On August 14, 2020, former FBI lawyer agreed to plead guilty in Trump-Russia probe review.

    1. -November 4th, Donald Trump taken away in a jacket with really long sleeves, ranting something about low flow shower heads.

      -November 5th, Mike Pence sworn in to finish The Donald’s term, mumbling and staring blankly, taken away in a jacket with really long sleeves.

      -November 6th, Mike Pence placed in same institution as The Donald. Trump, screaming and frothing at the mouth, attacks Pence yelling, “It was you all the time.”

      -November 7th, Ivanka, Donny Jr., and Eric sign the committal papers. Melania has been in Paris boinking a Count since Nov. 4th.

      If you can’t laugh about all this then you might just go crazy. Look what happened to The Donald.

Comments are closed.